LESC: We must avoid committing ourselves to paying large sums of money to the EU

The Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign (LESC) has warned that the UK must avoid committing itself to paying large sums of money to the EU, which would have to be met even if the main negotiations on a Withdrawal Agreement broke down.

In its September 2018 Bulletin, published here on our website, LESC reviews the choices facing the UK as the Brexit negotiations move towards their conclusion.

LESC recommends that, given the ongoing uncertainty – both as to what the EU will agree to and what Parliament would accept – we must prepare for a ‘no deal’ scenario. In the meantime, however, we need to make sure that we are not pushed into obligations, especially over very large sums of money, which we would have to meet even if the main negotiations broke down.

Labour needs to be very careful not to be complicit in generating an outcome where the UK has a legal obligation to pay £39bn but we still finish up with ‘no deal’. It also needs to avoid alienating key sections of the Party’s traditional support by taking an intransigently Remain stance during the difficult negotiating period which lies ahead.

……………………………………

LESC was formed after the 1975 referendum, to continue to make the Labour case that the UK should withdraw from the Common Market. It is a long-term affiliated member of the Campaign for an Independent Britain. For more information, please visit the LESC website.

Rumours of our demise have been greatly exaggerated…

Transition periods are always frustrating, but sometimes they are necessary. We would like to thank all of our supporters and readers for their patience while we got the CIB website up and running again following John Petley’s departure as Operations Manager.

Thank you to everyone who has been in touch to enquire about the future of CIB. It is reassuring to know that our input has been missed. We would like to make clear that CIB has no plans to wind down. We have been campaigning for UK sovereignty since 1969, and we will continue the fight for as long as it takes to guarantee this. Even assuming a satisfactory Brexit in March 2019 (something which currently looks in great doubt), the threat the EU poses to our sovereignty will not dissipate immediately. We have no doubt that Ultra-Remainers will try to surrender our sovereignty for years to come, whether by dragging us back into the EU, or by signing us up piecemeal to so-called ‘co-operation’ and ‘partnerships’, such as in defence or law and order. As long as the threat remains, CIB will be here to fight against it.

To be completely frank, we could no longer afford a salaried Operations Manager because our funds might well run out before independence is securely achieved. We simply do not have the financial means to continue to employ a permanent member of staff. Dr Anna L. Bailey, a political scientist and CIB committee member, will now be updating the website as well as running our Facebook page, but she will only be working for a few hours a week. Please therefore accept our apologies in advance if we cannot respond to everyone individually as before.

This serves to underline how reliant we are on the financial support of our members, be it through membership fees, donations, or legacies. Unlike Remainers, we do not have wealthy elites bankrolling us. We are funded entirely by ordinary people who care about their country’s sovereignty. There are several ways you can help support our cause.

If you are not already a member of CIB, please join. It’s only £20 per year, and just £10 per year for under 25s and over 65s. We’re sure you’ll agree that this is a tiny price to pay to ensure that CIB can continue to fight for the UK’s independence and sovereignty at this critical time. If you are able to contribute more, please make a donation, and keep your eyes peeled for our upcoming annual Christmas appeal. If you have a will, please consider leaving a legacy to CIB so that we can continue to fight for independence for future generations.

And now, back to business. We will be posting some analytical pieces on the EU and Brexit later this week. In the meantime, if you’re not already following our Facebook page, please give it a ‘like’ to keep up to date with everything we post.

The hounding of Kate Hoey MP

A Principled Independence Campaigner under attack from her own party.

Kate Hoey gave us an inspirational speech at our CIB rally of 2016, a little more than a month before the referendum  So it is sad to report that her Vauxhall constituency Labour party passed a vote of no confidence and wants the Labour party to withdraw the whip from her. Forty five party members out of a branch membership of 2,300 turned up for the meeting and only three abstained from the vote. The other forty two voted in favour.

Kate told the Independent “ Not a surprise – my local party activists are solid EU remainers, I will always put my country before my party and helping my constituents is a priority . After 29 years as an MP I am quite relaxed about the vote and it won’t influence me in any way how I vote in the future”.

She was one of four Labour MPs to vote with Theresa May’s government on a crucial vote that resulted in the prime minister narrowly avoiding defeat. She was also one of the 42 Labour MPs who actually voted in support of Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

Kate will no doubt be looking ahead with her usual firmness and vigour to deliver what people voted for in the referendum. We also owe her a considerable debt for deliverance from one of the nastier projects of the European Union some twenty years ago.

A principled independence campaigner for all her political life, Kate is particularly remembered for her part in frustrating the attempted introduction of the uniform EU legal code Corpus Juris in 1998 which would have abolished long-held British rights such as jury trial and habeas corpus. Kate was a Home Office Minister at the time and promised to veto it. Labour MEPs  supported the new legal system in Strasbourg, Tony Blair did not have the stomach to disown Kate publicly but she was later moved to Sport. Neither did Blair endorse Pauline Green MEP (Labour) the leader of the European Socialists who contrived a motion in the EU Parliament to “welcome” this appalling denial of British freedoms*, a motion which was also supported by Conservative MEPs, contrary to the stated policy of their own party.

