Our President writes to Mr Cameron – again!

Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter 10th March from your Correspondence Officer stating that you are grateful for the time and trouble I have taken and that my letter 24th February has been forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is of course your own views and reply that are requested since you are making the statement frequently that the UK is safer within the EU.
In my letter of 24th February the letter per my attachment about French Exocets launched against our warships HMS Sheffield and HMS Glamorgan and supply ship Atlantic Conveyor causing the deaths and injuries to British soldiers and sailors I relied upon my aged memory at that time. I have since researched what is in the public domain by references to Hansard,  to a BBC interview and reference to the Chicago Tribune newspaper. The French Exocet damage occurred during the Falklands war and the withholding of ammunition by Belgium occurred during the Gulf war.
Falklands war   BBC News Magazine Mike Thomson Radio 4 6th March 2012 re Exocet missiles & French technical team
“How France helped both sides in the Falklands war”
I quote; A French technical team mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government stayed in Argentine throughout the war. British Defence Secretary at that time Sir John Knott was asked: does he now feel a little let down by a nation that he had previously described as Britain’s greatest ally? This was his response: ‘We asked Mitterand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you are asking me; Are the French duplicitous people? the answer is; Of course they are and they always have been.”
NB On a personal note I do not and never have regarded my many French friends in that way and believe Sir John Knott aimed his answer at French leaders.
Gulf war “European Unity fails in Crisis” Chicago Tribune 23rd January 1991 by R.C. Longworth
“Europe’s dream of welding itself into a united superpower has become an early casualty of the Gulf war. Europeans admitted Tuesday they are disgusted with themselves over the failure to unite in the crisis. There was special dismay over Germany which is seriously considering reneging on its NATO obligations.
The report also refers to the fact that Belgium being so opposed to the war that it has refused to sell ammunition to Britain for use in the Gulf.
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  wrote “The beginning of European political union has failed”
“The first victim of the conflict is a united Europe” added the Italian daily Corriera della Sera.
Commons Hansard 10th April 2002 Column 24WH Royal Ordnance Factories
“Before the Gulf war, cases and shells for 155mm FX70 ammunition which is our mainstay artillery ammunition were manufactured at Birtley. The contract was transferred to Rhinemetall of Germany which discovered that it could not make them and sub-0contracted to a Belgian comapny. During the Gulf war for political reasons, Belgium an ally and a member of NATO, indeed it is the home of NATO headquarters, refused to supply us with artillery ammunition. That artillery ammunition was desperately needed to support the major assault that our amoured corps was making through Saudi lines to retake Kuwait. That is one of the problems of relying on overseas manufacturers and presumably why Henry VIII set up royal ordnance factories in the first place”.
Gulf war costs. Lords Hansard 31stJanuary 1991 vol 525 cc 789-92 
Lord Mulley :“I was extremely concerned at the report that Germany was withholding crucial Tornado parts. That raises a further question as to whether it was wise to become involved in European co-operative ventures where production is shared among the partners if, de facto, it gives each of the partners a means of veto over the use of aircraft in each country”.
The Earl of Onslow: Are the Belgians providing the ammunition? Are the Germans allowing the forces Tornado spare parts? May we have a straight answer?
The Earl of Arran:  To the best of my knowledge Belgium is not providing ammunition. I shall have to write to my Noble Friend concerning the prohibition on the supply of German Tornado spare parts”
George West

We are militarily unsafe within the EU

A letter from our President, George West, to the Leicester Mercury

Shirt-sleeved Prime Minister Cameron is touring our country trying to kid us all that we are safer within the European Union.

 

Does he never learn from history? Has he forgotten the Falklands war? Has he forgotten NATO? Has he forgotten the Commonwealth troops coming to our aid in the past?

 

We were betrayed by two of our European Union “allies” during the Falklands war.The French sent a team of technicians to tune and prime five French Exocet missiles they had sold to Argentina. Without those technicians, those missiles would have remained harmless.

 

The missiles were used against our navy and soldiers. HMS Sheffield was hit ( 20 British killed). Two missiles were launched against HMS Glamorgan hit (13 British killed). Another missile hit our supply ship Atlantic Convoy (12 British killed). Other British sailors and soldiers were left injured and disfigured by our EU “friends” and British families left to grieve.

 

If that wasn’t enough, the Belgians refused to supply us with artillery and small arms ammunition for the weapons that Belgium had sold to us.

