17.7 C
London
Sunday, July 12, 2026
secret satire society
Home Blog Page 485

Workers Will Be Better Off After We Vote Leave

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Workers Will Be Better Off After We Vote Leave

 

 

 

 

Responding to the TUC report which claims that wages will fall if we leave the EU, Vote Leave Chair Gisela Stuart said:

 

‘The EU has been a disaster for workers, with unemployment in the double digits across the eurozone and harsh austerity measures implemented at the expense of vital public services.

 

‘The head of the In campaign Lord Rose has himself said that workers will get a pay rise if we Vote Leave. And as the Bank of England has confirmed, uncontrolled immigration has played a key role in bringing down wages.

 

‘After we Vote Leave, we can take back control of immigration and spend the £50 million we send to the EU every day on our priorities.’

money

 

The Head of the IN campaign has admitted wages will rise if we Vote Leave.

The Head of the IN campaign, Lord Rose admitted wages will go up’ if we Vote Leave, stating: ‘If you are short of labour, the price of labour will go up‘.

BlackRock Investment has also admitted the same thing.

The Bank of England has found that uncontrolled EU migration drives down wages.

It is well established that having more people in the workforce drives down wages.

The Bank of England has found that ‘the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on average British wage’. The study found that ‘immigrants in recent years are most predominant in low-skill occupations’.

The study concluded that: ‘the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay’.

JOBLESS GREECE

 

Unemployment across the eurozone continues to dwarf that in the UK

Eurozone unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) was 10.2% in April 2016.

Unemployment rate in Greece was 24.2% (February 2016) and 20.1% in Spain.

Youth unemployment in Greece was 51.4% (February 2016) and in Spain 45.5%.

From Jan-Mar 2016 the unemployment rate in the UK was 5.1%.

Vote Leave to Protect Our Financial Services Industry

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Vote Leave to Protect Our Financial Services Industry

 

 

 

 

Responding to comments by Bank of Italy Governor Ignazio Visco on how EU regulation is damaging the financial system, Moorad Choudhry, former Chief Executive of Habib Bank AG Zurich, London said:

 

‘The vast majority of the UK’s financial regulation is determined by the EU, and the warning today from the Bank of Italy that EU rules have made it virtually impossible for national governments to adequately respond to future banking crises should be of concern to us all.

 

‘Of additional concern is the proposed solution: further eurozone integration. This would mean that the UK’s influence within the EU would diminish even further – compounded by the fact that Mr Cameron gave up our right to veto such a move during his renegotiation.

 

‘Financial services regulation in the UK has been considered best-practice ever since the crash and indeed some aspects of it such as liquidity risk regulation is watered down in the EU implementation of Basel III. To maintain the most effective regulatory control of our own financial services as well as to prevent UK taxpayers potentially being on the hook for a future eurozone bank bailout, we have to Vote Leave.’

 

As reported online by the Financial Times today, the Governor of the Bank of Italy said in the central bank’s annual report:

‘There is the danger not only that national and European authorities will be unable to react adequately to major shocks, but even that they will have trouble avoiding contagion triggered by circumscribed tensions. To effectively reduce overall risk, the measures designed to attenuate specific fragilities must be accompanied by adequate safety nets based on supranational instruments.

‘In the case of the banking system, the possibility of utilizing public resources, whether national or European, as a means of crisis prevention and management has been virtually eliminated. International experience demonstrates that, in the face of a market failure, prompt public intervention can prevent the destruction of wealth without necessarily generating losses for the State, and indeed often producing profits. Greater scope for intervention of this sort, exceptional as it may be, should be reinstated.

‘Moreover, the European Commission’s position on state aid precludes the use of mandatory deposit insurance schemes for purposes of crisis prevention and orderly crisis resolution, even though these funds are private, given that they are financed and independently managed by banks; the effective conduct of recovery and resolution procedures, instead, requires the use of all the tools available. There is no reason to stigmatize as improper state aid those initiatives that help to correct market failures without undermining competition. A rigid interpretation of the regulations on state aid, with little regard for financial stability, has also hindered the plan for creating a company to manage Italian banks’ non-performing loans.’

‘The single currency needs to interact with a single fiscal policy. To be effective, a fiscal union requires the introduction of common debt instruments and, at the same time, decisions on the treatment of pre-existing national debt with a view to a single euro-area debt.’

