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  

 

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  

 

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  

 

GP>RN – Are The Self Appointed Westminster Bubble Out Of Touch

.

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

GUEST POST by Richard North:
HE Questions whether The Self Appointed self important Westminster Bubble clique are Out Of Touch.

Hi,

Richard North makers a very sound point and for clear provenance one need only look back at the election less than 2 months ago!

You will remember that the election results had the illiteratti of politics totally wrong footed, eating their hats, kilts and words in disbelief – along with the media – none more so than the pundits at the BBC who had spent so much time interviewing eachother that they had come to believe their own propaganda!

Some will remember that I and Richard North were predicting the outcome of the election with near pin point accuracy back in October and November whilst the political elite, the pundits and the Westminster bubble were still in denial even after the exit polls were showing Richard and I were spot on right.

It may have cost us a few friends along the way, false friends who having told us we were wrong and did not know what we were talking about, friends who were up until the last minute not only suggesting a vote for Ukip would produce a landslide and that Farage would win in Thanet – friends to self important to admit they were wrong to this day!

Perhaps they will pay a little more attention now and not be duped by the smooth talking, inept & outdated likes of Bill Cash, Nigel Farage, Ian Milne, Matt Elliott, Rodney Leach, Dan Hannan, Keith Carson, EuroFacts, Democracy Movement, Freedom Today, Ukip and their ilk feeding off of each other and the Westminster bubble; as they perpetuate the folly of their last referendum in 1975 which they clearly lost due to the egos of those in the NO Campaign, just as they will surely loose this time and for the same reasons.

For details of the EU’s next treaty, when the lock will be brought to bind in member states and further centralise the political and economic control the EUroPhiles could do worse than read CLICK HERE
.

EU Referendum:
the information snobs

Richard North, 23/06/2015    

In legal terms, the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of published content rests with the publisher. Thus, where a newspaper might commission named authors to write a piece, the ultimate responsibility doesn’t change.

Given the flood of rubbish that we are seeing in the media on EU issues, therefore, most often it is the newspapers rather than the author(s) that we challenge. And, over the years, we have been active in pointing out their manifest failings.

But so devastatingly poor has their output now become that, for a long time I have been arguing that the legacy media (which includes newspapers) are institutionally incapable of reporting EU issues properly. I’ve even gone so far as to assert that they lack the institutional architecture which would enable them to do so.

Generally, such is their dereliction that they do not even realise when they are making errors, or allowing their authors to do so. When they are told, mostly they lack the honesty to admit they are wrong. As a result, they close down the means by which they could learn from their mistakes, and thus perpetuate their own ignorance.

As a result, pointing out media errors has provided a rich source of material for this blog, and in many ways we gain a perverse satisfaction from seeing the media repeat their errors. Thus do they confirm our thesis, again and again and again.

Very recent events have done nothing at all to shake our thesis and, as time passes, we see so many examples of the institutional media incompetence that we have occasionally wondered whether it is possible to have a free and fair referendum.

Fortunately, the grip of the legacy media is slackening, and although the self-referential politico-media loop survives – with constant reinforcement from the increasingly lacklustre London think-tank circuit – the number of passive onlookers diminishes by the day. People may visit media websites but fewer and fewer people rely on them. We go elsewhere for our information.

By way of an example, the media might assail us with discussions on tariffs in respect of the EU’s Single Market. But knowledgeable people (which means those who do not rely in the media for their information), know that that main barriers to trade have long ceased to be tariffs, and have become non-tariff barriers. Unlike the media, we know that they are increasing to the extent that they are far more troublesome and expensive as trade barriers than the tariffs ever were.

Among the people who know this is the growing band of Flexcit readers – responsible now for over 21,000 downloads. Yet such intelligence escapes the media writers (whether staff of guests) because Flexcit lacks the magical quality of “prestige”. And only if material is imbued with this property will it gain the attention of this snobbish, dying industry.

However, this “information snobbery” goes much further than merely excluding sources because their authors come from the wrong side of the track. The “not invented here” syndrome extends to any source outside the London claque, even when the originator has unimpeachable credentials and huge global stature.

