Technical information on NOBO issues

Those who read Nigel Moore’s article on the threats to the NOBO (Notified Bodies) industry may be interested in this further study of NOBO issues by Roger Wright-Morris, the driving force behind the ConcordanceOUT.eu, a useful resource for Brexit issues. It is rather a technical piece, but nonetheless a helpful resource for anyone either involved in NOBOs themselves or who knows someone else who is.

BSI and BSI ACCREDITATION and NOTIFIED BODIES

SOME QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY CONCORDANCEOUT.EU and the answers: How will BSI certification be recognized?  [Either, by EU and/or by non EU?]

We should separate and be very clear on the issues of (i) Standards and Certification and (ii) EU Certification by NOBO’s. Standards, with BSI as the UK’s national standards body, are the businesses that are relevant here. There are other parts of the BSI Group that provide certification services, including those of being a Notified Body*. [NOBO]

This is part comprises an answer on standards, but it will give the reader some very unofficial thoughts on certification/NOBO’s too.

 Standards are good practice set down by experts (industry, consumers, govt, testing people, unions etc etc) through processes run by independent and very often private standards bodies, like BSI, and used voluntarily.

Certification is the process of a third party organization stating that a product, service or process meets a standard.

On Standards, this is the relevant EU Brexit question about continued membership for BSI of CEN and CENELEC , the EU’s standards bodies. It is to be understood that the directors of BSI remain very positive about achieving this, in good time, through a change of the CEN and CENELEC statutes. The BSI is speaking again to the CEN and CENELEC Board meetings in June 2018 (BSI is a member of the Boards of the two organizations).

BSI discussions with UK government have also been positive (helped in terms of the education mission to government that the BSI has been undertaking by the secondments made). UK government understands the issues about standards and does not want to stand in the way of a BSI-designed solution, unless there is a significant political reason for so doing. It is to be hoped that there will be more, and specific, policy statements in the forthcoming UK government white paper.

On Certification generally and very unofficially, ConcordnaceOUT.eu understands that this is a voluntary activity performed by BSI when businesses so request it.

BSI Assurance* certifies to a huge range of standards, as do other certifiers in this commercial market. These certifiers will most commonly be accredited to perform their certification function, through UKAS, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service**.

BSI Assurance also has accreditation through other accreditation bodies around the world, reflecting the global nature of BSI Assurance’s work. One example of this certification is the BSI Kitemark, which is well known.

POST-BREXIT BSI CERTIFICATION

Certification work by BSI Assurance can continue post-Brexit: these are business services used when businesses need them, not EU regulatory requirements. BSI’s certificates for whatever products or services will continue to be recognized post-Brexit as that accreditation will still be valid.

This BSI Assurance work is significantly different from NOBOs as Nigel Moore has mentioned, except as referred to below.***.

NOBOs undertake EU Regulatory Certification for EU conformity assessment

 When a product is to be placed on the EU market, it has to meet certain regulatory laws (especially relating to safety), and if those laws are met, the product has free circulation in the EU and EEA market. To meet the EU law, the manufacturer has to go through a process of conformity assessment, to prove that the product will comply with relevant EU legislation. This may involve an element of mandatory testing by a third party organization, a Notified Body.

Notified Bodies are certification (and similar) bodies designated by Member States for this purpose. There are some 200 UK NOBOs, and BSI Assurance*** for example is a NOBO for some 15 EU directives/regulations. Remember that only an EU Member States that can designate NOBOs.                                                                 Accordingly lease note carefully that: –

FROM day 1 post-Brexit all UK NOBOs will no longer be legitimate and official NOBOs; there will be – or could be challenges  – to the validity of their certificates. [Accordingly, UK goods and planes so certified will not pass EU borders or fly!]

Walking out of the EU and relying on “WTO Rules” would not therefore be a solution to the government’s current BREXIT chaos. The route can only be through the EEA and EFTA. There may be a stopgap – and less satisfactory solution – in the arrangements for the proposed transition period but we do not have any details. Furthermore, what happens in December 2020 when the transitional arrangements come ot an end?

