MEP hammers Brussels “doublespeak” on agriculture

Announcements by the European Commission on the proposed restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been condemned by British MEP Stuart Agnew who said they would create “a lawyer’s paradise”. Mr Agnew said: “The proposals to target CAP subsidies toward ‘active farmers’ are a classic example of ‘doublespeak’, introduced as a simplification when it rapidly becomes apparent that things will be much more complicated. These proposals will create a lawyer’s paradise because they will have to become involved in deciding if the splitting of a business is a genuine desire or whether it is just a cynical subsidy harvesting operation. Lawyers will also be involved in deciding who is an ‘active farmer’ and what exactly constitutes ‘farmed’ land.”

“Inevitably, yet another British quango must be set up to advise farmers of their benefits. All this new tide of micro-management demonstrates is that it is not practical or sensible to have a single agriculture policy for 27 very diverse countries developed and administered by unelected, deskbound bureaucrats from the European Commission.”

Regions and Devolution – the EU angle by Edward Spalton

George Morland (4 June 2012) is understandably angry about the effects of devolution. In the run-up to EEC membership, the Foreign Office was planning for this in 1971, as the following paper shows (Ref FCO/1048). “The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feelings of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within member states and effective Community economic and social policies will be essential… There would be a major responsibility on HM Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular policies to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community” (now the EU).

So you now can see the inherent fraud from the beginning although it was top secret at the time. Supposedly “democratic” bodies would be set up but they would enforce “Community” (i.e. EU) policies. In the UK this was deliberately done in an “asymetric” (i.e. unfair) manner to give rise to the sort of grievances of which Mr Morland complains, thus setting people in different parts of the country against each other.

Since it was founded in 1707 the weakening or dissolution of the UK has been the aim of every would-be dominant European power. The difference is that this time, the project is assisted by our own collaborationist governments of all main parties. The process is called “perforated sovereignty”.

Almost everybody in the country is fed up with “Westminster sub Brussels” so it is not surprising that some people in Scotland should feel they could do better for themselves. However, Mr Salmond is offering “Independence in Europe” which will be entirely illusory.

Slovakia, of fairly similar population to Scotland, is one of the poorest EU members and kept all the rules of the Euro currency. Yet it has been made to contribute towards the Euro bail-out fund for much richer countries which cheated. For about four days they held out against this but were quickly dragooned into line.

The English Regional Assemblies were part of this project, thoroughly discredited by the referendum in the North East which produced a massive majority against an elected regional assembly. The London referendum for an assembly just squeaked through.

Many EU grants can only be applied for at regional level, so the regions were set up to compete with each other to be the most “European” and hence the most favoured. £500 million was spent on useless and unused regional fire control centres to give regional government something to do. Whilst the regional bodies now lie a’mouldering in the grave, their soul and functions go marching on in even more obscure forms because the EU treaty obligations have not altered. “Localism” is another fraud to cover this up.

Sir Peter Housden was John Prescott’s top civil servant for the English regional project. He is now Alec Salmond’s top civil servant and has been heavily criticised for his extreme partiality to the cause of Scottish independence.

So the people of this kingdom are being manipulated and deliberately set against each other by outside influences, assisted by home-grown collaborators. Anger is understandable in the circumstances. The authorities want us to feel angry with each other but the anger should be directed at the manipulators, not the manipulated.

The Snooper’s Charter by Anne Palmer

Headlines in the Daily Mail 15th June 2012 page 6. “Police demand the Right to snoop on everyone’s emails “ Even a special Daily Mail “Comment” on the matter on the same page, and then “Our” “Littlejohn” “Trust me, you can’t trust this lot with any more powers.” Again more information on the same subject. But why no mention where this legislation actually came from and why is it being implemented now by our Coalition Government?

EU Directive from the Official Journal of the EU 13.4.2006 L 105/54 perhaps has the best information. From Article 3, 4 and 5 it advises on exactly what each Nation State has to do and what information they should gather and keep, length of time also given. Article 13 describes the “Remedies, Liability and Penalties”.

I say to Mrs May, the money your alleged Government are removing from the elderly, the sick, the kids, making us pay more for everything we buy is so that you can spend a billion or so British pounds to allegedly catch criminals through this EU legislation? That they, if caught, will probably have a slap on the wrist, and sent on their way and all because you have to obey EU legislation?

In the last war-which I remember very well indeed-no one minded letters opened etc in those days, and we were glad such security was activated-we got used to our letters being opened to and from our serving Forces, and some-times words completely obliterated. That was in WAR TIME, a full scale war here in the UK from the bombing. Friends and relations here one day, gone the next. We didn’t mind the security THEN, BUT WE ARE NOT AT WAR NOW ARE WE? We can’t even close our Borders to prevent would be “terrorists” from coming into our Country. Why do you not tackle THAT problem first, that is far more important than this.

