Pots in the Pension

By Derek Bennett

On the 22nd May 2014 people all across the European Union will be going to the polls to vote for their MEPs. This futile exercise is akin to the old saying of ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!

Some MEPs will be gone and some coming in, none of them will have any real power or influence, their only function, at enormous cost to the taxpayers of Europe, is to provide the pretence that the EU is democratic. What each and everyone of these MEPs will get is a whopping great EU pension, paid for by people who struggle to make ends meet, due to the job losing bureaucratic actions of that undemocratic organisation.

Revealed in the press during April 2014 was the news that al MEPs are to receive a second, secret, EU pension at a cost of £187 million.  Some of the ex UK MEPs will be elevated to the House of Lords where they can influence votes on EU matters without the need to declare their EU pensions.  The only MEPs working to end this farce are UKIP MEPs who are prepared to make this sacrifice when they have been successful getting the UK out of the European Union.


This article first appeared in EU Realist and is reproduced with the permission of the editor.

An Arresting Record

By Derek Bennett

Knock, knock, “Who’s there?”  “Bill”, “Bill who?”, “The old Bill with an EU arrest warrant – you’re nicked!”  This may sound like a joke, but for more than 6,200 people between 2012 and 2013 this scenario was far from funny when they discovered an EU arrest warrant had been issued against them.

On average seventeen British subjects a day were arrested by the British authorities acting on the orders of foreign based courts. Many of these would have been arrested for criminal offences that are not even crimes in the UK.

The European arrest warrant (EAW) is one of the many reasons why the UK should not be a member of the European Union, it represents all that is wrong with UK membership of this antidemocratic club of political elite’s and the fact that the people of the UK have been well and truly abandoned by the British Government and political class that, in between fiddling the books regarding their expenses and for a number of them ending up behind bars, have done everything wrong not only for the nation but also when it comes to dealing with the EU.

The shocking statistics show just how many British subjects have fallen foul of the EAW, which is a crime in itself, were compiled by the National Crime Agency.  To add to the injustice it is British taxpayers who are being left with the £30 million bill for processing the warrants. The cost of injustice does not come cheap.

Before Blair’s Labour Government abandoned the people it was supposed to represent by signing up to the EAW, any foreign courts wanting to arrest a UK subject had to apply through an extradition order with a description of the offence and Provided substantial evidence.  This no longer applies and each and every British subject is now at the mercy of continental courts and can be arrested on the most flimsiest circumstantial evidence.

In July 2009 A young man from London, Andrew Symeou, was arrested on circumstantial evidence, accused of murder based on nothing other than the fact he was close to where this crime took place, and spent 10 months in an appalling Greek jail and four years of torment before being cleared.

The sheer volume of EAW arrests is a record of arrests that no British politician can be proud of.


 This article first appeared in EU Realist and is reproduced with the permission of the editor.

How the EU Parliament Works – And it’s not like Westminster

Sonya Jay Porter
April 2014


On 22nd May this year we in Britain and the rest of the EU nation states, go to the polls to vote for a new European Parliament. Before you do so you might like to know how it works.

To begin with, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are not elected as, for instance, in Britain, on a ‘first past the post’ system but by a multi-member ‘party-list’ type of proportional representation. Other national governments within the EU will also find this system varies from their own but it means that for the EU election all national political parties choose which individuals are top of the list and who therefore have the best chance of being elected or re-elected. Of course, only those MEPs who have towed the party line get into the top of the list.

There are currently a total of 766 seats in the EU Parliament and these are allocated to each member state on the basis of population, Germany having the largest number and Malta the fewest. However, the total will be reduced to 732 seats after the European elections in May but while Britain’s total will remain at 73 or about 9.58% of the total,this will vary in other member states. Once elected MEPs then sit, not in national blocks but in seven Europe-wide political groups. As stated in the EU’s Guide to its Institutions (2005), ‘between them, they represent all views on European integration, from the strongly pro-federalist to the openly Eurosceptic’. You will notice the use of the word ‘openly’.

But so far, so democratic.

It is important to realise that unlike Westminster, the European Parliament does not consist of a proposing Chamber such as in the House of Commons, and a revising Chamber as in the House of Lords.Decision-making at European Union level involves various European institutions, the most important of which are:

The Commission

The Parliament

The Council of Ministers

According to the Guide, the Commission, which at present consists of 27 Commissioners, is independent of national governments and its job is solely to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole, including the ‘ever closer union’ described in Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union.

A new EU Commission is set up every five years within six months of the parliamentary elections.

And it is here that democracy begins to falter.

To begin with, it is the member states’ governments which between them will agree — in secret — who is to be the new Commission President. The President will then, in discussions with the member state governments, chose the new Commissioners, none of whom will be an MEP. Indeed, some of them will have never held elected office at all in their own countries or may even have been rejected by their national electorates.

The Parliament will ‘approve’ the appointment of these new Commissioners — not individually but as a whole block of 27 — the approval being voted on in secret, which facilitates yet more behind-the-scenes horse-trading. And in their new office the Commissioners will be expected to consider the views of the Parliament, yet they are also entitled to ignore them completely.

And it is in the European Parliament that democracy really breaks down.

The Commission alone is responsible for drawing up proposals for initiating new   —  or repealing current  —  EU legislation and is exclusively able to decide when, or whether, to progress it through various institutions. Before a proposed Directive or Regulation is drawn up (let’s call them simply ‘laws‘), the Commission will have consulted a wide range of interest groups, advisory bodies and committees –including EU-funded NGOs and any other number of its 3,000 working groups.

The Commission may seek to give the appearance that the initiative for a new law has come from an MEP by asking one of the MEPs to propose the legislation on their ‘Own Initiative’. An ‘Own Initiative’ proposal has no chance of becoming law, or even of being discussed by the Council, unless the Commission adopts it and presents it to the Parliament as a proposed Directive or Regulation.

Having received a proposed law from the Commission, the Parliament will send the proposals to various Committees of MEPs — determined indirectly by the Commission’s choice of which ‘competence’ (also known as ‘treaty head’) to use as justification for its authority to make it a law.

At this point the procedure departs directly from that envisaged in the Treaties. As a practical measure, in an attempt to speed the legislative process, the Commission will ‘facilitate’ private discussions between the leading MEPs on the Committee and civil servants and Ministers representing the Council in a process known as the ‘Trialouge’. The larger parties use this opportunity to horse-trade in negotiations on various disparate proposed laws. It is from behind these closed-doors that compromises emerge which may have no resemblance to amendments suggested by the elected MEPs in the Committee.

