What is to come from the EU? by Anne Palmer.

European Arrest Warrants.  OPT Ins and other things

1) I find it difficult to understand why any British Government, British Political Party or Organisation should even ask the question whether this Country with its unique and much envied long standing Common Law Constitution, would even think about abandoning our unique Justice System based on Magna Carta, that far braver people fought and died so that we could continue with out British way of life with our unique Justice System which has indeed been the envy of the World.

2) I firstly mention the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for noted that, “Under Protocol 36 the Framework Decision  on the EAW will continue to apply after Dec 2014, but it will be subject to the enforcement powers of the Commission and the Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.  If it is amended before then and the UK adopts it in its amended form under article 9 of protocol 36, it will automatically become a directive subject to the powers of the Commission and the Jurisdiction of the Court.” What indeed will the UK Government choose to do, especially if this Country remains in the EU and this will apply for all time coming.

3) However, noted that if the UK gives notice that it does NOT accept these powers and the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction, the EAW framework decision and all other un-amended JHA measures will no longer apply to the UK.

4) A brief mention regarding the European Arrest Warrant in which we have witnessed for ourselves is incompatible with our system and which, if I remember correctly the Conservative Party once opposed it.  I also raise this important point re an Arrest Warrant for this new Committee that on reading the Verbatim Report of the proceedings in the European Parliament in the sitting of Tuesday 3rd June 2003 Re “EU-USA Judicial Cooperation Agreement”, in which Commissioner Vitorino, was thanking in particular Mr Hernández Mollar the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs,  on a bilateral agreement between Member States and the United States of America.   “This assessment has to be made taking due account of the fact that this is, as the resident mentioned, the very first Union agreement in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, and it will be an historical precedent”.  Well it certainly was, and as far as I can tell, there was no debate in this Country BEFORE this action took place on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.

5) To the best of my knowledge, this EU-USA Agreement between the EU-USA was not debated in the United Kingdom Parliament before this agreement was made.   It is however recorded in the House of Lords “European Arrest Warrant: EUC Report 23rd April 2002” see columns 219-236.  The EU making decisions for this great Country without the people (or Government?) of this Country knowing what they are doing in our name.  Did our Government know? Could we  “opt out” of this had we have known about it?  Could we “opt out” of it now? How is it that foreigners can make these very sensitive and important decisions on our behalf without us knowing?

6) I understand the Death Penalty is still operating in the USA, so are we, in having to comply with the EU-USA Agreement which was made for us by the EU, sending people to their deaths? The decisions the United Kingdom make on the EAW and all 133 OPT out’s will affect the people of this Country –for all time- especially if they decide to opt “IN” to anything for the European Union will have control over policing and criminal law for all time coming.

 7) I now turn to the “Opt Ins” or “Opt Outs” and I really do find it difficult to accept that a British Government and/or Parliament would even contemplate “Opting IN” to any one of them.  Firstly, and because “No British Parliament can, under the British Constitution, bind a later Parliament.”   Plus, the people have never been allowed one say before any EEC/EC/EU Treaty was ratified.  Edward Heath told the people before the REFERENDUM in June 1975,  “There is no question of eroding any national sovereignty; there is no blueprint for a federal Europe. There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say are completely unjustified”.  A lie that was admitted many years afterwards on TV.   Noted also however, the United Kingdom has no Constitutional referendum process for they are actually plebiscites as they are not binding and are at the discretion of the Parliament.  The only clear “referendum” for the people is a General Election.

8) Having worked my way down the “Third Pillar” OPT IN or OPT OUT Measures subject to the 2014 Decision”,  I note that the ones crossed off the list have been replaced by EU Directives, so it seems to be a “lose,”  “you lose again” situation.

9) Number 2 in the (OPT IN) list, “an exchange of liaison Magistrates to improve judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union”.  Why? To sit in and observe the great difference between the two systems?   Most observers certainly cannot take any part in the role of Magistrate or even to observe in the Magistrates retiring room where they make their decision. Magistrates go through a certain amount of training plus, they also so swear yet another special Judicial Oath to the Oath they have already made to the British Crown.

10) There is absolutely no point at all unless there is a proposals to do away with our long standing Common Law Constitution and Judiciary?  That may even fall under one of the Treason Acts protecting our Constitution?