 

I rest my case, Mr Cameron, when some of your friends become our enemies

 

George West

Photo by Ben Sutherland

Safer inside the EU? A letter to Mr Cameron from our President

Dear Mr. Cameron,

As an ex-soldier, I am angry when I hear you and Generals talking about our country being safer inside the European Union.

The CEO of Europol states that there are between 3000 and 5000 battle trained terrorists already inside Europe. With free movement across EU borders they can slip into the UK. Some probably already are here. How does that make us safer?

But have you forgotten history? Even within the European Union, two of our European allies cheated on us during the Falklands War and a high price was paid by British soldiers and sailors and their families.

On 5th March 2012, the BBC broadcast the evidence that they had found that the French helped Argentina sink our ships with French technicians helping to prepare French Exocet missiles.

The French Exocet was the most potent weapon in Argentine’s armoury, carrying a 165kg warhead skimming at high speed one or two metres above the sea. They only showed up on radar a few seconds before impact.

One hit HMS Sheffield leaving 20 British dead.

Another hit the supply ship Atlantic Conveyor leaving 12 British dead.

Two were launched against HMS Glamorgan leaving 13 British dead.

Most of these missiles would have been duds without the help of the French technical team.

If that wasn’t enough, having purchased rifles for the British army from Belgium, the Belgians refused to sell us artillery and small arms ammunition in the Falklands war.

When it comes to money and profit how can we trust what you say when history warns us differently?

I look forward to your reply bearing in mind that it is NATO that is supposed to keep us safer and not the EU. The British people want to hear truthful facts when deciding whether they prefer to be governed by our Parliament and our Courts or by the European Union.

Please do not try to suggest that should the UK leave the EU, Europol and other crime agencies would sever links with the UK and our intelligence services or us with them.

Finally I would like to remind you that I swore Allegiance, not to the European Union, not to the British government but to Her Majesty the Queen.

Yours sincerely,
George West

formerly 67th Regiment Royal Artillery

More nonsense rebutted.

Thatcher letter re maastricht

If anyone still believes the “remain” side will play fair, a couple of newspaper headlines in recent days should be sufficient to dispel such illusions.

Firstly, Charles Powell, Lady Thatcher’s private secretary during much of her time in Downing Street, claimed that she would have backed David Cameron’s renegotiation and voted to stay in.

Bill Cash MP has rebutted that claim by producing a letter she wrote to him making it clear she would not have signed the Maastricht Treaty (See above), which meant that she therefore would have taken the UK out of the EU. If Maastricht was a step too far for her, therefore it is inconceivable that she would have supported keeping the UK in the EU under the terms agreed by David Cameron and Donald Tusk, which accept the further integration to which successive UK governments signed up with the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties.

Now David Cameron, following in the steps of Hilary Benn, has raised the spectre of the Russian Bear. Mr Putin would be delighted to see the UK leave the EU, so we are to be warned. It would “weaken Europe”.

If Benn and Cameron’s alleged fears are based on military concerns, they are unfounded. Firstly, let’s be clear: we are wanting to withdraw from the EU, not Nato. It’s the all-important alliance with the USA which has helped maintain stability in Europe and given the reluctance of most EU member states to spend much on defence, it’s the organisation including a country prepared support its military that will count in the years to come if Mr Putin needs to be kept at bay.

Furthermore, within the EU, the UK has been the biggest foot-dragger when it comes to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. It’s the usual story. While our leaders insist they want our country to remain an EU member state, they disagree with the other member states over the question of defence, just as they don’t want us to join Schengen or adopt the Euro.

Only today, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin expressed his enthusiasm to proceed with further integration within the Eurozone, declaring our country will get “no veto, no mechanism” – in other words, no special deal to protect the City of London. On so many issues, they want to go one way, we want to go another. Although the other countries don’t want us to go, our presence actually makes the EU weaker. Our departure is therefore likely to delight Mr Putin far less than the scaremongers would have us believe; in fact, it probably won’t bother him one way or other.

William Hague’s political schizophrenia

William Hague stated at the end of last year that he is minded to vote for Britain to remain in the European Union partly because he fears “Brexit” could lead to the breakup of the UK and partly because “Brexit” would weaken the EU. This has hardly been a case of coming off the fence. Hague’s euroscpticism has always been suspect. The general public saw through its shallowness in the 2001 General Election when they returned Labour to power and ignored the Tories’ half-hearted campaign under Hague’s leadership. His current position is much confused both intellectually and politically. He has failed to grasp that it is not possible to believe in democracy as well as EU membership.