Thus we see the authors of a recent think-tank paper prefer a source of some antiquity from within their comfort zone. Even though it expresses bizarre and long-discredited ideas (except, that is, to the London claque), it takes precedence over a more recent paper from Pascal Lamy, one time European Commission Trade Commissioner and former Director General of the WTO.

Published in English by the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) in Brussels, this paper might just as well be written in Swahili as far as the London claque is concerned. As to the concepts discussed – entirely familiar to the readers of this blog and those familiar with Flexcit – they might just as well come from another universe.

In the wider world (such as inhabited by Pascal Lamy), information is most often assessed on merit – but that doesn’t apply to the London circuit. Recruiting what Nigel Farage calls “posh boys” (and girls) for your editorial board will gain you far more brownie points than mere factual information. There is no premium at all for accuracy or depth – “prestige” is everything.

Furthermore, in their closed, self-referential little world, the “posh boys” (and girls) think they own the agenda. Certainly, with ready access to an incompetent legacy media – which is also largely London-based – they have high visibility and gain in “prestige” from being published in “prestigious” journals. But it is merely an exercise in mutual coprophagia. It impresses only the denizens of the bubble.

These were the people who, almost to a man (and woman), failed to predict the outcome of the general election, when we were quietly confident that the Conservatives were going to win. Many of the self-proclaimed financial gurus in the claque missed the signs of the 2009 financial crisis coming, and still don’t understand why it happened.

Nevertheless, to help them remedy their profound ignorance, it has been put to us that we should expend time and effort “educating” these people – leading them to the path of righteousness. Despite having been ignored, sneered at, and generally treated with disdain, we should now extend to them the benefit of our hard-won learning, even though most of the material is contained within Flexcit, which they can’t be bothered to read.

But not for nothing did I invent the phrase “constructive ignorance”. It describes a state affecting certain people, where they deliberately deprive themselves of information. Most often, they revel in their own ignorance as they limit themselves to “prestige” sources, mostly from within their own circles.

Unfortunately, rather like alcoholics who can’t be treated until they admit they have a problem, these “information snobs” can’t be tutored or informed until they are prepared to admit what they are. They then need to recognise that they are neither the centre of the universe, nor the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. They also have to acknowledge that other people, some of them despicable, lowly creatures, might actually know more than they do – a lot more.

Such presumption in lowly creatures, however, is most often regarded as “arrogance” (better translated as having ideas above one’s station). The effect of this property is further to legitimise the exclusion of information. If one can dismiss a source as “arrogant”, or confer a base motivation, it absolves the bubble-dweller from taking any notice of it at all.

By this means, we see created the Catch-22 nightmare where advocacy of a message from an “inferior” source is matched by an equal or greater determination that it should not be heard. Only if one is deferential and discrete is a work regarded favourably, except that it then remains unknown and is ignored anyway.

Confronting the nature of this problem, one is reminded of that wonderful joke, which asks: how many social workers does to take to change a light bulb? The answer, contrary to expectation, is one – but the light bulb really has to want to change.

Despite the put-downs, the sneering and the studied indifference, we are still keen to help spread the messages that win the referendum – as opposed to bolstering their progenitors’ egos. The readers of this blog (and this writer) collectively represent a powerful resource, with unparalleled skills and knowledge. We are here to be used and are remarkably liberal with our information and who has access to it.

But if the “information snobs” are determined not to listen – are determined not to read anything we produce – we cannot help them. If they remain attached to their belief that they are superior beings who can learn nothing from us “plebs”, they will continue to fester in their own ignorance. Much as we might regret it, there is nothing anyone can do. And we cannot afford to waste our time on them. Our focus has to be on those who appreciate it, and can make best use of it.

And that, despite the presumption of the gilded circle, is actually the majority. The monopoly of information provision (and analysis) went long ago, and the amateur efforts we so often see handed down from the centre merely invite derision (and occasionally despair). The “information snobs” are the losers – they’re just too ignorant to know it.

To view the original article and the Forum for comments 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: An Exploratory Committee (EC) + RPG & Comments

GP>RN: An Exploratory Committee (EC) + RPG & Comments

.