11) Quite frankly, if we continue to “Opt in” to these measures, I see absolutely no point in electing a British Government or Parliament especially now that our Governments has set up the Regions of the European Union throughout the United Kingdom.  (See the [EU’s] Localism Act set up by Mr Cameron)

12) Without doubt I believe any “OPT IN” places our own unique legal system into a situation of constitutional crisis, our sovereignty, our Rule of Law. And most certainly our fundamental liberties in jeopardy.  I cannot and never will understand how a British Government could even contemplate ‘opting in’ to any of these proposals. To cede sovereignty (Authority) in this area is to me, basically accepting that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the Supreme Court over all Courts in the United Kingdom including the recent new UK Supreme  Court.  I therefore look upon these measures as treason.  To destroy our Constitution is indeed treason.

13) It is not appropriate to have EU wide harmonised Criminal Procedural Laws. Too many have given their lives to keep our own traditions and we cannot knowingly fail or betray them now surely? They gave their lives so that this Country would always be free from foreign rule. For all the people in this land to be free to govern themselves by their own long standing Common Law Constitution and, in the words that MP’s end with having made their Oath of Allegiance before they may take their seats in the House of Commons even though some people may have freely elected them,  they say and “ACCORDING TO LAW”.

 14) This brings me to a 422  page article, “The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice”  already in preparation for training to the EU way of Justice.   At least look at it and see what is in store for you. Does the EU know something we don’t know, for on page 12 Scotland is already separated from the rest of the UK.  Is it a case of Scotland will break away from the rest of the United Kingdom thus destroying it completely? Will the other two parts want to break away?  Is it all part of “the Plan”? This article is not very easy to get but try.

15) On practical matters we would lose Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury and possibly Magistrates Courts?  I note the EU Commission paper “Brussels, 20.9.2011. COM (2011) 573 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC   AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU   policies through criminal law.  It is to THAT we are travelling here in the UK if we do not get out of the EU soon and before 2014.

16) To go along with EU Justice there is a report on European Judicial Training Dated 2011.   “ For EU law to be effective, it has to be applied properly in practice and that starts with the judges, lawyers, prosecutors and notaries working throughout the European Union.  With this in mind, in 2011, the European Commission set the objective of training 700000 legal practitioners – half of all those in the EU – in European Law or the law of another member state, by 2020.   So it really looks guys, that if we do not get out of the EU at the latest by 2015 and by using that General Election as the REFERENDUM and vote anyone into Office other than any one of the major THREE Political Parties that have indeed brought us to the place we are in at present.

17) Finally, it was noted that nine separate changes made recently, to certain parts of our Constitution allegedly for the then forthcoming birth of the new Royal Baby. Nine changes to nine separate parts of our Constitution that many gave their lives for in the saving of it for all of us including all in that Houses of Parliament. I wrote three letters to the Prime Minister one each in each of the three months previous to the Succession to the Crown Bill was made and Act. I received a letter after the Bill became an ACT. Our Bill of Rights has two codicils at the end which forbids any changes to it and it is there for all the people of this Country to remain in full for all time coming.  Noted the changes that have allegedly been made is now in keeping with the EU’s Equality Act and the ECHR etc.  However, the question remains, “How could the people’s Common Law Constitution be changed without the consent of the people? Certainly not by Governments for the Common Law was and is still a protection from the Monarchy and Governments.   To destroy the Constitution is indeed an Act of Treason, The Treason Acts of course cannot be repealed for they are there (unless we lose a war) to protect our Constitution for all time.  It is the Common Law Constitution for all the people, our Constitution therefore does I suggest, remain in full.  Charges of Treason have been tried over many years, all without success. Deliberately so. Our Constitution FORBIDS us to encourage in any way-even and perhaps especially financially- foreigners Governing us- THAT IS WHY WE HAVE FOUGHT IN TWO WORLD WARS. Why are we electing anyone from the three major Political Parties?  Why are we paying them?  “…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.”

Addition to the above.  A Letter received today 4.10.2013 from an MP representative of our Government. That as all Commonwealth Countries have given their consent to these changes, all is indeed well.  However, I believe the Commonwealth Countries have their own unique Constitutions.  The people of this Country have not been asked if the present temporary Government can indeed change our long standing Common Law Constitution that so many gave their lives for in two World Wars in order to keep not only our way of life, but our own Constitution rather than the Constitutions of foreigners or indeed change our Constitution just to suit foreigners. (Still an ongoing argument)

The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

This has 422 pages. At least look at it and see what is in store for you. Does the EU know something we don’t know, for on page 12 Scotland is already separated from the rest of the UK.  It has a questionnaire at the end! See how you go.  http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2012/Rapport_en.pdf

Date: 17/07/2013 Commission proposes European Public Prosecutor’s Office and reform of Eurojust to protect the financial interests of the EU. Once opened this has 8 more leads. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/news/130717_en.htm

Report on Official Training google in  Report on European judicial training 2011.