Once the Commission is satisfied that the ‘compromises’ from the Trialouge will have the support (willing or coerced) of sufficient political groups in the Parliament to carry them through, a vote on the proposed laws will find its way to the full chamber of MEPs.

The full chamber (known as the Plenary) meets once a month for three or four days to vote — having been given perhaps just a few hours notice of the final voting list, depending on how much brinkmanship is exercised surrounding the Trialouge process.

More behind the scenes discussion will then take place as to who will speak for each group and for how long on which measure.

At this stage in Westminster for instance, there would be an active debate in the House of Commons, often taking a considerable time, but in the European Parliament speaking time is allocated amongst the Parliamentary Groups on the basis of the size of the political group and most MEPs will get around just one minute to speak. If they are lucky they may be permitted to use time from a slot on one debate in another, perhaps giving them as much as 2 minutes. Even the leaders of the parties are restricted in the time they can speak and can expect no more than two and a half minutes after which their microphones will be cut off.

But don’t think that MEP speeches equate to what would be recognised as a debate. They are just simply short talks to a mostly empty chamber, the ‘speeches’ being filmed by the Parliament and mainly designed for the media. This is not surprising, given that so short a space of allocated time can really only touch on one point.

If more than 90% of the Committee vote in favour of a matter it is very unlikely that there will even be a chance to speak about it in the Plenary, before a vote is held.

Usually the votes will be arranged into a large block and occur the day after these speeches (if any) take place. But granted that a proposal can be won or lost on a simple majority of those voting in the Plenary, given that scores of proposals and their amendments can be brought forward for voting on in the one day, and that the amendments are not taken in numerical order, it is not surprising that there can be some spectacular mistakes. Especially as the voting is merely on a show of hands! In spite of this, should any vote be lost, this is not the end of the matter. It then goes to ‘Conciliation’, which is the formal version of the Trialouge described above — in which the Commission has another chance to broker a deal between the Parliament and the Council.

Whilst the Commission controls the drafting, agenda and timing of legislation (and uses these powers as leverage), it is the EU Council of Ministers that is the final decision–making body. Most, but not all, EU laws are passed jointly with the European Parliament while in some fields, the Council alone legislates, but has to consult the Parliament. The Council — consisting of Ministers from the Member States, a number of whom will not even have been elected to their national office — will discuss, privately and away from the media, the proposals put forward by the Commission. The subjects on the agenda determine which Ministers from the member states attend which Council meeting. For instance, Environment Ministers will attend a meeting on the environment, and Finance Ministers on budgetary matters, etc.

If the Council agrees with the amendments of the European Parliament, the Commission is asked to publish the law in the ‘Official Journal’ and it will thereafter become law throughout the EU in accordance with its terms.

The unelected Commission can delay the progress of a proposal so as to put pressure on the Council and the Parliament to agree a different proposal first. In contrast, the elected MEPs from national states have no form of parliamentary filibuster or delay at all, and proposals which by the time of the election have not finished their path through the institutions are simply carried forward to the next Parliament if the Commission wishes it.

This, in effect, means that if it has the support of a Qualified Majority of Ministers, whatever proposal the unelected European Commission puts forward will become law in all member states, even if for instance one Group votes against it. Even the EU Commissioners admit that 75% of UK laws come from the Eu while in Germany it is said to be 84%.

In Britain these laws then go through Parliament in the sense that they are laid before committees which may choose to have a short debate on them and ‘take note’ of a particular Directive or Regulation. But this is academic as there is no option to reject them unless there happens to be a national veto on the subject under discussion, since the UK Courts are required to accept EU laws regardless of what any Westminster Statute may say. This is the same in all EU member states.

And that means everyone living in the European Union is ruled not by a democracy but by a form of dictatorship known as an oligarchy — dictatorship not by one person but by groups.

But a dictatorship none the less.

Several member states now have eurosceptic parties who will be fielding candidates in the coming EU election so you might like to remember this when studying the manifestoes of all the Parties standing in your country before casting your vote on 22nd May this year.

The European Union is Profoundly Undemocratic by Leo McKinstry of the Daily Express

Leo Mcinstry

Many thanks for that warm introduction.  It is great to be here and see so many supporters of the cause of rebuilding Britain’s independence from Brussels.

I admire your commitment, enthusiasm, dedication and instinctive patriotism.

I have just been writing a book about Britain in 1940, when the threat of German invasion loomed over the country, and these are precisely the qualities that ensured our national salvation.   But I fear that Winston Churchill, the man who gave the roar to the British lion, would have appalled to see today how our sovereignty and democracy have been so diminished by the ideologues of the European Union.

It is an honour to share this platform with other distinguished speakers, but another book I wrote reminded me of the vicissitudes of being a public figure.  When I was research a biography of Geoff Boycott, the famous Yorkshire and England cricketer, I had the good fortune to meet Mike Denness, who captained the Test side during the disastrous tour of Australia when the fast bowling of Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson meant England lost 4-1.  So Mike Denness was a figure of some public scorn, as he found out when he returned to his home in Kent.   One more, he heard the post landing on his doormat.  He went to pick it up and there was an envelope, on which was written:  “To Mike Denness, cricketer.”  There was no house name, no number, no street, no town, no postcode.   And when he opened the envelope, he found this message inside:

“Dear Mr Denness, If this letter ever reaches you, the Post Office thinks an awful lot more of you than I do.”

And stepping out in public has always had its problems, as George Brown, the Labour Foreign Secretary of the 1960s found out.  As some of you might know, Brown was a charismatic, dynamic politician but he had a disturbing fondness for drink.  One evening he even had to be fished out of the gutter outside the French embassy.  On another occasion, he attended an evening reception and again was the worse for wear.   So when he entered the hall, with the music playing in the background, he was captivated by the sight of a figure in a shimmering red dress.

With the music still wafting through the hall, he went up to the figure in the red dress and asked, “My dear, would you care to share this waltz?”

“Certainly not,” came the reply. “Why ever not?”  said Brown, slightly affronted.

“There are three reasons, Foreign Secretary. Firstly you’re drunk; secondly this isn’t a waltz, it is the Peruvian national anthem; thirdly, I’m the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima.

It was George Brown’s Labour colleague Hugh Gaitskell who gave one of the most powerful speeches ever made against our subjugation under Brussels rule, when in 1962, he warned that membership of the Common Market would ultimately be “the end of Britain as an independent state” and “the end of a thousand years of British history.”

Sadly, Gaitskell died within little more than a year of that ringing declaration.  But his words have turned out to be all too tragically prophetic.

