British interests increasingly and systematically likely to be over-ruled

UK must secure EU financial regulation reform or face the choice of joining Euro or leaving EU by 2020, finds new report “If we cannot protect the collective interests of non-eurozone member states then they will have to choose between joining the euro, which theUK will not do, or leaving the EU” – Chancellor George Osborne, 2014

* New report reveals future end to double majority voting and finds that UK likely to be systematically overuled by Eurozone interests

* Report follows publication of letter organised by BfB of leading City figures calling on politicians to protect ability of Britain to decide financial legislation

A Europe Economics report, commissioned by Business for Britain (BfB), has found that British interests in EU financial regulation are increasingly and systematically likely to be over-ruled in favour of those of the Eurozone. It reveals that specific EU legislation could wipe out the UK’s power to prevent it being overruled by the Eurozone as soon as the end of the decade.

The in-depth report details how “only very considerable reforms” to the process of setting EU financial regulation will prevent Britain from being forced to choose from either joining the Euro or leaving the EU potentially as soon as 2020. The stark choice, dubbed “Osborne’s fork“, is the result of the increasing voting power of the Eurozone block and its divergent interests from the UK. The report reveals that EU financial rules will bring an end to double majority voting, a major concession previously won by Chancellor George Osborne, when the number of non-Eurozone EU counties drops to 4 or fewer – which is expected to happen in less than a decade.

The report acknowledges that Britain may have benefited from having financial services regulation set at an EU level in the past as regulations often mirrored or were influenced by existing British financial rules, but concludes that since the 2008 financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis of 2010, the nature of EU financial regulations have changed significantly and that the UK’s influence on EU-level financial services regulation has declined markedly.


* Prior to the Eurozone crisis, the general thrust of EU financial services measures reflected the UK’s traditions of liberalisation, competition and the encouragement of trade meaning EU-level financial regulation affected other Member States much more than it affected the UK. EU regulations tended to mirror pre-existing UK rules.

* Since the financial crisis of 2008 and especially since the Eurozone crisis of 2010 onwards, the UK’s influence on EU-level financial services regulation has declined markedly. Since 2008, the UK’s legislation has been geared towards increasing the quality of supervision and strengthening market incentives. Yet at EU level the focus has been much more upon extending the scope of regulation, curbing specific behaviours, and protecting the integrity of the Eurozone.

* This change in the direction and objectives of EU-wide financial regulations has been accompanied by the Eurozone’s growing collective power, under QMV, to force through its preferred regulations against any ability of the UK to block new rules and has resulted in considerableloss of UK influence.

* Opportunities for financial services exports outside the EU are growing (and expected for the foreseeable future to grow) whilst the opportunities for rapid growth in financial services within the EU are likely to be limited. The main threats of competition to the UK from regulatory arbitrage are less and less from other European countries and more and more from outside the EU.

* Current proposal for reforms to EU-level setting of financial services regulation such as the extension of “double majority voting” would only work in the very short term (up to around 2018).

* EU rules are in place to end double majority voting where it has been already introduced as the Eurozone expands and the number of non-Eurozone EU counties drops to 4 or fewer. This could occur as soon as 2020 on current plans.

* The report concludes if the UK financial services sectors are to avoid the fate of systematic over-rule by Eurozone interests, without taking either the joining-the-euro or leaving-the-EU prongs of Osborne’s Fork, there will need to be very considerable reform to the process of setting EU regulation. Non-Eurozone members of the EU would need some mechanism, beyond QMV, to block new financial services regulation that was manifestly against their interests.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of Business for Britain, said: EU-wide financial regulation may have opened up markets to the UK in past, but now it looks set to ensure the UK is comprehensively overruled by the Eurozone’s needs – at the expense of our greatest global asset. The UK’s power to influence EU decisions has declined markedly and unless major reforms are secured, Britain will be faced by the stark choice of either joining the Euro or leaving the EU altogether. Politicians at home need to secure Britain a new deal abroad to ensure the city, and business more widely, benefits from its position within Europe, rather than being weighed down by it.

