????? DID YOU KNOW ?????
The
Remainers Essential Check List
A FEW BASIC FACTS ABOUT
THE EUROPEAN UNION
WHICH MAYBE YOU HAD NOT
CONSIDERED
READ – THEN DO YOUR OWN
RESEARCH – DECIDE
A CHANCE TO CHALLENGE
ASSUMPTIONS
1)
The people who instigate the laws are not elected by anyone.
The European
Commission is effectively the EU’s government and the only ones that can propose
legislation. The 28 commissioners (one from each country) are not elected.
The UK’s
commissioner is Sir Julian King (be honest had you ever heard of him???). Of course he is pro Europe but to be fair
even if there is a new law proposed which in his opinion does not suit the UK -
he is but one voice amongst twenty eight –
Good
for the UK???
28 non-elected
people are the only ones allowed to propose laws for 512,600,000 people. Democracy????
2)
The Council of Ministers – part of the legislative process - headed by
President Donald Tusk meets in secret and is not obliged to publish
their discussions. Tusk, another appointment that the UK had very little if any
input into.
BTW re this
arrangement NO political grouping or country in the Free World (those not Communist
or Dictatorships) would allow this way of working particularly as this select
group sets the strategic direction of the Block. Yes the good news is that UK has one voice
out of 29.
But
is that Democracy – is it in the best interests of the UK??
3)
All MEPs from all countries have to be members of one of the
E
U’s (currently nine) political parties - loose
groupings of people with a similar political stance.
Within these
parties the British MEPs nit in the majority except with the EEFD - 41 members
with 18 Brits. EPP (the biggest) has a total of 217 members. With
the majority of parties British interests are unlikely ever to
to be the full focus of that grouping.
4) Mostly British MEPs are members of EU
political parties that are not the ones with most members – so less block votes. British
interests therefore are further watered down or can easily be ignored.
5) The
EPP - by far the largest party in the EU Parliament with 217 members - got
their candidate Jean Claude Juncker appointed
President of the EU Commission. Yes after the decision was made there was a perfunctory
vote in the EU Parliament - but as always smaller countries and/or newer
members tended to “go with the flow” so as not to be seen to be “rocking the
boat” – particularly if their country was a nett recipient of EU funding.
The UK PM objected as did Hungary’s but once again the
UK’s views were overruled.
Had anyone in the UK heard of J C J before the
appointment - was anyone in the UK given a choice – Democracy??
Voting
for MEPs across EU countries varies & is therefore not democratic.
a) Each vote is
not of equal value
– A vote per person in Luxembourg (J C J’s home
country) is nine times the value of each person’s vote in the UK.
- A vote in Malta is twelve times
the value of a vote in the UK.
Malta by the way is a nett recipient
of EU funding.
The UK of course is a massive nett cash contributor.
There are several
other examples across the EU of this imbalance.
Calculation
based on the number of MEPs per country as a proportion of the national
population.
b) In the UK
for EU elections we use a Closed List System - you cannot vote for a person
only a party. This is not so in other countries. In a UK General Election you
can vote for the person you wish to represent you – not so in the EU election.
c) The age a
person can vote is determined by each country based on each country’s National Parliamentary
criteria. Considerable variations.
ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL??
6) A
UK MEPs vote does not count for much. UK MEPs represent only 13% of all the
votes possible in the EU parliament - that’s if all UK MEPs vote the same way (no
guarantees on that one). In reality it only needs 16 countries - or a few
countries representing 65% of the EU population getting together to get a
“qualified majority vote” to go against the best option for the UK. There is
the very occasional possibility of a Veto on some very limited issues
such as national defence but if one reads the small print the EU
hierarchy want to further eliminate the current opportunities to use the Veto. Since 2009 up until 2017 (more recent records not
found) the UK has always been the country with the highest number of losses
overall when analysing the results of votes in the EU parliament. Nearly double the percentage of any other
country
– Are the UK views always so wrong or are
there EU priorities that are just not suitable or beneficial for our country?
