The UK is not the only country considering leaving the EU

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

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

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

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

Don’t take the Swiss vote on immigration quotas as a done deal

By Robert Henderson

The Swiss have  voted to end the free movement of labour between Switzerland and the EU  (http://tinyurl.com/SwissEUvote).. The result was very close:  50.3% Yes  49.7% No

This is potentially very significant because even though the Swiss are only European Economic Area (EEA) members, if they can get rid of the free movement of labour (one of the four so called EU freedoms – freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour) it provides a lever for the UK (and other EU states) to obtain  a similar arrangement and an example which countermands the EU propaganda that any breach of EU rules will be disastrous for any nation which tries to radically change matters. Once a breach in the EU dyke is made inundation could easily follow.

But before rejoicing amongst those who wish Britain to leave the EU becomes unconfined it must  be pointed out that it is far from clear what the restrictions on EU migrants will be (and Swiss politicians have three years before they need to bring forward any legislation)  and there is the possibility that the referendum result could be overturned by another referendum.

The Swiss political elite are, like our political elite, Quislings in  the service of internationalism. They will do everything possible to circumvent this result. There are two possible tactics they could pursue. The first is to put forward restriction which are no more than tokenistic. A more likely scenario is for another referendum to be held . This would not have to be citizen initiated referendum. It could be a compulsory one based on a claim that the change in the immigration law had constitutional implications (Article 140 of the Swiss Constitution).  But even if it was not a mandatory referendum, bearing in mind the closeness of the result just obtained,  it would probably be easy to get enough voters to petition for a citizen initiated referendum ( Article 139).  Article 141 also provides a basis for a referendum.  The relevant Swiss Constitution Articles run as follows:

Article 139  Formulated Popular Initiative for Partial Revision of the Constitution

(1) 100 000 citizens entitled to vote may within 18 months of the official publication of their formulated initiative demand a partial revision of the Constitution.

(2) A popular initiative for the partial revision of the Constitution may take the form of a general proposal or of a specific draft of the provisions proposed.

(3) If the initiative violates the principle of unity of form, the principle of unity of subject matter, or mandatory rules of international law, the Federal Parliament declares it invalid, in whole or in part.

(4) If the Federal Assembly is in agreement with an initiative in the form of a general proposal, it drafts the partial revision on the basis of the initiative and submits it to the vote of the People and the Cantons. If the Federal Assembly rejects the initiative, it submits it to a vote of the People; the People decide whether the initiative is adopted. If they vote in favour, the Federal Assembly drafts the corresponding bill.

(5) The initiative in the form of a specific draft is submitted to the vote of the people and the Cantons. The Federal Parliament recommends the initiative for adoption or rejection. It may contrast the initiative with a counterproposal.

Article 139b  Procedure for Initiative With Counterproposal

(1) The voters cast their ballot at the same time for initiative and counterproposal.

(2) They may vote in favor of both proposals. Regarding the priority question, they may select which proposal they prefer if both are accepted.

(3) If the priority question results in one proposal to receive more votes of the people and the other more votes of the Cantons, that proposal is set into force that has the highest sum of voter’s percentage points in popular vote plus cantonal vote.

Article 140  Mandatory Referendum

(1) The People and the Cantons are voting on the following:

a. the revisions of the Constitution;

b. the entry into organizations for collective security or into supranational communities;

c. the federal statutes declared urgent without constitutional basis and with validity exceeding one year; such federal statutes have to be submitted to the vote within one year after their adoption by the Federal Parliament.

(2) The People are voting on the following:

a. the popular initiatives for total revision of the Constitution;

b. the popular initiatives for partial revision of the Constitution in the form of a general suggestion which were rejected by the Federal Parliament;

c. the question if a total revision of the Constitution is to be carried out with disagreement of both chambers.

Article 141  Optional Referendum

(1) On the demand by 50’000 citizens entitled to vote or 8 Cantons, within 100 days of the official publication, the following instruments are submitted to the vote of the People:

a. Federal Statutes;

b. Federal Statutes declared urgent with a validity exceeding one year;

c. Federal decrees to the extent the Constitution or the law provides for it;

d. International treaties which:

1. are of unlimited duration and may not be terminated;

2. provide for the entry into an international organization;

3. include important legislative provisions or require the adoption of federal Statutes.

(2) { abolished }

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sz00000_.html

It is all too easy to imagine a Swiss electorate browbeaten with dire warnings of what will happen if the Swiss do not fall into line with EU policy voting to reverse the decision.

Britain Not To Recognise Our Anzacs

This is letter recently received by our Honorary Secretary and as he says “it is a thundering disgrace and is clearly part of a determination to weaken ties with the Commonwealth Realms.”