Some countries have MRAs [Memoranda of Agreements] permitting them to have legitimate NOBOs, including in the EEA and also agreements with Canada, US and possibly Japan. This is something that UK could/should/must push for. The continued role of UK NOBOs is certainly a vital issue for the BREXIT negotiations.

**It is worth noting that UKAS has its own statute issue with its European body, EA

Brexit and the mechanisms of EU trade

The UK’s International trade depends upon efficient electronic systems that avoid entry inspections and delays at border crossings. These systems depend upon various mutually-agreed standards on both sides of the border. Unfortunately, the recently-published Government Position Papers on Brexit chose to ignore such details – indeed, they amounted to little more than political aspirations. As Brexit day approaches, it would not be surprising for businesses in both the UK and EU member states to put pressure on their governments to address the steps needed to prevent a massive “Operation Stack” on both sides of the Channel once we leave the EU.

Businesses likely to be affected by Brexit will need to know about how the movement of goods, services, ships and aircraft will be controlled.  They cannot move freely after March 2019 unless they are the subject of new inter-government agreements. These agreements can be achieved by way of MRAs [Mutual Recognition Agreements], Memoranda of Understanding or Exchanges of Notes for example.

There is a great deal of interplay between Laws and Regulations, Standards, Inspections and Conformity Assessment, Government Market Surveillance by checks and Customs and Tariff requirements. It must  be pointed out that the so-called ”WTO model” post-Brexit advocated by some economists would deal only with tariffs and would not address in full the requirements of these other critical areas.

So what else would be needed? Firstly, Mutual Recognition of bilateral product regulations. Whether or not two trading countries’ standards rules are identical, either way they are deemed to be mutually acceptable by that MRA.

Then there are internationally agreed certificates recognising that a produce conforms to a given set of standards. These are vital before the goods can reach the marketplace. The most important body dealing with international  standards, the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) is a non-government organisation although its membership does include 163 national standards bodies. It seeks to apply one international standard for a given product everywhere across the world.

In Europe there are three European standards organisations, ETS, CEN and CENELEC, and they have 34 members – all 28 current EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Every agreed standard is adopted by all 34 member countries’ standards bodies. In the UK, the British Standards Institution (BSI) is our national standards body. The UK Government therefore seeks to avoid making any other bilateral national agreements on standards for legal compliance purposes. In other words, only one standard per topic is permitted in these 34 countries.

There is a silence from the DExEU upon any progress in these areas. These standards organisations were not mentioned once in the Position Papers, even though they are going to play a hugely important role in facilitating trade with other European nations.  David Davis has perhaps unwisely accepted the Barnier sequencing agenda, which means that the concerns of Industry and Commerce over these issues cannot be addressed until the EU is satisfied with progress in other areas – and it is currently distinctly dissatisfied.

As Anthony Scholefield has pointed out in his research paper for the Futurus think tank, the Government’s “Plan A” – a bespoke trade agreement with the EU – is doomed to fail unless transitional arrangements are agreed.

There is also the question of non-EU trade. Approximately 80% of UK GDP is domestic. Of the remainder 13% is Entrepôt non-EU and 7% is with the EU. Will this Government prioritise the 13% or the 7%?

One of the much-trumpeted benefits of Brexit is the freedom to strike our own trade deals. Will the Government go for a “Plan B” and seek to negotiate some trade agreements with non-EU countries which will be conditional on Brexit taking place in March 2019?

At the moment, we have no idea. “Operation Stack” on the M20, with all the attendant  consequences are looking increasingly inevitable from April 2019. The only consolation is that the UK will at least have escaped from the EU political project of ever-closer union and will not be asked to prop up the failed Euro. As Lord Mervyn King says, ”In 30 years this will look like any old blip!” We can but hope he is right, but without a change of mindset among those entrusted with the Brexit negotiations, the blip could be rather bigger and longer than he anticipated.

