TEMPLATE 01

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
– number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  

 

This Site Has Moved – When The Question Changed!

This Site Has Moved – When The Question Changed!
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

This Site Has Moved – When The Question Changed!

You can read all the articles that are on THIS site AND all the new material on

Leave-The-EU

the NEW SITE:

CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
– number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  

 

The Benefits Of Ignorance Can Be Rewarded By Personal & Corporate Gain

The Benefits Of Ignorance Can Be Rewarded By Personal & Corporate Gain

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

Asylum: the wages of ignorance

Saturday 22 August 2015  

Any respect we ever had for The Daily Telegraph long drained away, to be replaced by a slow-burning contempt for the editors and proprietors who let a once-proud title degenerate in the way it has.

A milestone in its descent to the bottom, however, must be its latest editorial on the asylum crisis, with the accompanying authored piece by Nigel Farage which jointly and severally demonstrate the profound ignorance of the newspaper team and the Ukip leader on this issue.

Addressing first the Telegraph piece, we have the editorial note that Germany is now expected to receive 800,000 asylum seekers in 2015, describing this as part of “Europe’s migrant crisis” which, it says, “has reached astonishing proportions”.

Although not technically wrong, it is not helpful to call this a migrant crisis. We are dealing here with asylum seekers, many of whom after processing will be declared refugees. Some others will be afforded leave to remain on human rights grounds, while the others will be considered economic migrants. Some of those will be deported. Others will disappear into the population and become illegal immigrants.

Effectively, therefore, there is a refugee crisis. And within that is an exacerbating factor of economic migrants piggy-backing on the refugee flow, making two separate but linked problems. But neither of them are migrant crises as such. To define them in this way is completely to misrepresent the problems – and therefore obscure the solutions.

This, though, is the least of it, as far as the Telegraph goes, for it then goes on to assert that the arrival of these people is precipitating in Germany a greater awareness “of the desperate flaws in the way that the EU handles its utopian promise of the free movement of people”.

Such an assertion is bizarre – bizarrely wrong. The flow of asylum seekers to Germany has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU’s treaty provision of free movement of people, which applies only to citizens of the EU Member States (and EEA states), and then within the external borders.

What we are dealing with here is something completely different – in law and fact – the effect of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, and the 1967 Protocol, together with the adoption of its provisions in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also makes asylum seeking a human right.

No sensible or knowledgeable writer could possibly consider an information piece without mentioning this. But then this is the Telegraph, whose task in life seems to be to misinform its readers and parade its own ignorance.

Free movement, it asserts, “seemed attractive and logical during the Cold War, when western Europe was more isolated from the world’s poor by the Iron Curtain”. It then tells us: “But in the 21st century, poverty and war have driven millions to seek a new life within an expanded EU”.

The irrelevance of this is obvious – “free movement” isn’t the problem. Except the Telegraph says it is. Then building on its error, it declares: “The problem has been exacerbated by two policies. One is the Dublin Convention which states that the responsibility for asylum seekers lies with the country in which they first arrive”.

As a small aside, the Dublin Convention ceased to be in 2003 – to be replaced by the Dublin Regulations. But the problem, the newspaper argues, is that in recent years those countries have been Italy, Hungary and Greece – and they have simply been overwhelmed.

But this is an over-simplification to the point of distortion. One of the first receiving countries was Spain, which has evaded its international obligations by building fences and virtual barriers, then to divert the flow elsewhere. As Greece, then Bulgaria and now Hungary follow suit, EU asylum policy has become a grotesque game of “pass the parcel”, with Italy, Malta and Greece ending up having to deal with the bulk of asylum seekers.

What then happens is that these countries are failing to fulfil their EU responsibilities. Instead of registering and processing the incomers – and deporting those who do not qualify as refugees – they are allowing them to pass on to other member states – and especially Germany and Sweden, where they are applying for asylum de novo.

The Telegraph claims that, in so doing, the receiving countries are exploiting “the second flaw in the EU’s approach: the Schengen Agreement, which commits its signatories to passport-free movement across borders”.

Italy, Hungary and Greece, we are told, have been permitting, or even quietly inviting, their asylum seekers to relocate to other countries. Enormous numbers have gone to Germany. The Germans have embraced refugees as atonement for the sins of the Second World War. But 800,000 is a figure to trouble even the most bleeding-heart liberal.

Once again, this is completely to misunderstand the nature of the problem for, even before Schengen, border controls had been removed. Were they to be reinstated, all that would happen is that – as we’ve already pointed out, those seeking recognition of their refugee status would simply apply for asylum at the border posts. Schengen is a complete red herring.

Needless to say, the Telegraph isn’t alone in getting things wrong. Politicians throughout the continent are failing to understand the effects of their own policies, but somehow one expects more from a pompous “know-it-all” newspaper which holds itself up as the authority on such matters.

Its pomposity knows now bounds, where it grandly but wrongly declares that the “EU essentially exists to regulate a free market”. Is failings, it asserts, “mock the grand claims that it makes for itself – betraying a reality of incompetence and, where it leads to humanitarian crisis, such as in the Mediterranean, moral failure”. But in this case, the ignorant speaks unto the incompetent, when the paper completely misdiagnoses the problem and ends up telling us: “The EU needs to get its borders in order”.

With the display of such ignorance, it is only fitting that it should then go on to give space to the malign bigotry of Mr Farage, who seems determined to drag us down to his level, and wreck any chances of winning the EU referendum, by declaring that “immigration” will be the defining issue of this EU referendum campaign.