Dear Mr Spalton

Britain Not To Recognise Our Anzacs

The British government gave a press briefing recently in which they stated, in essence, that the UK First World War celebrations would give emphasis to coloured communities within Britain and not to what may be generally termed as ‘the white skinned’ volunteers from countries like Australia and New Zealand even though a significant proportion of our troops were of differing ethnicities.

The following media release has been sent to British media. Although not a constitutional matter, our ANZACS fought for king and country and their bravery should undoubtedly be recognised by the increasingly ‘politically correct’ administration in the United Kingdom.

Republicans will, of course, say that this is a reason why “we should be free of England”, but we have actually been independent of the British government since our Constitution was enacted in 1901. The fact that we chose to remain under the Crown and maintain strong links with Britain does not mean that the United Kingdom has any authority whatsoever over us.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Benwell

MEDIA RELEASE – THE ANZACS PLAYED MORE THAN THEIR PART TO SAVE BRITAIN

Australians have a right to be outraged at the insensitivity of the British government in announcing, in a briefing to journalists, that their proposals to commemorate the commencement of the First World War would omit mention of the sacrifice made by the Anzacs (Australia and New Zealand servicemen) but instead would focus on the role played by the ‘new Commonwealth’ countries as part of an internal ‘community cohesion’ process.

Politics should never play a part in recognising the bravery of those that are gone. Many nations within the British Empire and Commonwealth fought to save the homeland of Britain in both the First and Second World Wars. Their losses should all be mourned collectively.

In 1914, Australia and New Zealand were both independent nations with their own independent constitutions under the Crown. Our Anzacs lost some 80,000 men in a war they didn’t have to get involved in, but readily volunteered to fight for in foreign battlefields on the other side of the world in loyalty and in gratitude to the country that developed their lands into modern ‘law and order’ nations.

Doubtless there will be a lot of backtracking and political hyperbole by British officials and the sacrifice of our young men will in the end be recognised. But that there was any hesitation on the part of what appears to be an ungrateful Britain not to do this in the first place is not only reprehensible but shows the disgraceful contempt of these people for the history of their own country.

What will be next on the agenda by these ‘politically correct’- the whitewashing of Winston Churchill from British history books?

Philip Benwell
National Chair

Merkel blasted in German Parliament

Angela Merkel has clearly more to fear than the recently formed ‘Alternative for Germany’ party which polls indicated could be supported by about a quarter of German voters. On 27 June the SPD candidate for the German Chancellorship in the September 2013 Federal election, Peer Steinbrück, launched a heated attack on her in the Bundestag. 

Ridiculing a speech in which she promised to tackle the problem of the extremely high unemployment in the Eurozone countries, Steinbrück described her commitment of 6 billion Euro as a drop in the ocean compared with a real requirement of at least 20 billion over the next two years.

He also derided her domestic financial policies and accused her of having created debts of 100 billion Euro within Germany itself. To laughter and roars of approval he continued: “The youth unemployment and general unemployment about which you are talking, Frau Bundeskanzler, is a direct result of the completely one-sided policies that you have instigated in Europe. […] The point is simply this: You do not know how to deal with money. If you ruled in the desert, sand would be in short supply.”

At one point Steinbrück shouted: “You are living off the gains that we have made”; at another he interjected: “All you have done is to offer us empty bags. When you look into them there is nothing but pure air.” The German press widely described the angry exchanges as a verbal duel won by Steinbrück. “Advantage Steinbrück”, wrote Stern. The video (in German) can be viewed online:

http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/schlagabtausch-steinbrueck-dominiert-rededuell-mit- merkel-2030893.html

Translation by Professor Arthur Noble

EU uses new budget powers to demand more austerity in Italy and Spain

Spain and Italy have been warned that their budgets for 2014 are in breach of European Union rules as Brussels uses new powers to force governments to revise spending plans before national parliaments vote on them.

France was also cautioned that plans for painful economic reforms represent only “limited progress” as the European Commission exercised new eurozone powers in a historic shift of sovereignty away from elected governments.

“Because in an economic and monetary union, national budgetary decisions can have an impact well beyond national borders, member states have given the commission the responsibility,” said Olli Rehn, the commission vice-president in charge of the euro.

“I trust that they will thus be taken on board by national decision makers.”

Germany, Europe’s largest and most successful economy, was also criticised for making “no progress” in following EU recommendations to help its eurozone neighbours by spurring domestic demand and imports.