Italy’s current debt to GDP ratio is 132% 2015.

 

PM Challenged to Set Out the Facts on EU Immigration

Mr. Charrington
-
0

 

They argue that there is a ‘basic lack of democratic consent for what is taking place. Voters were promised repeatedly at elections that net immigration could be cut to the tens of thousands. This promise is plainly not achievable as long as the UK is a member of the EU and the failure to keep it is corrosive of public trust in politics.’

Dear Prime Minister,

GETTING THE FACTS CLEAR ON THE RISKS OF REMAINING IN THE EU

We all agree that it’s vital everyone is clear about the facts in the EU referendum.

There are real risks in remaining in the EU and every citizen needs to be aware of these in coming to a balanced decision about how to vote on 23 June.

We would be grateful if you could confirm a series of facts about the free movement of people which is a critical element of continued EU membership. Agreement on these facts will enable us all to have a fully informed debate.

We already agree on some basic principles.

We all agree that migration brings many benefits to Britain – culturally, socially and economically. We all agree that our economy benefits from the arrival of new people with great talent and special skills. We all agree that Britain has a proud tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing persecution which must be upheld. And we all agree that if we are to continue to benefit from migration then the public must be reassured that we have control over who comes here.

But our membership of the EU means we don’t have control.

As you know, this week the Office for National Statistics published migration statistics for 2015. Last year 270,000 people came to this country from the EU. Net migration overall was 184,000. That means we are adding a population the size of Oxford to the UK every year just from EU migration. This puts particular strain on public services.

We are particularly concerned about the impact of free movement in the future on public services. Class sizes will rise and waiting lists will lengthen if we don’t tackle free movement. As the euro crisis continues, more people from Southern Europe will want to escape unemployment and austerity in their countries by coming to the UK. Their arrival will put further strain on schools and hospitals.

 

Last year, 77,000 jobseekers from the EU came to the UK. It’s Government policy that ‘EU migrants should have a job offer before they come here.’ But the EU did not agree to letting the UK implement that policy during the renegotiation of our membership.

It’s not just the strain on public services which gives rise to cause for concern. We are all committed to improving wages for working people. But continued free movement for jobseekers will place considerable pressure on the wages of low paid British workers in the event of a vote to remain in the EU. This is good for some of the multinationals funding the IN campaign. It is not good for British families struggling to make ends meet.

And the current EU approach to immigration isn’t just bad for us economically, it is also bad in security and humanitarian terms.

There is a direct security concern for all of us because the European Court of Justice can interfere with our ability to deport criminals and others whose presence here is not conducive to the public good. The case of Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law underlined the way EU institutions fetter our ability to deport convicted criminals.

 

Perhaps most worrying of all, the EU’s policies are failing in humanitarian terms. The tragic scenes unfolding in the Mediterranean underline how badly the European Union is handling population movements and migration pressures. People smugglers and organised criminals are exploiting this situation and the EU is failing to tackle this trade in human misery.

If we remain in the EU the situation is only likely to get worse. The European Court of Justice can use the Charter of Fundamental Rights to overturn decisions of elected politicians on asylum policy. It is now in charge of how we implement the crucial 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. We need a new approach on refugees but the EU’s institutions stand in the way.

There is also the basic lack of democratic consent for what is taking place. Voters were promised repeatedly at elections that net immigration could be cut to the tens of thousands. This promise is plainly not achievable as long as the UK is a member of the EU and the failure to keep it is corrosive of public trust in politics.

Given the public’s desire for the facts ahead of the referendum, we would like you to confirm the following facts:

A vote to remain is a vote to maintain permanently the EU Treaty principle of ‘free movement of people’.

A vote to remain is a vote to ensure that we must admit economic migrants from the EU, whether or not they have a job offer.

A vote to remain is a vote to affirm the European Court of Justice’s ultimate authority over whether we can remove persons whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good – in this and other respects we do not control our borders.

A vote to remain is a vote to leave the European Court of Justice able to use the Charter of Fundamental Rights to strike down decisions of the UK Government and Parliament about asylum and immigration policy.

A vote to remain is a vote for the UK to continue supporting the EU’s failed policies to deal with the tragic crisis in the Mediterranean.