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

GUEST POST > Richard North:
An Exploratory Committee (EC) + RPG & Comments

EU Referendum: an exploratory committee

Richard North, 19/06/2015    

As reported by the BBC, a cross-party group of seven MPs have formed an “Exploratory Committee” for the EU Referendum. They comprise Steve Baker, Douglas Carswell, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Bernard Jenkin, Owen Paterson, and Graham Stringer.The MPs are listed in alphabetical order and media enquiries are being directed to Kate Hoey, (Chair, Labour for Britain) and Steve Baker (Chair of Conservatives for Britain). However, as senior MP for the committee, Owen Paterson is chairing meetings and is coordinating much of the day-to-day activity.A report in The Times suggests that Dominic Cummings, former adviser to the Michael Gove, has been recruited to oversee the committee. However, at this stage, the committee has no formal secretariat. It would be quite wrong to suggest that Cummings is in charge. His precise role (if he chooses to accept one) has yet to be defined.

The task of the committee is urgently to seek “to provide resources for crucial thinking and to promote cooperation amongst those who might contribute to a ‘no’ campaign”. In other words, it is exactly as described on the tin. It is exploring the terrain. It is not the “no” campaign, and is not taking an active campaigning role.

Underpinning the committee is a belief that, without fundamental change in our relationship with the EU, it is the best interests of the UK, Europe, the wider world, and the cause of peaceful international cooperation, to the UK to leave the EU and pursuing a different relationship with our EU partners.

However, the committee notes that “there is little if any indication that the government is even asking for significant reform or fundamental change”. In anticipation of there being no significant (or any) movement in the June European Council, therefore, the committee is taking certain preparatory steps.

It is conscious that both sides of the referendum campaign will require the creation of substantial organisations to provide voters with a real choice. And in this context, it will be looking at the legal issues arising from the Referendum Bill (eg. rules for “purdah”, the impartiality of EU and government institutions and broadcasters, funding limits, designation of “yes” and “no” campaigns, etc).

Specifically, the committee is also looking as how an “no” campaign might best be formed, and how it might be run to inform the public about the issues.

It has been stressed that there is no intention to impose a “top down” structure on the campaign or appoint a grand supremo over the heads of campaigners. This is a genuine attempt to resolve the many complex issues involved in setting up and effective campaign.

Our Referendum Planning Group (RPG) has been kept fully informed of developments, and we are in touch with key players. Our own group will be meeting in London on 30 June and we would welcome contacts from other interested groups.

Alongside the Bruges Group and other component groups, we anticipate that the long-standing Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) will play a significant role in recruiting and marshalling “grass roots” activists. We encourage potential activists to contact the CIB or to watch this blog for further announcements – not least for details of a number of “recruitment fairs”, where we will be seeking activists to fill specific positions.

Another thing we have in mind is a series of stand-alone functional “cells” to take over specific tasks, such as the social media “rebuttal group” that is in the process of formation. There will also be a number of covert groups, tasked with some other serious activities.  We are encouraged that, within the Exploratory Committee, there is recognition of the need for a comprehensive, and common, exit plan – and the urgency behind the task of producing one is understood. All and any support in this respect that the Committee needs will be made available to it by the RPG. With it firmly established that this campaign is about free people cooperating freely in a common cause, we see this emergence of the Exploratory Committee (EC!) as a healthy and important step in the development of a formal “no” campaign. There has been much progress in the weeks since the election, and I am confident that we are beginning to work in the right lines.

• 3 comments
• EU Referendum

• 

  Greg_LW • 20 minutes ago

  Hi,

  a reassuring step that would seem to be very much in the right decision to ensure that ‘democracy’ will stand a chance against the likely spread of FUD and efforts of the British Government, the EU and the parochial values of the SNP will be both exposed and countered.

  One is forced to the realisation that this referendum, when it occurs, will be largely invalid in democratic terms as FUD and intervention together with interference and public money will be used to distort the democratic process – with liberal spin on the non event Cameron achievements, thus negating any value in a YES vote to remain in the EU and the fractured nature of our society will continue.