 

 

Photo by Pharma Mike

William Hague’s political schizophrenia

William Hague stated at the end of last year that he is minded to vote for Britain to remain in the European Union partly because he fears “Brexit” could lead to the breakup of the UK and partly because “Brexit” would weaken the EU. This has hardly been a case of coming off the fence. Hague’s euroscpticism has always been suspect. The general public saw through its shallowness in the 2001 General Election when they returned Labour to power and ignored the Tories’ half-hearted campaign under Hague’s leadership. His current position is much confused both intellectually and politically. He has failed to grasp that it is not possible to believe in democracy as well as EU membership.

BREXIT

William Hague may have been in the forefront of politics for many years and is much respected. However this does not confer any automatic right for his confused views on the EU to be takne seriously.  On the other hand, it is useful for those of us who support withdrawal to listen to such a Europhile ally of the PM as it will help us to sharpen our attacks on supporters of “”remain”.

In this piece, where I comment respectfully upon his words in a Daily Telegraph article dated 22nd December, I will be using the excellent rebuttal of the Europhiles’ arguments by Robert Oulds on this website, which also contains a rebuttal by CIB of 7 major Europhile issues.

SECURITY AND NON-DEMOCRACY

The security of Europe rests not with the EU; indeed the EU does much to unsettle it. Most certainly security depends not upon the forces of Luxemburg or even of the other smaller 25 EU members nor even with the might of the UK with France and Germany but upon NATO, where we work with the USA. It is NATO that provides security for Europe and the wider world. [Please see footnote A].

The EU has endangered that security with interference in the internal affairs of states from the Balkans, the Ukraine, Iraq, and North Africa as well as by its trade negotiations, as in Ghana for example. The EU provides no safety for anyone through its sclerotic involvement in foreign affairs. Yet Mr Hague says “We still need the EU to provide the safe harbour for the docking of fragile democracies, and it would be strange to champion that idea but abandon it ourselves.”

I need hardly remind Mr Hague that there is not an ounce of UK-style Democracy in the EU.  The EU “parliament” has only limited powers [Please see footnote B] and Mr Hague has acknowldged its limitations: “As to the European parliament, it does not remotely provide democratic accountability for the simple reason that most voters across Europe do not take elections to it seriously and are not usually aware of the identity of their MEPs. It is not possible to be accountable and anonymous at the same time.” He misses the point of course. It is just because the EU parliament is without a strong set of democratic teeth that no one can take it seriously. Ask the MEP’s in the UK.

Accordingly the idea of there being a democratic dock within the EU for “fragile democracies” is nonsense. The EU actually destroys national democracy. It was designed to do so and will not change its course.

EUROSCEPTICISM OF MR HAGUE

“And I am often asked whether the years I spent in EU meetings and negotiations made me less Eurosceptic than when I toured the country 15 years ago with my ‘Save the Pound’ campaign” said Mr Hague. “The answer to that is “no”, since close acquaintance with central bodies of the European Union does nothing to create enthusiasm for them. The Commission itself, generally the best-performing of the EU institutions, could benefit from the spending cuts and rigour to which most national governments have been subjected. The European Court of Justice has pushed the boundaries of treaties and is capable of imposing burdens on businesses which suggest a detachment from reality.”

“Even more worryingly, some of the most cherished projects of European unity are in deep trouble – the Schengen zone buckling under the weight of new migration, and the euro bedevilled by flaws which were obvious at the start. There is a legitimate question as to whether the EU can survive in its current form two or three decades from now.”

These statements are unquestionably true. The totalitarian Commission maintains its fundamental straight course onwards towards an united non-democratic federal auperstate, as it alwasy has done. Mr Hague knows this full well.

“It is high time for a vigorous debate to get going. So far, what I have written above would be cheered on by my old friend Liam Fox, who has advocated withdrawal, by old Cabinet colleagues tempted to campaign to leave in the forthcoming referendum, and even by Nigel Farage as he reels from the discovery that a rebel who joins you from another party simply becomes a rebel in your own.” Correct in part only!