We think that it is fundamentally important that immigration policy has democratic consent. We believe that the safer choice is to Vote Leave on 23 June and ensure that the public can vote for those who determine Britain’s immigration policy.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Gove, Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath

Boris Johnson, Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Gisela Stuart, Member of Parliament for Birmingham Edgbaston

Chris Grayling: We Must Vote Leave to Protect Our Sovereignty and Democracy From Further EU Integration

Mr. Charrington
-
1
Chris Grayling: We Must Vote Leave to Protect Our Sovereignty and Democracy From Further EU Integration

For the past few weeks you have been hearing regularly from the Remain campaign about how they believe we should stay in a “reformed” European Union.

This morning I want to set out for you the reasons that they are right about the fact that the European Union is going to reform, but how the inevitable reform that is coming our way is very different to what they are claiming.

The Remain campaign keep challenging us about what they call the risks of leaving the European Union. This morning I want to set out for you in detail the risks of staying in, and what lies ahead of us if this country votes to remain in the EU on June 23rd.

And I want to stress very clearly to the people of this country that on June 23rd they are not voting on staying in, or leaving the EU as it is today. They are voting for or against being part of the EU as it must become over the next decade. And that new look EU will be very different.

The seminal moment for the European Union came seventeen years ago with the creation of the single currency. In my view the countries that joined the euro created the economic equivalent of the San Andreas fault. They tried to create a single economy in a geographic area where there was no single government, no common culture or commonality of performance, and where the traditional escape valves when things went wrong in underperforming nations simply disappeared.

So the countries of Southern Europe ran up massive deficits, leading the life of Riley off the back of a strong currency, whereas in the past the drachma and the lire would have fallen sharply on the exchange markets, forcing those countries back to a degree of rectitude. At its simplest, the Greeks didn’t pay their taxes, retired at 55 and hoped someone else would pay the bill. And in the end they did – the Germans, the European Central Bank, and the IMF stepped in to prevent an all-out collapse.

But you can’t go on doing that. In a single currency area, if things look doubtful, the wealthy transfer all their money to safe havens in places like Frankfurt. The run on local banks brings them down, and the resulting collapse affects all. So no rescue is not an option.

That’s where the Eurozone finds itself now. And it cannot carry on that way. They’ve managed to stabilise things once, but it’s hard to see how they could withstand another major shock.

But there’s no easy solution either. You can’t just kick a country out of the Eurozone without creating that massive collapse either. If Greece had been forced out of the Euro, it would have been left with a devalued currency, unable to afford to pay its Euro-denominated debts. It would have defaulted and left massive losses across the continent.

So the inevitable future is beginning to take shape. As my former Government colleague, the former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague once said, the Euro is like a burning building with no exits.

They have to make it work.

And that means political union. There is no other way. There has to be a single Government structure for the Eurozone. There has to be a United States of the Eurozone.

The plans are already taking shape. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, her deputy Wolfgang Schauble, the Italian Finance Minister, the French President Francois Hollande, the Speakers of the biggest Eurozone Parliaments, the Presidents of the big EU institutions have all called for political union.

It’s not idle chatter. It’s become a recurring theme of speeches, articles and interviews across the European Union.

Political Union means, according to Hollande, a Eurozone Parliament, a common budget and a common cabinet. Inevitably it means giving up independent nation status. “It’s not an excess of Europe but a shortage of it that threatens us,” he’s said.

Angela Merkel has said: “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy,”

“And we need most of all a political union – that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control,” she added.

Last summer the Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan called for a common budget and a common unemployment insurance scheme, perhaps even an elected eurozone parliament alongside the existing European Parliament and a euro zone finance minister.

Then the Five Presidents Report, produced by the Presidents of the European Commission, the Council, the Parliament, the Central Bank and the Eurogroup started to set out what would happen in much more detail and with a clear timeline over the next ten years, aiming to complete the work by 2025. The report is very broad ranging and all-encompassing.

“Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union that ensures each economy has the structural features to prosper within the Monetary Union. Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing with the private sector. This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union 5 Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation. And finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening. All four Unions depend on each other.”

It’s a view shared in many of the national parliaments of the Eurozone. Last September the Speakers of the Parliaments of Italy, German, France and Luxembourg combined to agree a vision statement for the future of the Eurozone and the EU. It called for a rapid progress of integration, and a broad ranging one at that. They recommended that….