There is no excuse for this quite deliberate elision of immigration and asylum – two entirely separate issues, with their own bodies of law and policy domains.

Alarmingly though. Farage is picking up on an Ipsos Mori poll which has half of the public identifying “immigration” as one of the biggest issues facing the UK. This is something which the polling company itself should not have recorded, as it too is mixing up disparate issues.

Needless to say, Farage exploits the confusion, as he has always done, associating the flood of asylum seekers and would be refugees with the European Union “open border” policy.

Despite the fact that refugees account merely for five percent of entrants to this country in any one year, we have the Ukip leader milk the publicity, building this entirely separate issue into one singularity – all under the heading of “immigration”. Thus he says:

We see the chaos in Calais, where thousands of migrants are risking their lives to get from France to Britain; we see refugees in their thousands risking life and limb as they cross the Mediterranean on ships sailing from Libya. And we see that the issue of open borders and mass immigration is no longer simply an issue of social problems and the impact on British workers, it is fast becoming one of national security.

To resolve this, the fool declares that the British people “want an Australian-style immigration policy that allocates work permits to those our economy needs, that says no to those whose skills we do not need, and that gives an emphatic denial of entry to those we have any suspicion want to do us harm” – as if that would have the slightest effect on the flow of asylum seekers.

Matching the Telegraph for its ignorance, he then writes of witnessing “the failed policy of the EU’s open borders, supported by the establishment politicians to the detriment of our nation”. When the referendum comes, Farage concludes, the British people will finally have their chance to reject these open borders by saying “no” to the European Union.

But all Farage is doing is holding us hostage to fortune. Despite his own manifest ignorance on the subject – and despite the lacklustre performance of the Telegraph, in the two years to the referendum, there is plenty of time for people to learn of the real issues behind the asylum crisis.

The danger for us is that they will turn against the likes of Farage, offering false nostrums and exploiting the misery of others for his own political ends. Elsewhere we have written of the hazards of promoting misinformation, citing Gene Sharp, who tells is: “Claims and reporting should always be strictly factual. Exaggerations and unfounded claims will undermine the credibility of the resistance”.

This is a lesson Farage is incapable of learning – and doubtless one of the reasons why he is such a failure as a politician. But there is no reason why we should let his ignorance drag us down.
Richard North 22/08/2015.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Below is the Telegraph article in full – showing just how self serving and lightweight the populism of the article is and just how misleading and lacking in solution such an approach can be when personal ambition and ego get in the way of competent journalism in what was once respected as a serious newspaper!

Clearly when Britain leaves the EU rthere will be little or no change to our border controls if we hope to continue trading with EU partners and the rest of the world. We must remember that in a fragile balance we, like every other nation on this planet, enter into grown up arrangements with eachother that have little or nothing to do with the EU who merely re-write them in the jargon of the ENARCHS and pass them on to the vassal states of the EU. The laws themselves are made by world bodies like the UN, WTO, CODEX, Davos and a raft more.

It is unsurprising that people have lost sight of this and rather childishly believe when we leave the EU all our ills will be solved but what is more concerning is that supposedly responsible newspapers are willing to pander to this populist and extrermely irresponsible myth!

One reason the media may well be peddling this level of misunderstanding may well be in a venal self interest to apease advertisers or in the likes of the BBC to apease their benefactors in the EU who provide them with free studios and journalistic access with the jam on their bread and butter provided by multi Million Pound loans to featherbed their grossly over generous incomes and lack of real imvestigative journalism beyond the knickers, vicars and the odd bent political or police figure level! grants they receive.

Another great snag is the fact that the halls of academe are seeded with many 100s of so called ‘Erasmus’ professorships and student scholarships all in real terms funded from the propaganda budget of the EU. It is from amongst these EU funded organisations that much of the spin is provided, not least by quotes supplied to businessmen by their EU employers and founded on little more than the dirst aim to keep the entire, largely failed, EU project staggering forward – Let the Greeks or for that matter the Portuguese, Irish, Italians and Spaniards, or even in rare moments of honesty, the French tell you of the success of the EU economic policy and membership of the EUro which is crippling EUrope as it slithers forward on a bed of lies, bribes and bullying!

In very simple terms the EU is not even prepared to admit the fact that all are aware of Greece will NEVER be able to pay off its current debts let alone interest and essential future borrowing their GDP can not and never will sustain such debts. When you consider the levels of dishonesty that have created this misery is it any wonder that politicians working in that system will say almost anything to hang onto their grossly inflated incomes, bribes and expenses – as you will note in the Telegraph article below!

The EU will have to control its borders

Telegraph View: The arrival of 800,000 asylum seekers in Germany makes a mockery of the EU’s immigration policies. Free movement without passports will,

Syrian migrants board the ferry Eleftherios Venizelos at the southeastern island of Lesbos, Greece. Photo: AP

 

6:30AM BST 21 Aug 2015

Europe’s migrant crisis has reached astonishing proportions. Germany is now expected to receive 800,000 asylum seekers in 2015. This amounts to roughly 1 per cent of the country’s population, or a little more than the population of Leeds. They come from war zones beyond the continent, such as Syria; but also from the poorer parts of Europe, including Kosovo and Albania. And with their arrival, Germany becomes ever more aware of the desperate flaws in the way that the EU handles its utopian promise of the free movement of people.