EUROPHILIA AND FEDERALISM OF MR HAGUE AND THE IRRELEVENCY OF THE PM’S NEGOTIATIONS

“Yet here I part company with these fellow critics of the EU, distinguishing between deploring the state of an organisation and deciding it is best to leave it. I wait, first of all, for the outcome of the negotiations the Prime Minister has launched, the importance of which should not be underestimated in continental capitals.”

Mr Hague forgets that how many issues which desperately need addressing are not on the PM’s little list of four items which he is discussing. There is no reference to the ECJ and its control over the UK Supreme Court, Fisheries, the Free Movement of Peoples, the UK’s right to represent itself on global bodies (The Top Tables), the cost of our membership, the red tape suffered by the 80% of UK GDP involved only with internal UK trade, reform of the CAP and so on.

In conclusion there is no substance to the PM’s negotiations or “thin gruel” as Mr Rees Mogg called them. Their conclusion will be trumpeted as a success but in reality, the fanfare will merely be a repeat of Chamberlain’s “Heston moment” in 1938 as John Petley refers in his January 2016 Article on the CIB web site.

THE ECONOMY OF THE UK

“The arguments about what is best for our economy will rage back and forth. Those who say we have to be in the single market to shape it and benefit from it have the edge and that will be a vital edge as the public weighs the implications of their choice for their jobs and businesses” says Mr Hague.

Many businessmen and economists would disagree. We can access the Single Market from outside the EU, by joining Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, who have plenty of say in the formation of EEA- relevant regulation, even if they do not take part in the final vote. People like Lord Bamford and Sir James Dyson may not have made detailed analyses of the best exit strategy, but thier confidnece that we can not only survive but prosper outside the EU is well founded. With only 20% of UK GDP linked to total global exports and of that only a diminishing 7% of UK GDP comprising trade with the EU, it makes little sense for that tiny dwindling tail of 7% to wag the growing dog of 93%!

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that Mr Hague is politically and economically generalising and being economical with the actuality. There is no attempt by Mr Hague to support his line of argument with facts and reasoning. Mr Hague’s current position is much confused both intellectually and politically. It is not possible to believe in national democracy and at the same time support our bondage to the EU?

Furthermore, how can Mr Hague think that the UK has any possible useful influence inside this total disaster?

Why a tariff union, Mr Hague? It is entirely counterproductive to the UK trade outside the EU which comprises 64% of UK exports.

Why must the UK guarantee the obligations and debts of the Euro and its failed experiments to the ECB and the IMF? This weakens the UK and makes it vulnerable as it borrows ever more to do this and then borrows more to pay interest on the borrowed sums! Hence Mr Osborne imposes more and more taxes on those who can least afford it!

Why has the UK lost so many of its seats on important world bodies just to be represented by one member acting for 28 with conflicting and confused objectives? Why support our membership of a political union if all we are talking about is a free trade area, Mr Hague?

In short, Mr Hague, who seemed to show such promise when he made that memorable speech at the 1977 Conservative Party Conference when he was only sixteen years old,  has proved one of the great political disappointments of recent years.  His schizophrenia over the EU suggests that for all the hype of his early years, he possibly never was a suitable person to lead our country after all.

FOOTNOTES [FOR WHICH I AM INDEBTED TO THE CIB.]

A) NATO: Since 1999 NATO changed from being a highly successful defensive alliance into an aggressive, go anywhere- bash anyone organisation with unlimited ambitions to “humanitarian interventions” anywhere in the world which suit US/EU policy. The first such adventure was Yugoslavia (1999),an unprovoked attack, admitted to be illegal but thought, as in “1066 & All That”, to be a “Good Thing”- also completely contrary to the then existing NATO charter but Blair & Clinton just did it. And the Bundeswehr used the opportunity to cease being “citizens in uniform” and become a force able to operate overseas. As General Naumann (whose title would have been Chief of the Great General Staff in palmier days) put it “German forces will be engaged for the protection of the market and access without hindrance to the raw materials of the entire world”. NATO is up to its neck and beyond in the operations in the Ukraine and elsewhere, targeted against Russia. Victoria Nuland, US Under Secretary of State, boasted of spending 5 billion dollars destabilising Ukraine and the EU itself, plus sundry intelligence agencies (like the Bundesnachrichtendienst and state funded NGOs like the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) are not far behind). The EU has a slightly different terminology for these operations and calls them “The Export of Stability”.