Dr. Andrew Lilico, author of the report and Director of Europe Economics, said:  “Britain’s influence upon EU financial regulation has been an important gain of EU membership in the past. But that influence has waned severely since 2008, and as matters stand, with the non-Eurozone EU set to shrink to only between two and five members within a decade, and with the very different interests of the Eurozone dominating new EU financial regulation, the future appears likely to be one of Britain being systematically over-ruled by the Eurozone. Changing that in any sustainable way would require not only new voting rules but also many new long-term non-Eurozone EU members.

David Buik, BfB Advisory Council member, and Dr Andrew Lilico, reportauthor, are available for broadcast interviews .

Get Carta

‘Torquil Dick-Erikson, the journalist who first alerted us to the iniquitous Corpus Juris criminal code has had a letter printed in the Daily Telegraph. We reproduce it below:



Magna Carta is to be celebrated by David Cameron’s administration, even if Allan Massie (Comment, June 16) says that it was not a “revolutionary” step in its time. 

Yet it was the first, successful attempt to limit the state’s power. Clause 29, to this day, deprives the state of power to order punishment of a citizen, which can be decided only by a jury of the defendant’s peers. It inspired the American revolution. Nobody has mentioned that Magna Carta never crossed into continental Europe. 

Continental criminal procedures are little known in Britain, even by the Government.

In 1215, Pope Innocent 111 was setting up the Inquisition, which, far from limiting the authorities’ power over the individual, made it absolute. When he heard of Magna Carta, he wrote to the English clergy saying they had done something “abominable and illicit“.  In Europe, only England escaped the Inquisition. Centuries later, Napoleon’s new laws adopted and adapted an inquisitorial method, redirecting it to the service of the state. Napoleon’s codes underpin most continental legal systems today. Brussels aims to create a unified European criminal code. The embryo “Corpus Juris” proposal was unveiled in 1997, and was denounced in “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH”  It would abolish trial by jury, HABEAS CORPUS, and other safeguards considered normal by the British, yet ignored by the European Convention.

The European arrest warrant is a stepping stone towards Corpus Juris: a European prosecutor will issue European warrants. Yet Mr Cameron intends to reconfirm the European Arrest Warrant.  This will trash the foundation stone of our freedoms in Magna Carta.

So just what is Mr. Cameron meaning to celebrate?


CENSORING TRUTH IN THE EU: Rajoy revealed as prime mover for EU Court’s Article 29

This article was written by John Ward, it first appeared on his blog ‘The Slog’


How Spain is leading the charge towards fascist corporatism

Some weeks ago, the European Court made a quite extraordinary ruling that gives EU governments the ability to sanitise their online history by petitioning Google and other search engines to remove potentially damaging links to newspaper articles and other websites with embarrassing information.

Although a working party is yet to meet and discuss ‘best practice’ (ironique ou quoi?) in enforcing the ruling, as it stands Italy would have the right to ask Google to take down all references to its blatant lies about ‘economic recovery’ in the Spring of 2013.

It will come as no surprise to discover (as I just have) that one of the prime influencers for Article 29 (the basis for this Orwellian policy) was everyone’s favourite control freak Wolfgang Schäuble; but perhaps more interesting (in the light of information coming through from Spain over the last month) is that it was also pushed with some urgency by none other than Mario Rajoy of Spain.

And there’s more on the story of Juan Carlos’s abrupt “abdication”. It seems his major blunder was to proclaim loudly that “a free press is vital to democracy” while giving out gongs at the recent awards ceremony for International Journalism Prizes.

In another startling announcement from Spain, it seems now that Juan Carlos is to be succeeded by some bloke called Phil Bourbon. So with very little chance of a biscuit answering Mario Rajoy back, this should make things easier for the Prime Minister to fulfil his goal of being given a free hand to do WTF he wants as soon as possible.

Rajoy has strong form in the area of censorship. In the Autumn of last year he described those going on protest marches as “abnormal” (he’s right, they’re abnormally poor), and then in December some 300 Spaniards were fined €500 euros each for attending a protest against the budget cuts.

Equally, former Interior Minister (aka spook) and GP politician Mayor Jaime Oreja thinks it is “crazy to let people view all these problems of public order on television, because it only incites people to demonstrate all the more”. Well ping my blog Jaime, you’re right on the ball there and no mistake.