The EU is all about Peace, Security, Sharing, my, the EU even brought out Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Then there is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrined in legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights, ah yes, so many RIGHTS for the people, and then there is our own Magna Carta, envied through-out the World and our Bill of Rights—

  • That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
  • That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
  • And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness etc as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. All Ignored but they are still there and they will not go away for to destroy the
Constitution of course, is an act of treason.

As for the suggestion, I have recently read in these papers, that the European Union could “fine” our own sovereign Government if they do not obey EU legislation, should give our Government the hint that it is time to withdraw from such an Organisation.

For our Government to betray the people that elect and pay them to actually Govern this Country according to its law, yet to actually choose to snoop on them, brings shame on ALL of those in that once proud Houses of Parliament where I remember a GREAT man stood and brought courage to the people of this Country to withstand the mass bombing of this Country in war-time. His famous words I remember even now “ACTION THIS DAY”. And sadly, the present lot choose freely to activate such a snooping law brought out by foreigners, on their own people. How could you!

Yet we have a Government we pay and some have sadly elected, and all this Government can come up with is this snooping on their own people, rather than saying NO. In my book, our Government have betrayed the very people that elected them. It really is time to beak the chains that bind us to such an Organisation that comes up with such as this. How on earth do any of you sleep at night? How will you look your children in their faces when they too realise what between you have done to their Country.

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC

There are others of course.

I am sure you all know your own Bill of Rights. 1689

An Irish challenge to the European Stability Mechanism

Legal proceedings have been initiated by Thomas Pringle T.D., Independent Irish Member of Parliament for Donegal South-West, challenging the Irish Government on fundamental aspects of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)
Treaty and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaty

Pringle stated that he is “of the opinion that both treaties raise serious legal difficulties both at the level of EU treaty law and Irish Constitutional law.”

Stating “my primary democratic concern as both a citizen and as an elected public representative is the integrity of the Irish Constitution and the EU treaties which now form such an important part of our constitutional framework. I believe that the matters that I seek the clarification and assistance of the Court on are of crucial importance not only for the citizens of this country but for the future of the EU.”

Of special concern to him are the implications under the terms of the ESM Treaty of a new permanent €700 billion bailout fund called the European Stability Mechanism to be set up with power to call on Ireland (at a time of that institution’s choosing) to make capital contributions of up to €11,145,400,00 in various forms of capital.

“In this country’s case, this is the equivalent to approximately one-third of Government Tax Revenue for 2011. This figure can be increased at the sole behest of the ESM at any time in the future and with no limit set in the treaty as to what may be sought from Member States in the future.

“In effect this Stability Mechanism can direct the State to raise sovereign debt, give the money so raised to it and can then decide, where, when, whether and how it is to be spent. Therefore Ireland will not have power to control decisions regarding the use of funds raised by it.”

Implications – What if a majority of voters in the May referendum on the Fiscal Compact Treaty vote in favour of imposing permanent austerity rules on the country in order to get access to a proposed permanent Eurozone loan fund only to discover that the treaty to establish that fund is illegal under EU law and unconstitutional in Ireland and may never in fact come into force?

Pringle said “On the 9th March last I wrote to Irish Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs detailing some of these very serious concerns. To date I have received no reply to this correspondence beyond the usual standard acknowledgement of receipt of the communication. I have now been left with no other option but to take this course of action.”

Summary of the Case

“I am asking the Court to examine the legality of the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) before any further action is taken by Government to approve that amendment. That amendment is being adopted under a so-called ‘simplified revision procedure’ of the EU treaties which I believe is legally wrong. The changes being proposed are so fundamental that they should go through the ‘ordinary treaty revision procedure’ to ensure proper democratic scrutiny. They also require the approval of the Irish people.

“I am also asking the Court to consider whether the ESM Treaty is in breach of existing EU treaty principles which have been approved by the Irish people in previous referendums and which are now therefore part of our law.

“In addition I am asking the Court to decide whether the State can ratify the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism without first having the approval of the people in a referendum.

“The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and
Monetary Union signed on 2nd March 2012 is intertwined with the ESM Treaty. They each depend on the other.

“If I am right in my belief that the ESM Treaty is unlawful, then there is in my opinion a question over the validity of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.”

Timing & Positioning Q & A

Pringle states that he “appreciates and welcomes the Irish Government’s
decision to submit the issue of the Fiscal Treaty to the people by way of
referendum”, but he “has concerns that due to the intense pressures on
Government at this time, the need to put the amendment to the EU treaties and the ESM Treaty to a referendum may not yet have been fully scrutinised. In order to assist in that scrutiny, he is seeking particular judicial review in these proceedings.”

