Blair policy to undermine national homogeneity

The Derby Telegraph – Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Edward Spalton Roy Wheatley asks “What is the purpose of large-scale immigration when we have so many people out of work? Why rely on migrants if millions are out of work?” (Derby Telegraph, May 30).

 The answer is simple: it was a deliberate government policy to “undermine national homogeneity”. It used to be the duty of government to protect the native population from invasion and colonisation. Now they have stood that duty on its head.

Andrew Neather revealed that New Labour boosted Third World immigration with the deliberate intent of causing irreversible demographic change – the government was electing a new people which would be more likely to vote Labour.

Peter Sutherland, former EU Commissioner, former head of the World Trade Organisation, former chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire, told the House of Lords last year that the EU should undermine the homogeneity of native populations.

He criticised the modest restriction imposed by the present government, saying it had no basis in international law.

As the contents of our jails show, the advent of multiculturalism has not been an unmixed blessing. What is the point of importing unskilled people to a country with high unemployment, if not simply to force down wages? That may well suit Goldman Sachs. Add a highly attractive system of welfare payments, much more generous than in the Eastern member states of the EU and we can expect many more coming to live off us as well.

They will have a right to do so, as long as we remain in the EU. This government favours staying in the EU and Turkish EU membership. This will bring a huge influx from that country.

The Blair government commissioned a study on British identity by the Runnymede Trust. Their report asserted that the terms “British” and “English” were so laden with racist overtones that they should be avoided where possible.

The native British people are wedged between the ideologues of the Left, who despise us, the EU, which wants to destroy our national identity, and the vested interest of corporate capital, which wants to use these forces to help the prosperity of Goldman Sachs and friends, making their investments more profitable by forcing down wages.

Annual cost of European Parliament soars to £1.332 billion

THE PRESS OFFICE OF the Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour) News Release

Cost of European Parliament soars to £1.332 billion per year, £838 million more than Westminster (MEPs cost £1.79 million each).

The appallingly high running cost of the European Parliament has been exposed in a written reply to a question put to the Government by independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

The Government was asked for comparative costs between the European Parliament and Westminster.  In his response (8.01.12), Lord Sassoon, Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, confirmed the 2011-12 cost of the European Parliament at £1.332 billion compared with £494 million for Westminster, including both the House of Commons and the Lords.

Lord Stoddart also asked for costs per member to be included in the figures.  In 2011-12, MEPs cost a colossal £1.79 million each compared with just £0.59 million per member of the House of Commons.  Peers cost a mere £0.13 million.

Lord Stoddart, commenting on the Government’s reply said: “These are eye watering figures that make Westminster look like very good value for money. The European Parliament costs £838 million per annum more than the combined cost of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Government is constantly on the look-out for ways to save money to reduce the deficit. It should take a serious look at its contribution to the cost of running the European Parliament! This is an institution that does not hold proper debates and whose members cannot even introduce a Private Members Bill. It merely acts as a rubber stamp for the unelected European Commission’s legislative proposals. The number of MEPs has risen from 736 to 754, since these figures were produced, so even these huge figures fall short of the real cost!”

 The full text of Lord Stoddart’s question and the Government’s response is as follows:

Hansard 08.03.12 Parliaments: CostsQuestion Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the latest figures for the annual total costs, and cost per member, of (1) the House of Lords, (2) the House of Commons, and (c) the European Parliament.

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The table below sets out the annual cost, number of Members and average cost per Member for the House of Commons, House of Lords and European Parliament.

 

House of Commons House of Lords EuropeanParliament

Annual Cost

(£million)

385

109

1,332

Number of Members

650

821-831

736

Expenditure per

Member (£million)

0.59

0.13

1.79

The figures for the House of Commons are taken from the House of Commons annual accounts 2011-122 (for both administrative and Members’ budgets) and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority annual accounts 2011-123.

The House of Lords figures are for taken from the House of Lords annual accounts 2011-124. For the European Parliament, figures are taken from the European Union Budget of 2011 financial report5. The European Parliament increased from 736 Members to 754 from 1 December 2011.

