17.7 C
London
Monday, January 12, 2026
secret satire society
Home Blog Page 466

BSE Hiding From the Fact That We Cannot Control Immigration

Mr. Charrington
-
0
BSE Hiding From the Fact That We Cannot Control Immigration

 

Responding to claims by BSE [Britain Stronger in Europe] that leaving the EU would cause staff shortages in the public sector, Daniel Hannan MEP said:

 

‘The IN campaign are trying to distract from the out of control immigration system that we are locked into while we stay in the EU. If we Vote Leave we will be able to take back control of our borders and create a fairer immigration system that prioritises the skills that we need here in the UK and stops the open door policy which puts pressure on public services.’

 

Last year, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU, the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle.

In 2015, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU. This is the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle. This is up from 264,000 in 2014.

In 2015, net migration from the EU was 184,000. This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population. This is up from 174,000 in 2014.

Total net migration in 2015 was 333,000, up from 313,000 in 2014.

Boris Johnson: The Only Way to Take Back Control of Immigration is to Vote Leave on 23 June

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Boris Johnson: The Only Way to Take Back Control of Immigration is to Vote Leave on 23 June

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT BY BORIS JOHNSON ON IMMIGRATION STATISTICS

 

Last year, 270,000 people came to this country from the EU and net migration was 184,000. That means we are adding a population the size of Oxford to the UK every year just from EU migration.

 

Since 2004, 1.25 million people have been added to the population due to EU migration. That is bigger than the city of Birmingham.

 

I’ve always championed the great benefits that can come from immigration. I am the proud descendant of immigrants.I’ve seen how as Mayor of a great capital city, London has benefited in so many ways from migration. As Mayor I argued consistently for a more sensible visa policy that would welcome talented people from across the globe, people recruited on the basis of their skills.

 

Britain benefits from cultural influences from abroad, I’m pro-immigration, but above all I’m pro controlled immigration. People of all races and backgrounds in the UK are genuinely concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the pressure it’s placing on local services. People have every right to question why we can’t control our borders. We need to answer those concerns by taking back control of those borders.

 

But we must also face the fact that the system has spun out of control. We cannot control the numbers. We cannot control the terms on which people come and how we remove those who abuse our hospitality. This puts huge pressure on schools, hospitals and housing. It is exploited by some big companies that use immigration to keep wages down – and it is striking that the pay packets of FTSE 100 chief executives are now 150 times the average pay of people in their firms.

 

Worst of all, it is terrible for our democracy. People have watched Prime Minister after Prime Minister make promises on immigration that cannot be met because of the EU and this has deeply damaged faith in our democratic system.

 

The Prime Minister repeatedly promised that he would get a grip of this. The government told us that it would ‘keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands’. We were told that economic migrants from the EU would need to prove they had a job offer to come here – a pledge made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor.

 

I am afraid that Brussels sent them packing, and in fact 77,000 have come since the Prime Minister made that promise.

 

The Government has failed because of the simple reality that inside the EU we cannot control immigration – it is literally impossible because we have no choice but to accept the principle of free movement and the European Court has ultimate control over our immigration policy. This has led to the absurd situation in which we stop highly qualified people coming from around the world who could contribute enormously to our society because we cannot stop millions of unskilled people coming here from the EU.

 

Even worse, the Prime Minister’s deal has given away control of immigration and asylum forever. His deal does nothing to solve this crisis and has not brought back a single power for the UK. The rogue European Court now controls not just immigration policy but how we implement asylum policy under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

And, on top of all of this, new countries are in the queue to join the EU and the EU is extending visa-free travel to the border of Syria and Iraq. It is mad.

 

If you vote IN on 23 June, you are kissing goodbye permanently to control of immigration. You are voting for the current situation not only to continue but to get worse. You are voting for the European Court to be in charge of immigration and asylum policy permanently. You are giving away any chance of democratic legitimacy for immigration policy.

 

The only way to take back control of immigration is to Vote Leave on 23 June. The public should be able to vote for those who make the laws of this country including on immigration. It is intolerable to continue without democratic consent for Britain’s immigration policy.

 

That will be best for our public services, particularly the NHS. It will also allow us to have a fairer immigration system that is better for Britain, stops discriminating on the basis of where you come from, and instead allows us to pick people on the basis of skills.

 

Imagine how much stronger we will be, and how much more respected in the world, when we have an immigration policy that stops discriminating on the basis of whether you are an EU citizen and instead selects people on the basis of their contribution to this country.