  Thus this is little more than a dress rehearsal for the battle to come when as a result of the apparent popularity of a YES vote leads, naturally, to a rapid treaty change and central imposition of a new treaty by the EU – This will then provide the referendum of consequence prior to the binding lock in of the new treaty – a referendum promised by Government should there ever be a new treaty and or further loss of democratic powers.

  As with any dress reheartsal this must be used to show there is a will to continue the battle for repatriation of our sovereignty. restoration of our borders, reinstatement of our place at the table internationally in our own right and reconstruction of our Civil Service as a British administrative and negotiating force rather than the milk sops of the EU over weening unelected bureacracy, which to a large extent controls the EU.

  The other great benefit of a dress rehearsal will be the opportunity to learn those who are truely campaigners for Britain with a view to learning from the mistakes of the NO campaign versus the distortions of the process by the YES campaigners – sadly however there is no guarantee that the NO campaign will learn as largely they seem not to have learned from the debacle of the 1975 referendum that has provided the last 40 years of damaging vassal status and loss of our Civil Service and Government in terms of skills of drafting and negotiation on the world stage.

  Many of the same mistakes are being made now by those claiming to aspire to a NO vote as were made in 1975.

  We must use this referendum to put the NO campaign in as strong a position as we can, though I have little doubt we will lose in this round, we must learn to ensure we win in the second and dec isive referendum regarding a new treaty and further loss of powers and democratic control, that will inevitably come fairly rapidly (approx. 3>4 years after this referendum).

  The broader the spread of the campaign and the more focused the aims the better and it is not a leader we need as it will be the intellectual argument that will win, in a largely economically neutral debate of the values of independence of mind and values on the world stage in a largely globalised world where such individuality will prove essential – unless of course one wishes to live in an over bureaucratised bland uninovational ant colony manner on our planet.

  Even in the EU the true spirit of these United Kingdoms stands out, as does or versatility and ability to recover from set back in a mannert that is an example to the rest of EUrope if not the world – such that be they the boat people of Viet Nam or their current equivalent amongst the flotilla of ships adrift in the Med. on route from Africa, Syria, Iraq and the like where such an overwhellming percentage wish to head North to the Channel Ports to seek passage, however dangerous, to get into Britain.

  A largely unwanted compliment but a compliment no less, showing that although there are those who for their narrow aims and faltering confidence may value vassal status in the EU many around the world see Britain as a very separate entity, hence the level and diversity of those seeking assylum, for whatever reason, on these islands – different as we are.

  Thus I see Richard’s introduction of both the EC and the RPG as not just a small step for the NO Campaign but a giant leap forward for the future as Britain moves inexorably to BreXit via FleXcit!

  Regards,
  Greg_L-W.
• 

  bufo75 • 2 hours ago

  Fantastic news, we should be right behind them !

• 

  wj • 3 hours ago

  Sounds good – it’s good to see things moving in, what I think, is the right direction.

To view the original of this document 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: committee stage blues

GP>RN – EU Referendum: committee stage blues
.

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

GUEST POST By Richard North:
EU Referendum: committee stage blues

Hi,

.

EU Referendum: committee stage blues

Wednesday 17 June 2015

So, yesterday was the first of two committee stage debates on the EU Referendum Bill, the next being on Thursday (tomorrow). Eagerly anticipated was Amendment 11, tabled by Bill Cash, Owen Paterson and others, seeking to restore Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which the Government seeks to remove by Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.

After overnight wheeler-dealing, it was anticipated that Labour would support its own Act, which was being shredded by the new Conservative Government. With the support of the SNP, and as many as 40 Tory rebels, this would have proved sufficient to have wiped out Mr Cameron’s slender majority and deliver him his first defeat of the Parliament.

First out of the traps was Alex Salmond, but his main concern was to grandstand on a “double-lock” for the referendum, tabling an amendment which would require a majority in Scotland and the other component parts of the UK, before we have a valid “no” vote. If there is a difference in the vote, Scotland could split from the UK.

An interesting facet of his position was that he argued that Scotland was a nation. In EU terms, though, it is regarded merely as a region. The Scottish region should, perhaps, be wary about making it more difficult to leave this destroyer of nations.

