Does the EU truly uphold the European values it claims to represent? The phrase “European Values” is banded about in European Parliamentary sessions to the point of becoming a hackneyed catch phrase synonymous with manipulation on almost any issue. But even before we get to that, what is obvious is that many citizens in Europe have no idea what these vague ideals are. How do you measure success or failure in achieving such broad criteria? Or is that the point?

The fundamental values of the European Union are:

Respect for human dignity and human rights
Freedom
Democracy
Equality
The rule of law

Does the EU uphold these noble principles or aspire to do so? In this document I attempt to explain how the fundamental structures of the EU seem to contradict these principles. Fundamental policies designed to support them are ignored whenever it proves expedient or get in the way of what seems to be a very different objective.

Few would deny that a unified harmonious Europe is a very desirable thing. So why is there such increasing dissent? What is it about the EU that seems to be polarizing and divisive?. Why is an organisation meant to increase stability seriously destabilising two, if not three, entire continents?

Why is it that a governing organisation, with power over all the peoples of the EU, without the checks and balances provided by a true democracy. Why does it seem to deliberately over-ride fundamental democratic processes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, with little accountability, why is there such a huge undisclosed budget for EU centric propaganda. From where comes the ability to coerce all but the most resilient of national ministers to act against the interests of their own people?

Let us step back from the big headlines. Most people do not understand the EU at even the most fundamental level. To begin with, the vast majority of EU citizens do not even understand the publicized face of the EU and how it works even as disclosed. The citizens of Europe themselves have been complicit in the spread of this institution by simply failing to engage and being unable to understand where their money goes. That there are three levels of government ruling in Europe and how they function is unknown to the vast majority of EU citizens.

The practical reality is that you are not really meant to understand it. It is an elaborate multi layered structure designed to give the illusion of democracy and to be so over complicated that the people have little idea of how it really functions.

Let’s start with the basics.

1. The Commission. Lead by the President of the EC, Commissioners are not elected but appointed. No elections are involved in these appointments whatsoever and there is no way for the citizens of Europe to remove them. The appointees can be thought of in terms similar to a national minister, but the EU President has total discretion about what portfolio or role these ministers will play. There is a President of the EU, who is said to be elected. In reality this is an appointment, as in most cases, there has only been one choice at election or nominally two, with little between them. With total discretion to hand powers to ministers who are themselves appointed, they are supposedly then questioned by the parliament for validity in the role. However, this is a rubber stamping exercise as no one has ever been prevented from taking a role. Despite alcoholism, utterly irrelevant career experience and other factors most employers would balk at Presidents have EU President Jean Claude Juncker. been appointed to one of the most powerful positions in the world.
   As a result of appointment you have people that simply exist to support each is other and their absolutely unassailable grasp on power.

Being in this position confers the power to grant enormous favours to supporters. As such it is unlikely in the extreme than anyone will ever find themselves challenged, as any such challenge would be almost entirely pointless and burn bridges which can lead to personal opportunity.

In 2010 the President of that time appears to have had an attack of morality and suggested that some form of democratic process take place to give further assurance of a democratic mandate in support of the commission. Like most suggested EU reform, the suggestion was never acted upon.

2. The Council of Ministers.

This is the body which represents the ministers of the member states. Decision making in the council of ministers is now almost entirely based on qualitative majority though this can be messed around with to suit the EU giving the impression of the right result to support their agenda. Sounds, fair doesn’t it?

However, the number of ministers per country is not proportionate nor representative in any way. Neither contribution, or any other balancing metric are used when weighting these numbers other than discretion. For example: In terms of the UK versus Maltese representation in the council. Despite being a tax haven, Maltese officials almost slavishly support the EU and receives huge benefits in return.

The reality is that the system is very similar to the old ‘Rotten Boroughs’ model removed from Britain many years ago as undemocratic and prone to corruption. The result is that Malta is 15x better represented in the European Council than Britain, as a result of a biased, undemocratic system. This is despite being a net beneficiary and making no contribution at all. A tax haven which nevertheless votes with the EU leadership when asked and is thus rewarded for it.

Member states take turns in assuming the presidency of the council of ministers based upon six monthly rotation. Decision making is further broken down into 9 key areas each, of which is its own council, which can be very fluid and this council will vote on decisions in these particular areas.

Presidency at the time gives the member significant influence on the day to day affairs of the council.

1. General affairs and external relations
2. Economic and financial affairs
   .
3. Justice and home affairs
4. Employment, social policy and consumer affairs
5. Competitiveness (Internal, industry and research)
6. Transport, telecommunication and energy council.
7. Agriculture and fisheries

8 Environmental.

9. Education, youth and culture Guy Verhofstadt – Hugely influential

The councils have sole authority in some key areas. Perhaps, most notably, in terms of compulsory expenditure. In principle the councils are very much influenced by the direction set out by the Commissioners and one wonders about the precise makeup of the councils at any given time as the individual council makeup varies.

Remember the key point made when it came to the commission?. The President of the Commission decides what portfolio a minister has. So the democratic makeup of the EU is fundamentally flawed at the foundation.