 

The British public support immigration but they want it controlled by those who they elect. They are generous but feel their generosity has been abused. They are right. On the 23 June they will get their chance to take back control.

 

That’s the safer choice.

 

  • In 2015, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU, the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle.
  • The Prime Minister has categorically failed to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands as he repeatedly promised.
  • The UK population is rapidly expanding as a result of migration from the EU. Since 2004, 1.25 million persons have been added to the population, more than the population of Birmingham.
  • In 2015, 77,000 persons came from the EU looking for work despite promises by David Cameron that EU migrants should have to have a job offer to come to the UK.
  • The Prime Minister did not even ask for this as part of the renegotiation as it was illegal under EU law.

 

 

Last year, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU, the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle.

In 2015, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU. This is the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle. This is up from 264,000 in 2014.

In 2015, net migration from the EU was 184,000. This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population. This is up from 174,000 in 2014.

Total net migration in 2015 was 333,000, up from 313,000 in 2014.

eu migrants boat

The Prime Minister has categorically failed to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands as he repeatedly promised.

The 2010 Conservative Manifesto promised that ‘we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands’.

In his 2014 conference speech, Cameron described: ‘Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets. All of this has to change – and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe. Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs’.

The 2015 Conservative Manifesto stated the Government would ‘keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands’.

In her speech to the 2015 Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, said: ‘not all of the consequences can be managed, and doing so for many of them comes at a high price… But even if we could manage all the consequences of mass immigration, Britain does not need net migration in the hundreds of thousands every year… The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero.  So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade. Neither is it true that, in the modern world, immigration is no longer possible to control… The numbers coming from Europe are unsustainable and the rules have to change’.

 

The UK population is rapidly expanding as a result of migration from the EU. Over 1.25 million persons have been added to the UK population since 2004, more than the population of Birmingham.

Since 2004, 1,257,000 persons have been added to the UK population as a result of net migration from the EU. This is bigger than the population of Birmingham.

 

Last year, 77,000 persons came from the EU looking for work.

In 2015, 77,000 persons came to the UK from the EU who were looking for work, without a definite job offer. This is up from 63,000 in 2014.

If this rate of migration of jobseekers continues for a decade, 777,000 jobseekers will come to the UK as a result. This is greater than the population of Glasgow.

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary promised EU migrants should have to have a job offer to come to the UK.

In November 2014, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised that ‘we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here… So let’s be clear what all these changes taken together will mean. EU migrants should have a job offer before they come here’.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has said: ‘What we’re going to address is this question of how freedom of movement operates in the 21st century. It was never envisaged that you would have such large numbers of people coming, people coming who don’t have job offers’.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has argued: ‘when it was first enshrined, free movement meant the freedom to move to a job, not the freedom to cross borders to look for work… we must take some big decisions, face down powerful interests and reinstate the original principle underlying free movement within the EU’.

 

The Prime Minister did not even ask for this as part of the renegotiation as it was illegal under EU law.

The renegotiation agreement notes that EU citizens are ‘entitled to reside… [in the UK] solely because of their job-search‘.

The demand that EU migrants must have a job offer was not contained in the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk of November 2015 or his Chatham House speech of the same day.

This is because it is illegal under EU law. As early as 1991, the European Court held that the ‘Treaty entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment’.

EgyptAir MS804: You Are Not Safe Flying From Charles De Gaulle Airport

Mr. Charrington
-
0
EgyptAir MS804: You Are Not Safe Flying From Charles De Gaulle Airport

The torn shards of metal and shredded human bodies from the recovered wreckage of EgyptAir MS804 indicate a mid-air explosion, and this is most certainly another terrorist act.

The main reason for the French denial of terrorism is an obvious one, as the authorities would not want to be blamed for their porous security risk ridden system within the Schengen zone, especially when there is an EU referendum occurring in Britain.

MS804

The EU’s Schengen zone is a gift to terrorism, especially for groups like ISIS. Within the Schengen zone, terrorist groups can easily move arms, bombs and other materials designed to cause maximum civilian damage around EU countries. The utopian dream of a Schengen zone can only be a viable solution during a time of global peace, of which we have none at the moment.

The lax security measures at French airports are ideal for terrorists to exploit, and this is why you are putting your life at risk simply from entering an airport in France or Brussels.

After the Brussels airport bomb attack little or no measures were implemented to resolve serious security flaws, and this will continue as long as there is a Schengen zone in place.

Britain must vote leave on June 23 to take back control of our borders, to ensure our citizens are safe, and to stay as far away from the dangerous, irresponsible Schengen zone as possible whilst the world is in such turmoil.