Incentives for Polish Migration


1. There is a significant financial benefit for Polish nationals to migrate to the United Kingdom in search of work. Even modest savings would allow Polish workers on the minimum wage in the UK to save what they would earn in an entire year at home. The much higher benefits for families in the UK compared to Poland will also act as a significant pull factor.  Poland is the major source of migrants to the UK but similar considerations apply to the other new Eastern European members of the EU, known as the A8.  Any significant increase in A8 migration would undermine the government’s efforts to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ by the end of this Parliament.

Polish Population in the UK

2. Following Polish accession to the European Union in 2004, a large number of people migrated from Poland to the UK in search of work. The new EU nationals were free to come to the UK to work as a result of the previous government’s decision not to impose transitional controls; only the UK, Ireland and Sweden opened their labour markets immediately. The Annual Population Survey estimated that in 2010 there were 550,000 Polish born residents in the UK1 In 2004 there were just 95,000.2

3. The vast majority of Polish nationals who migrated to the UK did so in search of work. The profile of A8 migrants shows that they are disproportionately young compared to the UK population, they are relatively highly educated, and have higher rates of participation in the labour market.

4. Unemployment in Poland at the time of accession was close to 20%. Following accession the unemployment rate fell quite rapidly to about 10% in 2006. Those who migrated to the UK in 2004 must have been influenced by high unemployment but that will have been a less important factor after 2006.  Although unemployment has risen somewhat in Poland since the onset of the recession, it remains at about 10%, just below the EU average.3

Incentives for Polish Migration

5. This reduction in unemployment suggests that a major driver of more recent Polish migration has been the considerably higher standard of living in the UK and the potential to make savings in the UK which translate into significant sums of money in Poland. Anecdotal evidence suggests that single workers often live in multiple occupancy housing as a means of keeping costs down; most migrants from the A8 plan to stay in the UK for less than four years and do not see their move as permanent.4

Financial Incentives of Migration to the UK for Single Workers

6. In the UK, a single person earning the minimum wage will take home £254 per week after tax but including benefits. (See Annex A) This is an annual income of just over £13,200. If Polish workers were to make a modest saving of 20%, they would be saving about £50 per week. Yet this weekly saving is the equivalent of around 250 Polish Zloty at the current exchange rate – roughly what a worker would earn in a week in Poland on the minimum wage. (See Annex B)

Financial Incentives of Migration to the UK for a Family of Four

7. An individual in the UK who has a dependant spouse and two children, earning the minimum wage would receive a weekly income, including benefits, of £543, or annually just over £28,200. (See Annex A) Again, if a Polish family made a 20% weekly saving, this would equate to around £110 which is worth 540 in Polish Zloty. In Poland, a person in the same circumstances would have a weekly income of 375 Zloty (after tax and including benefits). (Annex C) Thus, if they could save 20% of their earnings in the UK, they would be saving almost one and a half times what they would have earned in Poland.

Higher standard of living in the UK

8. Aside from the savings that can be made in the UK which translate into significant sums of money in their native Poland, a family is able to enjoy a far better standard of living in the UK than at home. In order to compare wages across countries, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) data has been used which allows for the different costs of living. (See Notes)

9. In Poland a family on the minimum wage would have a weekly income of 375 Zloty. Once the differing costs of living have been accounted for, this is the equivalent of around £145. In the UK, the same family on the minimum wage would have a weekly income of £543 which is almost four times what they would earn at home. Even a family which had been in the favourable position of being on the average wage in Poland would still be able to increase their standard of living significantly. At home they would have a weekly income of around 615 Zloty. Once the differing costs of living have been accounted for, this is the equivalent of around £235. In the UK however, their income on the minimum wage would be £543 or almost two and a half times as much as they would receive at home. (Annex D)

Annex A

Minimum Wage Household Incomes in the UK 

GBP Total household income at min. wage
SinglePerson CoupleTwo Child
Gross earnings Income Tax National Insurance







Net weekly income



Working Tax Credit Child Tax credit Child Benefit







Total direct benefits



Housing BenefitCouncil Tax Benefit





Total housing benefits



Total Income per week



Total Annual Income 13218


Savings of 20%Zloty





Source: DWP Tax Benefit Model

DWP Tax Benefit Model is based on a selection of hypothetical families. The family lives in a local authority or privately rented property appropriate to its size and pays average amounts of rent and council tax for the 2010/2011 financial year.