And http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/european-judicial-training/index_en.htm

And http://www.encj.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149%3Aecpubli shesreporttraining&catid=22%3Anews&lang=en

European judicial systems Edition 2006 (2004 data) European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)

Google in the above.

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES. Council conclusions of 27 October 2011 on European judicial training  (2011/C 361/03) Official Journal of the European Union C361   Volume 54   10 December 2011.

European Prosecutors Office

EU Banking Union    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-

18409175 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120907.en.html

Towards a banking union

At the European Council of 28/29 June, EU leaders agreed to deepen economic and monetary union as one of the remedies of the current crisis. At that meeting, the leaders discussed the report entitled ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union‘1, prepared by the President of the European Council in close collaboration with the President of the European Commission, the Chair of the Eurogroup and the President of the European Central Bank. This report set out the main building blocks towards deeper economic and monetary integration, including banking union.  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12- 656_en.htm

EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR

Executive summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Commission proposals for a directive amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audit of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, and for a regulation on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities (The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS

website:  http://www.edps.europa.eu)

Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law (2012/C 336/04) Google in this below

Brussels, 20.9.2011 COM(2011) 573 final UK Convergence Programme   http://www.comunitanext.org/2011/03/convergence-

programmes-of-hungarysweden-and-the-united-kingdom/

AND https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-convergence-programme-2012-13

European Prosecutor’s Office   http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/judicial- cooperation/public-prosecutor/index_en.htm

EU Banking Union   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18409175 http://www.ft.com/indepth/european-banking-union

Schengen   http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_

of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm

How the Bankers Who Created the Euro Helped the Nazis

  HOW THE BANKERS WHO   CREATED THE EURO HELPED THE NAZIS

There is more to the tale of Czechoslovak gold being stolen by Germany than in the Bank of England’s embarrassment – the Bank for International Settlements actually financed Hitler’s war machine, says Adam LeBor

The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.

The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montagu Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.

The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank of International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.

The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.

The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.

To outsiders, the distinction between the accounts seems obscure. Yet it proved crucial – and allowed Norman to ensure that the first order was carried out. The Czechoslovak bank officials believed that as the orders had obviously been carried out under duress neither would be allowed to go through. But they had not reckoned on the bureaucrats running the BIS and the determination of Montagu Norman to see that procedures were followed, even as his country prepared for war with Nazi Germany.

His decision caused uproar, both in the press and in the parliament. George Strauss, a Labour MP, spoke for many when he thundered in Parliament: “The Bank for International Settlements is the bank which sanctions the most notorious outrage of tis generation – the rape of Czechoslovakia.” Winston Churchill demanded to know how the government could as its citizens to enlist in the military when it was “so butter-fingered that £6 million worth of gold can be transferred to Nazi government.”

It was a good question. Thanks to Norman and the BIS, Nazi Germany had just looted 23.1 tons of gold without a shot being fired. The second transfer order, for the gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name, did not go through. Sir John Simon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had instructed banks to block all Czechoslovak assets.

The documents released by the Bank of England are revealing, both for what they show and what they omit. They are a window into a world fearful deference of authority, the primacy of procedure over morality, a world where, for the bankers, the most important thing is to keep the channels of international finance open, no matter what the human cost. A world, in other words, not entirely different to today.

The BIS was founded in 1930, in effect by Montagu Norman and his close friend Hjalmar Schact, the former president of the Reichsbank, known as the father of the Nazi economic miracle. Schacht even referred to the BIS as “my” bank. The BIS is a unique hybrid: a commercial bank protected by international treaty. Its assets can never be seized, even in times of war. It pays no taxes on profits. The Czechoslovaks believed that the BIS’s legal immunities would protect them. But they were wrong.

The Bank of England’s historian argued that to refuse the transfer order would have been a breach of Britain’s treaty obligations with regard to the BIS. In fact there was a powerful counter-argument that the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia had rendered any such obligations null and void as the country no longer existed.

A key sentence in the Bank of England documents is found on page 1,295. It reads: “The general attitude of the Bank of England directors of the BIS during the war was governed by their anxiety to keep the BIS to play its part in the solution of post-war problems”. And here the secret history of the BIS and its strong relationship with the Bank of England becomes ever more murky.