Despite disappointing growth figures and mounting concern that eurozone austerity policies are killing off recovery and locking southern European countries into protracted slump, the commission ruled that “further consolidation in euro area countries is necessary”.

For the first time, the EU’s Brussels executive has reviewed draft national budgets before national legislatures have voted on them, flexing political muscles aimed at preserving stability for Europe’s single currency and at preventing a future eurozone debt crisis.

“This a historic moment,” said an EU diplomat. “One has to ask whether the eurozone’s voters yet appreciate what a huge shift in sovereignty this is away from national parliaments to conclaves of finance ministers and commission officials.”

Italy and Spain, the third and fourth largest economies in the 17-strong eurozone, were upbraided for breaking debt reduction targets in breach of spending caps that are enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty that created the euro.

Backing off demanding the revision of budgets or penalties for now, Mr Rehn said he was “inviting” governments and parliaments to bring their budgets for next year into compliance with the rules as interpreted by the commission. “This exercise is much more about partnership than penalties,” he said.

The commission’s Italy verdict is political dynamite in a situation where Enrico Letta, the country’s prime minister, is besieged in parliament by coalition disputes over tax reductions and Left wing opposition to austerity cuts.

Italy has the second-highest level of gross government debt in the eurozone, which is projected to rise to 133pc of the economy, second only to Greece, but it is in line with an annual target requiring annual debt to be under 3pc of annual GDP.

“We count on strong and effective delivery of these commitments by the government and parliament,” said Mr Rehn. “Every day this year has been a politically sensitive moment in Italy. We just have to do our job.”

Fabrizio Saccomanni, the Italian finance minister and a technocrat imposed on the Italian government at the behest of EU officials, could be fatally weakened by the Brussels intervention, especially after Mr Rehn ruled out an exempting €3bn in investment spending that the Italian government has included in its 2014 budget.

Mr Saccomanni warned that Italy could not take the investment spending from the national budget to meet EU rules because the cut would threaten the country’s already weak economic recovery and inflame opposition to austerity.

“We could have taken even more restrictive measures to reduce our public spending, but I imagine there would be even more cries of pain. I believe our approach is balanced,” he said. “It is not necessary to change the budget.”

Spain was told that its “draft budgetary plan is at risk of non-compliance with the rules, as the headline deficit target may be missed and the recommended improvement in the structural balance is currently not expected to be delivered”.

France was given the green light on its budget but the commission warned that next year’s budget leaves “no margin” for deviation and reforms “constitute limited progress” in addressing structural targets.

“A significant set of measures on top of those already specified will be needed to ensure that the target for 2015 is reached,” said the commission.

The commission also cautioned Finland, Malta and Luxembourg, asking the three countries to review their 2014 budgets to ensure that they meet eurozone targets.

This article first appeared on ThE Unit and has been reproduced with the editor’s permission.

Free and open debate on the future of the euro and EU must be supported and not suppressed by EU leaders – Statement by EUDemocrats 28 September 2012

The EUDemocrats support a democratic, open and tolerant Europe. We consider a climate of free and open debate a pre-requisite for any well-functioning political system. Recent statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs Olli Rehn and President of the Eurogroup Jean-Claude Juncker, which urged suppression of comments on the euro crisis, are contrary to the European tradition of open, free and fact based political debate.

In her most high-profile interview this summer, Chancellor Angela Merkel told German state broadcaster ARD that everyone should “choose their words carefully” when discussing the situation in Greece. Meanwhile her colleague, Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the Eurogroup and Prime Minister of Luxembourg, told those who ceaselessly call for Greece to exit the euro, to “shut up” so the “progress” of the Greek reform programme is not threatened. Previously he labelled debate over Greek Eurozone membership “unhelpful.” Rounding up the concerted action of debate suppression, Commissioner Olli Rehn, speaking at a gathering of ambassadors in Helsinki complained that Finland has succeeded in creating an image of a country that doubts its role in European integration and is considering an exit from the euro.

European leaders should not support this type of concerted suppression of critics of the EU’s policy-response to the economic crisis. Eventually it will lead to less objective debate and inevitably worse decision making, as citizens and representatives of alternative points of view are excluded from the debate on the future of the euro and the EU.

Alternative approaches must be explored and allowed to exist, even in public, otherwise Europe risks more Brussels-based group-think and prolonged economic hardship. If an open and serious debate had been allowed to take place across Europe prior to the launch of the euro currency, many questions raised by critics at the time could have led to a less economically and democratically harmful currency policy. Once again attempting to suppress open debate is not the answer. The EUDemocrats wholeheartedly support free speech and constructive debate, and exceptions cannot be made for euro-related issues or EU policy.