We are now less than a month away from the European Parliamentary Elections.   Much of the media attention will focus on how well UKIP will perform, with some predictions that Nigel Farage’s party will top the poll.   That would be a remarkable achievement for a party that does not even have a seat at Westminister and such an outcome would be a further indicator of the deepening frustration and hostility of much of the British public towards Brussels.

But on another level, these elections are a complete farce because the European Union is so profoundly UNDEMOCRATIC.   This is an organisation that has complete contempt for the very concept of the people’s will.   That impulse has been graphically displayed in referendums on European Treaties.   So in 2004, for instance, when the electorates of Holland and France voted against the proposed EU constitution, Brussels just decided to draft a similar constitution through the Lisbon Treaty.   When the Irish rejected against this, they were forced to vote again to make sure they came up with the right result.

The same undemocratic spirit is seen in the European Parliament, which is just a self-important talking shop.    It is actually the third largest assembly in the world after the Chinese Politburo and the House of Lords. Neither of which, to say the least, are renowned for their accountability.   The European Parliament’s impotence is not reflected in any sense of prudence.  Incredibly, the assembly has a staff of 6,700 employees, 900 of whom are paid over £104,000 a year.

Real power in Brussels lies not with the Parliament but with the unelected, accountable, self-serving Commission.   It is truly remarkable that so many people like the Suffragettes and the franchise reformers of the 19th century went through such struggles to ensure that all adults in Britain were given the vote.

Yet now, in the 21st century we are governed by a bunch of elitists who were just appointed to their offices.   They are like the worst unelected aristocratic rulers of the past, cocooned by privilege and utterly disdainful of the people they rule.

I mean:

Who elected Herman Van Rumpoy, the Belgian nonentity who is now President of the European Council?

Who elected Jose Manuel Barroso, now President of the European Commission who in his college days was a follower of Chairman Mao and headed the extremist outfit “the Revolutionary Movement of the Portugese Proletariat.”

European Foreign Policy is in the hands of Baroness Katherine Ashton, who had never been elected to any public position in her life but now receives at least £270,000-a-year as the External Affairs Commissioner.    Before being made a peer by Tony Blair, she was an administrator for the unilateralist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, vice-President of the National Council for One Parent Families and the chair of the Hertfordshire Health Authority, all roles that made her highly suitable to negotiate with the Mullahs of Iran and Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Another recent example of this deeply anti-democratic impulse is the current campaign by the EU’s Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner Lazlo Andor to force our Government to allow all European migrants to have full access to British benefits the moment they arrive in this country, regardless of the fact that such newcomers will have paid no taxes or national insurance.    At present, he is taking a legal case against the British Government at the European Court of Justice to force through the removal of all social security restrictions for EU arrivals.

Andor’s campaign is an outrage. What business is it of his how we organise our welfare system? Who is he to demand that British taxpayers have to subsidize the lifestyles of foreigners who come here? This is a man who is a member of the Hungarian socialist, who studied economics at Karl Marx University in Budapest, and has never been elected to any public office.

This saga is a graphic symbol of how the EU is destroying our independence, with an unelected Hungarian socialist using the Europe’s institutions to dictate how we run our own country.

The European Union is so undemocratic, so disdainful of the public will because it is engaged in a colossal ideological project to create a new political entity, a federal superstate in which the nations of Europe because nothing more regional province. Nothing and no-one is allowed to stand in the way of this project.

“Ever closer union” has been the driving of the European Union since its first incarnation as the European Iron and Steel Community created in 1951.   The entity’s very existence is predicated on political integration and the destruction of traditional nationhood.

Soon after his appointment Van Rompay declared:  “The time of the homogenous nation state is over.”  He added these words that should chill anyone who cherishes British independence:  “In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive along in the globalised world.  IT IS MORE THAN AN ILLUSION.  IT IS A LIE.”

In the same vein, only in February the Vice-President of the EU, Viviane Reding from Luxembourg urged that “the Eurozone should become the United States of Europe with the Commission as the Government.”

So there can be no doubt that as long as we remain in the European Union, we can never be a free independent nation.   The entire thrust of European politics is in the opposite direction, towards federal unity.  Indeed, the entrance to the Visitors’ Centre at the European Parliament is emblazoned with the words:

National sovereignty is the root cause of most of the evils of our times.  The only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is the federal union of the people.”

And who wrote those words?  None other than Philip Kerr, the 11th Marquess of Lothian, who was a Foreign Office diplomat, fanatical federalist and leading advocate of appeasement before the Second World War.  Even in 1940, as British ambassador in Washington, he was still seeking a peace deal with Hitler, which just shows how desperately misguided he was.

The project to create the United States of Europe explains why:

The EU is so obsessed with mass immigration, the demolition of our borders and the free movement of people across the Union.   For a Europe without any boundaries is also a Europe without any national identities.    In a continent of endless flux, we lose our traditional allegiances and instead become citizens of the new Europe.  That is the theory.   It is like a kind of demographic permanent revolution, which is no doubt why it appeals to that old Maoist Jose Manuel Barroso.

The dogma of unity also why Brussels has been so fixated with maintaining the single currency, even at a terrifying cost to the economies of Europe, especially in the countries of the south like Greece, Spain and Portugal.  That cost has been paid not just in falling living standards and mass unemployment, but also the further collapse of national democracy, as Brussels effectively imposed new Prime Ministers on Italy and Greece.    But for the EU ideologues the crisis in the Eurozone was not a disaster but a wonderful opportunity to impose their agenda by seizing control of national budgets and spending policies.   The truth is that the creation of a single currency was never primarily an economic policy but rather was a vehicle for creating political unity.    So it could never be abandoned, even as the Greeks rioted and the Spanish economy broke down.

We can see the push for European unity in so many other ways

Like in the creation of Baroness Ashton’s vast diplomatic empire, with a budget of £6.2 billion and a network of 137 embassies across the world.  Why on earth does the EU need any embassies at all?   This colossal diplomatic operation, with more than 7000 officials, even has an £2 million office in Barbados, with a staff of 39.  Ashton’s Empire also has 37 staff in Papua New Guinea  and 32 in Mozambique.   And for what?   Just so the EU can posture on the international stage.

There is also the endless propaganda from Brussels in favour of the creation of a new European identity.   Did you know that according to the respected Open Europe research organisation, the EU spends about £2.4 billion-a-year on publicity, self-promotion, and campaigning.  That is more than the global giant Coca-Cola spends on marketing and advertising.

The drive for unity is why we have to put up with talk of a European defence policy, the creation of the European wide arrest warrant, the endless push for harmonisation over everything from pensions to paternity leave, and the establishment of a European justice system.   As Viviane Reding recently boasted – in direct contradiction of what Nick Clegg said during his useless performance in the media debates with Nigel Farage – 75 per cent of all our laws now originate in Brussels.