Free movement seemed attractive and logical during the Cold War, when western Europe was more isolated from the world’s poor by the Iron Curtain. But in the 21st century, poverty and war have driven millions to seek a new life within an expanded EU. The problem has been exacerbated by two policies. One is the Dublin Convention which states that the responsibility for asylum seekers lies with the country in which they first arrive. In recent years those countries have been Italy, Hungary and Greece – and they have simply been overwhelmed.

 

To alleviate this problem they have exploited the second flaw in the EU’s approach: the Schengen Agreement, which commits its signatories to passport-free movement across borders. Italy, Hungary and Greece have been permitting, or even quietly inviting, their asylum seekers to relocate to other countries. Enormous numbers have gone to Germany. The Germans have embraced refugees as atonement for the sins of the Second World War. But 800,000 is a figure to trouble even the most bleeding-heart liberal.

German politicians have called for greater integration of asylum policy across the EU, including higher refugee quotas among all members, though how that would work with open borders is a mystery. Some regional officials have called for controls between nations to be reinstated. France and Austria have tried closing their borders with Italy, sending those without the right papers back. In Calais, after weeks of chaos, a deal has been signed between the French and the British to deal with a sometimes violent crisis. Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s interior minister, has acknowledged that the very principle of free movement is suddenly up for debate. “We want free movement of people,” he said, “but… the question is what does free movement of people mean in Europe?”

A Polish lorry driver opens his vehicle to find migrants from Eritrea hiding inside at a lorry park at the port of Calais in September  Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph

The answer is probably that free movement will remain for citizens of the EU but that there will have to be a much tighter enforcement for anyone who falls outside of that definition. This belies the EU’s self-image as a liberal, internationalist project. In reality, it is protectionist and will probably have to engage in the variety of conservative policies normally associated with Australia. There does need to be an aggressive crackdown on people smuggling. Asylum applications ought to be lodged and processed in countries outside of Europe. And those seeking asylum from within the EU will have to be swiftly deported if their claim is rejected.

The EU essentially exists to regulate a free market. At Calais it has failed: the free movement of people has been stymied by the migrant crisis. In Germany, poor control of the continental border has led to a population explosion that may prove grist to the mill of extremist parties who want to destroy the EU altogether. In other words, the failings of the EU mock the grand claims that it makes for itself – betraying a reality of incompetence and, where it leads to humanitarian crisis, such as in the Mediterranean, moral failure. The EU needs to get its borders in order.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
– number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  

 

Is Cameron Reneging On His Voters, Party & The Spirit Of Renegotiation

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

Is Cameron Reneging On His PROMISE, his Voters, his Party & The Spirit Of Renegotiation

Published: August 13, 2015

The list of EU renegotiation demands shrinks and shrinks – it can’t shrink much further without vanishing

Last updated: August 13, 2015 at 7:15 am

One fear among Eurosceptics is that the forthcoming EU referendum will be managed just like the last. David Cameron will go over there, ask for and then win a few small concessions, then come back and tart them up as an amazing deal to trick people into voting to stay in’ is a common refrain.

Related Articles
Conservatives for Britain launch their website – and an activist recruitment drive

We should of course be watchful for just such an approach. The existence of Conservatives for Britain, who launched their recruitment drive yesterday, is welcome precisely because it helps to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, demanding that the Prime Minister live up to the original programme he laid out at Bloomberg (and that any deal should rest on the necessary Treaty change).

No-one knows exactly what the Prime Minister currently wants from the renegotiation. The Bloomberg speech went much further than many expected – not least in demanding an end to ever closer union – but since then the stated aims of the renegotiation have shrunk faster than the list of RSVPs for Liz Kendall’s next drinks party.

The Balance of Competences review instantly fumbled the crucial job of laying out the issues at stake. A year on from Bloomberg, Cameron was reduced to talking about changes of policy rather than changing the very nature of the project itself.

The shrinkage didn’t end there. To listen to discussions of the renegotiation over the last few months, you might think the EU issue was all about how much money migrants get in benefits. Fundamental questions of Britain’s place in the world, our right to democratically control our own affairs, the future of our industry, agriculture and fisheries and a host of others have largely vanished. While the words “migrants” and “welfare” didn’t appear at all in the Bloomberg speech, now they seem to be just about the only words Downing Street lists under “renegotiation aims”.

That is clearly insufficient. Whatever the British people and the Conservative grassroots might want from this EU renegotiation, they definitely want more than the Government seems to be asking.

On that basis, one can see why some are getting twitchy about a repeat of the small concessions/big boasts tactic deployed in 1975. There is at least one major reason why such a cunning trick could prove hard to pull off, though – the Prime Minister seems to be struggling to secure the small concessions bit.

The Government’s legal advisers have reportedly informed Downing Street that attempting to ban EU migrants from accessing various forms of welfare for four years would be discriminatory and therefore illegal under EU law. The only way Ministers could protect British people from funding such benefits would be to, er, also remove them from British people for the first four years of adulthood.

This is, of course, simply another symptom of the fundamentally flawed nature of the European project. Its very purpose and nature is to be anti-democratic, meddlesome and overbearing – which is why they are the only terms on which it can be judged to be very effective indeed at fulfilling its mission. To eurosceptics, the story is an apt demonstration of precisely why the EU is unacceptable in its current form and unlikely to agree to any kind of serious change.