Similar demonstrations have been banned and fines handed out in Greece of late – notably in Athens and, on one occasion when I was present, in Kalamata.

The point here is a very simple one. Any and all examples of bent statistics, government repression and laws forbidden by the Treaty of Rome can be “forgotten” under the EU Court ruling. Working parties on “best practice” in the EU by the EC do not impress me one iota, because it has been blindingly obvious for years that Brussels am Berlin is a fascist grouping prepared to pull any stunt in order to get their Truth to prevail.

What we’re seeing here is Winston Smith’s Ministry of Truth job made flesh. We are seeing the contemporary Mr K being fined for a crime so ill-defined as to be, effectively, a Bourbon lettre de cachet. We are watching the fruition of prophecies made by visionaries from Kafka to Orwell.

To paraphrase the late and much lamented Ed Murrow, “The lights are going out all over Europe”.

The Battle to Leave the EU


by Anthony Scholefield
Director, FUTURUS

In major political issues there are three battles; the battle to win the contest for ideas or assertions; the battle of aims, inclusive of aspirations, and the battle of plans. The electorate is influenced by the battle of assertions but it also responds to clear aims and plans.

As pointed out by Margaret Thatcher’s policy thinker John Hoskyns, Montgomery did not simply tell British soldiers on the eve of D-Day to make their way to Berlin – he had a plan.

THE EURO REFERENDUM (that never was)

There was no doubt about the aspiration of those who wanted Britain to join the euro. Moreover, Tony Blair thought that offering what was a ‘modern’, ‘international’, idea would be popular and he was slapdash about his planning. It would be generous to credit Blair with an aim – he only had an aspiration.

Two things stopped a euro referendum taking place. The first was Gordon Brown’s caution. But, much more important, was the fact that Blair never had a plan to get Britain into the euro.

In retrospect, from his angle, Blair should have taken Ken Clarke’s advice, and that of his own pollster, Robert Worcester. They both advocated an enabling referendum, “I would have preferred the referendum to be held on the issues of principle with the timing and details having been left to the government and Parliament to decide”.

Blair never seemed to understand that getting Britain into the euro was a complicated matter. Winning a referendum did not mean British entry into the euro. To enter, Britain had to re-enter the ERM, decide in conjunction with all the other EU governments, EU Parliament and the EU Commission what the entry rate would be, get a recommendation from the EU Commission that Britain had passed its convergence tests, change the Bank of England’s mandate and give the electorate their promised ‘final say’.

In short, Blair never realised he needed a plan and never planned.

As Roger Bootle wrote (Sunday Telegraph, 10th June 2001):

Now consider what has to be done. First, the British authorities have to decide what an acceptable rate is and from the history showing the chart, you can see this is no easy task. Then they have to agree a rate within that range with our European partners. Then they have to get the pound to that level – and keep it there. And then they have to win a referendum.”

By contrast, while they had to fight the battle of ideas and assertions, the supporters of the pound had a very simple aim and a simple plan – to keep sterling.


There was always some doubt about what were the aims of the Scottish Nationalist Party, in particular whether Alex Salmond really wanted independence as opposed to greater devolution.

However, the SNP aim now is, supposedly, for independence and they have made numerous assertions about the benefits to Scotland. Like Blair, they are strong on aspiration but their aim is hazy.

Yet whenever the consequences of independence are discussed it is clear that the SNP rely on assertions and lack a plan. There is evidently no plan concerning the question of a separate currency, border controls on movement of people, entry and the terms of entry into the EU and many other issues. The SNP has acted as though their proposals will, and must, be accepted by others, psychologically revealing that it does not understand what independence really means.

Alex Salmond has proceeded on the basis that winning an enabling referendum will solve all his problems. But his lack of a plan will not only crucify the Scottish economy, especially the financial sector, if Scotland votes for independence, the same lack of a plan will reflect back to the electorate and undermine the

argument he puts to the Scottish people so as to diminish his chances of winning.

So I confidently predict that, if Scotland votes for independence, that independence will not take place or, if persisted in, will lead to a Darien-type chaos.