“The on‐going integration process should not be limited to the field of economic and fiscal matters, or to the internal market and to agricultural policy. It should include all matters pertaining to the European ideal ‐ social and cultural affairs as well as foreign, security and defence policy. “

Now each time I talk about this renewed drive towards integration in this campaign, those on the Remain side tell me it will never happen, that there is no political support for it, that it is just a scare story, and in any case we won’t be affected.

Well let me tell them how wrong they are.

The process is already under way. And we will be affected whether we like it or not.

The Commission in Brussels is now embarking on a process that will lead to much deeper integration than we have even seen before now. Don’t believe me? Then listen to the man driving this next stage of change. Jean Claude Juncker. In his so-called State of the Union Speech last autumn.

“As part of these efforts, I will want to develop a European pillar of social rights, which takes account of the changing realities of Europe’s societies and the world of work. And which can serve as a compass for the renewed convergence within the euro area.

This European pillar of social rights should complement what we have already jointly achieved when it comes to the protection of workers in the EU. I will expect social partners to play a central role in this process. I believe we do well to start with this initiative within the euro area, while allowing other EU Member States to join in if they want to do so.”

Fine, so it only applies to the Euro member states. So we aren’t affected. Are we? Well actually we are…

The Social Pillar consultation was launched in Brussels in February. It’s clear where it is designed to end up.

“The pillar of social rights should be a self-standing reference document, of a legal nature, setting out key principles and values shared at EU level.”, it says.

And the Commission has set out the areas covered by the process.

Among these are many areas where we already have protection or would want better protection in the UK.

They include:

·         A right to minimum pay;

·         Minimum measures to ensure awareness of rights and access to justice;

·         Access to lifelong learning and skills; and

·         Access to basic social services, including health care.

Let me make clear that I do not want to see social rights and protections diminished if we vote to leave the EU.

The point however is whether it is for the EU or for the people of the United Kingdom to control our rights and protections.

If we vote to remain in the EU then it would be EU rules that would determine our minimum wage, EU rules that would say how our pensions work, it would be EU rules to govern our skills system and even EU rules that would tell us how health services should work.

But that’s the Ever Closer Union that we are supposed no longer to be part of.

And this package is only for the Eurozone.

So what’s the problem.

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, the problem is this.

We have an opt-out from the Euro.

We have an opt-out from the Schengen Area

We have an opt-out from some Justice and Home Affairs measures.

But on everything else we have no opt out. We are subject to every law introduced by the EU and in the Eurozone.

On banking and financial services.

On business regulation.

And on EU social policy, on the so-called Social Europe, we have no opt out.

So we have a new list of EU social policies which will deepen integration across the Eurozone. But these will be EU laws passed in the normal way. There is no other method of doing so right now. And we have no opt-out from them.

Many of these measures will be things we already do well; some may be measures we would want in the UK.  The point is that it should be up to us to control what happens to the NHS, to workers’ rights and to social protection and control over these areas should not lie with Brussels.

So when there are new EU rules on pensions, skills and health, they will apply to us too. It means the EU starting to set the rules for our NHS. With no opt-out. And millions more people able to access our free at the point of delivery service as countries like Albania, Serbia and then Turkey join the EU.

And this is why we are not at all exempt from Ever Closer Union. Because the nuts and bolts of integration will come from new EU laws passed under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty itself is a huge part of the problem.

It is vaguely worded, and gives both the Commission and the European Court of Justice free rein to expand their brief and take over competences from the member states.

It’s already happened. Under the Treaty individual countries are supposed to be responsible for social security. But the European Court decided that the free movement rights of the European Citizen were more important, and now the EU controls more and more aspects of our benefit system. A treaty we signed in good faith is being rewritten by a Court whose president made a speech saying the job of the European Commission is to resist Euroscepticism.

So what happens now then?

Well, nothing until after June 23rd. We know the Commission is on its best behaviour right now. Everyone in Brussels is under strict instructions not to rock the boat. Frankly I am surprised that they have even started the consultation on the Social Pillar now.

But the decision to delay anything controversial in Brussels until after our referendum is an open secret there. Legislation is being held back. The budget is being held back. The EU institutions are in lock down until the British decision is done and dusted.

But if we vote to remain, the plans move full steam ahead.

And just remember. This is not a political flight of fancy. They have no choice. The Eurozone cannot be confident of its survival unless they follow down this road. It was the Italian Finance Minister last year who said a move “straight towards political union” is the only way to ensure the survival of the common currency.

