Engine Room Five Is Flooding by Phillip Foster

Following my little analogy I sent out a few weeks ago (below) about the Eurozone/EU and the Titanic, the Eurozone has reached the dreaded stage of the flooding of Engine room five. Once water got into this section there was no way to stop Titanic sinking.

The situation in Spain and Italy (shortly to be followed by Austria and France) is beyond any redemption.

To use a hackneyed but most appropriate analogy of Titanic after she struck the iceberg: ‘Now’ was a very good moment to get people off the ship. Delay caused colossal loss of life (insufficient lifeboats notwithstanding: with more time far better use could have been made of them, plus life rafts etc). Worse still, the captain’s order that the ship should be started up again and head for a port, when put into effect, accelerated the disaster. The forward motion forced more water into the hull which rapidly overwhelmed the pumps attempting to buy time.

The EU, like Titanic, is a poorly designed vanity project. Like Titanic, the EU thinks itself invulnerable, and has made no provision for the inevitable disaster which is now unfolding. One could liken the PIIGS nations to steerage class. The rest see themselves as first or second class. But all are equally doomed. The decisions to ‘keep going’ with the euro is equivalent to Capt. Smith’s decision to restart the engines and move Titanic forward.

The certain collapse of the euro followed by the almost certain break up of the EU, is something that the UK should assist, benevolently, from the safety of being outside it. We must at least try to be the Carpathia and not the California.

Government confirms that the British Army will ‘never’ be part of a European Army from the press office of The Lord Stoddart of Swindon

In a written reply to a question from independent Labour Peer Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the Government has confirmed that Britain will ‘never sign up to a standing European army.’

Responding to Lord Stoddart’s question about the reasons for the reduction of the army by 20,000 soldiers and whether this was due to the need to fit into a future European army, Lord Astor of Hever (Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence) said: ‘Many but not all of the operations we wish to be involved with in the future are likely to be conducted with our allies, particularly those from NATO. The UK Government will continue to decide when and where they deploy their national forces, and have made it clear that they would never sign up to a standing European army.’

Commenting on the Government’s response, Lord Stoddart said: “I am sure that many people, including the soldiers themselves, will breathe a huge sigh of relief at hearing this confirmation that our armed forces will never be deployed at the behest of the blundering, unelected European Commission. It should only be Her Majesty’s Government which has the responsibility and authority for sending young men and women from our armed forces into danger.”

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
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML

DIRECTIVE 2006/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 March
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

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF

There are others of course.

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

How much longer can the Euro survive? And, if the Euro collapses, what will happen to the European Union?

By Andy Smith

While America and much of the English-speaking world struggling to climb out of recession, the EU is still in the depths of economic gloom. The crisis is deepest in Eurozone countries such as Greece and Ireland which, due to the failures of the Single Currency, have had to turn to their EU neighbours for a financial rescue package.

In fact it was cash-strapped Britain that had to bail out the Republic of Ireland and prevent the Irish economy from crashing completely. With virtually all European governments having to make draconian cuts in public services, and with unemployment rising dramatically across the Eurozone, protests have often turned into full-blown riots.

One size fits all

None of this should be a surprise to anyone. The problem with the Euro is that it is a “one size fits all” solution that puts economic control in the hands of the EU. There is no scope for flexibility to suit the circumstances of different countries. Single currencies only work in single states. The political leadership of the EU has already taken us a long way down the road to a “United States of Europe” with its Maastricht and Lisbon treaties – but the Eurofederalists’ dream of a single, totalitarian EU State, is just out of their reach. And will continue to be while the Eurozone – the ultimate expression of European “unity” – flounders.

In the meantime, the economic problems grow. And the crisis is not confined to the poorest Eurozone countries. The more efficient economies, such as Germany, are being dragged into it. And even Britain, in the EU but still outside the Eurozone, is affected. Having spent millions of pounds on a rescue package for Ireland, we will soon be asked to help shore up the near-bankrupt economies of Portugal and Spain too. What’s more, around half of our exports currently go to countries in the Eurozone, and if the economies of the Eurozone decline further, so too will Britain.

Not immune

So, despite making the right decision to keep out of the Single Currency, we are not immune to the Eurozone’s developing economic crisis. This is totally unsustainable. But the political leadership of the EU – including our supposedly Eurosceptic Prime Minister David Cameron – will do everything they can to keep the Eurozone afloat and keep the EU together. Their answer is to try to increase Brussels’ powers and accelerate the process of “convergence” and unification. This is in spite of Prime Minister Cameron’s pledge to block any power-grabs by the EU without a referendum.

So much for politicians’ promises!