We hear that another principled Labour supporter of independence and democracy, FRANK FIELD MP is facing similar action from his constituency party.

All friends of freedom will wish them well.

* For the full background to this vital and still continuing threat, please see Torquil Dick Erikson’s articles at savebritishjustice.wordpress.com . The European Arrest Warrant (EAW), so beloved of Mrs May, is an offshoot of this alien philosophy, achieved by a totally unjustified “Mutual Recognition ” amongst the very different legal systems used in EU states, in particular as between our system, derived from Magna Carta and the systems used on the continent, largely derived from the Inquisition via Napoleon.

Major to Cameron – how not to run a democratic country

This summary of the failings of our most recent Prime Ministers was sent to us by a colleague.

Amongst the confusion, argument, and downright deceit going on around Brexit at the moment it is, perhaps, time to reflect on the actual human cost of the policies of some of the principal remainers.  None of our recent Prime Ministers come out well, sadly.

John Major as Chancellor and Prime Minister led some of the most destructive policies ever yet seen in post war UK, His decision to try to keep us in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) led to a human toll which he has yet to answer for, let alone apologise to the British people for. The toll on his fellow citizens was as follows;

  • more than 30,000 families lost their homes through repossession when interest rates climbed from 7.5% to 15% as a result of ERM
  • More than 100,000 small companies went bankrupt as a result of ERM
  • Suicide rates soared by 53%
  • Mental illness caused by severe stress leading to clinical depression soared by 71%

John Major allowed the public and Parliament to be totally misled over the real costs to the UK of the ERM fiasco, yet neither he nor his senior civil servants have been held to account.

Besides the ERM disaster, which was mercifully ended by so-called”Black Wednesday”, Major also was responsible for a number of other problems, the legacies of  which have outlasted his premiership:-

Private Pensions, John Major led the deregulation of financial services and encouraged the private pension industry. His treasury actuaries provided the industry with forecast that indicated that interest rates where unlikely to fall below 10% in the next 50 years, this allowed the pension industry to provide yield forecasts that were wildly out of touch with reality and duped tens of thousands to invest in those pension schemes. The net result today is that people are retiring to find their pensions are a fraction of the predictions made when they began investing into them.

The Health Service. John Major triggered what he called NHS reform. He made many public speeches on this topic, but barely touched on the real evil of his policies.  DNR – do not resuscitate. This policy sold to the public as a humane gesture to stop people with incurable diseases from dying a painful death was in fact a callous and calculated way of saving the government money by ‘disposing’ of people over 50 judged to have no value to the community. Government-published figures estimate that an average of 32,000 people a year died in hospital as a direct result of DNR. Only the public scandals and questions raised by grieving relatives brought the full scale of this mass slaughter into the public realm. The method of killing was to sedate the patient and then withhold food and water until the patient died. Actually, this was a very painful and distressing way to die as witnessed by patients begging their visitors to give them a drink of water – and those visitors being threatened with arrest if they complied. This culling of people is claimed to have saved the Government £90 billion in benefit and pension payments between the late 1980s and today.

The EU, John Major was a committed federalist, he took the UK in to further commitments to the UK that lost us more of our sovereignty and tied us deeper to the EU federal agenda. He did not state any of his intentions in his election manifesto and in fact he and his senior civil servants again misled parliament and the British People.

John Major has demonstrated utter contempt for his fellow citizens and now continues to do so as he opposes the democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU.

Tony Blair

Without stating the obvious facts we all know about Mr Blair, let us look at the actual effect of his policies on everyday life for the average citizen.

He presided over the massive reduction of front-facing services that served the British public. Tax offices, Social service offices, benefit and pension offices closed by the thousands as part of his policies. He began the chain of events that led to reductions in Police Stations, Ambulance stations, Fire Brigade stations, and all of this was to fund his international policies. Blair actively tried to limit UK trade outside of the EU, In one of his most infamous moves he told the Chinese government that the UK was a small country and unlikely to wish to do substantial trade with China. By default he continued Majors NHS policies including DNR and he perfected the art of misleading parliament, the British people and his own colleagues, again with the help of senior civil servants. Under Tony Blair living standards fell, unemployment increased, and services, housing and public health declined. His final act was to reduce the budget of consular services by 90%, UK citizens abroad face the worst consular support offered by any G20 nation.

Gordon Brown

Apart from his reneging on seeking a public vote on signing yet another EU treaty Mr Brown could be seen as the hapless individual who inherited all the problems created by Blair and was politically destroyed by them.

David Cameron.