During the war the BIS proclaimed that it was neutral, a view supported by the Bank of England. In fact the BIS was so entwined with the Nazi economy that it helped keep the Third Reich in business, It carried out foreign exchange deals for the Reichsbank; it accepted looted Nazi gold; it recognised the puppet regimes installed in occupied countries, which, together with the Third Reich, soon controlled the majority of the bank’s shares.

Indeed, the BIS was so useful for the Nazis that Emil Puhl, the vice-president of the Reichsbank and BIS director, referred to the BIS as the Reichsbank’s only “foreign branch”.

The BIS’s reach and connections were vital for Germany. So much so, that all through the war, the Reichsbank continued paying interest on the monies lent by the BIS. This interest was used by the BIS to pay dividends to shareholders – which included the Bank of England. Thus, through the BIS, the Reichsbank was funding the British war economy. After the war, five BIS directors were tried for war crimes, including Schacht. “They don’t hang bankers,” Schacht supposedly said, and he was right – he was acquitted.

Buried among the typewritten pages of the Bank of England’s history is a name of whom few have ever heard, a man for whom, like Montagu Norman, the primacy of international finance reigned over mere national considerations.

Thomas McKittrick, an American banker, was president of the BIS. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, McKittrick’s position, the history notes, “became difficult”. But McKittrick managed to keep the bank in business, thanks in part to his friend Allen Dulles, the US spymaster based in Berne. McKittrick was an asset of Dulles, known as Codename 644, and frequently passed him information that he had garnered from Emil Puhl, who was a frequent visitor to Basel and often met McKittrick.

Declassified documents in the American intelligence archives reveal an even more disturbing story. Under an intelligence operation known as the “Harvard Plan”, McKittrick was in contact with Nazi industrialists, working towards what the US documents, dated February 1945, describe as a “close cooperation between the Allied and German business world”.

Thus while Allied soldiers were fighting through Europe, McKittrick was cutting deals to keep the Germany economy strong. This was happening with what the US documents describe as “the full assistance” of the State department.

The Bank of England history also makes disparaging reference to Harry Dexter White, an official in the Treasury Department, who was a close ally of Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary. Moregenthau amd White were the BIS’s most powerful enemies and lobbied hard at Bretton Woods in July 1944, where the Allies met to plan the post-war financial system for the BIS to be closed. While the Bank history notes rather sneeringly, had said of the BIS: “There is an American president doing business with the Germans while our boys are fighting the Germans.”

Aided by its powerful friends, such as Montagu Norman, Allen Dulles and much of Wall Street, the BIS survived the attempts by Morgenthau and White to close it down. The bank’s allies used precisely the argument detailed on page 1,295 of the Bank of England’s history; the BIS was needed to plan the post-war European economy.

From the 1950s to the 1990s the BIS hosted much of the planning and technical preparation for the introduction of the euro. Without the BIS the euro would probably not exist. In 1994, Alexander Lamfalussy, the former BIS manager, set up the European Monetary Institute, now knows as the European Central Bank.

The BIS remains very profitable. It has only about 140 customers (it refuses to say how many) but made a tax-free profit of about £900 million last year. Every other month it hosts the Global Economy Meetings, where 60 of the most powerful central bankers, including Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, meet. No details of meetings are released, even though the attendees are public servants, charged with managing national economies.

The BIS also hosts the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which regulates commercial banks, and the new Financial Stability Board, which coordinates national regulatory authorities. The BIS has made itself the central pillar of the global financial system.

Montagu Norman and Hjalmar Schacht would be very proud indeed.

Adam LeBor is the author of ‘Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank That Runs the World’, published by Public Affairs.

This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph

Speech by Lord Pearson of Rannoch to The House of Lords

I am truly grateful to all Noble Lords who are to speak today. A number of other Noble Lords have said that they support the Bill, but are either unable to be present or to stay to the end. They include the Noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lords, Lord Vinson, Lord Tebbit, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Flight. This is not the first time your Lordships have debated this or a similar Bill at Second Reading. We last did so some 4 ½ years ago, on 8th June 2007, and we had similar debates on 11th February 2004, the 27th June 2003, and the 17th March 2000. The series would not be complete without mentioning the 31st January 1997, when Your Lordships’ House voted at Second Reading for a Bill which would have taken us out of the European Union altogether.