Many of these councils meet only once a month and the day to day activity of the council is actually carried out by permanent representatives. Entirely unelected and known to very few. The permanent representatives are incredibly influential as they tend to function as the main official channel for communication between the Commission and the Council. They also act as the main channel for communication between the EU and national government. However, this permanent group do not only deal with day to day matters as is often suggested. They have the ability to make decisions though they are supposedly limited to non controversial or technical matters. This leads to another quandary given the far reaching nature of what the EU actually does.

Is any decision making of the EU so non controversial?. At what point do the citizens of Europe start to realise that these unknown people are actually making decisions about their country from the shadows? Given that the Ministers rely on decisions and their practical implementation as carried out by this unelected group of functionaries. Ministers have a lack of awareness concerning fundamental decisions being made on behalf of EU citizens. In the event questions are raised, no one seems to be able to adequately define, where the boundary lies.

3. The European Parliament.

Fails any test of being a democratic institution. It is not 1 person 1 vote, but much like the council it is a falsely calculated representation to suit the European agenda. To keep the comparison consistent with my previous example, Malta is 10x more represented than Britain within this institution.

This trend of false representation continues with many other countries which are broadly aligned with those supporting the power of the Commission. In reality, the entire structure exists to support
the power of the commission. What can best be said of the three institutions is that they are different, but really the same. A cover story for an increasingly undemocratic and power hungry institution.

In March of 2018, Jean Claude Juncker went even further. Appointing long time friend and supporter Martin Selmayr, as Secretary General of the EU without even consulting the rest of the Commission. There were no votes, no other applicants were sought. Thus the EU President further entrenched his power with a completely nepotic appointment of a long time friend, to one of the most powerful positions in Europe.

It seems that this may have been a step too far for even his closest colleagues. Guy Verhofstadt seemed to realise that this was simply too blatant a move too soon and criticised his colleague for the move. In reality, this was merely a pretence of balance probably orchestrated to give the impression of any sort of checks or balances against total power and corruption. It changed nothing and the point was noted. No further action has been taken to correct this clearly anti democratic and blatant disregard for anything pretending to be due process. Give the structure and the actions of the EU, is this the first real indication of the transformation of the EU into a post democracy era?

The European Court?

It is nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise in support of the aims of the Commission and corrupt to the very core. In jurisprudence there are absolutely fundamental values by which a legal system can be measured and there is none more important than that no man should rule upon his own affairs. Essentially, you cannot be the judge in your own case. This must often even be extended to conflict of interest and knowledge of the parties. However, during the worst financial crisis in history, European Commissioners were asked to forgo their annual pay rise and instead take a pay cut. Nigel Farage and many MEP’s brought this matter to great prominence to the point that Commissioners went to the European Court for a decision.

The European Commissioners, having been involved in the appointment of these Judges, AND the fact that the same pay cut would extend to the Judges themselves, should have led to the case being referred to other means for a ruling. Instead, the Judges, not wishing a pay cut for themselves or their friends at the Commission, ruled that the terms of the treaty which prescribed a pay cut in extreme circumstances were not to be applied.

Workers rights?

If one were to compare EU and UK law, the vast majority of laws concerning the rights of workers were already existent in UK law. However, Europe still have extremely different regulatory structures across all of the various member states in this regard.

Many of those that were not, such as the EU working time directive, have had almost no practical purpose in the reality of workers lives. The rights of workers vary enormously across Europe and, tellingly, the worst abuses of workers happen within Europe’s largest companies. As an example, look at any of Europe’s budget airlines. Air crews in Ryan Air (One of Europe’s largest businesses) are paid ONLY from the moment the wheels on the plane go up. Meaning they end up only getting paid for HALF of their hours. They get fined for petty purposes further reducing their pay and have to pay all training costs for themselves. Not to mention fines for not selling enough products to passengers. The EU gave Ryan Air access to a mass of people from very poor countries they have not failed to exploit and abuse. This is true of an enormous number of EU wide businesses which seeing an opportunity used free movement to remove local workers, drive wages down below local survival levels and undermine the economic viability of local companies.

The EU is a tool of globalist corporate interest and has done far more to harm workers all across Europe than improve their quality of life. Instead it has created a modern form of slave trade which dwarfs that at the height of slavery towards the end of the 1700’s.

One of the few things both mainstream UK parties agree on, is that the EU is a tool of globalisation run for the benefit of big business. At least, in a broad party sense. In a speech in November 2016, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of Britain’s opposition labour party said that Labour would not seek to prevent or delay Brexit. He labeled those trying to do so as being ‘on the side of certain corporate elites’. He told the meeting in central London that Labour must not try to fight the result of the referendum. Later he went on to tell attendees that Labour believe that Brexit is an enormous opportunity for the country. So there seems to be a realisation that the EU is not run for the citizens of Europe and is hostile to the right of workers in the UK and beyond.

British workers and workers all across Europe pay the highest taxes in the world to fund their governments. This is the huge economic burden placed upon them by having to sustain the budget of secondary shadow government with a budget the size of reasonably large country, yet no GDP.