Personally, I could hardly be more saddened by this worsening diminution in our national status.   I am in an odd – perhaps even unique – position. Born and brought up in Ulster, living in Belfast at the height of the Troubles – one reason I have always hated fanaticism and dogma.

But throughout my early life as an Ulsterman I was always that rarest of creatures, I was always a passionate Anglophile.  I had a deep adoration for England and an instinctive love of English history.   I always felt, growing up, that I would make this country my home.   But that is why I am so disturbed at the loss of our heritage and national identity at the hands of Brussels – as Hugh Gaitskell so eloquently predicted.

And it is also why I am so strongly in favour of the promised referendum on our membership of the European Union.   We have never had the chance of a vote before on this crucial question.

When the British people last had a vote, in 1975, it was only on a free trade association called the Common Market, not on a political union.    The political class, particularly the leading pro-Europeans like Roy Jenkins and Ted Heath, knew full well that our membership would ultimately result in the obliteration of our national independence.

But that was never put to the British people at the time.  We were constantly deceived and misled by the political class, as reflected in the bare-faced lie told by Ted Heath as he launched Britain’s bid for Common Market membership in 1971:  “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”.

So if – as the Tories plan – there is a referendum held in 2017, it will be the first chance that a national electorate has had a real chance to decide its own fate since the creation of the European Union. But we have to be aware that the pro-EU brigade will fight viciously in any referendum to defend our subservience to Brussels.  Their tactics will be based, not on rational debate, but on SMEAR AND SCARE.

Opponents of European integration will be crudely labelled as xenophobes, racists, Little Englanders and reactionaries.   We have already caught a glimpse of that in the hysterical reaction to the UKIP posters urging tighter controls on immigration.   Given that 80 per cent of the country is fed up with immigration running at 500,000 new arrivals every single year, what the UKIP critics are effectively saying is that 80 per cent of the population is racist.

We will be spoon fed the defeatist message that we cannot survive on our own but only as part of a vast bloc, that in our increasingly globalised, competitive world, there is no room for nation states, only for economic superpowers.

We will be told that 3 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU, so if we leave we will suffer a disastrous increase in unemployment. All this is just nonsense, facile emotional blackmail rather than serious argument.

The idea that everyone who wants Britain to regain her independence is an inward-looking xenophobe is offensive.    Indeed, it could be argued that those who desperately cling to Brussels are the insular ones, while those who advocate liberation from the EU’s straitjacket are outward looking and optimistic, more ready to embrace the wider world.    Like most Britons, I adore much of Europe.   Only last month, I was in Rome, marvelling at the Renaissance wonders of the Vatican.  It is one of the dirty tricks of the Brussels lobby to equate exasperation with the EU with hostility to Europe.  Indeed, one of the reasons most of us love places like France, Italy, Denmark and Spain is precisely because of their unique national qualities, which will be destroyed if we all become our entity.

It is equally absurd to pretend that we could not survive outside economically outside the governance of Barosso, Ashton and Rompuy.

What are the two most successful countries in mainland Europe:  Yes, Norway and Switzerland?   They manage perfectly well without the Eurocrats telling them what to do.  They are successful precisely because they are free to follow their own economic path.

The claim that we have to be a member of the EU to trade with EU member states is just as ludicrous.   Countries all over the world are making trade agreements with each other.  Free trade is the future.  Economic blocs belong to the past.   Even if we left tomorrow, German companies would still want to sell us their cars, Italian fashion houses their clothes.

The cry that we can only trade if the Eurocrats are in charge is just the last desperate howl of the privileged elite who see their vested interests under threat.

There is nothing more grotesque than the pretence that the EU is an engine of prosperity and enterprise.  Just the opposite is true.   In its obsessions with regulation, harmonisation, and political control, Brussels had been a destroyer of jobs and economies.

That happens in a direct way through the single currency’s imposition of a uniform interest rate throughout the Eurozone.   The best rate for export-led Germany can be a catastrophe for tourist-led Greece.

The ideological promotion of free movement has grossly distorted national labour markets.  Here in Britain it has had the effect of putting tens of thousands out of work and driving down living standards for much of the working class.   It never ceases to amaze me how Ed Miliband can bang on about the “cost of living crisis” yet whenever anyone dares to mention immigration, he starts screeching about xenophobia.

EU bureaucracy hinders rather than helps enterprise through its endless interference in the workplace.   It is a telling fact that the Lord’s Prayer, the centrepiece of the Christian faith, has just 70 words, whereas the EU’s regulation on the “Marketing of Hazelnuts” contains 2509 words.

The idea that this is a dynamic organisation that could promote business is laughable.  The whole EU is hopelessly bureaucratic, inward-looking, sclerotic and totally divorced from the real world or the needs of business.   Just to give you some examples of the EU in operation:

The European Commission has no fewer than 3,325 officials who earn more than our own Prime Ministers. It is so full of waste, abuses and mismanagement that its accounts have not been given a clean bill of health by auditors for 19 years.

It dishes out ludicrous grants, like £630,000 for a “gender equal” wood design centre in Sweden, £154,000 for a puppet theatre network in the Baltic states and £350,000 to the Flying Gorillas, a British dance troupe whose twin specialities are “the smelly foot dance” and “spectacular belching”.   Apparently, the aim of the troupe is “to use rhythm, music and gibberish to explore friendship and tolerance.” £150 million a year is spent just shuttling the European Parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels, purely to satisfy the vanity of French Eurocrats.

This spendthrift attitude is reflected within the EU’s own huge hierarchy. Because it is unelected and unaccountable, it is utterly unconcerned about efficiency or value for money.   In 2012, for instance, the EU held a high level meeting in Brussels, attended by 76 officials as well as the President of the European Parliament, to agree a name for a corridor in one of its buildings.    The meeting failed to reach a decision.

Most of us know about the prodigality of Members of the European Parliament, but I recently did some research on the perks and privileges enjoyed by the Commission, and was amazed at what I found:

  • The Commission has 46,625 staff, most of them on salaries far beyond the dreams of well-qualified British workers.
  • The Social and Economic Committee, which was described to me as “more or less pointless” has 722 staff, 107 of them on over £100,000-a-year.
  • All officials working for the EU are provided with a generous “expatriation” allowance if they are working outside their native country.   This is awarded at a flat rate of 16 per cent, and for a top official it can be worth at least £30,000-a-year.
  • In additions officials can receive a household allowance of £143-a months, the payment of school fees to the tune of £212 per month, lucrative travel allowances, a pension of up to 70 per cent of their last salary payment and a daily “subsistence allowance” of £34-a-day.