My Lords, for more than 30 years our political class has done its best not to talk about our membership of the EU. But the wheel of history turns, My Lords, and the question as to whether we should leave the European Union is now firmly back on the national agenda. But this Bill does not deal with that question. It is an altogether milder and more innocent little creature. It merely requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set up an impartial Enquiry into the economic costs and benefits arising from our membership of the EU. As presently drafted, the Bill suggests that the Committee of Enquiry should consist of 7 people; 2 who favour our staying in the EU, 2 who favour our leaving, 2 who have no further view and an independent chairman. The Bill excludes from the Committee anyone is or who has been an MEP, or is or has been an employee of the EU or any of its institutions. The thinking behind these exclusions was that no one in the EU’s pay, or in receipt of an EU pension which they can lose if they go against the EU’s interests, should sit on the Committee. But the wording may be at fault here, because I now understand that former MEPs do not receive such a pension, so perhaps their experience would be useful to the Enquiry. The Bill could be of course amended in our Committee proceedings if Your Lordships think fit.

It could also be amended to extend the date by which the Enquiry must report to the Chancellor beyond 1st July 2012. Noble Lords may feel that doesn’t give it quite enough time. Be that as it may, the Bill requires the Chancellor to give the Enquiry report to Comptroller and Auditor General, and lay it before Parliament with his views attached.

The Bill goes no further than that. Of course I hope that the ensuing debates in Your Lordships House and the House of Commons would increase the public pressure for a referendum on our EU membership. But that remains to be seen. That will depend on what the Enquiry comes up with.

My Lords, I submit that the cost benefit analysis proposed by this Bill is long overdue, and that it is made even more urgent by the long-foretold crisis in the eurozone. So I dare to hope that the Government will support the Bill and that the Noble Lord the Minister will not repeat the misconceptions which all Governments have steadfastly repeated in all our debates so far. Perhaps I could sum these up now, and warn the Noble Lord that I shall be pressing him to justify them if he intones them yet again today.

The first is that a cost-benefit analysis is unnecessary, because the advantages of our EU membership are so obvious that it would be a waste of time and money. On the money point, I note that the Stern report on climate change cost a little over £1 million. Surely that is a rather more complicated subject than the simple economic facts about our EU membership? So we are not
talking about an expensive enquiry, especially when set against the colossal cost of our membership,
to which I shall return.

The 2nd misconception is to suggest that the 40% of our exports which go to clients in the European Union, supporting some 3 million of our jobs, would all somehow be jeopardised if we left the political construct of the European Union. I can only assume that the bureaucrats who invented this one did so because they simply don’t know how international business actually works. So can I repeat that nobody trades with the European Union, except perhaps the mafia. We have hundreds of businesses exporting to clients who happen to be in EU countries, and there are hundreds of businesses in those countries exporting to us. This 2-way traffic benefits from free trade, but none of it need be affected if we resile from the Treaties of Rome. There are good commercial reasons for this. The first is that we do indeed have some 3 million jobs exporting to customers in EU countries, but there are 4 ½ million jobs in those countries exporting to us. So, collectively, they need us more than we need them; we are in fact their largest client. So not even the Martians in Brussels would attempt any retaliation if we left the EU as such. And the Martians would face other realities if they did try anything so silly. The World Trade Organisation has brought the EU’s average external tariff down to below 1%, and would also prevent any retaliation. Also, the EU has free trade agreements with 63 countries worldwide, and is negotiating with a further 63%-80% of the countries in the world.

So we, as its largest client, could have one too, as good or better than the one enjoyed by Switzerland, which is not in either the EU or the European Economic Area. It is of course smaller than us, but its economy is very similar to ours, and it exports 3 times more per capita to clients in the EU than we do. Looking at it the other way round, would the French stop selling us their wine, or the Germans their cars, just because we were no longer being bossed around by Brussels? Of course not. And the Government doesn’t have to take my word for it. Channel 4 News’ “Factcheck” programme on 1st November revealed that the economists at South Bank University, who first estimated that 3 million jobs depended on our trade with Europe, never said that any would be lost if we left the EU. The programme ended with the following quote:

“According to the people who did the original research, talk of mass redundancies if Mr. Cameron goes for a European exit strategy is just scaremongering”.

So, please, My Lords, can we hear no more about 40% of our trade and 3 million jobs as being a reason to stay in the EU and not to have the Enquiry proposed by this Bill.