They must do this while trying to buy homes, which in many countries are soaring in price due to the obvious effect of mass migration. Ordinary workers must pay for overpriced food and clothing which are also inflated by pricing under EU trade deals added to the inability to source competitively. It should be noted that tariffs and taxes on food and clothing inevitably harms the poorest in society the most.

But, none of this need concern you if you become one of the ruling elite. If you are one of the 150,000 EU officials and employees, you are one of the wealthiest people in the world with the budget of a country at your disposal and a ‘population’ of just 150,000. The wealth invested in this small group is staggering. EU employees are not expected, of course, to contribute to society in the same way. So the EU passed legislation to ensure that they, the Elite, must NEVER pay more than 15% in taxes despite salaries which are far greater those of national ministers, or even heads of state.

Migration:

Who benefits most from mass migration? Perhaps unsurprisingly this is mainly employers and the larger they are the more they can take advantage of the opportunity to remove more expensive local labour. Migration allows employers to replace local labour with those willing to work for less and with little or no consideration for rights, dignity or long term consideration.

It is no accident that EU policy has directly led to a greater level of slave labour and exploitation than at the height of the slave trade and it is increasing fast. This has been fundamental in helping keep wages low or even reducing them as is being seen in some areas. It also has the secondary benefit of eradicating or reducing those benefits associated with working life in western countries over previous decades.

Former Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates, spent an enormous amount of time and money trying to support
African humanitarian effort only to see The EU undermine these efforts, setting the continent back decades. He has commented publicly and spoken directly before members of the European parliament to ask them to act because EU policy has catastrophically destabilised two continents.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/bill-gates-cautions-europe-on-its-open-door-immigration-policy/news-story/69aa93741619820a5e13093ba9c7294e

Of course, there is mass migration from within Europe as well. It has come at enormous cost for those victims of this globalist agenda. In past decades, the social injustice of homelessness had been reducing dramatically for decades. However, as wages decrease below the liveable wage among unskilled workers and migration soars to epidemic levels, inevitably it becomes impossible to house a soaring population. Mass migration into Britain has been at record levels for around a decade. It would be necessary to build a city the size of Bristol with all of its supporting apparatus every ten years to begin to cope with this level of population growth. Were that even fundamentally possible for an Island nation one then has to ask, in the face of the lower levels of wages and associated taxation caused by the influx of unskilled migration, is this ever going to be economically viable? If it is, do we want to live in a country where every space has been covered in concrete and high density housing, which in itself creates yet more problems.

Unskilled, uncontrolled migration to Britain has clearly not been helpful, not only from the perspective of society and culture but from a purely economic standpoint.

The only people benefitting from this economic race to the bottom are larger companies, corporations and the people they are paying to support their agenda. Certainly not your average working class citizen who will see their standard of living continue to fall as services become ever more strained and impossible to maintain. House prices continue to soar and the average economic contribution per person declines. Certainly not those people in areas where they find that they are the minority and they must conform to a culture and way of life which is absolutely hostile to the quality of life which western people have come to expect.

The effect of unchecked migration becomes obvious when we look at homelessness in the United Kingdom. A problem which, to a large extent had been incredibly reduced from the scandalous levels of the eighties is now back and increasing. This is entirely predictable when a population increases by a staggering 10 Million people since the 1990’s. On an island of limited scope and scale for building, just maintaining a pace of development to meet the needs of your own organically growing population is a challenge. Doing so when migration drives wages down and therefore the economic contribution per person in the form of taxation down is clearly unrealistic by any measure.

When you then consider some of the inevitable side effects of mass migration, such as the soaring house prices, social effects of migration reach the point of crisis and we now see that 28-30% of all homeless people are low skilled migrants and of course, your average Brit is finding it increasingly impossible to get on the first rung of the housing ladder.

Currently, some EU members are opposing the will of the Commission and defying the imposed migrations quota and the execution of the plans designed to support those who influence them. For example, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Croatia and others. The EU are planning sanctions against their own members and while it is early days, many threats have been made against Poland for standing up and supporting the will of its citizens since the election of a leader critical of the EU. This sort of opposition will be removed in the longer term leaving the EU free to execute the plans strongly influenced by the likes of Soros and others.

In the week ending Friday 23.02.2018, Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, told his people “We will not remain silent and watch the execution of the Soros Plan: if need be, we will make use of stronger legal tools,” continued Orbán, highlighting the “Stop Soros” legislative package his government presented to parliament, which could see open borders NGOs assisting illegal migration taxed to provide funds for border protection. This comes as response to the funding of NGO’s which undermine the rule of law and national interests of a member state.

Democracy – European values?

There are none, other than European Commissioners will to power, and to drive through expansion of their influence into every country possible. The EU routinely ignores so called European Principles touted in public and even their own admission rules when it suits them. What the EU has in fact done is to increase and spread corruption while keeping the reality of that fact hidden from the public. The evidence of the corrupting influence of the EU is becoming clearer and clearer despite the best efforts of the EU to cover-up and obfuscate figures, despite a structure based on hiding reality from ordinary people.

For example, the Balkans state of Croatia never even met the basic and fundamental test criteria for admission into the EU. That of having an independent judiciary, fairly ruling on cases in the country and others. After 8 years of failing to meet fundamental standards for building a less corrupt society, the EU let them in anyway. Evidence out of Croatia and indeed many member and accession
states suggest that a significant amount of corruption comes from the EU rather than being prevented, in any way, by it.

