Decline of the eurozone

It is said by the three main political parties that the UK must remain in the EU because it is our major trading partner and hence vital to our prosperity.

Professor Tim Congdon CBE, with the help of figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) database (see below) explains: The numbers are immensely helpful because they extend over a 25-year period and so help in identifying trends. They start in 1991, when the Maastricht Treaty was being negotiated and the euro was conceived, and end with forecasts for 2016. (The analysis is slightly incomplete, because it ignores some of the smaller countries, but apart from Poland and Sweden none of these 10 countries is of much importance).

In 1981 the eurozone output represented 21.8% of the world output. Their problem was and remains, that the excessive taxation and heavy regulation inflicted on them by the EU has held them back. The figures show that the eurozone’s share of the world output has plunged by a third – from 21.8% in 1991 to 14.3% in 2011.

It is entirely plausible that out grandchildren will live in a world where the eurozone produces only 6 or 7 per cent of world output. In other words, in their world the nations that today have neither EU membership nor the euro as their currency will outweigh the eurozone by well over ten to one.

Eurozone as a percentage share of world output per year

1991 21.821 2000 18.349 2009 15.015
1992 20.172 2001 18.300 2010 14.556
1993 19.610 2002 17.968 2011 14.253
1994 19.485 2003 17.482 2012 13.861
1995 19.290 2004 16.989 2013 13.478
1996 18.887 2005 16.541 2014 13.100
1997 18.606 2006 16.235 2015 12.722
1998 18.659 2007 15.881 2016 12.350
1999 18.535 2008 15.534

First appeared in EuroFacts, 22nd June 2012

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.”

MEP hammers Brussels “doublespeak” on agriculture

Announcements by the European Commission on the proposed restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been condemned by British MEP Stuart Agnew who said they would create “a lawyer’s paradise”. Mr Agnew said: “The proposals to target CAP subsidies toward ‘active farmers’ are a classic example of ‘doublespeak’, introduced as a simplification when it rapidly becomes apparent that things will be much more complicated. These proposals will create a lawyer’s paradise because they will have to become involved in deciding if the splitting of a business is a genuine desire or whether it is just a cynical subsidy harvesting operation. Lawyers will also be involved in deciding who is an ‘active farmer’ and what exactly constitutes ‘farmed’ land.”

“Inevitably, yet another British quango must be set up to advise farmers of their benefits. All this new tide of micro-management demonstrates is that it is not practical or sensible to have a single agriculture policy for 27 very diverse countries developed and administered by unelected, deskbound bureaucrats from the European Commission.”

Regions and Devolution – the EU angle by Edward Spalton

George Morland (4 June 2012) is understandably angry about the effects of devolution. In the run-up to EEC membership, the Foreign Office was planning for this in 1971, as the following paper shows (Ref FCO/1048). “The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feelings of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within member states and effective Community economic and social policies will be essential… There would be a major responsibility on HM Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular policies to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community” (now the EU).

So you now can see the inherent fraud from the beginning although it was top secret at the time. Supposedly “democratic” bodies would be set up but they would enforce “Community” (i.e. EU) policies. In the UK this was deliberately done in an “asymetric” (i.e. unfair) manner to give rise to the sort of grievances of which Mr Morland complains, thus setting people in different parts of the country against each other.

Since it was founded in 1707 the weakening or dissolution of the UK has been the aim of every would-be dominant European power. The difference is that this time, the project is assisted by our own collaborationist governments of all main parties. The process is called “perforated sovereignty”.

Almost everybody in the country is fed up with “Westminster sub Brussels” so it is not surprising that some people in Scotland should feel they could do better for themselves. However, Mr Salmond is offering “Independence in Europe” which will be entirely illusory.

Slovakia, of fairly similar population to Scotland, is one of the poorest EU members and kept all the rules of the Euro currency. Yet it has been made to contribute towards the Euro bail-out fund for much richer countries which cheated. For about four days they held out against this but were quickly dragooned into line.

The English Regional Assemblies were part of this project, thoroughly discredited by the referendum in the North East which produced a massive majority against an elected regional assembly. The London referendum for an assembly just squeaked through.

Many EU grants can only be applied for at regional level, so the regions were set up to compete with each other to be the most “European” and hence the most favoured. £500 million was spent on useless and unused regional fire control centres to give regional government something to do. Whilst the regional bodies now lie a’mouldering in the grave, their soul and functions go marching on in even more obscure forms because the EU treaty obligations have not altered. “Localism” is another fraud to cover this up.

Sir Peter Housden was John Prescott’s top civil servant for the English regional project. He is now Alec Salmond’s top civil servant and has been heavily criticised for his extreme partiality to the cause of Scottish independence.

So the people of this kingdom are being manipulated and deliberately set against each other by outside influences, assisted by home-grown collaborators. Anger is understandable in the circumstances. The authorities want us to feel angry with each other but the anger should be directed at the manipulators, not the manipulated.

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

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

There are others of course.

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