And Britain? What happens to us?

Our influence will diminish.

Our sovereignty will diminish.

Our ability to look after our own national interest will diminish.

There will be no “reformed European Union”, British style.

Instead we will be subject to most of the integration that the Eurozone is poised to embark upon whether we like it or not. We will have little or no say in what they decide is necessary to pursue their goal of political union.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not for us.

I want us to live in an independent sovereign country. I want us to take back control of our democracy.

If we all want that, there is no alternative for us. On June 23rd we have to Vote Leave.

I Agree With What Sajid Javid Used to Say About the EU

Mr. Charrington
-
1
I Agree With What Sajid Javid Used to Say About the EU

 

 

 

John Longworth, Chair of the Vote Leave Business Council said:

 

‘I agree with what Sajid Javid used to say about the EU – before he changed his mind for reasons we can only guess at. EU rules damage all British businesses, and smaller businesses in particular – and hold us back from trading freely with the rest of the world.

 

‘These Government figures are extremely questionable. The reality is that only 6% of British firms export to the EU, but 100% are caught up in red tape and costs from Brussels. If we Vote Leave and take back control of our economy, our businesses will thrive.

 

‘I hope that Sajid Javid’s priority is not his political career – rather than helping British businesses.’

 

  • Latter day pro-Brussels campaigner Sajid Javid used to say that the EU damaged the British economy.

  • The claim that 1.2 million SMEs export to the EU or are in the supply chain of businesses which do export to the EU is based on dubious assumptions and false statistics.

  • Their main calculation is based on an extrapolation – they simply assert that 60% of businesses (those not registered) will act in a similar way to the other 40% (those that are registered).

 

Latter day pro-Brussels campaigner Sajid Javid used to say that the EU damaged the British economy.

Today, Sajid Javid claims that: ‘Britain’s small businesses are stronger, safer and better off in Europe. If we leave the EU, small firms are on the front line and that’s a gamble with people’s livelihoods I’m not willing to take. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Let’s not break that backbone with a leap into the dark.’

This is in stark contrast to his previous claims from just a few weeks ago: ‘As I’ve said before, a vote to leave the EU is not something I’m afraid of. I’d embrace the opportunities such a move would create and I have no doubt that, after leaving, Britain would be able to secure trade agreements not just with the EU, but with many others too’.

In 2013, Javid said that: ‘If the British people decide the decision is they want to leave the European Union, then that isn’t something I’d be afraid of. I’d embrace the opportunities that would create‘.

In November 2015, he said: ‘Currently costs of EU outweigh benefits. Unless we get major reform, nothing’s off the table’. Nonetheless, Javid today backs the pro-EU campaign despite the Prime Minister’s failure to achieve reform.

Last year, Javid claimed that: ‘The likely effect of many of Brussels’ current proposals will be to damage the UK’s prospects for growth.” That was John, speaking in 2011. “We don’t want a situation where smaller firms are saddled with poorly thought-out EU regulations which impede their ability to grow.” So said Katja in 2013. “The European Parliament’s decision … is bad for business … it will make it harder for firms to grow and export across Europe”. That was Sean McGuire, your man in Brussels, in a statement made 4 years ago. These are all valid complaints, all concerns I share. They’re exactly the kind of points the CBI should be making to defend the interests of its members’.

He also claimed that: ‘We must be unafraid to say that we could walk away if Brussels refuses to compromise‘.

The claim that 1.2 million SMEs export to the EU or are in the supply chain of businesses which do export to the EU is based on dubious assumptions and false statistics.

This claim is based on tenuous research from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The note uses data which excludes 60% of British companies. It does this by wrongly extrapolating data from the ONS Annual Business Survey (ABS) to unregistered businesses. The note states that: ‘unregistered businesses they are assumed to behave in the same way as the smallest category of registered businesses‘. The ABS produced estimates for just 2.05 million enterprises in 2014. In 2014, there were 5.24 million businesses in the UK. This means the study has no hard evidence for 60% of British companies.

BSE is therefore being extremely misleading when they claim this data is comprehensive. In the BSE press release, the pro-EU campaign claims that the reason these estimates diverge so much from previous published estimates is because those estimates ‘exclude the very large number of the smallest businesses, including non-employers, which don’t have to register to pay VAT, and are therefore underestimates. In contrast, these new figures are drawn from the entire business population, over 5 million businesses, and are therefore a more comprehensive estimate’. This is false, since the BIS data simply assumes unregistered businesses behave as registered businesses do.