BREXIT

William Hague may have been in the forefront of politics for many years and is much respected. However this does not confer any automatic right for his confused views on the EU to be takne seriously.  On the other hand, it is useful for those of us who support withdrawal to listen to such a Europhile ally of the PM as it will help us to sharpen our attacks on supporters of “”remain”.

In this piece, where I comment respectfully upon his words in a Daily Telegraph article dated 22nd December, I will be using the excellent rebuttal of the Europhiles’ arguments by Robert Oulds on this website, which also contains a rebuttal by CIB of 7 major Europhile issues.

SECURITY AND NON-DEMOCRACY

The security of Europe rests not with the EU; indeed the EU does much to unsettle it. Most certainly security depends not upon the forces of Luxemburg or even of the other smaller 25 EU members nor even with the might of the UK with France and Germany but upon NATO, where we work with the USA. It is NATO that provides security for Europe and the wider world. [Please see footnote A].

The EU has endangered that security with interference in the internal affairs of states from the Balkans, the Ukraine, Iraq, and North Africa as well as by its trade negotiations, as in Ghana for example. The EU provides no safety for anyone through its sclerotic involvement in foreign affairs. Yet Mr Hague says “We still need the EU to provide the safe harbour for the docking of fragile democracies, and it would be strange to champion that idea but abandon it ourselves.”

I need hardly remind Mr Hague that there is not an ounce of UK-style Democracy in the EU.  The EU “parliament” has only limited powers [Please see footnote B] and Mr Hague has acknowldged its limitations: “As to the European parliament, it does not remotely provide democratic accountability for the simple reason that most voters across Europe do not take elections to it seriously and are not usually aware of the identity of their MEPs. It is not possible to be accountable and anonymous at the same time.” He misses the point of course. It is just because the EU parliament is without a strong set of democratic teeth that no one can take it seriously. Ask the MEP’s in the UK.

Accordingly the idea of there being a democratic dock within the EU for “fragile democracies” is nonsense. The EU actually destroys national democracy. It was designed to do so and will not change its course.

EUROSCEPTICISM OF MR HAGUE

“And I am often asked whether the years I spent in EU meetings and negotiations made me less Eurosceptic than when I toured the country 15 years ago with my ‘Save the Pound’ campaign” said Mr Hague. “The answer to that is “no”, since close acquaintance with central bodies of the European Union does nothing to create enthusiasm for them. The Commission itself, generally the best-performing of the EU institutions, could benefit from the spending cuts and rigour to which most national governments have been subjected. The European Court of Justice has pushed the boundaries of treaties and is capable of imposing burdens on businesses which suggest a detachment from reality.”

“Even more worryingly, some of the most cherished projects of European unity are in deep trouble – the Schengen zone buckling under the weight of new migration, and the euro bedevilled by flaws which were obvious at the start. There is a legitimate question as to whether the EU can survive in its current form two or three decades from now.”

These statements are unquestionably true. The totalitarian Commission maintains its fundamental straight course onwards towards an united non-democratic federal auperstate, as it alwasy has done. Mr Hague knows this full well.

“It is high time for a vigorous debate to get going. So far, what I have written above would be cheered on by my old friend Liam Fox, who has advocated withdrawal, by old Cabinet colleagues tempted to campaign to leave in the forthcoming referendum, and even by Nigel Farage as he reels from the discovery that a rebel who joins you from another party simply becomes a rebel in your own.” Correct in part only!

EUROPHILIA AND FEDERALISM OF MR HAGUE AND THE IRRELEVENCY OF THE PM’S NEGOTIATIONS

“Yet here I part company with these fellow critics of the EU, distinguishing between deploring the state of an organisation and deciding it is best to leave it. I wait, first of all, for the outcome of the negotiations the Prime Minister has launched, the importance of which should not be underestimated in continental capitals.”

Mr Hague forgets that how many issues which desperately need addressing are not on the PM’s little list of four items which he is discussing. There is no reference to the ECJ and its control over the UK Supreme Court, Fisheries, the Free Movement of Peoples, the UK’s right to represent itself on global bodies (The Top Tables), the cost of our membership, the red tape suffered by the 80% of UK GDP involved only with internal UK trade, reform of the CAP and so on.