But the clearest evidence comes from the recent history of the EU, as the grasp on power became more of a strangle hold and the true agenda of its leaders has become ever more obvious. In 2005 France and the Netherlands both voted in referendum AGAINST the EU or its policies. In response, the EU passed laws and resolutions to enable their governments to ignore it and put tremendous pressure, aligned with self interest, on the leaders of those countries. These leader were coerced and bludgeoned into following the will of the members of the council when in opposition to the will of their own people. For member state politicians, it can be career suicide to object to EU rule.

Also most tellingly, after voting in Ireland went against the EU, the EU simply determined to ignore it completely. After a massive increase in his personal wealth, Irish Prime Minister O’Leary agreed that Ireland is a very pro EU country despite the vote of his people to the contrary and was told to hold another vote and another if necessary another until the people gave the only right answer, a vote in favour of the EU position.

Does this sound familiar? It has been a common tool of control for recalcitrant states. The same thing happened in Denmark. In these cases the EU simply changed the law and turned it into the
Lisbon treaty so these populations no longer had a choice.

Nothing demonstrates the utter contempt which the commission has for democracy like Jean-Claude Juncker’s comments on this democratic vote of the French people concerning the Lisbon treaty.

Does this sound like an institution that has any pretence of democracy?

Jean-Claude Juncker: On the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No we will say ‘we continue’.

One would have thought that national leaders would be fighting hard against the EU usurping their rights and powers as duly elected leaders. Yet, given that they are doing so well out of their EU relationships and often find themselves offered excellent opportunities to increase their personal
wealth (as are their key supporters) perhaps it isn’t so surprising that the power grab goes on and on with barely a whimper from most national leaders. Indeed, one wonders how much longer a political leader could be elected in an EU member state who is critical of the EU.

Is this the death of progress and democracy in Europe? As a politician, one is often fighting for survival, to be re elected, or to find a position on the front benches. However, once you are in the EU hierarchy, one doesn’t have to worry about the bothersome aspects of democracy and can ride the gravy train for as long as one is willing to play ball, building a financial base that will last generations.

Jean Claude Juncker in 2007: “Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

Quoted in Rennie, David (26 May 2005).
The Telegraph (UK). Retrieved on 29 June 2011

Democracy for Sale.

It is no secret that lobbying has become big business in Brussels but this has reached the point to which there may be little that takes place that has not been paid for by the shadow rulers of the EU. Perhaps one of the best known examples of this, come in the form of notorious example, the legendary hedge fund manager, George Soros.

George Soros is a Hungarian Hedge Fund Manager now living in America. Chair of his finance company he has become one of world’s richest people. He has meddled in elections, governance and democracy across the world. Much of this is conducted through his organisation ‘Open Society’ and donations through other NGO.

He is very good at making headlines and is well known for his loathing of Google, Facebook and other social media. Many of which have experienced viral explosions of opinion and information concerning his aims and the methods used to achieve them. Soros claims that social media is “a menace”.

On the surface, Mr Soros and his organisation claim to represent a relatively benign liberal ideology taken to the extreme. Widely believed to be behind the Coup in Turkey which cost the lives of so many, George Soros words, rarely seem to match his actions.

With one possible exception. George Soros as a globalist billionaire, does not much like borders. He is wanted for questioning concerning the actions of several NGO’s directly funded by his organisation which fund illegal migration into Europe and coach migrants on what to say and what to do to get away with it. The have even produced apps to brief illegal migrants in how to avoid proper evaluation and legal processes.

Soros has wielded enormous power through his enormous wealth. In the early 1990’s he used his wealth against a vulnerable British pound thus breaking the British financial system earning himself more than a billion US dollars literally, overnight. To the cost of ordinary British people everywhere. He did the same during the Asian financial crisis increasing the misery of more of the poorest people in society. At the time, the Malaysian Prime Minister directly accused Soros of purposefully destroying his country’s currency and devaluing it by more than 15%.

Following the brutal murder of an anti corruption / organised crime journalist in Slovakia it came to light that a short time before this the Prime Minister had attended a one to one private meeting with Soros, unattended by a representative of the Foreign Ministry as protocol demands.

He is believed to have funded protests and organisations from Black Lives Matter to Antifa and various other causes. Where there is catastrophe and instability, George Soros and those like him, profit. One of the best ways to do this is by targeting a weak country or increasing uncertainty to create a weak currency, much as he has been doing in Europe and particularly with regards to Brexit. It seems that Soros has his eye on another billion dollar pay day.

So, what does this example mean, in terms of the EU?. George Soros invested a staggering 18 Billion Dollars in a donation to his group ‘open society’ in 2017. Globalist businesses love mass migration. It is a source of cheap labour, reduces wage costs and crucially has destabilised 2 continents leading to catastrophe. Sound familiar? Soros has extremely strong links with the EU, so much so that he can have the President of the EU lobbying member states and applying pressure on his behalf.