What then are the inevitable consequences for the Eurozone – and the EU? Soaring unemployment, widespread business failures, and unavoidable political crisis throughout Europe…

There is, however, an alternative for Britain. Withdrawal from the EU would enable us to escape the crisis, save billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that is currently poured into the bottomless pit of the EU, and regain the trading opportunities in the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world that have been largely closed to us since we joined the “Common Market” in 1973. Britain has been an outwardlooking trading nation for hundreds of years. But this began to change in the 1970s when we entered the Common Market – and turned out backs on the Commonwealth. Today, it is the straitjacket of the EU that prevents us from taking advantage of our longstanding relationship with countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Eurofederalists dismiss groups like the Campaign for an Independent Britain – opponents of the EU – as “Little Englanders”, implying that we have no interest in the world outside the British Isles. In reality, the federalists are the insular ones – Little Europeans – whose worldview is narrow and whose minds are closed.

What CIB wants is for Britain to opt out of the failing EU and instead become a major independent trading nation once more, in charge of our laws, government and trade. The choice facing Britain is simple: stay in the EU and go down with the sinking ship of the Eurozone, or sail away to a brighter, more prosperous future

British Industry Betrayed

Industrial WastelandYet again the Government has awarded a major engineering contract to a foreign supplier – in this case to the German conglomerate Siemens when it should have gone to Derbybased train-maker Bombardier. As a direct consequence, over 1,000 jobs have been lost in Derby and the building of railway rolling stock in the area looks set to come to an end after 150 years. This is entirely due to European Union procurement rules and the Government’s failure to stand up for British interests and protect British jobs.

Edward Spalton, national vice-chairman of the crossparty Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB), comments: “The de-industrialisation of Britain was foreseen as an integral part of the EU project from its earliest days. Time and again, our politicians award major contracts to foreign companies in preference to British ones. We can contrast the deceit and bad faith of Britain’s political class with the devotion to duty of Britain’s navy, army and air force which we so recently celebrated on Armed Forces Day.”

Mr Spalton points out that British soldiers swear an oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen … and defend her against all enemies”. Over 350 British military personnel have died in the last few years keeping that oath in Afghanistan. Cabinet Ministers also take an oath when they become members of the Privy Council and swear to “bear faith and allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and [to] assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions … granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown … against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates and generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty.”

Mr Spalton says: “Ministers who took this oath made the Queen and all of us into subjects of the European Union, bound to obey dictates of its officials whom we did not elect and cannot dismiss. This is the rottenness at the heart of the state which betrayed the workers at Bombardier and many other firms. The soldiers kept their oaths to defend the sovereignty of the Crown, and so of the country, against all comers. Yet the ministers who give them orders in the Queen’s name do not keep theirs.”

Whose side are ministers on?

Writing in the Derby Telegraph, Mr Spalton explains: “British governments have frequently preferred to give large orders to EU companies rather than to British ones. The army’s biggest ever order for lorries went to MAN Fahrzeuge when there were perfectly suitable British suppliers. They also bought an Austrian armoured vehicle, the Pinzgauer Vector, supposedly to provide extra protection for troops who were being needlessly killed in the Snatch Landrover. The Pinzgauer was withdrawn because it was even more dangerous. The driver sat over a front wheel arch, vulnerable to land mines and explosive devices.

“So Bombardier is in a long line of British companies and workers who have been consistently rejected by British governments in the name of ‘EU rules’. We may well ask: Whose side are they on?”

European Odyssey by Edward Spalton

From Moderate Support to outright Opposition to the EU Project

 I was a few years younger than this audience when I first heard about the institution which is now the European Union. I was on a school trip to Germany and the German boy, who was my host, asked “Have you heard about our Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft? It will guarantee our living standard”.

Neither his English nor my German was up to translating the word, so an explanation had to wait until we got home. When I mentioned it, several other boys said that their hosts had asked exactly the same question. So it was obviously something they had been taught in school. It was 1958.

Our teacher explained that the word meant “economic community” and it had been created the previous year by a treaty between Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries. We talked about it for a while and thought it was a great idea that these former enemy countries were getting together to co-operate with each other and improve their lives. Most boys had fathers or uncles who had been in the war and it seemed a hopeful sign of future peace but we didn’t think of it as something we in Britain would be joining.

“But remember” said our teacher “This shows a big difference between the traditions of England and Germany. You would not be taught a political opinion as fact like that in a British school”.

Of course, when we came to our conclusion that the EU (then the EEC) was a good thing, we did so in total ignorance. We didn’t know what the treaty contained, what institutions (if any) it set up and what its political objectives were. For many years people called it “The Common Market” and thought it was a co-operative trade agreement between sovereign countries.