There is no SNP plan for EU membership, no plan for defence links with NATO, no plans to take on debt or divide up oil revenues and, above all, no plan for a currency. In truth, the SNP has had various currency offers, a Scottish currency, joining the euro, and its current offer – staying with sterling for the time being (in itself a destabilising proposition).

The fact is that Scotland has a proportionately huge financial sector which is overwhelmingly dependent on English bank deposits, English pension funds and English investors. It is absolutely absurd, and would indeed breach their fiduciary duty, for any entity in England to keep its assets in another jurisdiction from where its liabilities are. Despite sharing a single currency, no German or French pension fund, Council, university or company, keeps its investment or cash in Portugal or Slovakia.

Of course, the idea of Scottish independence is doing damage to the Scottish financial sector already. Think of any English person considering a pension or long-term investment for many years. Offered a choice of an English or Scottish provider, the choice is obvious, and for directors and funds there is the fiduciary duty as well.

The supporters of the union have a clear and simple plan – to keep the union. The main fear of union supporters in England is that Westminster politicians will, in fact, agree to Scotland having, in some way, the benefits of independence without the responsibilities.


With Cameron, his aims and aspirations seem to be purely political in the sense of domestic politics and party politics. He also wishes to be at the ‘top-table’. His remarks about “not banging on about Europe” show a remarkable ignorance of the power politics surrounding him as well as a deep reluctance to reflect on political realities. He lags far behind the electorate.

David Cameron has repeatedly said he has a plan. Rather he has an aspiration. His aspiration is to renegotiate and then present the results to the electorate and then get a YES vote to stay in a renegotiated EU.


1) What are the possible exit strategies?

– UKIP wins a Westminster majority.

– A major Party converts to a withdrawal policy.

– A referendum is held on whether or not to remain in the UK.

– Britain is asked to leave by mutual agreement.

– Other countries decide to leave.

– ANOther.

Quite clearly the most likely and most immediate trigger is an in-out referendum.

2) To lose an in-out referendum would be catastrophic. To have such a referendum unless the out vote is well ahead in the polls would lead to such a loss because of the status quo effect whereby voters prefer not to risk change.

3) To win an in-out referendum, it is essential to present a simple, clear plan of exit which will work and can be demonstrated to work and which all withdrawalists can subscribe to. This would enhance a polling trend in favour of withdrawal.

4) Further, winning an in-out referendum will still leave us with a pro-EU Executive. The only way to compel such an Executive to actually work for withdrawal is to have a clear simple plan presented and endorsed in the referendum.

5) Without a clear plan presented at the referendum, the initiative will be handed to a pro-EU Executive which can be counted on to prevaricate and re-negotiate, working for a further referendum in due course.

6) The EEA arrangement with some modifications for free movement (see my article on Leichtenstein) has to be the way forward.

– Britain is itself already a sovereign signatory to the EEA agreement.

* It is on the shelf. The outline and details are already known.

* It is in accordance with the EU’s own procedures.

– It can be negotiated quickly.

– It takes all the business anti-withdrawal arguments out of the debate.

– It attains the objectives of sovereignty and takes us off the integration path, plus massively reduces costs, except for the Single Market. Can we live with this?

8) David Cameron on the Andrew Marr programme 11th May 2014 kept saying he had ‘a plan’ and only the Tories had ‘a plan’. This seems to me a sensible move by him (from his point of view) and could be a possible road testing of his next argument: “We have a plan and the eusceptics do not have one.”

9) In the 1975 referendum a whole page of the short ‘Yes’ leaflet was devoted to listing the various alternatives offered by the ‘No’ side to EU membership and ridiculing their contradictions. (see Appendix)

10) Some questions needs answering:

a. It is asserted by Ian Milne that the UK is a separate signatory to the EEA and thus would automatically stay in this if it left the EU. Is this watertight?

b. Would the EFTA countries welcome UK membership? This needs to be nailed down.

c. What exactly is the position in the future with EU migrant workers in the UK? Is it suggested (as I would recommend) that work rights should be gradually withdrawn? Otherwise, as these migrants settle and acquire families, the capital cost of importing low income workers via the welfare state will be enormous and there will be diversions of our already meager capital investment to providing all the capital costs of migrants (some of this has already happened of course).

d. We need a list of exactly what areas of policy determined by the EU will be returned to national control under EEA and what remains with the EU.