In conclusion there is no substance to the PM’s negotiations or “thin gruel” as Mr Rees Mogg called them. Their conclusion will be trumpeted as a success but in reality, the fanfare will merely be a repeat of Chamberlain’s “Heston moment” in 1938 as John Petley refers in his January 2016 Article on the CIB web site.

THE ECONOMY OF THE UK

“The arguments about what is best for our economy will rage back and forth. Those who say we have to be in the single market to shape it and benefit from it have the edge and that will be a vital edge as the public weighs the implications of their choice for their jobs and businesses” says Mr Hague.

Many businessmen and economists would disagree. We can access the Single Market from outside the EU, by joining Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, who have plenty of say in the formation of EEA- relevant regulation, even if they do not take part in the final vote. People like Lord Bamford and Sir James Dyson may not have made detailed analyses of the best exit strategy, but thier confidnece that we can not only survive but prosper outside the EU is well founded. With only 20% of UK GDP linked to total global exports and of that only a diminishing 7% of UK GDP comprising trade with the EU, it makes little sense for that tiny dwindling tail of 7% to wag the growing dog of 93%!

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that Mr Hague is politically and economically generalising and being economical with the actuality. There is no attempt by Mr Hague to support his line of argument with facts and reasoning. Mr Hague’s current position is much confused both intellectually and politically. It is not possible to believe in national democracy and at the same time support our bondage to the EU?

Furthermore, how can Mr Hague think that the UK has any possible useful influence inside this total disaster?

Why a tariff union, Mr Hague? It is entirely counterproductive to the UK trade outside the EU which comprises 64% of UK exports.

Why must the UK guarantee the obligations and debts of the Euro and its failed experiments to the ECB and the IMF? This weakens the UK and makes it vulnerable as it borrows ever more to do this and then borrows more to pay interest on the borrowed sums! Hence Mr Osborne imposes more and more taxes on those who can least afford it!

Why has the UK lost so many of its seats on important world bodies just to be represented by one member acting for 28 with conflicting and confused objectives? Why support our membership of a political union if all we are talking about is a free trade area, Mr Hague?

In short, Mr Hague, who seemed to show such promise when he made that memorable speech at the 1977 Conservative Party Conference when he was only sixteen years old,  has proved one of the great political disappointments of recent years.  His schizophrenia over the EU suggests that for all the hype of his early years, he possibly never was a suitable person to lead our country after all.

FOOTNOTES [FOR WHICH I AM INDEBTED TO THE CIB.]

A) NATO: Since 1999 NATO changed from being a highly successful defensive alliance into an aggressive, go anywhere- bash anyone organisation with unlimited ambitions to “humanitarian interventions” anywhere in the world which suit US/EU policy. The first such adventure was Yugoslavia (1999),an unprovoked attack, admitted to be illegal but thought, as in “1066 & All That”, to be a “Good Thing”- also completely contrary to the then existing NATO charter but Blair & Clinton just did it. And the Bundeswehr used the opportunity to cease being “citizens in uniform” and become a force able to operate overseas. As General Naumann (whose title would have been Chief of the Great General Staff in palmier days) put it “German forces will be engaged for the protection of the market and access without hindrance to the raw materials of the entire world”. NATO is up to its neck and beyond in the operations in the Ukraine and elsewhere, targeted against Russia. Victoria Nuland, US Under Secretary of State, boasted of spending 5 billion dollars destabilising Ukraine and the EU itself, plus sundry intelligence agencies (like the Bundesnachrichtendienst and state funded NGOs like the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) are not far behind). The EU has a slightly different terminology for these operations and calls them “The Export of Stability”.

B) The Powers of the EU parliament: – Actually the parliament (so-called) has acquired some powers, like confirming or rejecting the proposed President and members of the EU Commission. Whilst its function is mainly “advise and Consent”, it can withhold consent in committee and sometimes does. The Commission with the vital and perpetual sole power of initiative then has to come back with a modified proposal. What the parliament (so-called) does not have is any democratic legitimacy, as Mr Hague rightly points out. There is not much demos but quite a lot of kratos in it. It is by no means powerless and is asserting more power and influence than ever. If the parliament’s majority opinion (taken from the large central groups that control the EU parliament) coincides with that of the Commission, it is very likely to prevail. The European Council (of prime ministers and presidents) would have difficulty in resisting determined, long-sustained, combined pressure by the Commission and Parliament singing from the same hymn sheet. The EU institutions do have a life and power of their own – just as Dr. Hallstein (see Edward Spalton’s CIB earlier paper) intended.

Photo by Foreign and Commonwealth Office