Research shows that Soros organisation had an incredible 42 meetings with the EU Commission alone last year. His organisation actually have a directory of what they call ‘reliable friends’. A list and contact details of 226 Members of the EU commission and parliament who can be relied upon to be supportive. Something Nigel Farage of British Independence party UKIP put under the spotlight within the EU parliament to try and force the disclosure of who was taking Soros money and how much. The bid for transparency failed utterly.

In his original home country of Hungary, the government forced the closure of a Soros funded University which Soros founded in Budapest. The government accuse him of being a political puppet master who has ruined the lives of tens of millions of people. It is hard to deny the accusation. But the tide may be turning thanks to the work of investigative journalists.

Ordinary citizens have come together to protest against Soros influence over their democracy in countries such as the US, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia and Macedonia.

Here then, is the real leader of the EU, though by no means, not the only hugely influential financier involved in the hijacking of our democracy. Someone who is undermining the fundamental rule of law in member states. Who uses cash to influence elections to drive what appears to be a liberal agenda and yet makes enormous amounts of money to the cost of ordinary people around the world causing a huge amount of suffering wherever his influence extends.

Yet, he has 226 ‘reliable friends’ in the EU organisation and is able to call up the President of the EU to go to members states to do his bidding. It doesn’t appear that the EU is doing much to pretend to hold themselves to their ‘fundamental principles’.

The European Central Bank

The European Central Bank and their friends in international finance have enormous control both politically and through the broader banking network. In various countries, democratically elected governments have been removed by the Bank, which is the real purpose of the EU. Acting against all pretence of democratic process. The alliance of banking interests and the EU have been used to completely undermine national economies and profit enormously from it. This at almost no risk at all for the banks as EU citizens are forced to underwrite this hostile takeover of the businesses and economic interest of vulnerable member countries.

However, thanks to the sheer incompetence of the EU leaders, some banks are learning the law of unintended consequences (though any other laws in the EU are unlikely to ever be seriously applied to them) by their friends in leadership. Two of Europe’s largest banks, critical to the Euro zone have been in steady decline for a decade with shares losing 70-95% of their value over that time. It seems that, will to power without sustainability can only get you so far.

In some countries, such as Germany, their entire tax system is designed to aid the hostile takeover of foreign companies and thus their economies. For example, Ireland: Ireland voted to reject the EU. The EU told them ‘you are wrong’. Vote what you like. You are Ireland and not a majority stakeholder. Unfortunately, at that time, the rest of Great Britain did not support Ireland so the vote was not made legal and the EU chose to ignore them. German banks then poured money into Ireland on an incredibly dubious basis, undermining their economy, leading to a near collapse and almost total dependence on German / EU good will to avoid it.

Again, another comment from EU President Jean-Claude Juncker helps underline the lack of concern for democratic processes when it comes to the position of the EU on the financial system:

In 2011: Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup […] I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious […] I am for secret, dark debates.

Who are the EUROGROUP?

The Eurogroup are a secret select group that in fact controls the direction of the EU. Jean Claude Juncker is of course a member but the identity of most of the rest of this group remains a mystery.

Given the nature of the member we do know, EU President Jean Claude Juncker, this is a man that openly admitted that he often had to lie during his tenure as finance minister and then premier of favourite EU member and tax haven, Luxembourg. A qualification which in turn seems to have made him an ideal candidate for leadership of the EU. Perfect, within this environment of dishonesty and secret decisions taken knowing that they would not last if held up to public scrutiny.

Fake News – The EU are trying to recreate history:

The EU has created an entire fake Museum in Brussels. Apparently, Europe began with the French revolution!. It ignores Germany’s entire past and yet worships the French revolution?

This is extremely ironic, as it is the spirit of the French revolution which is the very spirit of the people. Given the abysmal approval ratings for the EU across Europe, the same spirit of the people which now want these elite globalists removed ( and possibly beheaded ) just as they did to the aristocracy of the French Revolution.

Why didn’t Britain stay in the EU and drive reform from inside?

Of all members, Britain has received an exceptionally poor deal. Second largest contributor for most
of the last 10 years yet, although Britain makes such an enormous contribution, it is one of the least successful members in terms of passing resolutions. Furthermore, it should be noted that most of those unsuccessful resolutions were as a result of Britain’s diverging interests from those of the EU and many were proposed checks and balances on the unelected EU council’s power. All attempts to reform the EU were blocked. Indeed, there is widely believed to be an unofficial voting block on British influence within the EU and the statistics very much support this.

Voting balance for and against EU resolutions. The UK has been getting a bad deal, and the data shows that Britain has been growing ever more out of alignment with the thinking in Brussels and less able to pass any measures.

It is a disproportionate and utterly rigged system designed to support the European Commission’s aim of keeping their project rolling and themselves lucratively funded without any measure of performance or accountability.

The UK makes an enormous contribution and has 29 MEP’s. Malta has a net negative contribution and has 3 MEP’s for a population of 400,000 population. So, despite not being a net contributor, this corrupt tax haven, receives 15 times the influence of Britain per capita. When one looks at the number of resolutions Malta has supported and passed it has grown in power and influence within the EU in alignment with European support despite the scandal of corruption.