1 Reported annual cost of €1,555 million, converted at the December 2011 exchange rate of €1.18 = £1

2 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/resource-accounts

3 http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/About%20Us/ Corporate%20Publications/Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202011-%202012.pdf

4 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/

00059f3ea3/The-budget-of-the-European-Parliament.html

The EU’s Second Ring

It is often forgotten that Ukrainian industry would be disastrously undercut as a result of the proposed EU association agreement. With much of its market in Russia and no hope of competing with more modern industries in EU countries, Ukraine would be in a similar disastrous state to East German industry after reunification but with no 
massive social support such as East Germany received from West Germany.

The deal offered by Russia looked by far the most sensible option economically - a continuation of its existing trade with Russia, a large injection of cash and a heavily discounted price for Russian gas.

The German puppet organisations and fascists who organised the demonstrations which destabilised the country will face the wrath of their countrymen and more instability once the economic effects of their policy become apparent.

Edward Spalton

The EU’s Second Ring

Taken from German-Foreign-Policy Blog

BERLIN/KIEV/BERN 
In the aftermath of the Western-oriented putsch in Kiev, German politicians are preparing German public opinion for the disastrous deterioration of the Ukraine economic situation. Even though it was most recently suggested that the country could only expect a thriving development by linking up to the EU, it is now – truthfully – being announced that Ukraine is practically bankrupt. The CDU European parliamentarian, Elmar Brok, predicts “difficult times” ahead: “It has never rained gold coins, except in fairy tales.” In fact back in the fall, experts had already indicated that, because of its out-dated industry, the Ukraine would have to expect dramatic economic slumps if it signs the EU Association Agreements – unemployment and poverty would dramatically rise. In a position paper, the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) is now proposing the introduction of a special status in EU ties for the Ukraine as well as other countries, such as Turkey. This sort of EU “second ring” would also permit the economic integration of such countries as Switzerland, which politically resists joining the EU. The SWP contends that these plans could also be used for Catalonia, should it secede from Spain and Scotland, from Britain.
Automatic Adaption
The authors of the SWP position paper initially part from the EU’s relationship with Switzerland, as the basis for their contemplations of the EU forming a “second ring.” Brussels and Bern, according to the paper, have currently signed more than 100 bilateral accords, forming the foundation of close cooperation. Brussels is now insisting on changes, because the intransigence of the accords reached with Bern are no longer in step with the continually evolving EU rules. Rather than always having to “manually” update these accords, Brussels would like to have an agreement on mechanisms, which would make it possible to practically have Switzerland automatically “accept the Union’s legal standards.” This would be “a new institutional umbrella” for bilateral relations. Negotiations were to have begun this spring. However, following the Swiss Free Movement of Persons Referendum, this is no longer immediately possible, because the results of the referendum have placed in question current accords with the EU.
Integrate into the Interior Market
After the results of the referendum, as the authors see it, there should first be a “discussion of principles” on the relations between Switzerland and the EU. This would simultaneously provide “the opportunity” to work out a “model for institutional ties” to the EU for all those countries that one wants “to have participating in the interior market,” while “the political full membership is not wanted either by the country in question or by the EU.” This concerns, first of all, members of the European Economic Area (EEA) (Norway, Island, Liechtenstein), but also Turkey – whose EU membership Berlin has been blocking – as well as the “EU-fatigued … EU members … such as Great Britain,” for the case that the United Kingdom “really decides to abandon union membership.” The Euro crisis has long since “imposed integration at two different speeds,” according to the position paper on closer cooperation within the Euro zone. There are also “many indications that the members of the Euro zone will close ranks even more tightly.”The concept of a “second ring” around a core Europe with a common currency would also make it possible to standardize the economic penetration of European peripheral countries, even those lacking the political will for complete integration.