The third misconception is that if we were no longer in the European Union our exporters to European markets would still have to obey all its rules, but our Government would not be able to take part in their making, and that this is somehow a frightening prospect. Those who peddle this one assume we would stay in the European Economic Area, like Norway, which we wouldn’t. Our position would be like that of Switzerland, or better. We would have our own arrangements for free trade, free movement, and so on. Our exporters to clients in the EU would of course have to meet its requirements, as do exporters from every other country on the planet which exports to the EU. That’s really no big deal. But only 9% of our GDP goes in exports to clients in the EU, while 11% goes in trade with the rest of the world, and 80% stays right here in our domestic economy. So the 91% or so of our economy which at the moment does not go in exports to clients in the EU would be set free from the heavy burdens imposed by Brussels. That begins to sound like quite a good deal, does it not My Lords? I will come to what those burdens might be, but conclude the third misconception by saying that I hope the Noble Lord the Minister will not repeat it today.

My Lords, a fourth misconception was put forward by the Noble Lord Lord Howerll during Oral Questions this past Tuesday, at Col. 942. He claimed that our influence in international trade bargaining is greater from, within the EU than it would be if we had our own seat at the WTO. To answer this, I can do no better than to quote from a brilliant new publication by Civitas of Mr. Ian Milne’s “Time to Say NO”. On page 15 he says:

“British influence at the WTO is sometimes claimed to be stronger as part of the Single Market than it would be if the UK spoke and negotiated for itself in WTO councils. That claim has validity only in so far as British commercial and geostrategic interests coincide with all 26 or a majority of its EU partners. When British interests do not so coincide –for example in the regulation of the City, or in agriculture an fishing- it follows that British influence is weaker than it would be if the UK were outside the EU and able to make its own decisions at the WTO.

Since the structure and pattern of UK global trade is quite different from that of its EU partners, there is no a priori reason to suppose that –on balance- British interests and those of its EU partners coincide more often than they diverge”.

My Lords, the proposed Enquiry would have to examine what I have called these 4 fundamental misconceptions about our economic relationship with Brussels, or form its own opinion.

I hope it would also look at a number of the very short Briefing Notes by Mr. Milne on the GlobalBritain.org website which I have extolled before to Your Lordships. I declare an interest as a founder and supporter of Global Britain. For instance, I hope it would reading Briefing Note No. 70, which shows how customs unions like he EU have become redundant in the modern world; No. 68 which analyses the non-existent benefits of belonging to the EU’s Single Market; No. 36, entitled “Cherry-Picking”, which analyses in 2 pages the differences between the European Free Trade Association, the European Economic Area and the Swiss-EU Trading Relationship; and No. 69 “The Coming EU Demographic Winter”. This one is rather like being shown the film “Titanic” before you get on it, and gives another reason why so many of us want to get off. Dare I ask the Noble Lord the Minister if he or any of his officials have read these and other Briefing Notes on the Global Britain website, and if not whether they will do so, and meet with Mr. Milne if they disagree with any of it? I am of course happy to offer them lunch.

My Lords, the Enquiry would also have to examine the range of figures put forward by our Eurosceptic movement as the annual cost of our EU membership, mostly from EU over-regulation. These are summarised in Global Britain Briefing Note No. 65, and average at around 6% of GDP or £90 billion per annum, equivalent to £1500 per person per annum in this country. It’s interesting that a similar figure was put forward by the European Commission itself in 2006, and also that the highest estimate actually comes from the Treasury itself in 2005, under the signature of a Mr. Gordon Brown, entitled “Global Europe, Full Employment Europe”. This estimated the cost of our EU membership as follows:

EU protectionism: 7% of GDP

Competition Gap with the USA: 12% of GDP

EU over-regulation: 6% of GDP (broadly in line with the Eurosceptic studies)

And Transatlantic barriers to trade: 3% of GDP.

These add up to 28% of GDP. Now, Mr. Brown did not say whether there might be some degree of overlap in those 4 categories, but even if we’re generous and divide it by 4 you still come out to about 7% of GDP, or around £95 billion a year today.

Anyway My Lords, I suppose the Enquiry will want to interview Mr. Brown and the officials who wrote this report. There are other areas which I hope will be examined. What, for instance, is the cost to our economy of the decimation of our fishing industry? Would it not be useful to have an accurate figure for the extra amount that each family in this country pays for the cost of food? That has been widely put at about £1,000 per annum per family, but the world price of sugar is now apparently higher than the EU cost. So there is no doubt that this figure fluctuates, but it would be useful to be clear about it.

By the time the inquiry reports we will have a better idea of whether we are going to get back the £12 billion that we have borrowed to bail out the euro—I fear not, but time will tell. Then there is a big one, and talk about being flogged by a dead horse: by the time the inquiry reports, the damage done to the City of London and our financial services elsewhere by Monsieur Barnier and his cronies in Brussels will be clearer than it is today. Is it not simply grotesque that an organisation which has not had its own accounts signed off by its internal auditors for 17 years, there being no external audit of how our funds are wasted, should now be telling us how to order our financial affairs? I think “grotesque” is accurate.