Mr Cameron had the golden opportunity to begin to bring the UK back to some kind of sanity. Instead he actually worsened what was already a near critical economic situation by decided to give away a large part of the UK’s GDP to foreign aid while cutting yet more services within the UK. Higher education standards fell lower and lower, basic education standards fell to third-world levels and living standards continued to fall, The gap between rich and poor widened significantly. Crime rates grew, immigration grew, and housing shortages, health service cuts, and a surge in petty regulation defined by a vocal minority made life in the UK sink to a very depressing level. Cameron was totally out of touch with reality, totally out of touch with the people he governed yet he believed that somehow his charisma would carry him through any opposition from the electorate. He made a profession out of the phrase “who are you going to believe, Me or your own eyes?”. His fear of UKIP led him to declaring the public referendum on the EU. His overwhelming ego led him to believe that he could persuade the UK electorate to stay in the EU.

Conclusion

In all of these individuals we see a pattern, their wish to govern without consent of their electorate, in contradiction with their publicly stated aims, keeping their colleagues, party and parliament in the dark as to their real intentions and the ease with which they deceive and lie to the electorate about their actions and intentions. All of this suggests that we may well have to look again at strengthening our constitution.

A letter from one of our members to his MP

A LETTER FROM ONE OF OUR MEMBERS TO HIS MP

after a visit 22 July 2018

Hi!

Thanks for seeing me again on Friday – here is my summary of our meeting for you to consider.

I covered three main points:-

First. I asked you for an update on how you felt things were going . You seemed slightly surprised I keep asking this but it is the only way I have of knowing how aware you are of the disaster looming before us. You acknowledged there are difficulties but felt Mrs May would get there in the end. I pointed out how her proposals to the EU for “frictionless” trade would not be accepted as they still were trying to have our cake and eat it. I again point out how Efta/EEA resolves all the critical issues we face while still freeing us from the EU’s politics and would allow us to act independently on the world stage again.

Second. I asked you if in any dispute or negotiations it was essential to hear from both sides. After I gave you the example of a divorce you said of course it was.

So Third, I asked you what you knew if anything of the Notices to Stakeholders of which 68 have been issued . You replied that you didn’t know what they were. I then explained they were issued by the EU to alert and address the problems for businesses if they are to face a No Deal or Hard Brexit. I then gave you the latest publication from the EU, including COM (2018), its press release and seven point fact sheet to consider. You said you would read them . I believe it is essential that you do.

In parting you said that you could see no likelihood of an election before 2022 and that unlike Johnson or Davis you supported the PM and would not be resigning. Finally I urged you to contact that MP whom I mentioned, urging you to engage with him and influence Mrs. May towards an Efta/EEA style deal.

I would like to meet you again after the 18th October EU Summit and speak to you as soon as possible after this defining Brexit event.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Now people may agree or disagree with the points made here but nobody can feel happy that any MP could be so unaware of the conditions in the EU notices which are certain to affect his constituents’ businesses.

Brexit Academics Believe White Paper to be ‘Brexit in Name Only’

A university-based research facility has described yesterday’s White Paper to be ‘Brexit, but in name only.’

Academics at Birmingham City University’s Centre for Brexit Studies have been examining May’s long awaited Brexit blueprint, in order to understand the Prime Minister’s plan for Britain’s exit from the European Union.

The most notable points being the common rules for goods covering only those rules necessary to enable frictionless trade at the border and no tariffs on any goods.

Professor Alex de Ruyter, Director of the Centre for Brexit Studies states: “Like the rest of the country and indeed the EU, we have long awaited the publication of the Brexit White Paper.

“The controversy of the last few days following the Chequers Summit has only added to the worry over the long awaited document.

“Today we learn that the plan appears to be exiting the European Union, whilst maintaining many of the same rules and freedoms that we currently subscribe to.

“The plan envisions that we will still participate in EU agencies that provide authorisations for goods in highly regulated sectors – namely the European Chemicals Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency and the European Medicines Agency – accepting the rules of these agencies and contributing to their costs.

“We also note continued cooperation in terms of transport and energy and the exploration of reciprocal arrangements for road hauliers.  This is an issue that we have regularly raised at the Centre and it is interesting and encouraging to see the Government seeking to address it.

“The one change we do see, is the end of freedom of movement, but with several exceptions, for example, in the case of companies wanting movement of staff.

“So we want to continue to enjoy ease of travelling, whilst imposing restrictions on movement into the UK.  Crucially, the White Paper envisages that these will be, ‘in line with the arrangements that the UK might want to offer to other close trading partners in the future’.

“Will the EU agree to keeping almost everything the same, whilst rescinding on freedom of movement and losing the UK as part of the EU27?  I doubt it and I suspect that many Conservative backbenchers will be unhappy to commit to ‘binding provisions’ around future trading arrangements. Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition may well oppose the envisioned rules over state aid and competition.  As such there is a very real possibility that the government’s proposals may fail to secure parliamentary approval in addition to the EU’s potential qualms over ‘cherry picking.’

“We await the EU’s response with bated breath and I believe we’re in for an interesting few months following that.”

The Centre continues to analyse all government outputs and to research the public perceptions and impact of Brexit on both a regional and national scale.