Prepare For 4 Million More Cars On Overcrowded Narrow Streets of Britain

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Prepare For 4 Million More Cars On Overcrowded Narrow Streets of Britain

 

Naturally, London has borne the brunt of the deluge, but this is not over, if Britain remains in the EU, the numbers will exceed 4 million extra inhabitants within a decade.

If Britons see sense, and Vote to Leave, there will be respite, as the borders will finally come under some form of control.

The ONS today released figures that reiterate this urgency to take back control. David Cameron has failed in his pledge to reduce migration and if we remain in the EU it will get a lot worse as Britain will have no say in the levels coming into the UK. Net migration from the EU rose from 174,000 in 2014 to 184,000 last year.

Remaining in the EU, will condemn London to grow to a staggering 10-12 million, rendering it a wreck akin to some favela ridden South American city.

The previously protected green belt and much loved parks will be a thing of the past, concreted over forever to build tower blocks for EU migrants.

 

The Schengen zone, gives access to the UK, as anyone who enters the zone only has to wait to get their EU papers before they make their way to the free healthcare utopia that is Britain. The current population of the EU is 508, 000, 000 but that number will increase exponentially as the wars in the Middle East grind on and other nations like Turkey are added.

Britain is only 80,823 sq miles and there is no more room left. The schools are overcrowded messes, with some classes having 40-50 children per teacher, the NHS is crumbling with the deluge with hospital beds in corridors and medicine shortages, the roads are gridlocked, the housing shortage is punishing working Britons whose only crime was being born on a tiny island, there is no hope for Britain if it stays in the EU. There is no hope for your children, or their children.

nhs corridor

The hopelessness can only be alleviated by change. Stand up and vote to leave. It does not have to be this way, you do not have to follow David Cameron blindly or digest the propaganda being spewed from the BBC and other media on a constant basis.

Take Back Control

We can change this. There are alternatives to what we have now, and we can move forward to give Britain some space. We need space to grow, we need space for our children to play, we need space on our roads so we can drive, we need space for the sake of having space.

There is an alternative, there always was an alternative to what the mainstream message is always trying to indoctrinate the masses with. You can make a difference by voting to leave this EU corrupt mess. You can put an X on Vote Leave and get Britain out of this awful turmoil, this tyranny that has been foisted on us by stealth. This is not about race, xenophobia or any other construct, this is about space.

Let us open up Britain globally, through trade, through selective migration, through our sheer will we can save Britain from the deluge that will render us irrelevant if we don’t do something now.

David Cameron has seen fit to destroy Britain, once it is gone, it will be gone forever. There will be no other chance. This is it.

Vote Leave on June 23 is the only choice that a Briton should make, it is the only logical choice to take back control from the faceless unelected eurocrats who do not know who you are, they do not care who you are, and they certainly do not want to ever know who you are.

Save Britain. It is Your duty.

 

EU Public Procurement Legislation Creates Multi-billion Pound Bill for Taxpayer

Mr. Charrington
-
0
EU Public Procurement Legislation Creates Multi-billion Pound Bill for Taxpayer

 

 

New research by Vote Leave shows that:

 

  • EU public procurement law imposes extremely onerous requirements on public authorities, which can apply regardless of the value of a contract and/or whether any tenderers are from outside the UK. The Government pledged to change this, but EU procurement law remains unaffected by the renegotiation.

  • EU public procurement law imposes an annual cost of at least £1.69 billion to the taxpayer. This is five times what is spent on the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund, 34 times what is spent on the Government’s dedicated Pothole Action Fund, or enough to pay for 273,000 basic state pensions.

  • Between 2010 and 2014, EU public procurement legislation imposed costs of at least £8.4 billion in real terms on the taxpayer. This is three times what will be spent on flood defences in England between 2015 and 2021, six times the cost of the new Queensferry Crossing in Scotland, or enough to build 25 new hospitals.

  • Delays to projects caused by EU public procurement law amounted to 5,422 years in 2014 alone. Procurement legislation delayed the award of contracts between 2010 and 2014 by 27,912 years.

 

Commenting, Michael Gove MP said:

 

‘If we Vote Leave we can scrap the EU’s foolish rules on how Whitehall runs procurement processes which add billions to the cost of Government every year. I’ve experienced firsthand in the Department for Education how these rules add significant operational costs and generate expensive delays to construction projects. Across Whitehall, there are billions to save after we Vote Leave.’