The EU is always demanding that we, ordinary taxpayers, fork out more in the name of social solidarity, yet their well-paid staff all enjoy special EU tax rates of well below 20 per cent.  It is no exaggeration to describe Brussels as one of Europe’s biggest tax havens, which puts all the EU bleating about the Isle of Man and Jersey into perspective.

One EU official admitted candidly to me that, because of the combination of low taxes and high perks, “this is the only job I have had where my net, post-tax pay is higher than my gross pay.”

The same excess can be seen in other working conditions.   Officially staff get 24 days holiday a year plus public holidays, but flexitime means that many employees can be away for a quarter of the year. Absenteeism is also rife.  Last December, official figures showed that staff at the Commission took 14.6 days off sick, more than three times the rate of the British workforce.

The EU is rotten to the core.  It is terrifying that this expensive, extravagant body is in charge of our lives and ruling our country.   It is a gigantic extortion racket that we in Britain are forced to subsidize through our contribution to the tune of £14 billion a year.

We are not only paying for the EU’s epic, failing, undemocratic bureaucracy.  We are also paying for our own national demise.

The great rallying cry during the American War of Independence was “no taxation without representation.”  Taxation without representation is exactly what we have under the institutionalised larceny of the European Union.

I only hope that we get that referendum we so badly need and that, in the vote, the British – or English – people will grab the chance to bring back freedom.



Pandora’s Box and the Trojan ‘orses: The EU and its critics by Reverend Doctor Peter Mullen

rev dr peter mullin

On the principle of  Know Your Enemy, I’d like to sketch the misty beginnings of the European Union. Sketch is the operative word, for too much detail will only make me as boring as the EU itself

The German-French politician Robert Schuman (1886-1963) is sometimes called The Father of Europe for what became known as the Schuman Declaration in which he called for the formation of a supranational community and reorganisation of post-war Europe through treaties. And it was Schuman who began the post-war French-German co-operation that created the European Coal and Steel Community, later joined by Italy and the Benelux countries. The date of the drafting of the Schuman Declaration, 9 May 1950 has ever since been celebrated, bemoaned or largely ignored as Europe Day.

Then there was Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967). The first post-war Chancellor of West Germany whose main ambition was the reconciliation of Germany and its European neighbours after the Second World War. And Adenauer played a big part in the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) Crucial was the Elysee Treaty, signed by Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle in 1963 which papered over the rivalry between France and Germany – or, if you prefer, continued Hitler’s subjugation of France, once again with France’s concurrence. This is what made the EU possible.

Paul-Henry Spaak (1899-1972), three times Belgian Prime Minister, was one of the strongest supporters of European integration after the war. He led the committee named after him that produced a plan for what was then called a common market and a European Community. The Spaak Report was basic to the Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom in 1956 and the founding Treaty of Rome the following year.

Jean Monnet (1888-1979) a devious French diplomat, political economist and general apparatchik, never held public office but he was one of the main architects of the EU. Monnet plotted political union by gradualism and stealth. He was the master of the conspicuous art of saying one thing and doing the opposite. This is what made him so admired by such as Edward Heath, Roy Jenkins and Kenneth Clarke who, along with many others we can all name, are all pale copies of their idol.

We shouldn’t forget Alcide De Gasperi (1881-1954), the Prime Minister of Italy from 1945 to 1953. De Gasperi was, I believe, the first man to argue for a common European defence policy.

If, with me, you think that what Bismarck failed to achieve by force of arms in 1870, the Kaiser failed to achieve in 1914 and Hitler, using the same methods, failed to achieve in 1939, Angela Merkel has achieved without a shot being fired – up till now anyway – you should seek out a speech made to the House of Commons on 26th February 2008. This speech was not made by Rowan Atkinson but by his more sensible elder brother Rodney. He reminded the House that the Germans have striven for the domination of Europe for a century and a half – and perhaps for even longer than that.

R.G. Collingwood in The New Leviathan – the book he described in 1942 as his “contribution to our war effort” said:

“An Englishman is liable to a certain time-lag between barbarism’s arriving at a certain stage of maturity in Germany and that fact becoming known to him in England, perhaps a longer time than we might expect. And German barbarism has rediscovered the great rule of barbarist warfare originally laid down by the Turks: that among barbarists there are no allies; all fight against all.”

We find testimony to the persistence of this trait among Germans in what might be seen as an unlikely place – in John Eliot Gardiner’s excellent new book on Johann Sebastian Bach in which he speaks of the chthonic forces which lurked for centuries in the vast and terrifying central European forests and their potential to emerge. We should not be surprised when we notice that Freud and Jung wrote in German – and so did the brothers Grimm and Richard Wagner.

Rodney Atkinson also said:

“The EU was founded by Nazis and Fascists, as was the Charlemagne Prize awarded to Tony Blair, Edward Heath, Roy Jenkins and others for their role in removing democratic sovereignty from the nation states of Europe. No wonder that the EU has today reproduced the policies and structures of 1940s Europe and shows all the characteristics of a totalitarian anti-democratic corporatist Empire — for that is what its fascist founders intended.”

Prominent among them was Walter Hallstein, a former Nazi Leadership Officer who promoted Nazism in Universities and in the Law before becoming the First President of the European Commission in 1957. Paul Henri Spaak – whom we met earlier – in the 1940s rejected the democracies in favour of the fascist powers and warned the Allies not to attack Germany through Belgium..

Walter Funk was a Minister under Goebbels at the Nazi Propaganda Ministry and, as the Reich’s Economics Minister, was responsible for dispossessing Jews of their property. Funk wrote the economic blueprint for a united Europe adopted by the European Union.

Hans Josef Globke drafted the Nuremburg Race Laws but this didn’t prevent his ascent to the post of Director of the German Chancellor’s Office from 1953 to 1963

Since Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists was notable for his desire to see European union, it should come as no surprise to learn that his widow Lady Diana – a Hitler aficionado – expressed her admiration for the European Union in a BBC interview shortly before her death.

“No wonder”, said Atkinson, “that the EU promoted the ethnic cleansing of a million people in the Balkans, mainly Serbs, Jews and gypsies, from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo all of which provided Waffen SS divisions for the Nazis in the 1940s.

“Either,” he said, what those political elements wanted in the 1940s was reasonable, in which case we should not have fought the Second World War to prevent their integrated Europe, or they were extremely dangerous people and we must reject the European Union which they helped to create and which bears their ideological stamp today.”

Atkinson describes what he calls “…a coup against the people of Britain and those nation-states of Europe which were liberated from Fascism in 1945 and from Communism in 1989. This has been a coup against the sovereignty of the voters, the very definition of democracy. Those who sought to destroy democratic sovereignty knew they could not succeed if they were open about their intentions. And they could not succeed if they attempted their coup within one democratic system. They therefore acted behind the democratic system and across national borders. They established in the European Union a bureaucratic corporatist state so monolithic that most can be intimidated into silence by the very size of the project, and emasculated by the necessary remoteness of the powers involved.”

Today’s leaders in the EU ignore the voters and so the much-vaunted European democracy is a fiction and the corporatist state the reality. We are governed by unelected commissioners – oligarchs and bureaucrats – and the European parliament is only a rubber stamp. The European Constitution was thrown out with gusto by the people of France and the Netherlands, but it was smuggled back in again as the Lisbon Treaty. This Treaty effectually established a new legal country called the EU. It also provides for further constitutional changes without the people’s consultation. It abolishes free trade, licenses the erosion of individual liberty in the supervening interests of the new super-state, and permits the entry of EU forces into any member state.

There is much talk about human rights and freedom, but the truth is that under EU jurisdiction European nationals can be arrested and transferred to other member states in the absence of evidence against them, with no prospect of jury trial and the suspension of habeas corpus.

Apologists for the EU say that, whatever its faults, it has preserved the peace in Europe for eighty years. In what way? This is merely non sequitur. The fact that there has been peace in Europe –more or less – since 1945 is true, but it is not demonstrably true that this happy circumstance has anything to do with the existence of the EU. We haven’t been at war with Japan since 1945 either. Was it the EU which prevented that? And a man as intelligent as Norman Tebbit has predicted that the deepening crisis in the EU could lead to a new war among the European nations. Lord Tebbit said also:  “Let’s not forget that the EU let the oligarchs wreck Russia and helped Putin to power.”

I have just sprayed around a few facts about the tyranny that is the EU. There is no doubt that we now live in a totalitarian edifice which has obliterated our national sovereignty and the centuries old political liberties that went with that sovereignty. So why are the many critics of this regime dismissed as Little Englanders and fruitcakes pickled in a nostalgia to which reality never bore any resemblance? We are not Little Englanders. We are an historic maritime nation with a former global empire now a community of nations in the Commonwealth. And our political liberties – now stolen – were once our genuine possessions. Eurosceptics are scorned and vilified by all three of our puppet political parties. We are castigated as belonging to the far right. Loonies. The Monday Club and UKIP and Major’s Bastards and sundry other denizens of the ideological leper colony. But critics never used to be confined to the right, let alone to the so-called far right. They included many prominent socialists.

I’ve called this talk Pandora’s Box and I draw the phrase from Ernest Bevin who once said of the burgeoning EU: “If you open that Pandora’s box you never know what Trojan ‘orses will jump out.” Which just goes to show that socialists can be amusing, if only unintentionally. Or how about that socialist saint Michael Foot – he of the Cenotaph donkey jacket and the longest suicide note in history –  said, “We can disagree about whether the EU has been a socialist or capitalist influence, but it is undeniable that it wields that influence without ever asking the people.”

And Tony Benn wasn’t consistently bonkers. He once said, “The EU is absolutely undemocratic and now we live in a continent where power has gone to a group of people who are not elected, cannot be removed and don’t have to listen to us.”

Benn wrote in his diaries:

“This huge Commission building in Brussels, in the shape of a cross, is absolutely un-British. I felt as if I were going as a slave to Rome; the whole relationship was wrong. Here was I, an elected man who could be removed, doing a job, and here were these people with more power than I had and no accountability to anybody. My visit confirmed in a practical way all my suspicions that this would be the decapitation of British democracy without any countervailing advantage, and the British people, quite rightly, wouldn’t accept it. There is no real benefit for Britain.”

And in a letter to his Constituents in 1974 Benn wrote: “Britain’s continuing membership of the European Economic Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected Parliament as the supreme law- making body in the United Kingdom.”

Let’s come nearly up to date. The lately late Mr Robert Crow, over whom many tears were shed, wrote:

“Polls in Britain show that voters want a referendum on EU membership. So why not give them a referendum? Working people across Europe are sick and tired of the EU business model.  The only rational course is to leave the EU.”

Mr Crow could wax eloquent when he wished. He elaborated his criticisms as follows:

“Social EU legislation, which supposedly leads to better working conditions, has not saved one job and is riddled with opt-outs for employers to largely ignore any perceived benefits they may bring to workers. But it is making zero-hour contracts and agency-working the norm while undermining collective bargaining and full-time, secure employment. Meanwhile, 10,000 manufacturing jobs in the East Midlands still hang in the balance because EU law demanded that the crucial Thameslink contract go to Siemens in Germany rather than Bombardier in Derby.”

And concluded, “The only rational course to take is to leave the EU so that elected governments regain the democratic power to decide matters on behalf of the people they serve.”

Many years ago, Euroscepticism was common on the left.  There were giants in those days. The former Leader of the Labour Party, Hugh Gaitskell, famously said to a party conference that participation in the European project would mean: “The end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!”

With the passing of Mr Crow and Mr Benn, the only notable eurosceptic remaining on the left is Kate Hoey who said in an interview:

“You haven’t had a vote since 1975. Labour supporters in the country want to see a referendum. I would love to see lots of powers come back from the EU, but I don’t think we are going to get those powers back and on that basis of that I would vote to come out because I feel confident about our country. in future I believe we should be more Internationalist. I think Europe is a sick organisation now that is going to get worse.”

Do you remember Peter Shore? In 1992, he declared firmly:

“We must look at Europe today and at what is proposed in the Treaty of Maastricht, and measure against it as follows: We surrendered a trade and common commercial policy ages ago. The single currency and single bank are the great issues in the Treaty. Yes, common citizenship is in the Treaty, but nobody has discussed it. Apparently, all of us are to be jammed together in a single citizenship. Has anyone asked one person in this land whether he or she wishes to have that additional citizenship, what obligations that involves, not necessarily now but in the future, and what rights it would bestow? What is all this about a Europe without frontiers, except to demolish the whole idea of a nation state having sovereignty and control over its own frontiers?”

At its special conference in 1975 the Labour Party voted against our membership of the EU, overwhelmingly by 3,724,000 to 1,986,000. So where have all the lefties gone? Why have socialists abandoned their opposition? Because originally they regarded the Common Market, as it was then, as a bastion of international capitalism, as they said, “a rich man’s club.” Of course it was never anything of the kind. Festooned with regulations, restrictions and control-freakery, the European project has always been socialism red in tooth and claw and very congenial to the corporatism and collectivism which socialists hold sacred. What are the self-appointed Commissioners but commissars? What is the European parliament except the mouthpiece for the EU’s politburo?

In the face of such gargantuan tyranny, such overwhelming unaccountable power, why do I still believe the EU can be overthrown? Because it is a mass of internal contradictions and rotten to the core. As such it will implode, as its sister organization the USSR imploded in 1989 – the bicentenary of the Revolution in France. All the arguments which Burke deployed against that tyranny should be taken out dusted off and redeployed against the EU. The economic crisis in the Eurozone is the first-fruits of its demise. Patience, persistence and diligence in opposition should be our watchwords. For the truth will out, even if we have to wait a thousand years. I do not believe we shall have to wait that long but, with Norman Tebbit, I do fear that the EU hell-hole will not just end in tears but end in blood. Already tensions between Germany and the southern states are heightened because the agricultural countries of the south are tied to the euro which is crippling them to the benefit of the imperialistic Germans’ balance of payments.

Still we must persist because it is the truth which we are fighting for against the empire of lies. What is there to fight for except the truth? We must persevere and if in so doing we have to suffer, then so be it. Here we stand and we cannot do otherwise. Words of T.S. Eliot spoken in 1934 ought to encourage us: “Do you need to be told that what has been can be again?” And his other reminder that we have duties as well as rights. Our principal duty is to try – and to try consistently. As he said, “Ours is only the trying; the rest is not our business.”

We do not need to invent a counter-ideology. We do not need ideology with which to combat a tyranny which is holed in inconsistencies and incoherence. We are not required to stand on the left or on the right. We require only practical philosophy, reason, logical thinking – and belief in our cause. Let me fire a few opening shots….

The EU is inconsistent in its advocacy of centralized control but with devolution. It is weak because unlike the nation state it is not rooted in reality – the soil, you might say. It is an abstraction and thus bound to be ephemeral. Individual countries and peoples have their distinctive character which too is real and indelible. This character is not the mechanical fabrication of a centralized despotism but a thing which is worked at and suffered for over centuries and even millennia. The nations of Europe, now labouring under this captivity, have their own different characters: the Germans are as different from the Greeks as the English from the French. Because these characters are real and indelible, they will re-emerge and thrive even if for the time being they appear smudged and subdued.

Economically, the Union is strangling itself in the net of its own regulations. while the political-correctness which insists on the primacy of non-carbon based energy – and which prompted Merkel to close down all the nuclear power plants – is causing an acute and chronic energy shortage. Bizarre EU regulations insist on the subsidy of wind farms despite their cost – not including the back up costs for when they don’t work – far exceeding that of nuclear. And to be dependent on Russian gas while waving the big stick at Russia over Syria and the Ukraine is not the most farsighted Ostpolitik.

The EU is fundamentally unstable because its understanding of human nature is deficient, and this is a direct consequence of its having abandoned Christianity. Whatever your views on the miraculous and metaphysical aspects of the Christian faith, Christian psychology has human nature bang to rights. I refer to the doctrine of Original Sin. This is not some strange taint inherited from our mythical father Adam, via his wife and the malign ministrations of the serpent. Original Sin is simply the technical term for the faulty and flawed state of human beings. This is described perfectly in twelve words of one syllable by St Paul: “What I would not, that I do; and what I would I do not.” It was mischievously described by David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham, as “the buggeration factor.” We are morally imperfect. We let ourselves down. I do, and so do you. And we know it.

Despite the sheer obviousness of this fact, the ethics and politics of the EU is derived from the belief in inexorable Progress which dates from the Enlightenment. Despite the fact that the 20th century saw more deaths in wars and genocides than in all the previous centuries put together, enlightened secular politics in Europe insists that we are getting better all the time. We do not need to point to the disastrous wars of the 20th century and the numerous lesser betrayals, slaughters, rapes and pillages. Each of us needs look no further than his own conscience. We all disappoint ourselves by repeatedly falling short of our own best image of ourselves.

But all the EU’s insistence on equality, diversity and universal rights depends upon our being consistently able to act in accordance with our own best motives, to keep our promises, to behave justly and so on. These things we conspicuously fail to do. Thus the only sort of paradise the EU can ever be is a fools’ paradise. The bureaucracy even seems to have some dim and intermittent awareness of our shortcomings which it seeks to remedy by providing a plethora of rules and regulations. A favourite wheeze following any catastrophe is, as they say, “to put in place a system so it will never happen again.” Every time I hear that phrase, I break into the little song which begins, “Here’s to the next time!” As Eliot said, the idea is “to dream of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.” Unfortunately, every system is only as good or as reliable as those who invented it and who operate it. So, you might say, the EU is based on a mistake – and it is a philosophical mistake. It is impossible to legislate for virtue or to preserve peace and ensure prosperity by fiat and diktat. Other qualities – which themselves originate in the Judeao-Christian tradition – must first find their place: kindness, generosity, charity, courtesy, humility, give and take, magnanimity, sorrow for one’s own wrongdoing, forgiveness and the grace which makes reparation and reconstruction possible – of nations as well as of individual lives.

The other deadly consequence of the secular Enlightenment philosophy is utilitarian ethics. Nothing is ever done for some absolute good but only with the aim of relative benefits – which do not always come to pass in any case. In utilitarianism, good is always something which is forever postponed. But society needs moral absolutes. Something has to be basic. But, as T.E. Hulme said,

“In the secular humanist view, everything is justified by results and the results are justified by their results and so on. But there are absolute goods which are not justified by anything that they may lead to but are good in themselves.”

And even John Locke in his Letter affirmed: “Promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold on an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”

Locke – something of an Enlightenment man himself – concedes that it is not even necessary actually to believe in God; only that there is no social morality without the acceptance of at least some moral absolutes – those things which are good in themselves.

Criticism of the EU has been launched from the political left as well as the right, from economists and I have indicated the criticisms which might be made by a philosopher. But there is something which goes deeper and for this I come back to the real, flesh and blood people who live in the European nations. The people are not abstractions, mere counters in a game of political-utilitarian consequences. And the nations to which they belong are not abstractions either. The nation – my country – is a basic, natural, organic thing, like the family. It is natural for a man to love his country, as he loves his mother. We even speak of the mother-country – though there are those who prefer a different connotation and say fatherland.

This is all bound up with landscape and borders, with language and dialect, with customs and even with the different crops which grow in the various countries, the differing shapes and colours of the ordinary houses, the characteristics of a country’s music and painting. These things are not peripheral and they are not accidental either. They are historic and they have developed over thousands of years. And usually change is gradual. Usual but not always. But when change is sudden it is always shocking and frequently accompanied by violence. This is especially true when changes are imposed from authorities which are, or are regarded as, alien. The imposition of change by the EU is alien to us. And that is why so many of us instinctively dislike it. If you say this is the attitude of the peasant, then I am proud to accept the nomination.

And I would warn that peasants have been known to revolt.

  • Top of Form
  • Bottom of Form


An Italian Perspective by Monia Benini


First of all I would like to bring you greetings from the political movement of Liberation Per il Bene Comune and then thank you for your kind invitation to participate in this important meeting.

It’s a great opportunity for me to explain the situation my country is facing from the European Union dictatorship and at the same time to gather information about Britain, to reinforce our position in Italy, too.

I come from a nation (let me call Italy a ‘nation’ even if the EU has scorched the earth around us), I come from a country where people had been led to a contemporary form of slavery. A dictatorship run by structures such as the European Central Bank and the European Commission, through weapons like onerous treaties, binding memorandum of understanding, austerity, fiscal compact, European Stability Mechanism, debt, or European Redemption Fund (they also went to disturb also the Biblical Psalms, to hang us).

The former Italian Premier Mario Monti said that crises are useful to give more power to EU, so that they can appropriate member’s sovereignty . Yes, he said that. Actually he also said that the biggest success of the Euro was Greece, and he made this statement while that country was facing a restricted default, and people were losing their houses, and jobs. As a matter of fact, the EU has stolen our sovereignty: monetary, economical and national sovereignty. And you know what? It was made against our constitutional charter, and with a decree that imposed a state secret on the entire route to Euro. And they talk about the EU as a cradle of democracy…

With the Maastricht Treaty, the Italian government gave the keys of the house to the ECB, from the money printing to the direction of economic policies, in the name of parameters decided on the progress of the German Mark.

In 2000, Giuliano Amato, former Prime Minister and later Vice President of the European Constitutional Convention said: “One must act ‘as if’ in Europe as if one wanted only very few things, in order to obtain a great deal. As if nations were to remain sovereign, in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty. The Commission in Brussels, for example, must act as if it were a technical organism, in order to operate like a government and so on, camouflaging and toning down.”  So, before the Treaty of Lisbon and even before the European Constitution was rejected by referenda in France and in the Netherlands, the EU powerful ‘minds’ began to tease people. And they admitted it, too, like Amato did.

Until the 1980’s, Italy was a G7 member, with a low rate of unemployment, with a good welfare state and with growing exports. When we were finally bound hand and foot to the Euro, a rapid descent began, or perhaps I should say … that a rapid rise began…the rise of the debt.

With the blackmail of debt, the EU has managed to impose on countries such as Ireland, Portugal , Spain , Cyprus and Greece the memorandum of understanding, a real instrument of torture in the hands of the European masters and of the governments part of this non-democratic system. The ‘ troika ‘ requires all countries under  the memorandum continuous  lay-off; privatisations and the sell-off of national assets; cuts in wages, salaries and pensions; control regimes that destroy the national ability of government. The states no longer exist, robbed of their sovereignty , their independence and their ability to conduct political, economic, social and cultural independent choices.

With a global structure based on money that is inherently debt, the  ECB  may tighten the noose around the neck of the states (if one can speak of states, given the European dictatorship ) and decide how to occupy – in a contemporary way – the chosen victims. It’s a new kind of war,  waged by a structure made of  persons who are not democratically elected (but appointed within an elite and above a brand, the EU brand), who act as a contemporary army against the peoples of Europe.

I think to Italy, to my country, dragged within this European dictatorship with accounting tricks, with a nightly compulsory levy on current accounts and even with a state secret, imposed by Dini’s technical government in 1995. And everything was set to fulfil the roadmap designed within the EEC in 1970 by the Pierre Werner Commission, which provided the ultimate goal of the European union: a single currency, today the Euro, to be saved at all costs, as Draghi said.

Britain has been away from it and it  has been a very wise decision. But the opting out was not enough to save sovereignty. It’s not just a matter of Euro, it’s the whole EU construction that imprisoned our countries. Let’s think to the monstrous power of the European Commission, with Director Generals unelected that can rule for very long periods (and there won’t be a direct election of the EC President to change this institution).

In Italy, we know their power perfectly. Our farmers cannot cultivate what our lands could traditionally produce; our breeders have milk quotas; taxes; our fishermen have to disrupt their activities; the labour market is  disintegrated by EU rules and by a very high cost of  desperate people who come mainly from Africa and Middle East, an immigration that local authorities are totally unable to cope with. While young people are emigrating abroad and more and more workers are fired in Rome or Milan or in other big cities it is possible to find older people (but not only them) rummaging in garbage cans to find something to eat. Artisans and traders must adapt to directives and resolutions that deplete them, the industrial production is controlled and broken up and sacrificed to the dictates of certain structures that clearly do not operate in the interests of our peoples.

For example, in Italy last year 304 companies closed  every day,   every single day, also during Christmas and Easter. Every two and a half days someone has committed suicide because of the situation imposed by the EU. The decisions taken by a series of prime ministers not elected by the people (like Monti, Letta, Renzi) are nothing more than the executors of impositions delivered to Italy in November 2011 by Olli Rehn.  The European Commission and European Central Bank decide for us and they’re ruled by people not elected by us, not elected by our citizens.

Today we have the Euro and some countries have been keeping themselves away from it, but despite opting out, all the EU member states are forced to pay a price too high from the point of view of economy, production, employment and most of all…sovereignty.

We must realize that we are at war, a war waged against our people by the ECB, the European Commission and an unelected establishment. We do not live in democracy; it’ s a European dictatorship  and we have the right, the duty to resist and to defend ourselves, to react and to save us. We must free ourselves. They will not have our lives! They will not have our countries , they will not take away our future!

The countries inside the European Union can use Article 50 of the consolidated Treaty of the European Union,  which allows to exit from this European jail, with a negotiation process. Will it be costly ? Probably yes, but what are we paying today to be slaves and starved?

We see social tensions inside European countries  and we can also feel the dangerous seeds of hatred that can stop a peaceful coexistence for years to come. If we want to prevent conflicts,  we must be brave and responsible: we must exit from this EU that condemns our countries and our lives. It’s time to become  free and sovereign peoples.

They will do anything to stop us, but the ideas of those who work for the good of the people can never be arrested. We cannot remain with folded hands: everything we want is beyond our fears. We need to gain freedom with a withdrawal from the EU. Immediately.