11) Gladstone: In one of his most famous speeches, on 10th August 1870, Gladstone laid down what needs to be done. This speech related to Britain’s position in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and extracts were quoted extensively by Sir Edward Grey in his speech of 3rd August 1914. It was cited by Asquith as determining Britain’s position on the Belgian Treaty in a letter to Bonar Law on 2nd August 1914, a day before Britain declared war:

“It brings the object in view within the sphere of the practicable and attainable instead of leaving it within the sphere of what might be desirable, but which might have been most difficult, under all the circumstances, to have realized.

12) We are trying to win a referendum and win a referendum in such a way that a pro-EU executive must carry out the result. We are fighting the referendum with a plan with an instruction to the Executive. We are not in a competition for establishing the very best theoretical basis for Britain in a post-EU world, we are establishing a clear, tested, business-friendly plan which should take on the aura of ‘inevitability’, such as preceded the establishment of American and Indian


John Mills speech – 26th April 2014


Ladies and gentleman, please welcome John Mills…

Well, thank you very much Mr Chairman. I must say that I would like to start by saying how nice it is to be here with many people I’ve worked with over a long period of time on these issues. I’ve got form. I. believe it or not, was the National Agent for the “No” campaign in 1975 and I’ve been the Secretary of the Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign, which is the main left-of-centre pressure group to do with the E.U., ever since then. So I’ve had a long period of time to watch the scenery changing behind me.

You may recall in 1975, when there was the referendum, it was the Labour party that split roughly 50/50 in favour of staying in or coming out. It was the Conservative party in those days which was very strongly in favour of staying in – roughly 80/20 – which produced the two thirds result.

Now, of course, the situation is very different. The Labour party is, on the whole, pretty Europhile and the Conservatives much less so and we’ll have to see what will happen over the coming years, which is what I’d like to talk about: the direction that things are likely to move in.

I think it’s worth starting off with saying a little about where we are right now. One of the polls in the film you saw earlier on suggested that, if there were a referendum tomorrow, we would leave by a large majority. I have to say that I’m not nearly so sanguine that that would be the result.

I have here the polls that were taken month by month in the period leading up to the referendum in 1975 and you may recall that, even just a few months before that referendum, there was a big majority for coming out – or if not a big majority at least a majority – which has melted away as a result of the onslaught there was upon the pro side. And although I think the situation will be more even the next time we have a referendum on this issue in this country than it was then, I still think sticking with the status quo and so forth is a very powerful driver in these sorts of referendums and I don’t think the result would be nearly so easy to predict as you may think. Though I do think that over the coming period the situation may change and that’s what I’d really like to talk to you about this afternoon.

Now if you ask me what the U.K. electorate would like; I think the reality is, whether you like it or not, most people in the U.K. would like to stay in the E.U. provided there were substantial changes made to our relationship with the other member states. That’s what the polls show very strongly. So the real issue is: what’s going to happen over the next few years.

Are there going to be those changes made? And, if not, what will the outcome be if there’s a referendum when it’s clear that these changes aren’t going to happen. These seem to be the really important drivers in what’s going to occur over the coming period.

Now, timing isn’t everything in politics but it counts for a lot. Let me lay out for you a scenario for the next few years to see if I can convince you that this is probably the sort of way events might develop.

First of all, we’ve got two major elections or referendums coming up over the next few months. We’ve got the Euro elections coming up very shortly, in May, and we’ve got the Scottish referendum coming up in September. These are going to set the scene for what happens in 2015 when there’s the general election.

My guess, in 2015, is that the chances of having a Labour government on its own are actually quite high and this is mainly because the negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives over changing the arrangements to the House of Lords broke down and, in response to this, the Lib Dems refused to support boundary reorganization. As a result, the Labour party has only got to win about 34% of the plurality, whereas to become a government on its own, without having a coalition, the Conservatives need about 41% of the vote. Bearing in mind there’s likely to be a substantial split on the right of centre between the Conservatives and UKIP, this does provide at least a reasonable chance that the Labour party will come in with a majority government in 2015. I don’t think there is as much as a 50% chance of this; I think it’s more likely that we’re going to finish up with either that or a Lib-Lab result. But one thing that does seem to me to be fairly unlikely, bearing in mind that the electoral arithmetic I’ve just given you, is that there will be an out and out victory for the Conservatives and, if that doesn’t happen, then there won’t be referendum in 2017.