 

Commenting, Vote Leave Chief Executive Matthew Elliott, said:

 

‘The EU already costs us a fortune thanks to our £350 million a week contribution to the EU budget, but the hidden costs of membership are compounding the bill to British taxpayers. Pernicious interference from Brussels not only stifles business, it makes government more bureaucratic and less responsive. The PM’s closest adviser has said EU membership makes Britain ungovernable while sixty per cent of our laws now come from Brussels. The only way to take back control is to Vote Leave on 23 June.’

 

Can the Teflon Don Bypass Serious Allegations of Multimillion Dollar Tax Fraud?

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Can the Teflon Don Bypass Serious Allegations of Multimillion Dollar Tax Fraud?

 

 

Trump said he could go to Fifth Avenue and unload a gun into a crowd and still not have his ratings drop? He’s the Teflon Don, nothing sticks to this guy.

That is until now…maybe.

Allegations have surfaced that tie trump to a multimillion dollar tax fraud where the US tax office was denied millions of dollars during a dodgy deal with Icelandic firm FL Group.

This action of disguising equity as a loan deal is fraudulent and cheated the IRS out of $100 million.

Julius Schwarz, Bayrock’s executive vice president: “Call it equity but for tax purposes its debt. Otherwise we write a huge check to the IRS. As a 49 per cent equity partner they are still equity. There is no other way around it.”

Whether Trump would be directly liable for such a crime is a question that only lawyers can answer, and whether the IRS ever get off their asses and actually do something about this is another matter.

trump fraud

Our feeling is the Teflon Don is going to skate through this obvious attack by either ignoring it, or denying it, despite his signature on the papers. Naturally, Drudge is ignoring this story as well.

A question of judgement? Is Trump president material when he seems to have his fingerprints all over a multimillion dollar fraud? Doubt we’ll ever know as this, like everything else is merely water off a ducks back for the Teflon Don.

 

EU Wide Tax ID Numbers Planned Keeping Track of Every Citizen in Europe

Mr. Charrington
-
0
EU Wide Tax ID Numbers Planned Keeping Track of Every Citizen in Europe

 

The EU wide taxpayer identification number (TIN) is planned to be implemented soon within the next year.

‘Properly identifying taxpayers is essential to the fight against fraud and evasion. A new web portal allows tax officials, and businesses involved in cross-border transactions, to check the structure of unique taxpayer identification numbers (TINs). These are tax identification numbers that EU countries allocate to their own taxpayers. The portal also provides useful samples of official identity documents containing national TINs. The Commission consulted on whether to move towards creating a single, unique EU-wide TIN.’

The EU Tax authority will have the power to access bank account data for every single citizen in the EU and even extract money from an account for taxation reasons.

The EU Monetary Affairs Committee is also cracking down on digital currencies by implementing new regulations that will halt the freedom of use of crypto-currencies within the EU. According to the Commission, the measures will ‘bring virtual currency exchange platforms under the scope of the existing Anti-Money Laundering Directive which is due for an update.’

The report also calls for the EU to take over member states’ corporate taxation powers with a common corporation tax base, banning sovereign states from increasing their competitiveness by cutting corporation tax below 15%.

Further moves to eventually outlaw cash within the Eurozone and implement a digital currency system are also on the table. The 500 euro note has already been scrapped, and in Sweden, the whole system is being adapted to outlaw cash altogether with the implementation of a full digital currency scheme.

No doubt, the future of the EU is one of heavy processing of all financial data, all transactions, all taxation will be implemented under one digital databank and when the cashless euro is introduced, there will be nowhere to hide within the Orwellian dystopian nightmare.

Vote Leave Responds to EU Funded IFS Release

Mr. Charrington
-
2
Vote Leave Responds to EU Funded IFS Release

 

 

 

Responding to the IFS’s study, ‘Brexit and the UK’s public finances’, Andrea Leadsom MP said:

 

‘It’s no wonder people are being turned off this debate given the continuous campaign to do down the British economy from EU-funded organisations. So many of these studies are based on entirely negative assumptions about our economy and the future decisions a UK Government outside the EU would make, but ignore the pressing need of EU countries to continue trading with the UK. They also ignore the very real risk of what will happen if we vote ‘In’; more money and power to a Brussels interested only in propping up an ailing eurozone.

 

‘If we Vote Leave we can secure our economic security for future generations based on expanding our trade across the globe, turbocharging our economy and taking control of our borders. On 23 June the safer option is to Vote Leave.’