To the Prime Minister, however, this is a further blow. If his demands have shrunk this far but are still hitting obstacles, how much further can they shrink while still existing? While it would be a difficult job to dress up an unsatisfactory deal as a great triumph, it would be impossible to perform the same feat by dressing up nothing at all.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
– number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  

 

CIB Led EU NO Campaigners to launch Coventry campaign

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

EU NO Campaigners to launch Coventry campaign

EU NO Campaigners to launch Coventry campaign

Members from the main four political parties  planning on supporting the ‘OUT’ campaign in the forthcoming referendum on the UKs Continued membership of the EU; will launch their local Referendum Planning Group in Coventry on the 19^th of August in a bid to persuade local Coventry residents to vote NO. The meeting’s theme “A Referendum is not an Election – How to win it and How to lose it”  will be addressed by Edward Spalton Chairman of the national cross party Campaign for an Independent Britain and the group’s local organiser Derek Bennett(contact eurorealistnl@aol.com) followed by a short video and Q&A from attendees.

 

Speaking ahead of the meeting Edward Spalton said ‘’let’s be honest. The truth is that there is no point complaining about many of the issues facing Britain today unless we first address the real problem – Britain’s disastrous membership of the European Union.  We’d all be better off out.  Contrary to many statements by business leaders, we do not need to be part of the EU’s political structure to have access to the Single Market. Much of the regulation which comes to us via the EU is actually made by global bodies, like the United Nations, World Trade Organisation etc. Britain’s membership of the EU actually keeps us off the “top table” and without a voice at these bodies which really shape world trade. It is in the wider world where trade is expanding, not in the declining, inward-looking EU. The economies of Eastern EU countries are being massively weakened by the large scale emigration of their skilled workers”

 

He added that, following the Conservatives’ election victory in May 2015, various Euro sceptic groups had been getting their act together and that his own CIB was stepping up its activities locally in preparation for the referendum on EU membership which David Cameron has promised to hold before the end of 2017. Pronouncing that the CIB organisation is fully committed to playing a role in the “no” (i.e., the “Out”) campaign in the West Midlands.

 

Local organiser Derek Bennett, who is co-ordinating  the upcoming meeting, commented that in the Coventry and surrounding area his new group would be working flat out right up to polling day. ’’We will have leaflets to deliver, street stalls to man, dinners, public meetings, and door to door canvassing to arrange – in fact everything you would expect of an election campaign’’ and pleaded with interested members of the public or those wishing to learn more about how Britain would be better off out the European Union to attend its inaugurak meeting , which will be held at

7.00 pm on Wednesday 19th August at Coundon Social Club, Shorncliffe Road, Coventry CV6 1GT.

To view the original of this artyicle CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
– number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  

 

GP – Dr.EE: Wealthy Businessmen Promoting EU, Bank Beyond Its Clutches

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Guest Post
– Dr. Eric Edmond:
Wealthy Businessmen Promoting EU membership, Bank Beyond Its Clutches!

Watch what EU phile business men do with their own dosh

 

There is no better example than Branson who is never off the EU phile BBC telling us what a disaster it would be for us to vote to leave the EU. He of course is speaking for his own selfish reasons. As the cartoon below shows he keeps his money safe from the EU’s grabbing paws in Switzerland. He also of course has his own island, Necker , in the West Indies his very own Treasure Island where like csptain Flint he can bury his excess gold.

And Branson’s not the only one. Ask Sorrell and the other big business BBC EU philes where they keep their own dosh, not in an EU jurisdiction I’ll bet. Switzerland, Caymam Islands etc are favoured by big business EU philes.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Then of course it is worthy of note that many so called leading businessmen, academics and politicians are all too willing to promote UK membership of the EU and see no hypocrisy in their actions when their undeclared status on the payroll of the EU, either of EU owned companies eg. French owned Nissan in Sunderland, or many of the water, electric and other services which are foreign owned – or even Council opperations which are owned and controlled by the likes of Bertellsmanns.

There is also a large posse of corrupt members of the House of Lords who are happy to vote on our laws but too dishonest to declare their incomes and pensions from the EU.

Recently we saw the ugly intervention of the British Universities promoting a YES vote but failing, as do the BBC, to dec lare the £Millions they receive from the t6ax payers bribes from the EU levied taxes! The Universities failed even to show the details of their EU funded propaganda wing with EU propaganda offices on campus and the raft of Erasmus Professors indoctrinating students having been trained and supplied by the EU.

There really doesn’t seem to be any honest support for the EU which is grounded on fact, ethics, integrity or any values that one could be other than ashamed of!
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
– number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  

 

GP-RN: EU Referendum: campaign watershed

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Guest Post – Dr. Richard A.E. North
EU Referendum:
campaign watershed

Hi,

EU Referendum: campaign watershed

Friday 24 July 2015  

 

As time progresses, it becomes more and more clear how the bulk of the media commentariat misread the Greek crisis.

We can see this from the delicious way German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble puts down Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, who then goes on to admit that there was never any prospect of Greece leaving the eurozone. Needless to say, there are still those caught up in the theatre and others who miss the point, not understanding that Greece was the classic beneficial crisis.

But there are others. There is, for instance, Anatole Kaletsky who has popped up from obscurity to say that the Greek deal is not that bad after all. One might suggest that one factor that makes it not so bad is that, in addition to the bailout, the EU is giving Greece straight grants of €35 billion – a fact scarcely if at all mentioned by the commentariat.

As was always going to be the case, though, the Greek situation is contained, the country having served its purpose in bringing all the other states into line, ready for the next round of treaty-making.

If anyone has a problem, therefore, it is our “no” campaign – given that the analysis in my previous post is anywhere near correct. That tells us that, at some time during campaign, there will be an announcement that the EU intends to seek a new treaty, following which there will be treaty convention.