In absolute terms, the role of the Parliament is advisory only. Indeed, the members of the council have used the threat of just going ahead anyway several times in the past. Notably, when members in some member states objected to further globalisation under the proposed Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade deal between the EU and the United States.

When it came to signing a TTIPP agreement with the US; Only an unusual public
campaign against it and outcry stopped it being pushed through in its original form despite the
motion not passing resolution in parliament.

The EU routinely removes democratically elected governments where it is convenient, completely
overturning national democracy. In Greece and in Italy directly the EU overturned an elected leader and replaced them with their own choice. This is something impossible to imagine outside of a dictatorship. It is the very basis of freedom as opposed to dictatorship. If you nor I have a vote that matters, we are slaves to the whim of those with the power.

Environmental Protection?

It appears clear that the EU works well for the global corporate businesses and vested interests with the financial backing to buy influence. A clear example of this, is the recent scandal surrounding the German car industry.

In 2010, the German car manufacturer VW was found to have been using equipment which created false test conditions to cheat emissions tests. The US has in fact far more stringent and rigorous regulations in many areas than does Europe. Not only were the vehicles grossly exceeding the legal emissions limit for one of the most harmful gases of all(Nitrous Oxide) by as much as 700% in the US. It was subsequently found that NoX emissions were at similar levels in emissions from European cars. To be clear, these emissions, kill people. 10,000 in one year alone in Germany. So, what happened in Europe given the strong words from the European Parliament around climate change and the environment. Almost nothing meaningful. Emissions are set at the European level and the EU has the power to intervene. However, these companies are a massive contributor to the German economy and the threat of moving to another more friendly jurisdiction means that the German government imposed no significant penalties whatsoever.

In the US one of the directors responsible went to jail and there is an arrest warrant for another director resident in Germany and the investigation continues. Interestingly, the director concerned has not been extradited to face justice. The one who was caught was only caught about to board a plane following a Caribbean holiday. So, those responsible for killing tens of thousands of people around the world, have not been extradited yet. In contrast, someone that may have, for example published information to the public concerning governmental misconduct, or someone that may have hacked into a computer system harming no one, is sought with extreme prejudice and would almost certainly find themselves extradited.

Since the original case, it has been found that almost every German diesel car maker was using similarly illegal means to cheat tests. The investigations continue.

. Subsequent testing in a nursery school in a relatively low density part of Germany was around 200% higher than safe levels.

The future of the EU – More expansion at any cost. Less democracy, more corruption.

Very senior officials within the EU have been named in corruption cases toppling entire governments in the Balkans, such as in Macedonia where officials were recorded talking about the 50% stake in a casino they had in partnership with a senior EU contact. Those governments are removed, the politicians all face court and jail. Yet, nothing at all happens to the EU officials taking part. They are beyond all sense of accountability. Untouchable, they control their own high court so even if they did go through the farce of trial, it would be trial tried by obligated associates.

The mentality in Brussels’ is such, that even were such a case forced to trial, most Eurocrats would consider it unthinkable that the Court apply actual justice for fear of public opinion forcing them to allow interference in the running of the EU itself. There is a new phrase amongst these people. ”post democratic Europe”. A time when the elite can stop asking our opinion at all and get on with whatever they believe to be best for us. Which is to say of course, them.

Now, with Britain leaving the EU there will be seats in Parliament to be allotted to member nations. Most pundits agree that in the main these seats are likely to go to the core group of Eurozone and some might say Europhile countries. Further tipping the balance against the remaining five nations not wishing to expose their countries to the instability of the Euro. Vote watch suggests that Eurozone countries will increase their seats by 22 whereas those from non Euro Zone countries will lose 68 seats, dramatically affecting the balance within the EU. This could provoke a great deal more dissatisfaction within the EU going forward as those five members find that they have less power to obstruct disadvantageous currency policy, leading to further instability.

Corrupt business interests influence in the EU is likely to expand with democracy becoming a thin veneer of acceptability, covering a ‘pay per view’ version of itself. As control increases, the chances of exposure, or the possibility of recourse become more remote than ever. The demands of these super wealthy few should become more obvious as power is consolidated but conversely, just the opposite is possible. High level corruption of all forms as a result of less transparency make wrong doing, less visible to citizens. With no one left in a position to report or expose them, nor do anything about it even if they did, critical opposition to private interest will evaporate. We could find our countries increasingly governed at the whim of the corrupt few and those with the resources to buy influence.

One of the key measures of democracy and indeed the very freedom which the EU bandy around as a key principle, is freedom of speech. When speaking to accession countries or other countries with which the EU has a disagreement, they will often cite that the country must have a free and critical press. This seems ironic at best and perhaps outright sinister at worst. For years the EU have spent a great deal of time and effort suppressing the press and the flow of information. In Brussels’, the one news source left which is in any way critical of the EU is largely a token gesture. All others were cold shouldered to death by EU officials refusing to engage in debate, interviews or commentary. For those in the know, US style lobbying is big business in Brussels’ with many companies popping up simply to peddle influence. Thanks to the chokehold on reporting, we have no real idea how big an industry this is and most citizens do not realise this is even possible, let alone common.