B) The Powers of the EU parliament: – Actually the parliament (so-called) has acquired some powers, like confirming or rejecting the proposed President and members of the EU Commission. Whilst its function is mainly “advise and Consent”, it can withhold consent in committee and sometimes does. The Commission with the vital and perpetual sole power of initiative then has to come back with a modified proposal. What the parliament (so-called) does not have is any democratic legitimacy, as Mr Hague rightly points out. There is not much demos but quite a lot of kratos in it. It is by no means powerless and is asserting more power and influence than ever. If the parliament’s majority opinion (taken from the large central groups that control the EU parliament) coincides with that of the Commission, it is very likely to prevail. The European Council (of prime ministers and presidents) would have difficulty in resisting determined, long-sustained, combined pressure by the Commission and Parliament singing from the same hymn sheet. The EU institutions do have a life and power of their own – just as Dr. Hallstein (see Edward Spalton’s CIB earlier paper) intended.

Photo by Foreign and Commonwealth Office

European Electorates reject the EU

Among the European Union’s (EU’s) ruling élite, concern is growing as their EU superstate project – to merge the nations of Europe into a federal superstate governed largely by unelected bureaucrats – continues to unravel. Across Europe, disillusioned electorates are responding against this cruel reality being imposed without their consent.

In this country, Prime Minister David Cameron has begrudgingly agreed to a referendum which gives the electorate the opportunity to leave the EU and for the UK to regain independence, sovereignty and democracy. The EU’s increasingly disastrous mistakes, however, are worrying voters in other countries too. Ironically, it is not just in the South of Europe, where a generation and more of young and old have been made unemployed and without hope by misguided EU policies, notably the straitjacket of the Euro, but in the North and the former Eastern bloc countries where enthusiasm for the EU is crumbling.

Danes retain “Opt-Outs” from EU control
In December, the Danish electorate rejected their (pro EU) government’s proposal to end the country’s opt-out from EU domestic and judicial policies. Following its rejection of the Maastricht Treaty (extending the EU’s powers) in a referendum on June 2, 1992, Denmark obtained four “opt-outs” which pertained to the single currency, the EU’s foreign, security, domestic and judicial policies, as well as naturalization laws. Consequentially, Denmark has not joined the Euro, does not participate in the EU’s military policies, and has preserved a certain margin of manoeuvre for its domestic policies beyond EU directives. However, the ECJ has overruled Denmark’s EU agreements at least 79 times despite explicit agreement to the contrary!

This referenmdum delivered the “wrong result” as far as the vast majority of Denmark’s ruling élite was concerned. They still support their country’s complete submission to EU policy. This should come as no surprise. Mr Cameron and our ruling élite take a similar line here – namely, EU rule for their own benefits, not for us, the people who voted them into office.

Euro exit by Finland?
In Finland, the EU project is also becoming increasingly unpopular, thanks largely to problems with the economy. Although the UK’s recovery from the Great Recession has been rather sluggish, at least we have been out of recession for several years now. By contrast, Finnish GDP has dropped 0.6 per cent in the last quarter of this year – more than in Greece. Finnish economists, looking to neighbouring Sweden and Denmark, point out that without the Euro, the crisis could have been prevented.

A citizen’s initiative, campaigning for a referendum on exiting the Euro, has garnered more than 50,000 signatures. Next year, the Finnish parliament must consequently debate returning to the Finnish Markka.

France – the charge of the ‘fringe’ Eurosceptics
The first round of France’s regional elections saw Marine le Pen’s Eurosceptic Front National top the polls in six of the country’s 13 regions and gain 28% of the overall vote – ahead of both the ruling Socialists and former President Sarkozy’s Les Républicains. In the Nord- Pas de Calais region, the FN polled over 40%. The two EU-fanatic establishment parties responded by creating an unholy alliance to keep the FN from power, with the socialists standing down in two regions and, encouraging their supporters to back ‘arch rival’ Sarkozy’s party. Voters may, however see there is little to choose between the two establishment parties, and many chose to vote for Mme le Pen.