7) Voting
by MEPs anyway can be perfunctory as the laws decided by the unelected European
Commission are what get voted on. Each MEP can have a maximum of two minutes
only to voice a point of view. That’s their only input on the whole process
except for ineffectual conversations amongst themselves. Again many non
UK MEPs will vote for a given law anyway as it either does not affect their
country directly and/or does not “rock the boat” and put them in a bad light
with the senior Brussels bureaucrats.
Re
Above:
A
dependency culture seems to have developed among those countries which have
endured prolonged periods of austerity and recession and are nett recipients of
EU funding (leading to an increasing sense of dependency and reliance on the EU
and sense of requirement to comply with its strictures). Not in any way some
planned deviation or corruption just the reality.
Is this true democracy and does it help
the UK?
8)
The EU parliament (the
MEPs) has no power to initiate or repeal legislation. Effectively
the Parliament is there to rubber stamp decisions/laws handed down to
them. Laws are imposed without a democratic
mandate - it appears to some to suit the few at the expense of the many so as
not to go against the master federalist plan.
9)
The UK has paid in circa 9 billion pounds
sterling NETT to the EU in each of the last two years (Nett = after deducting
our rebate and EU payments back to us to their selected UK organisations/enterprises).
10)
The gross figure our EU bill comes to is circa
£18.5 billion. We get a rebate on this to
partially “even out” the huge concessions to French agriculture – thank
you Maggi. Then the EU give us back some of our
money for certain enterprises - approximately £4.5 - £5.5 billion PA (figs
vary depending on source of info). The EU decides who in the UK gets what
& when. Then the recipent can put up a Blue plaque so
everyone is lead to believe the money came exclusively from the EU. This is of
course fake by any definition. The money may have been routed via Brussels but
the original source was from UK tax payers.
11)
Many of these UK taxpayer payments routed
via the Brussels bank go to extremely important and worthwhile causes and
organisations. I would however like you to consider one very small personal
experience which reinforces the lack of control and honesty on this allocation of
our money once it gets to the EU.
A friend of mine who is single and owns several houses
which he rents out (let’s say he is “comfortably off”) wanted with
one large 1930’s property which he lived in to make certain structural changes to
enable him to rent it out more easily when he moved on. His financial adviser
told him not to bother financing it himself as due to the area in Wales this
house was located in he could get the money from the EU. He did and of
course is very happy about it. On a much
larger scale one reads about the huge scams for EU money in Sicily Hungary and
many other places I don’t have details or personal experience but I ask you to
consider this morally corrupt way of operating. Are
there not better things our UK taxes could be spent on?
12)
In the period 2014 – 2016 there were 17 of
the 28 countries who were NETT recipients of EU funding. Apparently the targeting for 2019 is to
reduce the number of countries who will be nett recipients of EU funding (no
guarantees). By
definition therefore after allowing for our contribution to run the Brussels
and Strasbourg set ups - the UK has been and will continue to subsidise many
countries in the EU. Is this a good way to spend
our money? Particularly when there is evidence that at least one country
in Europe has used their EU regional subsidy to make it attractive for UK
business to relocate there. So we are paying money to incentivise companies to
take jobs away from the UK. This money is
of course over and above the .07% of GDP we use to help countries around the
World.
13)
Many reliable independent sources and indeed
the EU’s own records demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to adapt or
be flexible in a crisis or an unforeseen event.
One significant illustration of this is the “DO IT OUR WAY” approach with
the euro. By not allowing countries to
restructure or return to their own currencies and devalue to attract inward
investment and activity contributed towards distress,
high unemployment & social unrest amongst the poorer countries in Southern
Europe. This is a clear illustration the “one size fits all” does not work when
applied to such a diverse group of countries. It has become clear the
EU’s Federalist plan is more important to them than the destruction of
individual countries well-being and that of their populations. The EU one size fits all always fails for
many – unless you are the wealthy so called “partner”.
14)
The EU is increasingly more focused on its
own political project and its own powerbase, than it is in the interests of the
peoples of Europe. This - as everyone who follows the news will realise - has
led to a rise of tensions and greater Euroscepticism across the Continent.