 

 

  • The IFS is wrong about the level of the UK’s contributions to the EU budget.
  • The IFS uses the NIESR’s study as the basis for its forecasts. The NIESR has been wrong time and time again on the EU.
  • Even the IFS has to admit that any hypothetical ‘hit’ will be small and less than the OBR’s past errors in fiscal forecasting.
  • The IFS is wrong to claim trade will not become more expensive in the long-term.
  • The UK will not become a less attractive destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
  • The IFS is not a neutral organisation in this campaign. It would face an £800,000 deficit if we Vote Leave.

 

 

The IFS is wrong about the level of the UK’s contributions to the EU budget.

Contrary to the IFS’s claim, the UK does pay £350 million per week to the EU. In 2014, the UK’s gross contributions to the EU budget were £19,107 million, or £367 million per week. The Head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot, has said ‘Yes, the £19.1 billion figure is a legitimate figure for gross contributions… the official statistics are the £19.1 billion’.

The IFS wrongly deducts the rebate from the gross figure. The rebate is a discretionary grant which the European Commission can pay to the UK if it so chooses. There is no obligation on the Commission to pay it. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has said: ‘It is not a unilateral decision of the British Treasury or the British Government to just say, “This is our rebate. We are entitled to it. Pay up”. The way this works and has always worked is there is a negotiation with the European Commission’.

The IFS underestimates the net contribution. In 2014, the UK’s net contribution was £9.872 billion. This rose to £10.649 billion in 2015. This is much higher than the £8 billion suggested by the IFS, which takes into account payments to the private sector to the UK without taking into account money paid by British companies to the EU. The overall balance between the UK and the EU institutions (the current account deficit added to the capital account surplus) was £10.9 billion in 2014.

 

 

The IFS uses the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR)’s study as the basis for its forecasts. The NIESR has been wrong time and time again on the EU.

 

The NIESR backed scrapping the pound, which would have been a disaster. ‘The heavyweight and independent National Institute of Economic and Social Research agreed, saying joining Europe’s single currency would benefit Britain and that there was evidence of economic convergence with the European Union’ . The NIESR said: ‘Part of the foreign investment in Britain appears to take place because Britain offers a gateway to the European Union. If the United Kingdom remains outside the monetary union, then other countries are likely to offer a more attractive gateway’ (Birmingham Post, 29 July 2000, p. 19). A report by the NIESR in 2002 stated that: ‘We would argue the Chancellor’s five tests can be seen to be answered in the affirmative, and that the case for joining is clear’. In April 2003, the NIESR concluded that: ‘There is no longer a case for waiting’.

The NIESR recommended rejoining the ERM after Black Wednesday, which would have been a disaster. ‘Among the most optimistic is Andrew Britton of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research who believes that Britain will have to return to the ERM, though not for another six months at least’ (Evening Standard, 30 September 1992, p. 29).

 

 

Even the IFS has to admit that any hypothetical ‘hit’ will be small and less than the OBR’s past errors in forecasting.

The report states that the effects of leaving the EU ‘would certainly be much smaller than the effect of the 2008 recession, which hit the public finances to the tune of around £175 billion. Indeed, it would be below the downgrades to the forecasts made by the OBR between the Budgets of March 2011 and March 2013 (estimated at £43 billion). We have coped with those.’

 

The IFS is wrong to claim trade will not become more expensive in the long-term.

 

It is in other EU countries interests to strike a free trade agreement. The EU sells the UK far more than the UK sells the EU. In 2015, the UK bought £67.8 billion more in goods and services than the UK sold to the EU. In 2014, 20 EU member states sold the UK more than the UK bought from them in 2014. The UK is the EU’s largest single export market for goods, larger even than the United States, with whom the EU is presently trying to negotiate a free trade agreement.

Even pro-EU campaigners have conceded the UK will strike a free trade agreement. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has admitted: ‘If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would … Of course the trading would go on … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on’. The CBI, The UK’s former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of the BSE campaign, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the pro-EU Centre for European Reform all agree with him.

 

 

The UK will not become a less attractive destination for foreign direct investment (FDI).

There is very little evidence that being in the EU has had much of an impact on investment flows into the UK. Historically EU countries have not been major investors. Official figures show that the total net foreign direct investment (FDI) into the UK from the EU has been in decline over the last ten years, with the EU actually disinvesting in the UK in 2010 and 2013.

Despite the referendum and the prospect of a British exit from the EU, the Chinese investment group SinoFortone announced £5.2 billion of investment into the UK in October 2015. In November 2015, the UK and India struck £9 billion worth of commercial deals, with the Government noting that: ‘India invests more in the UK than the rest of the European Union combined’.