The logical timing for this announcement – or declaration – is the autumn of 2017, putting it just ahead of the referendum. And at the point, Mr Cameron will have the task of explaining how he intends to handle this development, the outcome of which may be that the UK is offered “associate member” status.

In one possible scenario, the Prime Minister may pretend that the development is of his own making – that he has prevailed upon the “colleagues” to include associate member status in their treaty deliberations, giving the UK the opportunity to redefine its relationship with the EU and thus fulfilling his promise to the nation.

Doubtless, the idea of this new status will be heavily spun, although there will be few details. The Bertelsmann Fundamental Law itself does not go in to detail, allowing that “each associate state would negotiate its own arrangement with the core states”.

That would permit Mr Cameron to present a “yes” vote in the coming referendum as a mandate for him to negotiate the details and bring back the optimum arrangement for the UK. And, in such a scenario, the new treaty goes through the convention process and then the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), coming out the other end for ratification in 2021 or 2022.

That process will trigger the “treaty lock” referendum, which will allow Mr Cameron to ask approval of a treaty which will open the way to the UK applying for associate status, with a “no” vote cast as the first step towards leaving the EU.

Effectively, in what could now be a two-referendum contest, the first referendum is converted from a straight “yes-no” on whether we leave the EU, to request for a mandate for change. The second then becomes a request to approve the change, with a “sudden death” option of leaving the EU if it is rejected.

This, of course, is speculation, but not wholly so. As I remarked yesterday, there is too much activity for the discussion on a new treaty to be random “noise”. The only uncertainty in my mind is the timing, and that is hardly speculative, having been set out in the Five Presidents’ report.

The idea of Kerneuropa (core Europe) is now so firmly embedded in the process, with the concomitant associate membership, that the only real question can be how Mr Cameron will handle the news when it becomes official. On the other side, of course, is the question of how the putative “no” campaign will deal with the associate membership scenario.

If, as we see from the Bertelsmann Fundamental Law, associate membership is also to be offered to the EFTA States, with a possible ending of the EEA agreement, then the “no” campaign is left without two of its planks – the “Norway” and “Swiss” options. At the same time, it will be having to confront what is superficially a very attractive alternative.

A danger, in my view, is that we decide to do nothing until a new treaty process is announced, and associate membership is formally on the agenda. That might leave us with only a very short time to counter an entirely new scenario, having been robbed of some of our major campaigning tools.

My first thinking on this is that we should pre-empt the possibility of Mr Cameron reshaping the campaign, by attacking the concept of associate membership and by offering a better alternative.

Historically, I recall that earlier British governments rejected the possibility of associate membership instead of full membership of the EEC. It would be interesting and potentially useful to know the grounds on which the idea was rejected, and whether those arguments could be used today.

As to better alternatives, I am minded to go for a “partnership of equals” scenario, similar to that which was originally offered by Delors when the EEA was first mooted. We need to push for a genuine, Europe-wide single market rather than the Brussels-centric model of a Europe of concentric circles.

Certainly, if the idea of associate membership is introduced and dominates the debate, many of the arguments currently deployed by “no” campaigners may be rendered obsolete. By way of an insurance policy, there is every reason to be focused on what is needed to defeat what looks to be a very real possibility.

There is another advantage in going early, anticipating an official announcement with a high profile campaign against associate membership. It prevents Mr Cameron pretending it was his idea, or something he had negotiated. A UK prime minister responding to an EU initiative has an altogether different feel, and the threat is somewhat defused.

On the other hand, there will always be those who hold different views and who will make a virtue out of ignoring analyses from outside the bubble. Others, especially those in the “yes” camp, simply don’t have the first idea of what is going on.

For the eurosceptic “community”, though, the ultimate question becomes – as always – one of whether they want to win this referendum or whether players are more interested in debating a limited number of propositions while remaining firmly within their comfort zones.

Bizarrely, we see from Hansard in 1968 debates that would not look out of place if they were held today on virtually identical terms, so little have the basic arguments changed. We can do them all over again, spreading tedium throughout the land, or we can win the referendum. But it is unlikely that we can do both.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

 

GP-RN: EU Referendum: a treaty hiding in plain sight

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Guest Post – Dr. Richard North
EU Referendum:
a treaty hiding in plain sight

Hi,

EU Referendum: a treaty hiding in plain sight

Richard North, 23/07/2015  
 

Although the Hollande and Schäuble calls for a new treaty that we reported on Monday got only scant coverage in the legacy media, the signs are that the EU is driving inexorably towards a “core Europe”.

The last time we saw anything serious on a “multi-speed Europe” from Hollande was in 2012, when there were strong expectations of developments in the aftermath of the 2014 European elections. But now, after the plans were put temporarily on hold by Chancellor Merkel, there are unmistakable indications that plans are firmly back on the agenda.

Not least, we saw on 2 June in Die Zeit a report of a “secret Franco-German plan” for closer integration of the eurozone, with Angela Merkel said to be in favour of it. The plan is authored jointly by Merkel and Hollande and will be “obligatory” for eurozone members, while those outside the zone will have loosened ties (the so-called associate membership). 

We were also told that the details are based on the Schäuble/Lamers plan of 1994, and studies are under way to determine if the approach is legally possible. That this was a “scoop” was confirmed by the Italian political magazine Formiche, which noted that Kerneuropa (core Europe) could be just what Chancellor Merkel needs to keep her word on Germany being willing to lead Europe.