15)
There is a view from respected well-meaning people
about “Changing the EU from the inside”. The record however going back many
years confirms that the EU is focused on its Federalist plan and real change
will not happen; many placating words but never any fundamental changes of
direction or flexibility. An obvious example is David Cameron who wanted very
modest changes - all were rebuffed.
16) The EU structure is purposely geared to
promote the wellbeing and growth of multinational companies at the expense of small
and medium size operators. Easier to
control and monitor one big player v 100 medium sized organisations; OK not a
written policy as such - however looking at the facts over recent years this is
the only conclusion. Multinational companies spend millions of euros
lobbying the EU to gain advantages over their competitors and help market
domination. A few names in this category are Google - Microsoft – Gen. Electric
- Deutsche Bank - Siemens – Huawei (where have we heard that name before?) Volkswagen (they got found out recently re their
testing regime without too much downside) plus many others. As you will be aware,
Lobbying at this level means personnel employed to present/push involvement in
EU projects, to increase their own domination and market share. These techniques
also include a certain amount of entertaining. Yes lobbying goes on with all
governments including the UK but the comparative levels of money spent and
overall effort and results pales into insignificance. Yes business is
business BUT where does this leave the UK’s SMEs?
17)
The number of EU laws that come
automatically into UK law or where UK laws originate from EU is very high and
rising. Difficult to put an exact figure on this with claims
as high as 70% down to 40% (appears to be a case of interpretation and the
slant the particular source wants to put on the subject)Of course many of these laws are improvements and well
meant. BUT what about full UK parliamentary scrutiny???
Or is Westminster to end up as a regional council office only?
18)
Once every month for four days only the
whole EU parliament – personnel and paperwork – moves south from Brussels to
Strasbourg in France about 5 hours travelling time. Then on the fifth day moves back again. Cost per year is estimated at between £150mil
- £170mil. That’s without a calculation of the work output and efficiency lost
on 24/30 days lost every year through travel. Full salaries and expenses are of
course paid during this move.
Why??? The
only rationale I can find in my research is a quote that “its historic and it
was to keep the French happy when the EU was set up” –
Efficient
& cost effective????
To me it’s
like moving the Westminster parliament to Newcastle for four days once a month.
Would we Brits stand for that??
Source of
above Information.
Mainly EU’s
own website - Europa.eu
Particularly
sections
-
Institutions and bodies
-
Europa.eu/European-union index.en
-
How the EU works – EEAS – Europe-eu
-
Europa.eu/European – union index _ en
Info direct
from the EU was accepted as fact - Doesn’t need to be checked – does it?
All other
sources were cross checked
Other
reference points
-
Politics.stackexchange.com – how – is – the
- EU – governed
-
Congressional Research Service – EU
questions and answers.
-
Wikipedia (various sections)
-
The UK in a changing Europe
-
Who pays what – BBC news website
(Any info used from this BBC source was thoroughly
cross checked
To confirm
neutrality.)
-
reddit.com - givers and takers
-
quora.com
-
Full fact-org/Europe – UK’s fact checking
charity.
CONCLUSION
Eighteen random facts above: some of the reasons why 17.4million people
voted to leave the European Union.
Test me! – Please check them all out with some in
depth unbiased research.
If you take this seriously - during your
research also look at other factors such as:
- The very low income tax 330,000 people directly
employed by the EU pay. None of this tax by the way goes back to the person’s
home country but back into the Brussels coffers. Plus generous pensions at age
63
(What’s
the UK starting age for pensions going up to?)
SO What’s
the justification for this income comfort zone?
- The fact that the EU’s own internal auditors (No
not external unbiased auditors which are used by all companies or organisations
across Europe) have not fully signed off the EU’s accounts for many
years.
Why? “Significant errors found” is their feedback
- Refer back to point 11 above.
-
People have said “why do you want to leave Europe” -
giving the impression the EU is Europe – This is a common mistake we don’t want to leave Europe Just the Political grouping called the European
Union.
If after reading all the above and you do
your own independent research and cross checking and still feel the UK
should remain in the EU I will be very surprised. Of course if any of the
above information you feel is not accurate please send me details with the
cross reference of your legitimate source.
Mike Clitherow
mikeclith@gmail.com