The note inaccurately claims that HMRC data show that 82% of SME exporters export to the EU and 78% of exporters export to the EU. This claim is said to derive from data published by HMRC in November 2015. It is important to note that, once again, ‘These estimates do not cover all businesses. They do not cover… unregistered businesses‘. The data show that 110,807 (59.9%) businesses exported to the EU, and 74,077 (40.1%) businesses exported outside the EU. The data also show that 106,596 (62.9%) SMEs exported to the EU and 62,845 (37.1%) SMEs exported to the rest of the world.

The note itself accepts its figures are ‘indicative estimates‘. BIS admits that: ‘this paper brings together data from a variety of sources many of which use populations and definitions that do not entirely align, requiring certain assumptions to be used. Therefore the results should be considered indicative estimates’.

The pro-EU Britain Stronger in Europe (BSE) campaign is now relying on estimates which contradict previous figures published by the BSE campaign.

BSE claims on its website that: ‘200,000 UK businesses trade with the EU’.

This amounts to just 3.7% of the UK’s 5.39 million businesses and includes those businesses which import from the EU as well as export to countries in the EU

Nonetheless, the campaign today cites Government estimates that ‘8% of UK SMEs export to the EU’. This amounts to 430,000 SMEs, over double the figure cited by BSE.

The publication of the research relied on today is an attempt to circumvent purdah by the Government.

The Business Secretary today relies on research that was sneaked onto the Government website on 23 May.

The Government’s intention was clearly to use this material exclusively during the last twenty eight days of the campaign: hence BSE refer to the Business Secretary using ‘new figures’.

This is an attempt to circumvent statutory purdah rules which prevent the Government publishing material during the final twenty days of the campaign which relates to the referendum.

Carswell: You Can’t Trust David Cameron

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Carswell: You Can’t Trust David Cameron

 

 These so-called guarantees have been exposed as a collection of untruths, spin, and flip-flops by the Prime Minister.

David Cameron’s flip flop on Khan

Just a few weeks ago, David Cameron questioned Sadiq Khan’s judgement as he accused him of sharing a platform with an IS supporter. He said: ‘Anyone can make a mistake about who they appear on a platform with… but if someone does it time after time after time, it is right to question their judgement’. Yet today he shared a platform with Khan.

David Cameron’s flip flop on the European Arrest Warrant

David Cameron claimed today that one of the main benefits of voting ‘In’ is to keep the European Arrest Warrant. But in a previous article he argued that this policy was ‘stripping away’ centuries old ‘rights and safeguards’.

He wrote in 2001: ‘Are we really happy that with one telephone call from the Greek, Spanish or German authorities alleging that we did something wrong on holiday, we can be swept off to a continental prison? Rights and safeguards that we have enjoyed for centuries are being stripped away.’

Commenting, Douglas Carswell said:

‘David Cameron cannot be trusted. Just a month ago he attacked Sadiq Khan as a terrorist sympathiser, yet today he hailed him as a great politician as he stood next to him on a shared platform.

‘Today he trumpeted the benefits of the European Arrest Warrant but a few years ago he warned that it was dangerous and that it stripped away centuries old rights from the British people.

‘David Cameron’s flip flops show that he is not a man of principle – he is just desperate to cling on to power. He is only interested in saving his career not in what is best for the British people. People should not trust David Cameron.’

CAMPAIGN CLAIMS EXPOSED

In campaign claim 1: Full access to the EU’s single market: supporting 3 million jobs, lower prices for families and a strong economy to fund the NHS.

Reality: EU membership means higher prices. 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 ‘3 million jobs‘ figure has also been widely discredited. 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’.

 

In campaign claim 2: Workers’ rights protected: paid leave, parental rights, holidays and anti-discrimination laws.

Reality: Workers’ rights were secured by the UK Parliament – and in a democracy it is the duty of a sovereign parliament to protect them. Paid leave, parental leave and paid holidays are more generous in the UK than EU law requires. UK anti-discrimination legislation goes much further than EU law. The Sex Discrimination Act, guarding against sexual harassment in the workplace and the Employment Protection Act, supporting mothers with paid maternity leave, was introduced by the UK Parliament and were both introduced in 1975.