When I went to work in the Sixties I studied calf rearing and animal feed production techniques with a Dutch company with which our firm made a technology sharing agreement. The Dutch are quite like us and so were their farming and feed production but all their prices for foods were very much higher than ours – things like wheat, beef and milk powder. As an industrial country, Britain had a free trade policy for food with the whole world. The Dutch were in “The Common Market” and their prices were driven up by the high levies and customs duties imposed on food coming from outside Europe. This was the Common Agricultural Policy.

We started to pay these needlessly high prices from 1973 when we joined the “The Common Market”. In 1993 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said “an average family of four in Britain pays approximately and extra £940 a year as a result of artificially high agricultural prices. It will be more today. Just think how much that has come to over your lifetime. Your parents might well have been able to get you through university without a student loan, if they had been able to keep the money in their pockets.

It was this wicked waste of resources – the grain, butter and beef mountains caused by guaranteed high EU prices which first started me questioning the European project.

Those food mountains were dumped on the world market at well below the cost of production, putting many Third World farmers out of business and thus increasing the likelihood of famine as their countries were less able to feed themselves. The cost of that evil has also been borne by your parents’ taxes. Britain’s fishing fleet was destroyed at the same time and is now a shadow of its former self.

So what was the political programme driving this strange policy? It certainly was not merely establishing a “Common Market” – not even one with the rules of a lunatic asylum. I now quote from Jean Monnet who has been called “The Father of Europe”. Addressing the Washington Press Club on April 30 1952 he spoke of the European Coal and Steel Community, the fore-runner of the all-embracing “Common Market”. He said “In this challenging time we are naturally encountering difficulties. THEY ARE THE BIRTH PANGS ATTENDING THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE”.

A German politician expressed his view rather more robustly in 1951. Dr. Seebohm, Minister of Commerce in Dr. Adenauer’s government said “Will free Europe join Germany? Germany is the heart of Europe and the limbs must adjust to the heart, not the heart to the limbs”. Germany has continued to be very successful in making the nascent European state to serve its requirements ever since.

“The Common Market”, freer trade between member states and so on were all part of a gradual step-by-step process – abolishing the national democracies of Europe and making them into mere provinces under a single European government with no pretence of democratic accountability. Or consent. That was, is and ever more shall be the aim of the continuing process of European integration as the unelected Commission in Brussels and other institutions gather ever more power to themselves.

As early as 1947 Peter Thorneycroft, later Chancellor of the Exchequer and chairman of the Conservative party wrote in “Design for Europe”

“No government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan must involve. The British people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences…..They must not be asked”.

And that is how the EU project has always progressed, running away by stealth from democratic responsibility to the people, to undemocratic institutions in Europe which remain in power whoever you vote for.

Here is a time line of deceit and arrogance by Edward Heath, the prime minister who took us in

1970 THE LIE DIRECT “There will be no blueprint for a federal Europe”

1971 “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”

“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”.

1975 “There is no danger of a single currency”.

Yet on 1 November 1991 in an interview with Peter Sissons

Sissons: “The single currency, the United States of Europe: was that on your mind when you took Britain in?”

Heath: “Of course, yes

The deceitfulness of politicians is not uniquely Conservative . Whose election manifesto do you think I am quoting here?

“We’ll protect British industry against unfair foreign competition”

“We’ll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs”. That was Tony Blair’s manifesto in 1983. Gordon Brown’s was the same.

The EU has destroyed British jobs. The cumulative adverse balance of trade amounts to some £300 billion – so our most successful export to the EU has been British jobs – mostly skilled, hi tech, well-paid British jobs. In exchange we have got shelf stacking and spanner and screwdriver work. This is why your job prospects are so poor today. .

The majority of laws passed by our Parliament today are required by the EU. The EU tells the government what laws it must make and the government whips its MPs to vote for them. So it looks democratic but it isn’t. We and our interests do not come into it at all. No wonder the main parties all ratted on their promise of a referendum on the EU constitution, renamed the Lisbon treaty! Parliament is a marionette. We can vote to change who sits there but whilst we remain in the EU, it is not we the people but Brussels which pulls their strings.

Mark Leonard, a convinced Europhile explained the process very well under the heading “How the EU deceives its way to power”

“Like an invisible hand, the EU operates through existing political structures… There are no European courts, legislatures or business regulations on display in London. The British House of Commons, British law courts and British civil servants are still there but they uphold and implement European law. By creating common standards that are implemented through national institutions, the EU can envelope countries without becoming a target for hostility

Does it matter? Mr. van Rompuy, Baroness Ashton, Senhor Barroso and the EU Commissioners are our real government for many of the major policies which affect us all – from world trade and climate change to the way our dustbins are collected and the permitted curvature of our cucumbers.