Speaking on the abolition of purdah, Salmond declared his SNP group united in support of the European Union. But they were not prepared to accept a biased referendum. If the issue of purdah was “correct”, then it must pertain to the referendum as well, he said. And civil service impartiality must be maintained.

Going even further, Salmond suggested that there should be rules produced by the House on the implementation of Purdah, and a “fairness committee” comprising Privy Councillors, with penalties for breach of the rules.

Liam Fox spoke next, one of the “old gang” of Tory eurosceptics. It was, he said, unacceptable for government to exempt itself from rules of procedures. The reason we had purdah was to prevent the government from using resources to support one side of the debate, potentially altering the course of the debate.

After any referendum, particularly one that, as we know from previous debates on Europe, will arouse great passions on both sides, he said, we require the result to be regarded as fair, reasonable and legitimate if there was to be any chance of the country coming together on the issue once the voters had spoken.

If people believed that they have been bounced or that the result is the consequence of a rigged process, Fox added, it would be extremely difficult for the country to come together, and the political consequences would be intense. It must be seen that the legitimacy of the process is related to the fairness of the process. That was what was being put at risk by the Government’s proposals.

Meanwhile, euro-trash Peter Wilding had been in the Telegraph, sneering at the “Europhobes” and talking of Owen Paterson, who had “oozed indignation on Sunday”. Purdah, said Wilding, was a red herring. During the election, the Conservative Party campaigned on the basis of a manifesto that included the pledge to hold an in/out EU referendum. It is hardly reasonable, now that the Conservatives are in government, that they should not be able to take a stance on the issue.

One does not, of course, expect euro-trash to have any understanding of constitutional niceties, but the only “red herring” was his. Purdah does not stop ministers, or David Cameron, expressing a view. They are simply not allowed to campaign on the issue, using government resources and public money. As far as this blog goes, anyone who uses the term “europhobe” is out of order. The term begets “euro-trash”, although we’re equally at home with “euro-slime” or even “euro-filth”.

Already noted, by Salmond and others – recorded by the BBC – was a “concession” made by the Government that a 5 May date in the next year has been dropped. This really was the red herring. There never had been chance that this was going to be the referendum date. So the Government has committed to not doing something it never had any intention of doing.

This had arisen from Government assurances sent by e-mail overnight to Conservative MPs by Europe Minister David Lidington. But as well offering his “non-concession” on the date, he reminded colleagues of the second reading debate, when Foreign Secretary Hammond had promised that Government “will exercise proper restraint to ensure a balanced debate during the campaign”.

Now Lidington promised to “work with colleagues over the next few months to understand their specific areas of concern” and then “bring forward at report stage in the Autumn government amendments that command the widest possible support within the House”. This, he said, would “put beyond any doubt that the campaign will be conducted throughout in a manner that all sides will see as fair”.

While there had been some confidence that the rebels would carry the vote on the amendment, this was beginning to dissipate. Europhile Dominic Grieve, former Attorney General, had been expected to oppose the removal of purdah, as a matter of principle – as he made clear to the House in an intervention.

However, on hearing assurances from the Minister that the Government would reconsider purdah and return at the report stage with a proper amendment, Grieve declared he “would be quite prepared to continue to give them my confidence in this matter”.

In his experience in the House, it was “quite frequent in Committee for a Bill to be criticised, for the Government to give assurances that they will remedy it”. MPs frequently accepted those assurances. “That is why”, he concluded, “I have no difficulty in proceeding along the usual established route”.

As if we needed reminding of the importance of the issue, we could read that only 15 percent of Conservative party members would vote to leave the EU irrespective of any negotiations. Some 63.3 percent would cast their vote according to the outcome of the negotiations, so the way the details are handled would be crucial.

Nevertheless, the writing was on the wall for the rebellion, with the death knell sounding as it emerged that Labour would not support the rebel amendment. Instead, it was tabling one of its own which did not seek to reinstate purdah. It simply asked for more “clarity” about what the Government had in mind.

Veteran eurosceptic, Bill Cash, stepped in – fresh from hospital and unable to stand for any length – making a heroic attempt to save the day for the rebels. He offered a means of retrieving the situation so that there didn’t have to be a vote.

It’s about trust, said Cash, but not just about trust. Purdah had been put in for very sound reasons, so he appealed to the government to think again. The people had a right to know that the referendum won’t be “canted”. This is not a eurosceptic argument – the real question is about our democracy.

In response, we got an ignorant intervention from Clarke, muddying the water. He deliberately overstated the adverse impact of Purdah, but was called to order. Cash cited the Electoral Commission in support.

Labour europhile Mike Gapes then did his muddying, dribbling about Norway and Switzerland, arguing that they have to obey all the rules with no say. He was called to order, for straying too far from the amendment, but managed to waste time in the process.

Kenneth Clarke then held forth, with what was described as a “Hush Puppy” approach, sneering about purdah. People are suggesting that the whole government machine should be switched off for four weeks, he claimed. This was pure hyperbole – it is a deliberate misstatement, typical of the euro-trash approach to politics. The government is unaffected. Simply, ministers cannot actively campaign for the proposition, using public money.

Insultingly, the wrecker Clarke even got the Section wrong, citing S.129 instead of S.125. That illustrated his contempt for the efforts of the rebels. But his “casual wafting around” was noted by Richard Bacon. It sounded like and most certainly was filibustering.

Lidington then took the stage, defending purdah – it would be unworkable, he said. Bill Cash challenges his view, but Lidington stood his ground. The Government seriously wants this removed. He said the Government’s job was not to supplant the “yes” campaign, but claimed that the Government must be able to feed information into the debate. Changes would be be introduced at the report stage, he affirmed. We’re not going to ask the House to accept our word.

The Europe Minister then announced that the report stage would not be until the autumn. That means that, by the time it goes through the Lords, the Bill is going to struggle to get Royal Assent by the end of the year. But to those willing to accept the good faith of the Government, it also signalled that it was taking the prospect of amendments seriously.

And with a weak chair and Clarke boring on, chewing up the time allocated for the debate, many who wanted to speak were not called. The rebellion was collapsing. The decider, though, was Labour. It had bottled out and abandoned its own legislation, planning to abstain in the crucial vote. When it came. this gave the Government a victory of 288 votes to 97 – a majority of 191, with only 25 rebels to the fore.

However, the battle is not over. The showdown has merely been postponed to the autumn and the report stage. Grieve warned of stormy waters to come, saying that if the Government were using the promise of amendments to “try to wriggle out of this obligation again”, he “would regard that as a rather infamous thing to do”, and would not support them.

Thus we see battle deferred rather than won or lost – just an opening skirmish in a long war. And at least more of the public are aware of the issues. For many, there is a whiff of Government manipulation. Trust, it could be said, is not at an all-time high.

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: the fight goes on

GP>RN – EU Referendum: the fight goes on
.

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

GUEST POST > Richard North:
EU Referendum: the fight goes on

Hi,

.

EU Referendum: the fight goes on

Richard North, 16/06/2015    
Dr. Richard NORTH; Peter TROY;
Edward SPALTON; Anthony Scholefield

I buried a friend yesterday – or would have but for the fact that, these days, people are rarely buried. Instead, one attends dreary crematoriums. They don’t have the same feel as a proper church followed by the graveside ceremony. And, despite the care taken to make everything as tasteful and dignified as possible, I hate them.

More to the point, I hated the reason for my being there in Darlington crematorium – the untimely death of Peter Troy from a massive heart attack, suffered at the beginning of last month only days before he had been due to chair a Flexcit seminar in the Farmers’ Club in London. The seminar, held on 29 April, had been Peter’s idea. He had arranged it at short notice as a possible way of encouraging potential members of a new group we were in the process of creating, in the hope that they would take to Flexcit, once they knew a little more about it. This had not been the first Flexcit seminar. That had been organised by Peter in Harrogate in June last year, where he is photographed with a very hot North and our co-sponsors. Its purpose was to give me a chance to air an as then incomplete work in front of a live audience, better to gauge my approach and improve the work. A revised and improved version was then aired in Dawlish on 26 September last year. Peter, with customary energy, not only organised it but arranged to have the proceedings filmed. He then produced a superb video which continues to be available online – now with nearly 5,000 views. In Peter’s absence in London last moth, the third seminar was chaired by Edward Spalton, current Chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB). Edward was there at the funeral yesterday, to pay his respects. But, as it happened, none of the people we wanted to convince actually deigned to turn up to the seminar, but it was well-attended by an enthusiastic group of supporters. They gave us the confidence to go ahead with the group we were planning, in which Peter had played a crucial part.

The group, I can now reveal, is called the Referendum Planning Group (RPG). We plan a formal launch in October, and the current membership includes Edward Spalton, Anthony Scholefield, representing his Futurus think tank (also in the Harrogate photo), Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group, Niall Warry representing The Harrogate Agenda and myself representing EUReferendum.com.

However, in this case, the group owes its existence to an original initiative by David Phipps, now Scribblings from Seaham, also from last June. Worried by the fractured nature of the eurosceptic movement, he sought to broker a meeting of all eurosceptic groups. The aim was to help prepare a referendum campaign, should Mr Cameron’s Conservatives come to power (as indeed they did).

Despite the invitation being completely open-ended, distressingly few groups responded. Of those that did, some have fallen away, unable to accept a premise that we should coalesce around a single draft plan, and work towards its completion, as part of the basis for an effective campaign.

Instead, the dissidents argued that we should form a group with no commitment to any plan and then undertake “prolonged discussions” in an attempt to reach agreement on the way forward. Should we not agree, the idea was then that all the members would promote their own plans, under the single umbrella of the group.

It was Peter Troy who took over the organisation of the RPG and did his very best to bring the other groups on board. But it was not to be. As he lay stricken and the seminar went ahead, it became clear to us that, if there was to be an RPG, it would have to start off with its five committed members. Thus, at a recent meeting in London, just before Peter’s untimely demise, we decided to go ahead, using Flexcit as a draft component of our planning.

The idea of the group is, as its title indicates, to plan a referendum campaign. It is not intended that it should, in itself, be a campaigning group. We intend it to be more of a facilitator which will help its component members prepare a submission to the Electoral Commission, seeking designation as the lead “no” campaigner.

We have no illusions as to the difficulties involved. And, despite the assumptions of other (now multiple) groups that they are the natural heirs to the “no” crown, we will work with anyone who is prepared to put the needs of the campaign first. We are more than happy to add our considerable expertise and skills to the common cause.

However, were he still here, Peter himself could affirm that we will not accept a subordinate status, where we are required to fall in with the diktats of any self-appointed London élite, or anyone else, and become their obedient serfs. And nor will we be ignored.

The point he made to me so many times was that there are thousands of people who, over the decades, have collectively expended hundred of thousands of hours and untold wealth in the fight for freedom. They have earned the right to be directly involved in the campaign.

In memory of Peter Troy, but also in deference to the stalwart men and women of this country who have fought and are fighting so hard, we must resist assumptions that anyone has a God-given right to the leadership role. Nor can we accept that the campaign is the plaything of an as yet unknown multi-millionaire, or even that it is the property of Ukip. To be successful, it must be a people’s campaign, and who takes the lead slot is for the Electoral Commission to decide.

We expect the Electoral Commission to recognise that the ordinary people of England (and our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) deserve fair and equal participation in the “no” campaign. We will fight alongside anyone in the common cause, but as equals and not subordinates. We’ve had enough subordination from Brussels.

With his work on Flexcit and his intense pursuit of a functioning Referendum Planning Group, that aspiration is further on than it might otherwise have been. We will miss Peter’s energy, his dedication and his commitment most dreadfully. But the fight goes on.

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

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  

 

Leadership Of The NO Campaign Is Challenging!

Leadership Of The NO Campaign Is Challenging!

.

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

Hi,

Dr. Richard North is indubitably the right man to lead the intellectual argument. based upon well researched facts and an overall well laid out plan – as he has so eloquently provided in serious detail at http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

However that still leaves a need for a ‘front man’ to lead the team, not a role that would suit or even, I believe, apeal to North – it requires someone with a track record of achievement in this area and being part of a team might suit Kate Hoey, Zac Goldsmith (a far greater role than Mayor of London!), even perhaps Nikki Sinclaire who did obtain 250,000 signatures presented at Downing Street to gain us a debate at Westminster and the subsequent promise of an IN/OUT Referendum.

Self serving role players such as Dan Hannan, Matt Elliott, Mark Glendening or even the divisive figure of Nigel Farage may prove popular with wishing for a YES vote to stay in as they would surely lose for the NO voters!

North will clearly provide the reasoned facts but the YES campaign will do as they did in 1975 and lie putting forward FUD without foundation and abusing the public purse by spending Government time trying to sell a non deal that Cameron has failed to achieve with the help of the money of EU tax payers and desperate EU tactics to achieve a YES vote.

The EU will throw all it can into gaining a YES vote as they know that when these United Kingdoms withdraw from the EU & withdraw from the arcane political experiment they will face the beginnibg of the end as the entire political project crumbles and reverts to the rational concept of the EEA or EEC which Britain voted for in the first place despite the lies and misprepresentation of Heath’s Government betrayal.

Finding a leader of gravitas, stature and charisma is a tall order but we do have over 65,000,000 people to select from!

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  

 

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS OF THE EU REFERENDUM BATTLE

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS OF THE EU REFERENDUM BATTLE
.

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

Hi,

I received this from Anthony Scholefield of Futurus – as dated – and felt that it should be spread as widely as possible.

Please foreward these facts and the URL of this site: https://JustSayNOtoEU.com
PLEASE – Spread the truth widely to help keep people informed.

FUTURUS
BRIEFING

A SERIES OF BRIEFINGS ON THE EU REFERENDUM 10th June 2015

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS
OF THE EU REFERENDUM BATTLE

1. Business supports staying in the EU. WRONG.

Many businessmen make speeches about the advantages of staying in the Single
Market. It is perfectly possible to stay in the Single Market and leave the EU, as
detailed in the FLEXCIT plan. Businessmen do not make speeches about
supporting any other part of the EU membership.

2. The referendum is about business. WRONG.

By staying in the Single Market there will be no change to jobs, investment or
trade.

3. The referendum is about the UK’s trading arrangements. WRONG.

Staying in the Single Market means there will be no change to jobs, investment or trade. Deciding future trading arrangements will be done at a future date by the democratic discussion in an independent UK.

4. The alternatives are presented as staying in the EU as it is or departing to an unknown future. WRONG.

There is no option of staying in the EU as it is. The correct alternatives were put
by Jacques Delors, in 2012::
“If the British cannot support the trend to more integration in Europe, we can remain friends but on a different basis. I could imagine a form such as an European Economic Area or a Free Trade Agreement.”

5. The referendum is about whether or not Cameron’s reforms are satisfactory. WRONG.

The referendum is about ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the European Union, not choosing
between an ‘unreformed’ and ‘reformed’ European Union.

6. A ‘remain in’ vote proved to be a blank cheque in 1975.

The British government took a ‘yes’ vote as authority to push through numerous further treaties, further integration and loss of independence. A new ‘yes’ vote is another blank cheque.

7. The referendum is about British influence and sitting at the ‘top table’. WRONG.

The UK is not, and does not want to be, a member of the inner core of the EU
either in the eurozone or the Schengen agreement on open borders. This lack of
involvement has not diminished British influence because the EU long ceased to
be the ‘top table’ and is nowadays more a transmission belt for regulation from
global bodies.

Media contact: Anthony Scholefield:
Anthony.Scholefield@ntlworld.com
07805 397424

For further details of FLEXCIT please contact:
Dr. Richard North: http://eureferendum.com

For a brief video of FleXcit: CLICK HERE

For the full text of FleXcit CLICK HERE

Bruges Group see:
www.brugesgroup.com
214 Linen Hall, 162-8 Regent Street, London W1B 5TB
020 7287 4414

Robert Oulds, Bruges Group:
robert@brugesgroup.com
020 7287 4414 or 07740 029787

.

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