Such developments, though, always leave traces. Once an idea is abroad, the fingerprints are there to see if you know where to look, as in Euractiv a week ago, which had Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, pick up on the consequences of a core group.

The Italian Repubblica has also picked up the vibes, and Berliner Zeitung has political scientist Herfried Münkler affirming that a core Europe is needed. Even the Guardian recently had Enrico Letta, former Italian prime minister, telling us that the UK must move into the slow lane as part of a “two-speed Europe”. And that was on 15 May, only days after the general election.

The US Council on Foreign Relations is now talking of the “Merkel method”, while Frankfurter Allgemeine is lauding Schäuble as hero of the hour (alternating as the hate figure), acknowledging that there is a plan behind the recent treatment of Greece.

Süddeutsche Zeitung tells us that Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel is “pleased that President Hollande also supports the call for a deepening of the Union”. Gabriel, we learn, actually presented the plan in June to French Minister for Economic Affairs Emmanuel Macron, linking in with the Five Presidents’ report.

In parallel, SPD deputy party leader Axel Schäfer has announced a “Franco-German parliamentary initiative” to drive the proposals “from the bottom up”. Europe and the eurozone are “not just a matter for governments, but also of parliaments”, he says. A working group is ready to start work at the beginning of September.

Also buying the line is Tageblatt which contrasts the “concrete” Merkel with the “man of great principle” Jacques Delors, and Die Welt notes that “Paris and Berlin have a common work basis to lead Europe out of the Euro-agony”, thus adding more weight to the evidence that something is afoot.

Putting all this together, these are not so much fingerprints as size-12 boot prints, with mud all over the living room carpet. Speculation is fast turning into certainty that there will be a new treaty, and the implications for the EU referendum are profound.

Whatever else, the announcement of a treaty convention, probably to start in the spring of 2018, destroys any chance that Mr Cameron might nurture of getting “reform”. The “colleagues” are looking to a massive leap in integration, and they will not be in the market for ideas from the UK.

The prospect of associate membership, therefore, begins to be the only item on the agenda. When this breaks cover, it will transform the referendum campaign. For the moment, though, the UK media remains oblivious to the implications, even though the continental press is all over the idea of a two-speed Europe.

One wonders which newspaper, and which star source, will be the first to “discover” it, and how long it will take – and how much time will be wasted before there is a more general realisation that EU politics are poised for irrevocable change.

When our media do wake up, doubtless they will get it wrong – as they so often do – although eventually, the truth must percolate the brains even of British journalists. In the meantime, though, the “derivative blogs” have it. 

But, since nothing exists until the legacy media “discover” it, we may have to wait a while to be told what we already know – that treaty change is hiding in plain sight and the game is changing under our very noses.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

 

The Political Left Should Return To LeXit Their Core Values For Britain

The Political Left Should Return To LeXit Their Core Values For Britain

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

The left must put Britain’s EU withdrawal on the agenda

Owen Jones

Progressives should be appalled by European Union’s ruination of Greece. It’s time to reclaim the Eurosceptic cause

 

David Cameron with Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel. ‘An anti-EU campaign could help the left reconnect with working-class communities it lost touch with long ago.’ Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters

Tuesday 14 July 2015 20.29 BST Last modified on Wednesday 15 July 2015 08.04 BST

At first, only a few dipped their toes in the water; then others, hesitantly, followed their lead, all the time looking at each other for reassurance. As austerity-ravaged Greece was placed under what Yanis Varoufakis terms a “postmodern occupation”, its sovereignty overturned and compelled to implement more of the policies that have achieved nothing but economic ruin, Britain’s left is turning against the European Union, and fast.

“Everything good about the EU is in retreat; everything bad is on the rampage,” writes George Monbiot, explaining his about-turn. “All my life I’ve been pro-Europe,” says Caitlin Moran, “but seeing how Germany is treating Greece, I am finding it increasingly distasteful.” Nick Cohen believes the EU is being portrayed “with some truth, as a cruel, fanatical and stupid institution”. “How can the left support what is being done?” asks Suzanne Moore. “The European ‘Union’. Not in my name.” There are senior Labour figures in Westminster and Holyrood privately moving to an “out” position too.

Should the left leave the EU? | Owen Jones talks…

The list goes on, and it is growing. The more leftwing opponents of the EU come out, the more momentum will gather pace and gain critical mass. For those of us on the left who have always been critical of the EU, it has felt like a lonely crusade. But left support for withdrawal – “Lexit”, if you like – is not new. If anything, this new wave of left Euroscepticism represents a reawakening. Much of the left campaigned against entering the European Economic Community when Margaret Thatcher and the like campaigned for membership.

It was German and French banks who benefited from the bailouts, not the Greek economy

It would threaten the ability of leftwing governments to implement policies, people like my parents thought, and would forbid the sort of industrial activism needed to protect domestic industries. But then Thatcherism happened, and an increasingly battered and demoralised left began to believe that the only hope of progressive legislation was via Brussels. The misery of the left was, in the 1980s, matched by the triumphalism of the free marketeers, who had transformed Britain beyond many of their wildest ambitions, and began to balk at the restraints put on their dreams by the European project.

The left’s pessimism about the possibility of implementing social reform at home without the help of the EU fused with a progressive vision of internationalism and unity, one that had emerged from the rubble of fascism and genocidal war. It is perhaps this feelgood halo that has been extinguished by a country the EU has driven into an economic collapse unseen since America’s great depression. It was German and French banks who recklessly lent to Greece that have benefited from bailouts, not the Greek economy. The destruction of Greece’s national sovereignty was achieved by economic strangulation, and treatment dealt out to Alexis Tsipras likened to “extensive mental waterboarding”. Slovakia’s deputy prime minister, Peter Kažimír, may have deleted his tweet calling this modern-day Versailles “the results of their ‘Greek Spring’”, but he is right: this was all about crushing a rebellion.