They may be the kindest, wisest people with only our best interests at heart. But if they or their successors are not endowed with wisdom and good judgement and they do not have Britain’s best interests at heart, what then? They were not appointed democratically and we cannot get rid of them democratically – whoever we send to Parliament, whoever lives in No 10 Downing Street – not as long as we remain locked inside the structures of the EU. So, if you have a form of government and policies which you cannot alter by voting, what have you got? Senhor Barroso calls it an “empire” and we are in one of its provinces.

He should know. He’s president of the EU Commission.

In exchange for giving up any real democracy by imperceptible stages , they promised us economic growth and stability. We haven’t got it, have we? Ask the people of Ireland and the people of Greece. We would be suffering as bad a fate as theirs – destruction of public services and unemployment on a scale far greater than anything we have here, if we too were shackled to the euro currency with an exchange rate and interest rate which did not suit our economy.

When the euro was founded, it was claimed it would be as sound as the Deutsche Mark and no country would be responsible for another country’s debt. Look at it now! We knew then that Greece and the other “Club Med” countries had lied about their finances to get in. So did the EU authorities. This tragedy for these countries is seen as an opportunity by the EU to bring in a single, Europe-wide economic and fiscal government which will be even more anti democratic. The present crisis was foreseen and intended. It is what the EU calls a “beneficial crisis” – for the advance of EU power, that is.

The countries of Europe, however they organise their relationships, amongst each other will always be important trading partners for Britain.

We can be on perfectly good, neighbourly terms with them without being part of a European state. We do not have to become a state of the union to trade with America, nor a province of China to trade with China. It is a big, wide world out there with economies offering far greater prospects than the sclerotic, over regulated economy of the EU, distorted and tortured by the political imposition of an unworkable currency union. Even the EU commission admits that the cost of its regulation is over 5% of EU GDP whilst the claimed economic stimulus of the Single Market is said to be around 1-2%. So, even by its own figure the EU is a drag on all the economies of Europe, equivalent to the whole production of the economy of the Netherlands.

Exports to the countries of the EU account for about 10% of our GNP (although it is declining) and a roughly similar amount goes to the rest of the world (although that is increasing). The remaining 80% is purely domestic and internal. So we are bearing the huge dead weight of EU regulation on 90% of our economy quite needlessly for the sake of what we send to Europe.

The great selling point of the EU was security, prosperity and stability. That has proved to be an illusion. It hasn’t worked, it doesn’t work, it can’t work.

For a timid, obscure, offshore province of an inward-looking, economically declining European Empire, the future is decidedly bleak. Benjamin Franklin wisely remarked that a country which tried to trade freedom for wealth would end up possessing neither and deservedly so.

There is a great, wide world out there, full of opportunity for a confident, free country, trading with the vibrant, rising economies of the developing world and renewing its links with the Commonwealth countries which were so shamefully treated when we joined the EU.

As we have seen, the EU will not bail us out. We are expected to bail it out.

Back around 1983 when Tony Blair committed himself to getting us out of the EU, Ken Clarke remarked “The great thing about Europe is that it makes most of Labour’s policies illegal”. That was Old Labour, of course. It is often forgotten that the principle of market competition is built into the EU, into everything. That is why we have ruinous Private Finance Initiative in the NHS and elsewhere. According to the EU, the NHS is part of an EU market for health services, geared to the interests of corporate business. So is the Post Office and every other public institution.

Even that bastion of the free market, the United States does not have that written into its constitution. So Labour or any other government has no choice but to go along with privatisation. There is an unholy alliance between government and corporate capital, enforced by the EU. New Labour was the EU’s obedient slave. As long as it was wedded to the EU it really had no choice but its enthusiasm for the corporate trough was decidedly unseemly.

This alliance of the power of the state (in this case the EU super state) to that of big business has a name – corporatism. It was how Mussolini defined fascism. Henry Wallace, the 33rd Vice President of the United States knew it well and described its aims thus in the 1940s

“Their final objective, towards which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection”.

Before we throw away more money (which we haven’t got) into the insatiable, unappeasable maw of a nasty authoritarian state and crucifying currency system, we need to renew our own institutions, especially our Parliament as truly sovereign, responsible to us alone and worthy of respect. Then we can take our place in the world as a moderately sized, decent, independent democracy on good terms with everybody and at ease with ourselves.