Possibility of Secession
The SWP position paper explicitly makes reference to the question of “the status that eventually newly-founded countries, such as Catalonia or Scotland, should have.” Catalonia and Scotland are pro-secessionist regions of sovereign countries, whose governments are adamantly opposed to their secession. Last year. in late summer, the EU Commission explicitly reiterated that EU member nations’ territorial integrity is indispensable. Shortly thereafter, the SWP published a paper characterizing Catalonia’s secession as difficult, however feasible. The EU could “reach a situation, where it must be considered” whether a “negotiated separation is not more preferable to a situation of permanent instability,” according to the paper. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.) This statement could have been understood by pro-secessionists to be an indication that Madrid’s and London’s resistance could be broken. The current SWP position paper picks up where the previous paper left off, by proposing, at least, the prospect of admission of the areas of secession to the EU’s “second ring,” in case Spain and Great Britain oppose their full EU membership.
Accession Undesired
This plea for an EU “second circle” is of considerable interest, particularly in view of the Ukraine. The oligarch, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was released from prison last weekend and, for whose release, Berlin had launched a massive PR campaign in 2012 (german-foreign-policy.com reported), has already declared on Saturday that she is convinced that the Ukraine will join the EU in the near future. This can only be seen as an open affront to Berlin and Brussels: As is known, Germany and the EU are not willing to pay for the expensive EU accession of the overwhelmingly impoverished country. This is why they are only seeking Ukraine’s “association,” providing the advantage of exclusive economic links, without the requirement of costly transfer payments. German politicians were quite annoyed with Tymoshenko’s advance. “EU foreign policy has recently experienced … that initiating accession negotiations too early with a large and heterogeneous country at the European periphery is a mistake,” the German CDU European parliamentarian, Herbert Reul, is quoted – a clear rebuff to the country’s EU accession
Socially Extremely Painful
Simultaneously, Berlin is preparing public opinion for the foreseeable disastrous development of the Ukrainian economy. Already last autumn, the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) exposed in a paper that Ukraine’s EU association would require “serious and extremely painful social adjustments.” In early January, an expert of the DGAP journal “Internationale Politik” pointed out that in the EU “very few Ukrainian products” are “competitive.” “Open markets” would therefore incur “enormous adjustment costs” and “the unemployment rate would skyrocket.” If the EU Association Agreements would have been concluded last fall, within a year, the Ukrainians’ “approval rate” of their country’s “EU integration” would probably plunge, according to the author. This is the scenario that looms, if Berlin and Brussels can now put through the country’s association.
Europe, No Fairy Tale
MEP Elmar Brok (CDU), who, for weeks, has repeatedly been negotiating in Kiev and is known as the one “secretly pulling the strings” for the EU in the Ukraine, expressed himself accordingly. “It has never rained gold coins except in fairy tales,” Brok declared following the putsch in the Ukrainian capital: Even though the country has the “best opportunities … on its route to Europe,” it still “will be difficult in the beginning.” Substantial economic problems are already looming. This year, Kiev has to pay approximately ten billion Euros in debts, which it cannot muster without dramatic budget cuts. Moscow had offered its help, but broke off transfer payments after the coup in Kiev. It can be practically excluded that Berlin and Brussels will jump in with billions in payments. After all, Berlin and Brussels are not as interested in the welfare of this country, as in its accession to the German European hegemonic sphere