Finally, there is one area in which there is no room for doubt: the amount of cash that we send to Brussels every year. Please remember that our expenditure cuts last year came to some £6.2 billion. The Pink Book came out this week, revealing that we sent £18.5 billion gross to Brussels last year, of which it was pleased to give us back some £8 billion for projects designed to improve its image, such as agriculture and regional aid. That leaves a net cash contribution of some £10 billion—£10,340,000,000 to be precise—which comes to £28 million net cash every day, never to be seen again, with perhaps none of it spent in our national interest.

To put that figure into perspective, £28 million pays for the salaries of 940 nurses at £30,000 per annum each. So every day we throw away, thanks to our EU membership, 940 nurses—or policemen, or soldiers, or any other public servant you care to mention.

Yesterday in your Lordships’ House we had a well-informed and moving debate on the latest report into the future of social care in this country: the care of our elderly, infirm and dying, and of our learning disabled. The report suggests that we should spend another £1.5 billion to meet our obligations to these most vulnerable people in our society, but the Government are not sure that we can afford it. Yet we are sending £10 billion in net cash to Brussels. It is against that sort of background that I suggest the inquiry envisaged by this Bill should be set, and I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

**Following debate, the Bill was read a Second Time and then committed to a Committee of the Whole House**

Pro-EU Brigade Will Soon Attack By Patrick O’Flynn

WE in the anti-EU movement have had it all our own way in the past couple of years. How could we not have done given the implosion of the eurozone and the blind faith among the Brussels elite that more unwanted integration is the answer to every problem caused by previous rounds of unwanted integration?

As a result of the European Union being exposed as a sclerotic economic twilight zone based around an unsustainable currency union, we Better Off Outers have been able to shift public opinion markedly in favour of withdrawal. The Nobel prize charade this week with Papa Smurf Herman Van Rompuy appearing to believe he was some kind of success story was another public relations gift for us.

Recent polls have shown such a big shift in public opinion that the penny is finally dropping among the complacent political class that we are on course for victory. Or as they prefer to put it: “Britain is drifting towards the exit.” Our successes mean that the other side, the side of the establishment, now realises that smearing us as cranks and worse is not working. So I have to warn you that they are about to unveil their heavy guns.

Over recent weeks at Westminster I have heard several whispers that a concerted fightback is planned in the New Year by the pro-EU contingent. It will be based around the one shot they still have in their locker: fear of the unknown.

Already Europe Minister David Lidington has claimed that being outside the EU would “probably” lead to our car exporters being subject to a 10 per cent tariff. Now I hear that captains of industry are to be wheeled out from next month to warn of potential job losses and lost inward investment if we get out of the EU.

You may remember that similar warnings were made by this mob about what would happen if we stayed out of the euro and they turned out to be 100 per cent wrong. They were also cheerleaders for the disaster of unfettered immigration from Eastern Europe, presumably because it reduced wage rates on their production lines.

So on the basis that it is best to get one’s retaliation in first let me explain why so many bosses of FTSE 100 companies are pro-EU membership and why that should make you even more strongly anti-EU.

About nine per cent of British economic activity is made up by exports to the rest of the EU. But at the moment 100 per cent of British economic activity is subject to complex and expensive single market regulations. Big multinationals are more likely to export to the EU than are smaller businesses. Since their scale enables them to employ large compliance teams of lawyers, health and safety specialists, personnel experts and the like, they are far betterable to cope with new Brussels regulations than are smaller players.

So the highly regulated European single market acts as a barrier to entry against smaller companies, allowing multinationals to charge higher prices and gain greater profits to the detriment of consumers. Multinationals are also required to register for tax in only one single market jurisdiction, enabling them to use their scale to negotiate preferential arrangements that are again not open to smaller, single country businesses.

At the same time, multinationals can ensure they remain competitive in other parts of the world by opening factories in non-EU countries where wage rates are much lower and employment conditions inferior. This too is often beyond the scope of small British businesses.

So the European single market’s rules actually promote the so-called “predator capitalism” of which Ed Miliband has frequently complained yet he has turned a blind eye to this. Now, were we to leave the EU but instead agree a Norwegian-style trading deal with it then the nine per cent of the British economy that involves exporting to the single market would indeed continue to be governed by its rules (what David Cameron has referred to as “government by fax”).