But if there is a either a coalition, between the Lib Dems and the Labour party, or an outright Labour government, I think the situation over the next five years, between 2015 and 2020, could look very problematical for that government.

I think particularly in the Labour party now there isn’t a huge amount of discussion about what the E.U. is going to do to a Labour government if it’s elected. And the Lib Dems, or at least the leadership, are so much in favour of the E.U. that I don’t think they’ve given it a huge amount of thought either to the problems they’re going to confront.

But let me give you a list of the difficulties which I think they’re going to face.

The first is that we heard about the evil effects of the single currency on the E.U., and they’re bad enough as it is, with the very high levels of unemployment there are and the very low levels of economic growth. But I’m far from sure that the situation isn’t going to get worse before it gets better and the main reason for this is that the Eurozone’s apparent acquiescence at the moment is very largely dependent on enormous amounts of bank loans, that are mounting up and mounting up. Now, debt in itself is not such a bad thing, as long as you’ve got the capacity to service the interest charges and to repay it, but what is really pernicious about debt is when it builds up and actually you’ve got an economy which isn’t growing at all and the ratio between the amount of debts you’ve got and your capacity to pay it back and service it reduces all the time. And that’s the situation that the Eurozone is in.

So I think between now and 2020, I think there is at least a fair chance that what’s going to happen is that the Eurozone is going to run into very serious difficulties. I think there are a number of ways this might happen: you might get a government elected in countries like Greece, which simply aren’t prepared to implement austerity any more; you might get the Germans throwing over the traces and saying they’re not going to subsidise everybody else anymore; or you might get the markets turning against the Euro. But, one way and another, I think the chances of none of these things happening between now and 2020 aren’t high. So that’s one danger problem area for whatever government is in power there.

Even if the Euro does survive, there are also going to be big problems that are going to have to be overcome, in terms of the governance of Europe and how to respond to the lack of banking integrity in Europe. And this is going to involve either more mutualisation of debt, or more integration of policy making and budgeting and so forth, this is going to make the countries that are in the Euro more powerful in relation to the countries that are outside. And one of the major difficulties any government is going to have to face in this country is how to avoid a situation where it all becomes two-tier with one very powerful group in the centre, calling the shots, who are in the single currency, and another group outside. Bear in mind that all the countries that are currently outside – there are eighteen countries in the Euro at the moment and ten outside – but all of those countries outside – or nearly all of them – are obligated to join the Euro. So we may find that the eighteen goes up to twenty or twenty-three or twenty-four or something and we’re more and more isolated. So it’s a big problem there.

There’s the rising cost of the European Union. The European Union is incredibly expensive for us. It’s actually quite hard to find the total cost of the E.U. from the Office of National Statistics, which are produced, because they’re spread around, but the totals are there if you look hard enough and in 2013 it was over £12 billion net and it’s rising all the time. The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that the total cost of the E.U. is going to rise by about £10 billion over the next three or four years. So there’s a very substantial cost element that’s going to have to be negotiated by the next government at the time when the balance of payments to this country is going down the pan anyway.

I hardly need to dwell on the problems of immigration. And I think one of the better things that the European Union did, to be honest with you, to start off with, is allow the free movement of people, which worked well when we were dealing with a comparatively small number of countries with roughly the same standards of living. But it clearly works very much worse when you’ve got an enormous economic gradient between countries like Bulgaria and the U.K., with a difference of nearly 75% between income levels. And, at the moment, we’re in a situation where we’re restricting the number of people coming in from outside the E.U., many of whom actually have a lot of advantages about coming to this country such as students and skilled workers, whereas we can’t do anything at all – or very little anyway – about the immigration from the rest of the E.U.