It is not unusual to see a billionaire supporting pet projects, in a variety of ways around the world. Indeed, such philanthropy is to be admired. But the EU seems to be particularly at the beck and call

of some and the level and depth of this partnership seems to be without precedent. George Soros has risen in prominence beyond the point of conspiracy theorists to the point where he has come out of the shadows and is now almost free to act with impunity at even the highest level of the EU.
In turn such is the hold of these billionaires over Europe that the EU commission is far from hiding their partnership, other than the unwillingness to disclose who and how much with any transparency.

However, in recent months, various Prime Ministers, trade organisations and others have come out vigorously in concern at the EU’s policy in negotiations with Britain. They do not want a politically led negotiation to punish Britain and the British but a pragmatic solution. For security, for trade and for diplomacy. Michel Barnier as a tool of the Commission, could not care less what damage this does to member states. He only cares to try to instil fear into the disgruntled citizens of Europe that may also be wondering why their opinions and votes are almost irrelevant. It is a continent wide game, of hide the ball in the cup, and keep those cups moving until people lose track.

GDP Growth rate in the Euro area went down to 0.60 from 0.70% last quarter. Whereas, the growth rate trend in the UK seems to be increasing after a dip quarter in Q3 2017, from 0.50% to 0.40% putting Britain broadly on target as of Q4 2017.

What is particularly disturbing since the last election is the onslaught of lobbying within the labour party. Following this election, the influences in Europe and further afield that had previously written off Jeremy Corbyn’s labour party as a lunatic fringe and unelectable realised that, with a few billion dollar nudge, they might just be the vehicle that EU interests needed.

They immediately set about sowing influence in the labour party with a vengeance. Many of the donators were playing both sides but had not truly believed in the labour parties ability to execute on their plans for Europe. Until Jeremy Corbyn. Momentum gave them a brutal tool of political control. A means by which to circumvent the traditional role of Labour and create a firebrand media friendly version of the labour party. Fully armed with slogans which would appeal to the voters which had not heard it all before, they set about creating a false narrative more at home in Narnia than the realities of modern Britain. Advisors told Corbyn he must drop his anti globalist, anti elite stance. Perhaps suggesting to him, that, once you have the power, you can make your socialist driven changes?. How utterly naive. You do not sell your morality, your people and then survive with principles intact. You do not swim with sharks and not expect to bleed.

Do not take this as a party political document. I think it important to say I am neither Labour, nor conservative. I think the important thing that most politicians do not understand at this moment, is that this moment is more important than their self interest and that history will remember the difference. Nor, I hope, will it be too far in the future. I only hope that British people will see through the manipulation and make their choices based on the facts of the EU as an organisation.

Slavish devotion to one party or another while disengaging ones critical faculties to fit in with in to a parties border is not sustainable at this point in our countries evolution. Very much like all of those people, many of them very intelligent, that fell afoul of the schemes of Charles Ponzi. People were lazy and uninterested in politics, as if it were irrelevant to their day to day existence. One effect of the Brexit debate in Britain has to, at least, shake people from some of that apathy and remind them of the day to day consequences of their own choices.

How has Britain performed since the Brexit referendum?

Often a cry on mainstream media and from the less engaged in the economy, this has been a mantra
from the EU hardliners even before the result of the referendum was known.

So, how are we doing?

Well, did we find ourselves at war?. Are we in the predicted crisis?.

Is the money I banked safe and have our house prices collapsed?

The pound is worth less against the Euro than it was. But, this has driven record export success. As anyone in a business which wants to compete internationally will tell you, it is hard to compete with
nations such as China or even Germany, which have managed to artificially under value their currency to fund export advantage. So this is a welcome boon to British export growth.

The Euro zone is a currency fixing exercise which largely benefits Germany. It is extremely unlikely that Germany would have experienced the sort of economic success they have had since the Euro, if the German currency was not linked to that of a raft of bankrupt nations. I do not think anyone in the world believes for a moment that Germany would be the export economy it is, if poorer nations were not paying the price. In sharp contrast, Britain has been a victim of its own economic success and a stronger, even overvalued pound. This has been problematic for the competitiveness of UK businesses abroad, so a reasonable rebalancing was overdue.

In 2017, the UK experienced a record increase in new ‘Tech Start-ups’ funded mainly by US Silicon Valley investors. Investment in new Tech Startups by this group increased from 342 Million in 2016 to 885 Million in just the first three quarters of 2017. The final figure is expected to be triple the 2016 number.

China: Britain moved up to being China’s 8th largest trading partner with trade of 55 Billion that year.

Even companies feeling pressure to restructure are unwilling to cut their ties with London if they can help it. UBS reduced their number of jobs in their Paris office by 25% after publicly announcing that they plan to keep everything they can at their London office. Despite this, it is worth noting that certain mainstream media, ignored the general global restructuring and misleadingly labelled this a Brexit consequence.