But the 91 per cent of our economy that is not made up of exports into the single market would be free of its costly regulations and could compete much more effectively for business both at home and in faster growing markets abroad. To many of the business figures determined to keep us in the EU it is a cushy number. But who do you think creates most new jobs in Britain?

Most studies find that more than 60 per cent are created by small and medium-sized enterprises. The more we can build up our SME sector the more consumer choice there will be and the less vulnerable we will be to economic blackmail by large multinationals with an aversion to paying taxes.

Please bear this in mind when they start wheeling out very highly paid people from the top of large corporations to tell you that getting out of the EU will be a disaster. Not for most of us it won’t be.

Milky day: Farmers dump thousands of litres of milk on Brussels police, European Parliament

Dairy Farmers Protest

Dairy farmers poured 15,000 litres of milk on the European Parliament building in Brussels, Belgium, in a protest against plummeting food prices. Police resorted to tear gas and water cannons to disperse the milk-spraying crowd. ¬About 2,000 dairy farmers from all over Europe gathered outside the European Parliament (EP) building, blocking traffic along several of Brussels’ busiest streets.

The two-day protest, dubbed 1,000 Tractors to Brussels, was put together with a view to convincing politicians to take what its organizers call “efficient legislative measures” for the milk market.

“We have a European Parliament that hasn’t made a move in years. We want new laws that will give insurance for our future,” said Roberto Cavaliere from of the European Milk Board, which coordinated the protest.

To make their demands heard, farmers showered the EP’s doors with milk launched from cannons. Despite even that, the demonstration was peaceful until farmers tried to storm the fence of the EP building. Police forces blocked their way, so the farmers switched the aim of the milk cannon against the police.

The first round of a milky battle finished with no casualties or arrests, but the demonstration is still going on as the dairy farmers plan to stay outside parliament until Tuesday afternoon.

“Politics are really killing us. It has to change very quickly at the European level,” said Belgian farmer Julien Husquet. “‘The way it is going, we are in big trouble.”

The farmers are demanding a 25 per cent increase in the retail prices of their products, which are now sold cheaper because of less international demand and increased competition. According to the European Milk Board, thousands of dairy farmers have been forced out of the market since 2009 – and if the bloc’s agriculture policy remains unchanged, more risk losing their businesses. The EU’s agriculture ministers are expected to meet to discuss reforms to the industry.

Eurosceptics accuse David Cameron on breathtaking hypocrisy over Europe

Euroscepticshave accused the Prime Minister of “breathtaking hypocrisy” following the news that, despite vowing to secure a total freeze on the European Union’s already bloated budget, he has accepted a compromise solution which will see the EU budget grow by almost 3%.

This means that an extra half a billion pounds of British taxpayers’ money will be poured into Brussels’ coffers – at the same time that the UK Government is seeking to curb the nation’s deficit by slashing its spending on defence, the police, and other essential public services.

The cross-party Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) has attacked this policy as “an appalling example of political double standards and a betrayal of British taxpayers”.

CIB, which includes backbench MPs on both sides of the House of Commons, says that David Cameron was hypocritical in pledging that he would fight for British interests when in fact he knew all along that his Government would have to end up agreeing to an increase in the EU’s £107 billion annual budget.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty (on which Mr Cameron originally promised a referendum – before backtracking on this pledge), the UK has to accept the will of the majority of European Union governments. With the EU continually extending its powers – and therefore its costs – this was always likely to mean an increased UK contribution.

CIB Chairman George West said: “The Prime Minister has spent the past few days trying to reassure a sceptical British public that he is on our side. All we’ve had from him is fighting talk. David Cameron went to Brussels vowing to stick up for British interests – but unlike his heroine Margaret Thatcher he is set to come back from the European summit, having run up the white flag on Day One!

“Unfortunately, British capitulation was inevitable from the start – thanks to the Lisbon Treaty. Either Mr Cameron knew all along what would happen or he’s allowed himself to be outflanked and outmanoeuvred by his so-called ‘European allies’. Either way, this shows poor leadership on the part of Britain’s Prime Minister.

“I suspect that the next betrayal is not long away. The EU is planning a further power-grab in the guise of what the European Commission is calling ‘a limited treaty change’, and the indications are that, once again, the British Government will roll over and play dead.”

The CIB Chairman added: “David Cameron has promised that there will be no further transfers of power to Brussels without asking the British people first. The test of Mr Cameron’s Premiership will be whether he is willing to give us a referendum on this ‘limited treaty change’, having reneged on his ‘cast-iron guarantee’ to let us vote on Lisbon.

“Mr Cameron, we are watching and waiting.”