There are all the issues around accountability and the capacity of MEPs to hold the confidence of their electorates. The way the Commission operates, the lack of democracy and so forth, and the problem about all of these things added up together is that they do present a fair chance in the rise of underlying Euroscepticism in the U.K., which is going to be really very difficult for that government in charge to do something about. And I think actually as a result of the most recent speech made by Ed Miliband in March this year, the Labour party may have painted itself into something of a corner here because there was a very important change made in that speech, which was: prior to that, the position of the Labour party was – and this is true of the Lib Dems and Conservatives – that there was what’s called a referendum lock. In this method, if there were any further significant transfers of power to the E.U., there was going to be a referendum. But the referendum wasn’t going to be an in/out referendum, it was going to be on whether or not whatever powers were contemplated were going to be accepted or not. Now, in the speech that Ed Miliband made, in March, this was changed; and what he said there was that if there were transfers of powers in the form of a treaty change, there wouldn’t be a referendum on the treaty change, there would be an in/out referendum. This could be a very important change that’s been made.

I’m sure that the calculation made by the Labour party was that it was very unlikely that any treaty changes would occur over that period and you can see why the leadership of the European Union, the Commission and so on don’t want to have treaty changes because this might trigger off referendums elsewhere, which they might lose.

But, with all the instability that there is around the European Union at the moment, it’s a racing certainty that there won’t be treaty changes some time between now and 2020 and with the change of rules and legislation that the Labour party has promised that would trigger a referendum. And if it triggered a referendum at a time when the Labour party wasn’t very popular, which tends to be the case with any government that is in power for a fair bit of time – we see it with the Conservative government at the moment – and if it was campaigning against a more and more Eurosceptic electorate, it seems to me that in those circumstances, that there is a substantial chance that there would be a referendum and the result, in those circumstances, would be that there would be a British exit and we would leave.

Now, the other possibility then is that you would then get, even with the risk of referendum running through the period up to 2020, that the Conservatives get back in power in 2020 and my guess is that over the next five years, the Conservative party will become more Eurosceptic and more likely, therefore, to give a commitment and get elected, that there will be a referendum. So one way and another, it does seem to me that the way events are likely to turn out over the next five to ten years is going to make it, first of all, more likely that a referendum will take place. Bear in mind that there won’t ever be a referendum unless there’s a majority for one in the House of Commons. And secondly, if in those circumstances I’ve just described, a referendum does take place, that the referendum is more likely to be won; a lot more likely than if one was taken tomorrow.

So it is a long haul. I’ve been in the Eurosceptic camp since 1975. As I said at the beginning, I’ve seen the situation change and change again but I think it’s very important not to give up hope, not to come to the view that we’ve all been battling on for forty years and we’re still there.

Timing, as I said at the beginning, is very important and I think that it may well be that the situation will shift in our favour, whatever happens at the next general election for the reasons that I’ve given you.


London’s Burning by Anthony O’Brien

We were contacted by a gentleman named Anthony O’Brien who shares our concerns regarding the future of the UK, and the concealment of the future European State. An outline of his letter to us is below.

Anthony O’Brien, who has studied historical propaganda, has written an interesting novel designed to unmask the blatant propaganda and deceit behind politics today. The novel titled London’s Burning uses fictional characters so the plot and characters will keep readers captivated, whilst they are educating themselves.

The novel mentions many issues such as the notion that multiculturalism is a tool, a means to an end that will silence opposition and eventually help to create the new empire. The new emerging mixed race populations will not want the UK to return to the nationalist country of the past. Europe will receive their backing, whilst through education anti English doctrines may be established. Europe requires integration to become one people and one nation, no borders or boundaries, free movement within Europe for all European citizens.

Every country across Europe, every nationality has frustrated populations hostile to the new changes, many are suspicious and unsure as to why politicians are not listening or responding with any logical sense. Referendums on European citizenship is not up for debate, only hints of changes for the UK role in Europe will be discussed in the distant future, no voice for the people, no opt out, no referendums or disruption is permitted. The UK and Europe is already a dictatorship, governing without the peoples consent.

All this is shrouded within a political thriller novel, of which Anthony O’Brien is trying to pass the word around. This is not just about him trying to make a living, it is written from his perspective and is his gift to the public to try and open their eyes to what is happening all around them, as well as demonstrating his projected and scientifically accurate horrors for the future.