Major international investors have made clear that they will continue to invest in the UK regardless of the result of the referendum:

Toyota has been clear that it has located in the UK because of the tradition of UK vehicle manufacturing and the large domestic market, as well as good transport, workforce, working practices, the English language and a supportive government. The EU is not even mentioned on its list of factors. Its chief executive, Akio Toyoda, has pledged to keep building cars in the UK in the event of a Leave vote.

Nissan announced a £100m investment programme in their Sunderland plant last September, after it became certain that an EU referendum would take place. Its Chief Performance Office, Trevor Mann, has said that, with a future UK-EU trade agreement, ‘[Brexit] wouldn’t make a lot of difference’. Carlos Ghosn, Chief Executive of Renault-Nissan, has similarly commented that ‘I don’t think there’s a reason to worry’.

Hitachi’s Chief Executive, Takahiro Hachigo, has also confirmed that the company will continue to do business here after a British exit from the EU. In March last year, Honda also announced a £200m investment programme in the UK car industry.

Major international investors have made clear that they want the UK to have a looser relationship with the European Union. In an EY survey it was found that 72% of US investors and 66% of Asian investors wanted the UK to reduce its links to the EU.

 

The IFS is not a neutral organisation. It would face an £800,000 deficit if we Vote Leave.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has received €7.4m from the EU since 2007. It is not an independent organisation, but a paid-up propaganda arm of the European Commission, as the table below shows.

 

Payments to the IFS
2011 €2,446,857
2010 €817,791
2010 €1,626,262
2010 €817,791
2010 €1,626,262
2010 €61,404
2010 €3,092
2009 €1,515
Total € 7,400,974

 

Source: European Commission, April 2016

 

In addition, the IFS states that in 2014, 11% of its research funding came from the EU. It states that it has received £4,118,651 from the European Research Council in total and received £792,931 in 2014 alone.

This means that if we Vote Leave, the IFS will face a financial deficit of £792,931, or 11% of its income. It is therefore in the IFS’s interests to adjust its skewed biased report figures to favour membership of the EU.

BSE Referendum Broadcast: Misleading, Outright Falsehoods Debunked

Mr. Charrington
-
0
BSE Referendum Broadcast: Misleading, Outright Falsehoods Debunked

 

 

 

Responding to the publication of Britain Stronger in Europe (BSE)’s first referendum campaign broadcast, Vote Leave Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:

 

‘Pro-EU campaigners are repeating the same myths they told us when they declared it would be a disaster if we didn’t join the euro. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

 

‘It’s amazing to see the BSE campaign claiming to have a positive message having spent the last 8 months doing down the British economy and our position in the world. On 23 June the safe option is to Vote Leave and take back control of the £350 million we hand Brussels every week.’

 

BSE False Claims Debunked

 

‘Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to our trade with the EU.’

The figure was invented by pro-euro campaigners. In 2000, Britain in Europe, the campaign to scrap the pound, claimed that 3 million jobs were ‘facing the axe’ if the UK left the EU.

The academic whose work they traduced, Dr Martin Weale, dismissed the claim as ‘pure Goebbels. In many years of academic research, I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts’.

Even the Treasury (whose forecasts are extremely pessimistic) refuses to endorse the claim, saying the true figure is a sixth of this total. The Executive Director of the Prime Minister’s campaign, Will Straw, has admitted: ‘We have not and have never claimed that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU‘.

It has been estimated that, if we Vote Leave, and strike free trade deals with all the countries that the EU has failed to secure FTAs with, it could create 300,000 British jobs.

 

‘Over 200,000 UK businesses trade with the EU.’

This amounts to just 3.7% of the UK’s 5.39 million businesses.

Despite the fact that only a small proportion of UK businesses trade with the EU, every business has to comply with EU law, which costs UK businesses £600 million per week.

This BSE figure is deceptive since it includes not just businesses which export, but also those which import. Since no rational Government would make it more difficult for British businesses to import goods after we Vote Leave, the figure is a significant overestimate.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has accepted trade would continue, meaning jobs would not be put at risk: ‘If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on’.

When asked whether he agreed with the Prime Minister, the Executive Director of the IN campaign, Will Straw, said he did so ‘absolutely‘.

 

‘Companies from around the world set up factories and offices here so they can do business throughout Europe, meaning more opportunities’.

Not even the Head of the IN campaign, Lord Rose, has said he doesn’t believe this claim ‘for a moment’ and that it is ‘all a red herring and it is just scaremongering’. He said just last year that: ‘The reason that people want to come to this country is because we have a flexible workforce, because we have stability, because we’ve got a growing economy, because we’ve got strong IPR, because this is a place to do business.  I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that everybody is going to suddenly go offshore, I don’t believe that for one moment … so I think this is all a red herring and it is just scaremongering.