Ugly indeed. As the former European commission adviser Philippe Legrain puts it, “Germany is proving to be a calamitous hegemon,” overruling even France’s objections.

The euro suits Germany, of course, as a weak euro is good for its exports and prevents poorer EU countries getting a competitive edge. But look at how the EU has operated. It has driven elected governments – however unsavoury, like Silvio Berlusconi’s – from office. Ireland and Portugal were also blackmailed. The 2011 treaty effectively banned Keynesian economics in the eurozone.

Hostility to the EU is seen as the preserve of the hard right, and not the sort of thing progressives should entertain

But even outside the eurozone, our democracy is threatened. The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP), typically negotiated by the EU in secret with corporate interests, threatens a race to the-bottom in environmental and other standards. Even more ominously, it would give large corporations the ability to sue elected governments to try to stop them introducing policies that supposedly hit their profit margins, whatever their democratic mandate. It would clear the way to not only expand the privatisation of our NHS, but make it irreversible too. Royal Mail may have been privatised by the Tories, but it was the EU that began the process by enforcing the liberalisation of the natural monopoly of postal services. Want to nationalise the railways? That means you have to not only overcome European commission rail directive 91/440/EEC, but potentially the proposed Fourth Railway Package too.

Other treaties and directives enforce free market policies based on privatisation and marketisation of our public services and utilities. David Cameron is now proposing a renegotiation that will strip away many of the remaining “good bits” of the EU, particularly opting out of employment protection rules. Yet he depends on the left to campaign for and support his new package, which will be to stay in an increasingly pro-corporate EU shorn of pro-worker trappings. Can we honestly endorse that?

Greece is the latest battleground in the financial elite’s war on democracy | George Monbiot

Let’s just be honest about our fears. We fear that we will inadvertently line up with the xenophobes and the immigrant-bashing nationalists, and a “no” result will be seen as their vindication, unleashing a carnival of Ukippery. Hostility to the EU is seen as the preserve of the hard right, and not the sort of thing progressives should entertain. And that is why – if indeed much of the left decides on Lexit – it must run its own separate campaign and try and win ownership of the issue.

Such a campaign would focus on building a new Britain, one of workers’ rights, a genuine living wage, public ownership, industrial activism and tax justice. Such a populist campaign could help the left reconnect with working-class communities it lost touch with long ago. My fear otherwise is a repetition of the Scottish referendum: but this time, instead of the progressive SNP as the beneficiaries, with Ukip mopping up in working-class communities as big businesses issue chilling threats about the risks of voting the wrong way. Without a prominent Left Out campaign, Ukip could displace Labour right across northern England. That would be the real vindication of Ukippery.

Lexit may be seen as a betrayal of solidarity with the left in the EU: Syriza and Podemos in Spain are trying to change the institution, after all, not leave it. Syriza’s experience illustrates just how forlorn that cause is. But in any case, the threat of Brexit would help them. Germany has little incentive to change tack: it benefits enormously from the current arrangements. If its behaviour is seen to be causing the break-up of the EU, it will strengthen the hand of those opposing the status quo. The case for Lexit grows ever stronger, and – at the very least – more of us need to start dipping our toes in the water.

To view the original article CLICK HERE.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

 

RPG – Futurus: WHAT IS OUR AIM AND WHAT IS OUR PLAN?

RPG – Futurus: WHAT IS OUR AIM AND WHAT IS OUR PLAN?

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

FUTURUS – BRIEFING:

A SERIES OF BRIEFINGS ON THE EU REFERENDUM 8th July 2015

WHAT IS OUR AIM
AND WHAT IS OUR PLAN?

Our aim is for the UK to leave the political, judicial and monetary structure of the European Union (EU) as well as the Customs Union and other Common
Policies, but the UK would stay in the Single Market by retaining its European
Economic Area membership and would propose to rejoin EFTA.

What would happen?
It must be emphasised that EU membership and Single Market membership are
two different matters.

In this plan, entitled FleXcit
– the work of eureferendum.com and The Bruges Group – the UK would stay in the Single Market by retaining its European Economic Area [EEA] membership and joining EFTA.

In due course, it would then make further policy changes as any normal country. Ultimately, the longterm aim would be to change the UK’s relationship to the EU to ‘joint membership of a European free trade area’.

This goal is within reach and will be attained more easily if the political and monetary aspects and other Common Policies of the EU are jettisoned.

In the short term the UK would be in the position of Norway or Iceland.

This is not a perfect strategy, nor is it the end of a process – which will go on for
many years – but it is an existent, proven platform which will secure an amicable
and stable eXit.

How would the UK stay involved with the EU?
a) The Four Freedoms – which are part of the EEA agreement
– It should be noted that EU governments (including the UK) in reaction
to the ‘sweetheart’ tax deals agreed by Juncker in Luxemburg, have
actually reduced freedom of capital movement.

In the case of Cyprus (and soon to be Greece?) full capital controls have been imposed by the EU Troika.

It should also be noted that the provisions of the EEA agreement are more restrictive on freedom of labour movement than the EU membership and also allow further restrictions in exceptional circumstances, unlike the EU.

b) Horizontal policies associated with the Single Market, such as
consumer protection, company law, environment, statistics.

c) Co-operation in development, training, culture, tourism, etc.

d) The Single Market.