France’s system of having a two-stage election prevented the FN gaining power in any region and will prove an even greater obstacle to winning the Presidency in 18 or so months’ time. However, Marine le Pen’s alleged “dédiabolisation” of the party since replacing her controversial father as leader has paid off. Her party may still be seen as a pariah by the leadership of two establishment parties, but much less so by voters. Although she failed to win a region, she gathered over 6 million votes. Whether it still is a “nasty party” is impossible to judge, especially given the enthusiasm of some sections of the media to apply the “far right” label indiscriminately to any political party with an ideology any major distance to the right of Jeremy Corbyn or Josef Stalin.

It is clear, however, that the FN’s anti-EU stance along with its calls to return to the Franc, for tighter controls on immigration and the need for a more cohesive society are clearly seen as necessary by many French voters and economists.

Eastern European and German worries
Pegida, the anti-Islamification movement in Germany, has enjoyed a renaissance since the attacks in Paris. Indeed, Pegida has spawned similar groups in other countries, including the Czech Republic where the country’s president Miloš Zeman spoke at a meeting of a political action group called ‘Bloc Against Islam’. This is part of a trend in several former Soviet bloc countries, including Hungary and Poland, where parties from outside the pro-EU “mainstream” are either in power or are gaining support, with worries about immigration and Islam being major factors.

In the Spectator, Rod Liddle wrote perceptively about Europe’s ruling élites: “It is an irony that the liberals are being vanquished as a consequence of their support for that least liberal of ideologies, Islam.” The growing anti-establishment mood across Europe engendered by fears of terrorism and Islamification will do nothing to bolster support for the European Union, which disingenuously tries to portray itself as rooted in liberal democracy. There is no democracy in the EU whatsoever, as we all know.

In summary, if the voters in an increasing number of member states are either looking at parties other than the fanatical Europhile “mainstream” or else are turning away from “more Europe” altogether, for how long will they and their worries be ignored?

For how long will repressed Western Democracy stay subjugated? When will the tax revolt commence? When will the people cease to co-operate and the member countries cease to permit themselves to be so enslaved that they become ungovernable as they reject the tyranny of Brussels?

Prussia and the EU

Jean-Claude Juncker comes from Luxembourg – a tiny state only the size of Hampshire! Yet he is leading a German European Empire, larger than Bismarck’s Empire, maybe even larger than Charlemagne’s.  He heads up the European Commission, a  totalitarian, unelected and corporatist body that was designed to be the motor for the creation of a political superstate. How did this unwanted atate of affairs arise?  – and how was Britain enslaved into joining a political and customs union?

Prussia

History has much to teach us. We could do worse than begin with the largest and most powerful state than came to dominate a united Germany. Prussia built up a customs union, a Zollverein, in a 40-year period beginning in 1819. The developing and highly efficient Prussian civil service learnt how to cajole and bully the smaller states, letting them think that they were keeping their sovereign rights. This was the same tactic used by Heath and all subsequent UK political leaders – including David Cameron.

Within the customs union, the Prussian weights and measure system became the standard, just as the Metric system was introduced into the UK in the 1970s.

Prussia also enforced a common currency, the Prussian Thaler, just as the EU has tried to do with the Euro. It brought in uniform legislation on the regulation of workers and industry. The EU now has similar Regulations and Directives and these are usually introduced into the UK quietly as Statutory Instruments without the UK Parliament noticing. Certainly, the people are ignored and are ignorant of what transpires. It all sounds horribly familiar.

Good Reads

I would recommend the works of Lindsay Jenkins. Her first book, Britain held hostage, was  written in 1997 and she personally gave me a copy on 16th March of that year. My eyes began to open about Disappearing Britain, the title of the third book in 2005. Yet only now, 10 years later, are the people of the UK finally awakening to their fate. See also Rodney Atkinson referred to below.

WW1 and WW2 and Lisbon

The concept of Germany economic hegemony of Europe never died out after the first World War; it was continued and developed further during the second. Walter Hallstein, the founding father and first President of the EEC springs to mind. The idea was continued by both the Nazi and Fascist elements in the German Foreign Office and in the post-war Intelligence Services.  This is all clearly exposed by Rodney Atkinson’s book And into the Fire. It is an easy but fearsome read yet utterly absorbing. The death knell for democracy and liberty is foretold with deathly clarity. Great cheer for the corporatists and federalists who, like all supporters of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Sovereign Constitution of the EU, despise democracy and the people of all 28 Member States.

A corporatist society is one run by the state for the interests of corporatists (large unions, big business, unelected supranational powers, professional interest groups, media manipulators by way of example). Corporatism is the socialist form of capitalism and it holds sway in most western “capitalist ” countries. It is completely incompatible with democracy and nationhood.

The project to destroy liberal free trade capitalists and the democratic rights revered for centuries in the UK was thus German in origin. This corporatist plan was launched with totally undemocratic structure of the European Iron and Steel community. This set the precedent and skeleton for the EEC/EU.

Thus, as Atkinson says on p44, ”…the European Union is precisely that combination of German ethnic and political imperialism on the one hand and European Fascism on the other, which the UK, together with the USA and their allies had fought to have vanquished in 1945.” These founders of the EEC/EU adopted a non-democratic structure from the very beginning as the basis of thier project.

The essence of the EU is that it is a tyranny by the unelected and un-dismissible. The EU parliament, the one elected body, has no power over fiscal matters nor can it originate or repeal laws. The executive power is beyond its reach. It is impotent and bovine and so expensive that soon the Commission will be rid of it, but not before the destruction of the nation states of the EU has been accomplished.

The Lisbon Treaty destroyed key aspects of our sovereignty. It destroyed the sovereign power of our Supreme Court and of the Queen in Parliament. Juncker, as President of the Commission, proposes and the poor Queen in Parliament at Westminster dutifully disposes. The peoples of Britain dutifully obey – or maybe not so dutifully, as the prospect of escaping the EU’s clutches in the forthcoming referendum is looking a distinct possibility.

More trade and Better off with Brexit

Professor Alan Sked writes “Most students seem to think that Britain was in dire economic straits, and that the European Economic Community – as it was then called – provided an economic engine which could revitalise our economy. Others seem to believe that after the Second World War Britain needed to recast her geopolitical position away from empire, and towards a more realistic one at the heart of Europe. Neither of these arguments, however, makes any sense at all. The EEC in the 1960s and 1970s was in no position to regenerate anyone’s economy. It spent most of its meagre resources on agriculture and fisheries and had no means or policies to generate economic growth.” It was clear therefore that the EEC had to arrange to steal all the UK Fisheries in the days just before the Heath finalised his “negotiations”. They were not negotiations. Heath told the Foreign Office to accept it all and accept it quickly. Likewise the Common Agricultural Policy was swallowed. It has been a disaster for the UK too. “In 1973, when we entered the EEC, our annual national growth rate in real terms was a record 7.4 per cent. The present Chancellor would die for such figures. So the economic basket-case argument doesn’t work” says Professor Sked. Furthermore, from the 1980s until 2008, the UK out-performed countries that adopted the Euro and our economy began to recover far sooner after the recession.

The UK needs to to maintain its access to the EU’s single market, but this can be achieved from outside the EU by re-joining EFTA. At the same time, we need to take steps to loosen ourselves from the EU’s control of our trading arrangements with the rest of the world, as this is where the growth is happening. Demographics alone point to the EU become less important to us as a trading partner, with exports to the EU likely to fall still further from the current figure of 37% of total UK exports  ( or 7% of UK GDP) Furthermore, the design faults of the single currency look likely to condemn the southern members to an ever-deepening depression as  they pay the price of the inflexible failed Euro experiment.

In summary, there is no future for the UK in the EU. It is pointless calling for the EU to reform. It is holed below the waterline The UK is better off out.

Photo by woody1778a