 

‘The UK gets £66 million of investment a day from EU countries.’

These figures are wrong. In 2014, net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows into the UK from the EU were £5,268 million or £14.4 million per day.

BSE wrongly suggests companies only invest because of EU membership, implying it would fall if we left the EU. Similar claims of a fall in FDI were made if the UK did not join the euro or even held a referendum on the EU. In fact, ‘FDI liabilities grew from £481.1 billion to £588.9 billion from the EU’ between 2011 and 2014, during a period in which overall FDI into the UK rose. This shows that FDI continued to grow in the two years following David Cameron’s January 2013 Bloomberg Speech, suggesting the prospect of leaving the EU has had no effect on investment.

 

‘And when you’re at work, your rights are secured by EU legislation: paid holiday and sick leave, equal rights, maternity and paternity leave, all protected by EU law.’

 

The UK had legislation on paid holidays before it joined. Its current legislation is more generous than EU law. The UK had legislation on paid holidays before we joined the EU. The Holidays with Pay Act was passed in July 1938, creating a right to paid holidays. The UK has also been more generous than EU law, with 5.6 weeks entitlement each year, rather than the four contained in EU law.

Maternity pay is more generous under UK law. Statutory maternity pay lasts for 39 weeks under UK law Statutory Maternity Pay. This is much more generous than EU law, which provides for a period of 14 weeks. UK legislation also gives women the right to receive 90% of their salary during the first six weeks of leave. EU law only requires that the rate of pay be equivalent to statutory sick pay in this period. This is £88.45 per week.

UK law on parental leave is more generous than EU law. The same is true of parental leave. UK maternity leave may be taken for up to 52 weeks. EU law only requires a period of four months. There is no need to accept the supremacy of EU law to protect workers’ rights.

The UK had legislation against discrimination long before the EU did. The UK passed the legislation against race discrimination, the Race Relations Act 1965 and the Race Relations Act 1968, before we joined the EU. As High Court Judge Sir Rabinder Singh has said: ‘The Race Relations Act 1976 [which consolidated the 1960s legislation] was perhaps one of the strongest pieces of legislation of its kind in the world and certainly in Europe. It long predated legislation against racial discrimination in EU law‘.

 

‘Being in Europe also means families enjoy lower prices in our shops and supermarkets. This saves an average household £350 a year – so as Sam grows older, he’ll have more money to put aside’.

The independent House of Commons Library has concluded that EU membership actually increases the costs of consumer goods, stating that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy ‘artificially inflates food prices’ and that ‘consumer prices across a range of other goods imported from outside the EU are raised as a result of the common external tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade imposed by the EU. These include footwear (a 17% tariff), bicycles (15% tariff) and a range of clothing (12% tariff)’.

The EU also requires us to charge household energy bills to value added tax of 5%, increasing the cost of living for low income families.

The European Court has increased the cost of insurance. In March 2011, the European Court ruled that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights meant that women could not be charged lower premiums than men, increasing the cost of car and life insurance.

 

‘Remaining in Europe will keep our economy stronger – so we can invest more in vital services like schools and the NHS’

Being in the EU means that we have to pay an annual gross contribution of £19.107bn to the EU. That’s over £350m every week. That means that there are less funds available for our NHS and schools.

In 2014, the NHS Chief Executive, Simon Stevens, said the NHS would need an additional £8 billion real terms increase in spending by 2020 to keep even. This is less than the net contributions that the UK is forecast to make to the EU over the same period.

 

‘It’s a leap in the dark’.

Not even the Head of the IN campaign, Lord Rose, can bring himself to agree with this. He has said ‘it’s not going to be a step change or somebody’s going to turn the lights out‘.

 

‘[it] would leave UK families £4,300 worse off’.

The Government calculated the £4,300 figure by dividing a putative lesser increase in GDP of 6.2% by the current number of households. This is extremely disingenuous, as official statistics show that the number of households in 2030 is projected to grow to 31.213 million. This is up from 26.994 in 2015, an increase of 4.219 million.

The report does not quantify any potential savings of not having to apply EU regulation in the UK, but instead claims regulation would increase if we Vote Leave.