In addition, the UK would continue to be involved with the EU in intergovernmental matters, may agree to participate in some EU programmes and, in some cases, sign up (inter-governmentally) to EU institutions where they offer better value than going it alone.

What would trigger this?

A referendum to leave the EU having a positive vote, the UK would then serve
an Article 50 notice in accordance with the EU treaties, giving two years’ notice
to leave the EU and start to agree the terms of departure.

What parts of the EU would the UK leave?
The UK would repatriate the ‘acquis’ (the system of EU law). Just as Ireland
and India did when they became independent, bringing the whole acquis into
British law allows a seamless transition.
Once repatriated, the British parliament would then repeal EU involvement in the following areas:
– The Common Agriculture Policy
– The Common Fisheries Policy
– The Customs Union
– The Common Trade Policy (and regain the UK’s seat at the WTO plus the
ability to make its own trade agreement with other countries)
– The Common Foreign and Security Policy
– The Common Policy on Justice and Home Affairs
– The Charter of Fundamental Rights
– EU Economic and Monetary Union (the UK is signed up for Stages 1 and
2 but not Stage 3 (the euro) of EMU
– No involvement in direct or indirect taxation
– The EU Commission
– The EU Court of Justice
– A substantial reduction in contributions to the EU budget
– The ‘joint and several liabilities’ of all EU members for all EU debts
– Extrication from specific risk exposure to the liabilities of the EU, the ECB
and the EIB as soon as possible.

In short, Britain would then be in approximately the same relationship to the EU
as the EFTA/EEA countries: Norway, Iceland and Leichtenstein.

Of course, it may be decided that certain functions should be ‘bought in’ from
the EU and also that the UK may decide to participate in some EU programmes,
such as in Eastern Europe, on a voluntary intergovernmental basis.

Clearly, there must be negotiation with the EU in certain areas and, equally, there will be transitional policies required in some areas such as extrication from debt guarantees.

The advantages of this strategy?
a) It attains the aim of leaving the political, judicial and monetary structure
of the EU.

b) All those who wish to leave the EU, whatever their ultimate goal, will be
able to support Flexcit and the UK staying in the Single Market as a
platform to move to future long-term trading arrangements which will
take a long time.
These arrangements can be debated after exit.

c) Of all options, it is likely to engender the least hostility from the EU
institutions since this option can be traced back to proposals from
Presidents de Gaulle and Giscard D’Estang.
Indeed, de Gaulle’s press conference in 1963 outlined a sensible free trade relationship for the UK to the then EEC.

Further, in December 2012 former head of the EU Commission and the
main driver of the EU in his day, and a man highly respected in
Brussels, Jacques Delors, told Handelsblatt newspaper:
“If the British cannot support the trend to more integration in Europe,
we can nevertheless remain friends, but on a different basis. I could
imagine a form such as a European economic area or a free trade
agreement.”

This correctly stated the alternatives for the UK, “Supporting the trend
to more integration in Europe” or ‘friends’ on the basis of membership
of the EEA.

d) Having looked at many speeches by business which purport to support
the UK remaining in the EU, the only reasons given are the asserted
benefits of the Single Market.

There are many business speeches in favour of the Single Market but none in favour of the parts of the EU identified above where the UK will leave. No business has ever asked for EU control of justice and home affairs, an EU foreign policy, massive financial transfers from the UK to Brussels or increased
exposure to the losses of the eurozone.

Staying in the Single Market removes all business objections.

At one time it is true that many businessmen and business organisations pressed the British government to join the euro.

It is now realised that this would have been a disaster on a grand scale.

e) By staying in the Single Market and reassuring business, the electorate
is also reassured that there will be no economic change.

The electorate will be comfortable that jobs, investment and trade will be
unaffected and business will continue exactly the same as before.

f) Once a referendum is won this plan sets out a clear and simple plan for
action on Referendum Day +1.
There can be no doubt about what ‘leaving the EU’ actually means.
It is a clear instruction from the electorate and a clear plan for action. It is not an expression of wish which the Executive can implement in the way it chooses.

g) In the 1975 referendum, a number of outside leaders in the Commonwealth were quoted by the pro-EU leaflet circulated to the electorate as stating they wanted the UK to remain in the EU.

This pattern of outside advice was repeated in the recent Scottish
referendum.

As the move from EU membership to EFTA/EEA membership is less
dramatic, there is little reason for outside leaders to comment or to
parse the exact differences between EEA and EU membership.

h) To win a referendum with a cacophony of options is unrealistic and,
even if won, would simply hand the initiative to the ‘more integration’
forces in Westminster who would negotiate as they saw fit.

In 1975, the pro-EU literature devoted a great deal of space to describing and
disparaging the great variety of alternatives to the EU offered by the anti-EU side.

The FLEXCIT plan, taking up approximately the position of Norway, is
available, off the shelf, and is a proven and existing solution while longterm
trading arrangements are debated and implemented over several years.

Media contact:
Anthony Scholefield: anthony.scholefield@ntlworld.com 07805 397424
For further details of FLEXCIT please contact
Dr. Richard North: http://eureferendum.com/
Robert Oulds: robert@brugesgroup.com
020 7287 4414/07740 029787 http://www.brugesgroup.com
214 Linen Hall, 162-8 Regent Street, London W1B 5TB

To view this document in its original format CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

‘e’ Mail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU