THE REAL FACE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PREVIEW OF A NORTH AMERICAN UNION?

Please take time to watch this video, which dates from around 2002.
Although aimed at an American audience, using the EU as an illustration, the narrative is every bit as relevant to us now, as it was when the film was made.
Contributors include Norris McWhirter and, of course, Nigel Farage.

Aelfred Wantage

BRACE YOURSELVES-THE EUROCRATS ARE ASSAULTING OUR BORDERS AGAIN!

Brussels are at it again! Faced with an impending influx of refugees from the Arab world, the EUrocrats are launching a fresh attack on our border controls.
The European Commission is intending to use human rights laws to remove border controls. We all know where these people will head for; Benefits Britain, the freeloader's Heaven.

David Cameron has pledged to fight plans to scrap the existing rule requiring that illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are sent back to the country where they first enter the EU. However, Cameron has a particularly poor track record when it comes to demonstrating his 'EUroscpetic' credentials and has shown little resolve when faced with demands from Emperor Barosso.

Emperor Barosso

Commission President and de facto Emperor. Jose Manuel Barroso, will use today's summit in Brussels to press for the changes. In what can only be seen as yet another power-grab, Barosso wants the rule suspended indefinitely, which will open the door to hundreds of thousands of immigrants heading for Britain to claim the most generous benefits in the EU.
British officials fear the inevitable, that suspending the rule will see countries on the edge of EUrope making little effort to police their borders knowing full well that those immigrants are likely to head straight for Britain.


The situation has been exacerbated by the fighting in Libya, which has seen thousands of refugees fleeing Gaddafi’s regime to seek asylum in the EU.
So far, more than one million people have fled Libya since the fighting began.
Frontex, the EU border agency, estimates that 48,000 have already arrived in the EU and Italy expects another 50,000 to double those numbers. This will inevitably be the tip of the iceberg.


Eurocrats are demanding the changes to the current rules (the ‘Dublin regulations’) after officials lost a legal case earlier this year.
In January the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Belgium and Greece had violated the rights of an asylum seeker by sending him back to Athens. Both countries had been abiding by EU rules by sending migrants back to the port where they first entered the EU in order to file their asylum claims.

The unidentified Afghan asylum seeker in this case claimed that Belgium and Greece had subjected him to degrading treatment in returning him to Athens, and that he had been denied an ‘effective remedy’ against expulsion. The ECHR, unsurprisingly, agreed.

Last night Cameron's official spokesman said: "The Commission is proposing that the regulations are suspended. We will be resisting that because we think it’s important to have proper border controls. We do care because what happens at the border of Europe can impact on the border of the UK. People who come into the EU through other countries can end up in the UK. We've got to have the right incentives in place so countries police their borders properly."

However, actions speak louder than words and, so far, those of Cameron's government have been signally half-hearted and ineffective.

The move is also opposed by the French are keen to block the move because of problems they have had with Libyan immigrants landing in Italy and then crossing the border into France.

The answer to the problem of people coming to Britain is very simple: Firstly we must make clear that those entering illegally (including those those failing to claim asylum upon landing) will be summarily deported to their country of origin and, secondly, we must reform our benefits system to make it unattractive to those wishing to  live of the backs of the British taxpayer.

Aelfred Wantage

LORDS ON THE EU PAYROLL BLOCK DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Story form Daily Mail

A ‘shameful’ alliance of former Eurocrat peers who get EU pensions of up to £100,000 a year – which they have not disclosed in the UK Parliament – were criticised last night for sabotaging an attempt by the Coalition to curb the power of Brussels.
An all-party clique of ‘big beast’ politicians and diplomats, many of whom have held lucrative posts in Europe, inflicted a series of defeats on the Government’s EU Bill in the Lords in the past two weeks by just a handful of votes.
The defeats to the legislation, designed to guarantee British voters a referendum on any further loss of sovereignty, have been achieved by a small but powerful group of peers with lucrative Brussels pensions and retired mandarins paid large sums to work at the EU.

 

The Kinnocks' salary

 

They have been backed by pro-EU former Ministers including Michael Heseltine, who made a rare visit to the Lords last week to vote against the Conservative-led Coalition.
He was joined by ex-Tory Chancellor Lord Geoffrey Howe and ex-Tory Cabinet Minister John Gummer, now Lord Deben.
But the campaign has provoked an angry backlash from Conservative loyalists who say the ‘usual suspect’ Euro fat-cats in the Lords are biased because they receive big pensions from the EU.
Unlike other outside income, they can keep the payments secret and do not have to declare them in the Lords’ register of interests.
Moreover, under an ‘EU loyalty clause’, anyone who has worked for the institution who speaks out against Europe can be stripped of their pension.

They must abide by certain obligations ‘both during and after their term of office’ including maintaining ‘loyalty to the (EU) communities’.

If they break this obligation, they can be ‘deprived of their right to a pension or other benefits’.

 

Lord Mandelson and Lord Brittan's respective salaries

 

Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Richard earn a tidy sum

 

Critics say it means that those in receipt of EU pensions have a vested interest in voting to defend the EU.
The Euro fat-cats with EU pensions who have helped to defeat the Government include Tory ex-EU Commissioner Leon Brittan, ex-Labour EU Commissioners Peter Mandelson, Stanley Clinton-Davis, Ivor Seward Richard and Neil Kinnock and ex-Labour Euro MP Glenys Kinnock.
But their bid to block future EU referendums prompted an outspoken attack by Tory peer and novelist Lord Michael Dobbs, who claimed the pro-Euro ‘big beasts’ were out of touch with voters.
‘There are some big beasts of the European jungle here, some very big beasts,’ he said in the debate.
‘I often feel as though I have dropped into that scene at the end of the film Casablanca, when the wicked deed has been done, the fog is swirling, the body is lying on the ground and the police captain instructs his men: “Round up the usual suspects”.

 

Reality check: Lord Michael Dobbs has claimed the pro-Euro 'big beasts' are out of touch with voters

 

‘To suggest there is nothing wrong with an institution that embraces accounting practices that would have any company director thrown in jail is hopeless and shameful.
‘It is the usual suspects who have not been listening. If they had listened more, we would not need this Bill.’
According to the Open Europe think-tank, which campaigns for EU reform, the Kinnocks earned nearly £8 million in salary and allowances from their EU roles and left with a combined pension – like all EU officials it is index-linked – of £164,693. Lord Mandelson, who totted up more than £1million in salary and allowances as EU Trade Commissioner, qualified for a handout of £311,000 when he stepped down and received an annual pension of £35,543.

In addition, Ivor Seward Richard’s salary was £80,000 in 1985 with an estimated pension of £10,800. Mr Clinton-Davis’s salary in 1989 was £85,000 and his estimated pension £12,150. He said: ‘I voted the way I did because it was a bad bill.’
The pro-EU Lords campaign is led by ex-diplomat Lord John Kerr, who was the UK envoy to the EU from 1990-1995. He famously hid under the table during the final talks on the Maastricht Treaty so he could tell nervous Prime Minister John Major what to say. He is backed by Lord David Hannay, the UK’s EU envoy from 1985-1990.
A spokesman for Open Europe said: ‘It is no surprise that many of the Lords most opposed to giving the British people a say on the future of the EU have close links to the EU institutions and in some cases get taxpayer-funded EU pensions. It is the EU elite, not the people, who got it wrong on the euro.’

Just how, exactly, can this be called democracy?

Aelfred

HOUSE OF LORDS' DEMANDS 40% TURNOUT TO MAKE EU REFERENDA VALID

Reported by BBC News 08/06/2011

Recently, the government was defeated in the Lords over part of its plans to offer the public a vote on major transfers of power to Brussels by insisting that referenda would only be binding if there was a turnout of at least 40%.

A "referendum lock" on new EU treaties was part of the coalition agreement and something that has yet to materialise.
The government was defeated by 221 votes to 216, including 5 Conservative rebels and 6 Lib Dems.
The coalition is likely to seek to overturn the defeat when the Europe Bill returns to the Commons.

Independent cross-bench peer Lord Williamson, a former secretary-general of the European Commission, moved the amendment arguing that it should be up to Parliament to settle any issue on which there was "a derisory turnout". In other words, giving the government a 'get out clause' should it be in disagreement with the results of a marginal referendum.
"This amendment would bring back a role for Parliament in those cases, and only those cases, where the British public had demonstrated its lack of interest by a very low turnout in a referendum," he said.

Of course, any 'lack of interest' by the electorate is likely to have been encouraged, if not manufactured, by EUrophile ministers who are probably now regretting promising 'referendum lock' in the first place.

The Lords twice tried to force the government to set a minimum 40% turnout for the AV referendum but, this was overturned by the Commons.

Tory peer Lord Forsyth said: "It is very, very dangerous indeed to get into a position where we have a constitutional innovation which is the concept of referenda which are drop-dead referenda - the moment the vote is cast it becomes enshrined in law and Parliament no longer has a further say on it." In other words, regardless of how the electorate vote, politicians should have the last say. This would only serve to bolster our 'democratic deficit.'

Lord Pearson, the former leader of UKIP also opposed the amendment, saying the public would only re-engage with politics if given a greater say. He added "Their decisions, even if only 15% of them turn out to vote, will be very much wiser than those of our failed political class," a sentiment with which most of us would probably identify.

However, the whole bill could be scuppered if pro-EUropean Tories, including Brittan and Heseltine, join with Lib Dem peers to defeat referendum lock .
Recently, in alliance with pro-EU Conservatives, Liberal Democrat peers helped introduce a sunset clause to the EUropean Union Bill to ensure that 'referendum lock' expired at the end of this parliament. This would defeat the whole point of the promised referendum lock, which was to ensure all future parliaments cannot make significant transfers powers to the EU without the consent of the British people. EUrosceptics had already questioned the usefulness of referendum lock and it now looks much more vulnerable.

The amendment was passed by just 209 to 203 votes. Among the 209 opposed to giving us the right to a say in the surrender of our sovereignty were Leon Brittan, Lord Debden (formerly John Gummer), Lord Heseltine, Baroness Howe, and Lord Jopling. They were joined, not surprisingly, by many Labour peers andalso Liberal Democrats including Lord Oakeshott, Baroness Williams, Lord Maclennan and Lord Steel.

Lord Risby (formerly Richard Spring MP) unsuccessfully opposed the amendment saying:
"The whole point about this Bill is that it is meant to provide an enduring framework or umbrella under which future important EU decisions can be made. It comes back to this fundamental question, which is one of trust. People need to feel that they have a longer term guarantee of that sense of ownership of these procedures if we are to give away powers to the European Union. That is simply at the heart of this Bill. A sunset clause would give a limited time frame—providing perhaps for a time when we do not expect a referendum, or taking that right away when there might be a treaty change. That is the possible danger. But I might use the analogy of saying to the noble Lord, “Here is £5, but you can spend it only between four o’clock and six o’clock in the afternoon, otherwise I am going to take it back”. That is the essence of what this is all about."

Tory peer, Lord Brittan used his intervention to oppose referenda, demonstrating his contempt of true democracy:
"My Lords, I support the amendment. I start by saying that I am an unashamed opponent of referenda and always have been. It is not therefore surprising that anything that limits the operation of referenda inherently attracts me, as the amendment does. It is entirely reasonable that this piece of legislation, if it is to be passed, should be regarded as being wholly exceptional—which it is constitutionally—because it extends the range of obligatory referenda on a massive scale and fundamentally alters the balance of the constitution in that important respect. The Bill should be regarded, if it has to be passed, as a provisional experiment. I would regard it as a rather dangerous experiment that is subversive of the normal principles of parliamentary government."
This is a view shared by Tory EUrophile Ken Clarke.

Aelfred

THE BOTTOMLESS PIT OF EU MISSPENDING

A big thank you to the Daily Telegraph for providing this information.

£3 billion: Amount of 'stealth taxes' to be levied on Britons under European Commission plans to generate one third of the EU budget by 2020 using direct taxation powers.

£682 million: The amount Brussels demanded British taxpayers stump up in extra contributions next year to meet a proposed £5.5 billion increase in spending.

£9.2 billion: Amount British taxpayers contributed to the EU in 2010.

£94billion: The nine tenths of the EU's budget in 2009 that was “materially affected” by irregularities, projects that included the spending of more than £350,000 “improving the lifestyle and living standard of dogs” in Hungary.

£2billion: The annual cost of paying pensions to Eurocrats by 2040, British taxpayers will end up paying £350million of the total.

£136million: The amount British taxpayers paid for EU pensions in 2010, giving the average retired Eurocrat an income of almost £60,000.

1,023: The number of unelected EU civil servants who pocket bigger salaries than David Cameron's annual income of £142,500.

!£328,000!: The annual pay and perks package for Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign minister and highest paid UNELECTED female politician in the world.

2,558: The number of senior EU officials, earning £185,000 a year, who were entitled to three months time off work on full pay last year.

£67million: The amount that the European Parliament’s 736 MEPs can collectively claim this year in “daily subsistence” and “general expenditure” expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure.

£150million: The annual cost of moving the entire EU parliament hundreds of miles from Brussels to Strasbourg for a plenary sitting once a month as a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation.

£90million: The European House of History, to be built by 2014 by MEPs, despite a continuing argument over fundamental historical event, such as what happened during the Second World War.

£8million: The annual cost of EuroparlTV, a television channel, which highlights the work of MEPs, and has only 830 daily viewers, less than 10 per cent of the 9,000 people working in the parliament every day.

£410,000: Cash to train teenagers in Burkina Faso and Mali, two of the world's poorest countries, in “therapeutic dancing” because Africans find that “expression of feelings through the spoken word is often difficult and complicated”.

£162,000: The funding went to the London-based Flying Gorillas troupe, whose acts includes the “brilliant smelly foot dance”.

And what does all of this have in common? Yes, none of us have been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not we want to be party to this outrageous largesse, or, if we do, how much we would be prepared to pay for it.

Aelfred