The report asserts that: ‘under any of the alternatives, the potential gains from additional flexibility on leaving the EU are likely to be significantly constrained, including because of domestic priorities and international obligations. These would be future government decisions. In any case, any potential gains from reduced EU regulatory burdens in specific areas would be significantly outweighed by the losses from the increased regulatory barriers and divergence from no longer being a member of the Single Market. Consistent with this assessment and the approach throughout this analysis, the modelling does not prejudge these decisions and no further assumptions on regulation are made over and above the increase in regulatory barriers that would emerge over time, as captured in the modelling of the effects of the alternative arrangements on trade and FDI’.

In 2005, HM Treasury admitted that: ‘although Europe’s founders aimed to remove barriers and reap the benefits of expanded markets internally, they also sought protection and special treatment for particular aspects of their economies such as agriculture. This has brought costs: expensive subsidies still remain in some sectors and it is estimated that barriers to external trade and investment – such as tariffs, quotas and unjustifiably restrictive standards – could cost Europe’s consumers up to 7 per cent of EU GDP‘.

This is the equivalent of £125.2 billion per year in today’s prices, or £4,638 per household.

This is likely an underestimate, as the burden of EU regulation has increased. Open Europe‘s regular analysis of the cost of just the 100 most burdensome EU laws found in 2013 that the cost to the UK economy was £27.5 billion, but just a few months later had to uprate this to £33.3 billion.

Gisela Stuart: Best Way to Ensure Workers & Women’s Rights is to Have a Parliament That is Directly Accountable to the People

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Gisela Stuart: Best Way to Ensure Workers & Women’s Rights is to Have a Parliament That is Directly Accountable to the People

 

 

 

“The UK has led the way in promoting and protecting workers rights, and it’s deeply misleading to suggest that leaving the EU would put them at risk.

 

“The best way to ensure that workers rights are to protected is to have a parliament that is directly accountable to the people; in other words, to put power back in people’s hands. The EU prevents that, and means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats can impose rules and regulations that the British people have no say over.

 

“On 23 June we have the opportunity to take back control of our country and our democracy, as well as the £350 million we send to Brussels every week, by voting to leave the EU.”

 

gisela-stuart

Protection of Women’s Rights is not contingent on EU membership

 

Before we joined the EU:

In 1961 the contraceptive pill was made free and ‘available to all’ on the NHS, giving women more control.

Parliament passed the Abortion Act 1967, providing women greater autonomy.

Parliament passed the Divorce Reform Act 1969, allowing spouses an easier escape from unhappy.

Parliament passed the first Equal Pay Act 1970, demanding ‘equal pay for equal work’.

 

We have also since passed, without assistance from the EU:

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, guarding against sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Employment Protection Act 1975, supporting mothers with paid maternity leave.

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, seeking justice for and providing assistance to the victims of domestic violence.

 

Membership of the EU actually undermines Women’s Rights and their interests

Car insurance: Decisions by European Courts have increased the cost of life and car insurance for women. The ECJ has held that its Charter of Fundamental Rights prevented insurance companies from charging women lower premiums.

Impact on family finances: The independent House of Commons Library has concluded that EU membership increases the costs of consumer goods, stating that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy ‘artificially inflates food prices’ and that ‘consumer prices across a range of other goods imported from outside the EU are raised as a result of the common external tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade imposed by the EU. These include footwear (a 17% tariff), bicycles (15% tariff) and a range of clothing (12% tariff)’.

The VAT Directive also requires the charging to VAT of domestic supplies of fuel and power. The 1997 Labour Party Manifesto stated that ‘the tragedy is that those hardest hit are least able to pay. That is why we strongly opposed the imposition of VAT on fuel.‘ However, the party could only pledge to ‘cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed‘. When the Labour Party proposed a reduced rate of 17.5% VAT on petrol in 2011, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Justine Greening, said that EU law does ‘not permit a reduced rate or exemption to be applied to transport fuel’, and that renegotiating EU VAT rules could take as much as six years.

Taxation of sanitary products: The VAT Directive also requires the UK to charge sanitary products and contraception to tax of at least 5%. This means a requirement to charge VAT on tampons, despite the opposition of Government Ministers and a majority of MPs. As the Treasury Minister, David Gauke has admitted: ‘any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states. Without that agreement, we are not permitted to lower rates below 5%’.

Abortion: Abortion was legalised in Great Britain in 1967. Nonetheless, the EU Treaties specifically grant the Republic of Ireland the right to ban abortion.

1...465466467...802Page 466 of 802
squib footer 270

Breaking News

Copyright © Daily Squib 2024.

The Daily Squib is a curious satirical parody newspaper offering breaking news, political satire, comedy, investigative journalism, opinion and celebrity news.