Annex B

Household Income of a Single Person in Poland on the Minimum Wage in Polish Zloty and converted to £s 

Single Adult on Minimum Wage in Poland after Tax and including Benefits
Polish Zloty
Annual    Weekly
Gross IncomeMinus Income TaxMinus Social ContributionsHousehold Net Income








Household Net Income in £s


2699 52

Based on exchange rate

Annex C

Household Income of an individual with a dependant spouse and two children in Poland on the Minimum Wage in Polish Zloty and converted to £s

Individual with Dependant Spouse and Two Children on Minimum Wage after Tax and including Benefits
Polish Zloty
Annual Weekly
Gross IncomeMinus Income TaxMinus Social ContributionsPlus Family Benefit

Plus Housing Benefit

Household Net Income












Household Net Income in £s
3930 76

Based on exchange rate

Annex D

Comparison of household incomes in Poland and the UK

Total Household Income of a two child sole worker family After Tax and Inc. Benefit

Working in Poland

Working in the UK
Net Polish Zloty

Converted to US$

using PPP

Converted to £s using PPP














Minimum Wage
AnnualWeekly 32017616 19480375 17976346 10937211 12169234






Based on Purchasing Power Parity for Actual Individual Consumption Data from OECD, 2010: Poland – 1.781125 UK – 0.676954

Exchange Rates (OANDA, as at 29/3/2012):£1 = 4.95731 Polish Zloty €1 = 4.15008 Polish Zloty

Eurostat data on minimum wage earnings

Average Wage Earnings, Polish Statistics Authority

Tax and Benefit Data extracted using OECD Tax-Benefit Calculator


Polish Household Incomes

The OECD Tax-Benefit Calculator has been used to calculate the approximate take home pay of an individual in two scenarios in Poland, a single worker with no dependants and a worker with a dependant spouse and two children. Calculation is based on a salary of 18,061 Zloty, due to restrictions with OECD Calculator. The minimum wage, derived from EUROSTAT data, is slightly lower at 16,756 Zloty.

Purchasing Power Parity

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) data adjusts for the differing costs of living in two countries which simple exchange rate mechanisms cannot account for. PPP therefore compares household incomes in different countries after taking account of the different costs of living.


Data from the OECD Tax-Benefit Calculator is based on data from 2010 and is the latest available.

1 Office for National Statistics, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality, April 2010 to March 2011, Table 1.3, URL:

2 Office for National Statistics, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality, 2004, Table 1.3, URL:

3 Eurostat News Release 176/2011, 30 November 2011, URL:

4 International Passenger Survey, Table 3.17 Intended Length of Stay by country of last or next residence.

Another blow for British farmers

“Battery chickens” are a thing of the past in Britain, and millions of pounds have been spent ensuring that this form of egg production is well and truly eradicated in this country. But now it looks as if the EU, which helped to push through this policy in the first place, is no longer interested in enforcing it and will allow egg producers on the Continent to flout the law, thereby undercutting British farmers.

John Dalli, the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, told the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee recently that the Commission will no longer make any serious attempt to ensure that the battery cage ban is properly enforced or that consumers will be made aware that they are buying battery eggs.

The Commissioner’s statement brought a furious response from committee member Stuart Agnew MEP, who is himself a farmer and a producer of free range eggs.

Mr Agnew has launched a campaign to ensure that eggs bought and sold in the UK from January 2012 onwards will be from approved sources and not from illegal battery farming. From 1st January, a ban on eggs produced from battery cage hens is due to come into effect, but despite being warned many times the European Commission has failed to take any serious steps to enforce the ban or to pressure member states to prepare for it.

Unfair competition

The biggest concern is with eggs produced in Eastern and Southern Europe, Mr Agnew said. “Five EU member states – Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Spain and Greece – have to date provided absolutely no information about their efforts to comply with the legislation. Mr Dalli told us that it is the responsibility of member states to ensure compliance, not the Commission, which is a total abrogation of responsibility for legislation it generated.

“This effectively means that British egg producers, who have invested £400 million of their own money to comply with the ban, are being abandoned and many could go out of business in the face of unfair competition from battery egg producers in other EU member states.

“It becomes more than ever vital that the UK Government takes urgent steps to ensure that imported eggs comply with the law.”

The UKIP MEP added, “In order to protect British egg producers and consumers from illegally produced eggs, I am stepping up pressure on supermarkets to ensure that they will not be sourcing battery produced eggs after 1st January. I am also making sure that they are aware of the potential problem of illegal eggs coming into the country and/or being used in food products they are selling to British consumers.

“Fortunately, some consumers are waking up to the problem and, to date I have had nearly 400 emails on this one subject. I have replied to every one of them, supplying a list of 22 supermarket head office addresses that they should write to and I have suggested that they should also write to their local MP, to get them to pressure the Government to ensure that businesses that trade in imported eggs are made aware of the need to avoid battery produced eggs. The response has been overwhelmingly supportive of my campaign.

“One other big lesson everyone should learn from this crisis,” said Mr Agnew, “Is that if we were an independent self-governing nation, we would never have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess.”