The EU’s Political Subversion of European Churches

Campaign for an Independent Britain ,78 Carlton Road, Worksop, Notts S80 1PH 

DR ANTHONY COUGHLAN of the Irish National Platform is a long-standing friend of the British Eurosceptic movement. It was his cogent précis of the constitutional effects of the Lisbon Treaty which inspired the compilation of our CIB booklet “A HOUSE DIVIDED – Can Parliament serve two masters, the nation and the European Union?”. 

He has kindly given his permission for the following letter to be circulated to British colleagues who may find his overview of the EU’s involvement with the Churches of Europe useful. 

The EU is an organisation which works through other organisations – as with member states, so with Churches. If it can capture the political leadership of a state or a Church to advance its project, it really does not need to bother much about the citizens of the member state or the individual members of a Church or other organisation which it subverts. It is a corporatist organisation, dealing with other corporate groups.

So, to those who say we should not mix politics and religion, we have to reply that the EU has already done so. It wants its client Churches to provide “a soul for Europe”. Many Church members may not be aware of the political espousal of the EU by their Church’s leaders.

Unless those Church members campaigning for national independence are content to leave the EU in control of collaborationist Church leaderships (supported by their own donations and Sunday collections), they have to start speaking up and asking questions.

Dr. Coughlan’s comments give a very good point from which to start.

Edward Spalton, Hon Secretary CIB  email [email protected]

The National Platform EU Research & Information Centre

24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9

 

Dear Edward,

Thank you very much for sending me those interesting documents on the Christian Churches and particularly on the Church of England. I have printed these out and they contain some illuminating stuff.

I remember Jens-Peter Bonde introducing me to an EU-critical Lutheran clergyman in Denmark some time in the early 1990s, who described how the EU Commission and the European Movement at that time were making a particular effort to co-opt the Christian Churches into supporting the EU project.

They seemingly set this objective as a key political goal following the Danish and Irish Maastricht Treaty referendums in the early 1990s when the Lutheran clergy in Denmark, for instance, tended to be on the No side.

Traditionally, it seems, the Lutheran Churches of Scandinavia, which are all State Churches as you know, tended to be EU-critical, as they stood by the sovereignty of their respective Crowns/Monarchs, representing the national State sovereignty.

As regards the Church of England, you have heard the old wisecrack, I am sure, that the Church of England is the Tory party at prayer! So I expect that the evolution of opinion in the C of E over the years has mirrored that within Conservative circles as a whole.

I do not know how successful the EU’s co-option exercise has proved with the Lutheran Churches, but it has certainly been hugely successful as regards the Roman Catholic Church, which is my own background, especially in the 1990s/early 2000s…I expect that the post 2008 financial crisis has brought new issues into play – the growth of poverty, unemployment etc. – which perhaps reduces the Europhilia of various Church hierarchies, as they have to pay attention to such developments and deplore them from a Christian perspective.

The Catholic Church in Ireland, influential though it was, did not involve itself officially in any way in the 1972 EEC Accession referendum or in our 1987 Single European Act, 1992 Maastricht Treaty and 1998 Amsterdam Treaty referendums.

However in the 2001 Nice Treaty referendum, the newly formed European and International Affairs Committee of the Irish Catholic hierarchy caused consternation among the many Catholic traditionalists on the No-side by coming out with a statement shortly before the referendum which implicitly pointed towards the  desirability of Catholics voting Yes.  Frantic efforts by some of the Catholic No-side people persuaded two of the Bishops to say or imply that they supported the No side, but a lot of damage was done.

Similar interventions occurred in subsequent Irish referendums – in the aborted one on the proposed EU Constitution in 2005 and the 2008 and 2009 Lisbon Treaty referendums.

Sometime in the 1990s the Committee of the Catholic Hierarchies of the European Community/Union was established – known by its French initials as COMECE. It had a full-time office in Brussels , whose full time secretary was for years Monsignor Noel Traynor, who was promoted to the Bishopric of Down and Connor – i.e.  Belfast – a few year ago. The current Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, is also a strong Europhile. You can “google” COMECE on the internet and find various further items of information there.

Traditionally in the RC Church each Bishop was, as the old saying put it, Pope in his own diocese. Each one did his own thing, so to speak. But in recent decades Bishops speak on political issues through the committees of their respective national hierarchies. So that when it comes to an EU issue, they ask themselves : what does our European or International Affairs Committee or sub-committee think. These subcommittees of half a dozen or so people are usually strongly Europhile, having been wined and dined for years in Brussels and gone to symposiums on such matters as “Christian Ethics and the EU” etc. in castles in Germany and so on.

These committees sometimes include lay people  who are Eurofanatics. For example the European Affairs sub-committee which advised the Irish Catholic Hierarchy on its 2001 statement on the Nice Treaty included amongst its members a former Irish EU Commissioner (Richard Burke), plus a woman (by name Kahn-Carroll) who worked full time in the EU office in Dublin.

A relevant consideration for the Catholic Church may be that the German Hierarchy, where citizens as you know pay an annual Church tax, is one of the principal funders of the Vatican and through the Vatican of the RC Church as a whole.