In 2018 the overall valuation of Britain as a whole increased to a record level and the stock market hit an all time high evaluation. Not, in themselves definite indications of success but taken together, certainly not indicative of many of those dire predictions made by either less competent or compromised economists, who have now been proven wrong and can’t get away from their earlier quotes fast enough. Mainstream media, in the UK is enormously biased in the favour of their globalist owners. Mainstream media, often quotes, the CBI. The CBI, is probably Britain’s least reliable forecasting entity. Entirely having failed to forecast the outcome of almost any major decision for decades, the Confederation of British Industry were one of the fastest to realise that they needed to start backpedalling from earlier quotes. This came just months after the referendum. The CBI represent the interest of their corporate members, so perhaps, dubious forecasting to support their agenda is understandable.

But have we been very foolish in seeking to be democratic before the EU and actually enforce a decision of our people? Will we now be punished, despite the pretence of the EU to democratic principles? No. It comes down to leverage. All the businesses and economies of Europe are intrinsically linked. You simply cannot harm one without harming another. Despite the outrageous negotiating stance taken by the EU’s Chief Negotiator, Mr Barnier. A more reasonable question might be, would the EU itself burn every economy of Europe if it meant increasing the chokehold on power. Or worse yet, give some up, or, that most feared of words in Brussels’, “reform”. Why should there should still be fear of the concept of reform within the EU?. If there is one thing that the EU has made clear over the last 2 years in particular, it is that there can be no reform.

Despite the fear mongering so prevalent in the mainstream media, employment in Britain is at a level most European countries can only dream of. While the UK, like every other European nation does employ some unreliable metrics around zero hours contracts, these contracts are an infinitesimal proportion of the overall market. UK employment continued to increase over the course of 2016 and 2017 and does not seem to be slowing. Indeed, many surveys of UK businesses show that a key concern for UK businesses is the need for more employees to fuel expansion. Contrast this with the picture of employment across the Euro zone as a whole.

Unemployment in the UK was last registered at 4.30% in the UK compared with 8.70% unemployment across the EU.

⦁ Meanwhile, as of 24th April 2018 the UK office of national statistics reports that the UK is running its first budgetary surplus in over sixteen years and borrowing is at its lowest level in over a decade.

⦁ But what about our purchasing power because of the rebalancing of the pound? The UK Office of National Statistics (The ONS) show that for the first time in 15 years, UK wages are growing faster than prices (ie. inflation). It is widely believed that this may be largely due to a temporary slowdown in unskilled migration following the initial Brexit result.

The future of Britain.

At this point, it is starting to dawn on many people that Brexit IS happening and to stop campaigning either one way or another and actually plan for the reality of how to best take advantage of the opportunities provided by Brexit.

It is time to stop hiding from reality and to start to build contingency. Government need to stop treating competitiveness like a bad word in the context of post EU Britain. For too long British politicians have been able to enjoy the status quo and make less and less difference in the lives of our people and our businesses. Brexit helped an entire generation of voters question the behaviour of politicians beyond more than the latest tawdry scandal on the front page. For the first time, a majority of British voters want an answer to the question, are our politicians actually fit to lead?

It is the elephant in the room. There is a huge opportunity if politicians will stop trying to use the opportunity to further party political ends and do what is best for Britain. So far, politicians have spent a great deal of time trying to use the situation for party political advantage that they have spent little time trying to choreograph a proper exit. Our Prime Minister seems to fail to understand the advantages of a clean exist or is perhaps simply afraid to face up to the challenge inherent in taking these opportunities. Meanwhile, the leading opposition party seems to be almost incoherent over Europe and appears to be led by the policy of the moment . Simply happy to say or do anything that might gain a few more points in the polls, we are left with the least bad option in terms of who should be negotiating. The choice seems to come down to, not great, or absolutely disastrous. With an opposition with little concern for the long term, or it seems, alignment with any real strategy and a relatively weak Prime Minister failing to make strong decisions, it is our own politicians which are the true threat to British success now the choice to leave has been made.

For decades, UK government has failed to do enough to support British Businesses in terms of export growth and development. This a time where they must step up and provide solutions which advantage British competitiveness and put our own interests first.

For example? if there are to be trade tariffs, how will they deploy the surplus by the trade deficit with Europe to support exporters and advantage British businesses for competitiveness in Europe?

The outcome of Britain post Brexit is not in the hands of Mr Barnier (who doesn’t seem to have much to offer) or anyone else. It is in the hands of Britain and the British government. So what are they doing to build the systems and structures we need to take advantage of the opportunity?

We have no shortage of businesses that have the product and the appetite to tackle exporting but a
serious lack of competence and activity from the state and what should be our support institutions.

Things are not much more sensible within Brussels’. No one in the European Union wishes to consider the effects of Brexit on European performance and how the exit of Britain, which remains

the world largest banking economy, will affect the performance of Europe. This is particularly true when it comes to with the removal of funding.

Any harm to the UK economy WILL seriously damage the economies of the EU and vice versa. So, Britain should be considering the cost of removing funding from programmes which support EU economic growth as this may have inevitable consequences at home. There is still much room for partnership and jointly funded initiative in an economically integrated world both working with the EU and beyond.

Britain should remain firm in reserving the right to negotiate trade deals in its own right, yet willing to come to the table to support projects which benefit our partners in Europe in alignment with British interests.

But there is something we, the British people should be doing. We should all be setting aside our differences and uniting to ensure that what comes next is a success.