The last but one Pope, John Paul (the Pole Karol Wojytala), was very anti communist and had some kind of vision of the EU replicating the Europe of the Middle Ages, when the Roman Catholic Church had such influence, which made him strongly Europhile.

The last Pope, Benedict, was a German, which may also be relevant.

The Roman Catholic Church, being a world-wide body with over a thousand million members, does not have a uniform view on many non-religious matters of course. Even Catholic religious orders will have different traditions. My own impression is that the Jesuits, for instance – an order of which the present Pope is a member – is traditionally very Europhile, whereas Opus Dei, another influential religious order, is said to be EU-critical…. But within each order there will of course be diverse views held by individual members.

The CIB conference is clearly important and I hope that it goes well. It reminds us EU-critics here in the Republic of Ireland that we should pay more attention to the current state of play regarding the Catholic Church and the EU.

I am not going to the TEAM meeting either, but it was nice to meet you again at the TEAM meeting in Riga last September.

I trust that your political work and that of your colleagues goes well in the months ahead.

All the best for now

As ever,

TONY

EU Drones to Spy on You – Classic Anti-Democratic Corporatism

Totally out of any democratic control by either the European Parliament or national parliaments more than £320m has been spent by the European Union on the development of surveillance drones, STATEWATCH reports.

No elected politicians were consulted never mind asked for permission to carry out this programme. The whole thing was cooked up by EU “officials” and the “security/surveillance industry”. The UK contribution to this democratically illegal and potentially socially repressive programme is £46m, despite the fact that the British Prime Minister (in a rare display of backbone) has opposed any such developments at the European level. David Cameron’s displays of righteous indignation at the activities of the EU are as frequent and as loud as his devotion to Britain’s continued membership of this blatantly corporatist fascist organisation.

This particular issue happens in fact to display precisely the true, surreptitious, anti democratic nature of the Statist/bureaucratic/corporatist system which characterises the European Union. Statewatch discovered an allocation of £58m for the programme inserted into “an EU regulation on air traffic control for this year”. When the Euro-fascists pursue their more important programmes of democratic destruction they always do so furtively and by manipulation of what appear to be democratic structures. They established the European on the ashes of democratic nation states by precisely such manoeuvres so fascist systems are within their “DNA”!

The blatantly anti democratic corporatist power here is revealed by the discovery by Statewatch that a dozen or more EU officials have received “awards” for their “personal commitment and contribution” to the drones programme from – wait for it! – the industrial lobbying group representing the manufacturers of surveillance aircraft. The whole history of the foundation of the EU was in the “European Assembly” – set up in Strassbourg where there was in those days a distinct shortage of elected representatives of the peoples of Europe but a large number of industrial lobbying groups! Today all the trappings of democratic Governance are in place BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED! The democratic nation states are bypassed, their Ministers are powerless, their parliaments know nothing and the European “Parliament” is a feckless joke for which very few EU “citizens” can be bothered to vote.

MEPs and MPs will not be consulted on this programme and of course it is now well advanced. Doubtless one day if there is enough of a stink raised (there won’t be or if there is the stupid European press will suppress it) there might be a vote on a related matter and (as with the funding above) the whole programme will be slipped in and “approved”.

The UK is not the only country considering leaving the EU

A major study has shown that if the Netherlands were outside the EU there would be more jobs, more growth and more income. That is the result of a study on the exit of the Netherlands from the EU. The study was conducted by research firm Capital Economics, winner of the Wolfson Prize, the most important award for economic research after the Nobel Prize.

Every Dutch household in the next two decades would be an average of almost $ 10,000 a year better off after NEXIT. If we leave the EU, our economy will be 10 % bigger in 2024 than if we stayed in.

We would save billions and our country would no longer have to retrench to meet the Brussels 3% standard. We put an end to the fees and allowances for Romanians and Bulgarians. We stop shipping money to Greece.

Geert Wilders : “The report clearly shows that our departure from the EU offers a way out of the crisis.  We can then invest Dutch money in our own country. We can cut taxes, VAT and excise duty reduction, giving our economy some oxygen again… “