 

In campaign claim 3: Keeping the European Arrest Warrant: fighting crime and terrorism, bringing criminals to justice.

Reality: Even David Cameron doesn’t believe this. A 2001 article in the Witney Gazette quoted Mr Cameron as saying: ‘Are we really happy that with one telephone call from the Greek, Spanish or German authorities alleging that we did something wrong on holiday, we can be swept off to a continental prison? Rights and safeguards that we have enjoyed for centuries are being stripped away.’

In campaign claim 4: A special status in Europe: never joining the euro while keeping control of our borders, and new rules so EU nationals only have access to welfare once they’ve paid in.

Reality: A ‘special status’ is pure spin from Number 10: the term isn’t anywhere used in David Cameron’s renegotiation agreement. The EU’s own ‘Five President’s Report’ sets out plans for a Eurozone fiscal and ‘political union’, including ‘a euro area treasury’, and ‘further pooling of decision-making on national budgets’, with proposals for a new Treaty in 2017. The UK will be sucked in and eviscerated. In October 2015, the European Commission proposed a single Eurozone representative in the IMF. The draft Decision (on which the UK will not have a vote) provides that ‘close cooperation with non-euro area Member States shall be organised within the Council and the EFC, on matters related to the IMF. Common positions shall be coordinated on matters relevant for the European Union as a whole’.

Borders: As a member of the European Union, Britain has lost control over its borders. All EU citizens are automatically granted leave to enter the UK. The UK’s border controls are also under constant attack from the European Court of Justice. In December 2014, the European Court said that the UK cannot require family members of EU citizens from other EU member states to have a permit issued by UK authorities. This is despite the fact that a High Court Judge had found permits from other EU countries to be systematically forged, stating ‘Systemic abuse of rights and fraud calls for systemic measures’. The European Court’s rulings make it easier for terrorists and criminals to enter the UK using forged documents.

Welfare: EU nationals are able to claim jobseekers allowance after only 3 months in the country. EU nationals are able to claim full tax credits from day one if they are in work. Despite the Government’s claims, the UK will still be obliged to pay child benefit to children residing elsewhere in the EU. The renegotiation agreement states that proposed new legislation (which could be vetoed by the European Parliament or European Court after the referendum) could give member states ‘an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides’. This only applies to new claimants. The UK would only be able to extend it to existing claimants in 2020. In addition, the UK will still be obliged to pay non-contributory in-work benefits to EU migrants during their first four years in the UK.

 

In campaign claim 5: Stability for our country: protecting living standards and avoiding potential recession

Reality: The greatest threat to the economy is the prospect of Eurozone collapse. Article 122(2) of TFEU remains in force after the renegotiation. This means the Treaties still allow the Council of Ministers by qualified majority to ‘grant… Union financial assistance’ as part of ad hoc bailouts of the Eurozone.

 

Uncontrolled migration is already eroding living standards for Brits. A Bank of England study in December 2015 concluded: ‘the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 per cent reduction in pay’. This significantly affects British workers – especially those on low wages. On top of that, uncontrolled migration is putting unsustainable pressure on housing and public services. Hospital waiting times are growing, and families are finding it harder to get their children into good schools.

 

At the current rate of migration we would need a new home every four minutes, night and day, just to house new immigrants and their families.

Cameron on Khan:

In April 2016 David Cameron said he was ‘concerned’ about Sadiq Khan’s decision to share a platform with a man he claimed ‘supports IS’:

‘If we are going to condemn not just violent extremism but the extremism that seeks to justify violence in any way, it is very important that we do not back these people or appear on platforms with them. I am concerned about Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, who has appeared again and again and again… the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has appeared on a platform with Suliman Gani nine times; this man supports IS…  Anyone can make a mistake about who they appear on a platform with, and we are not always responsible for what our political opponents say, but if someone does it time after time after time, it is right to question their judgment’.

Cameron on the European Arrest Warrant

In his speech today David Cameron said:

‘Third is this issue of a safer Britain in Europe. I’ve been your Prime Minister for 6 years, I know we face big threats in terms of crime, in terms of terrorism. And of course the work of our police, the work of our intelligence services, they are vital for keeping us safe. But so is cooperation with our partners in the European Union.

‘Since we signed the European Arrest Warrant, 1100 criminals have been brought back to Britain to face justice. That used to take decades, now it happens in just weeks. All of us in London remember those 2005 attacks. One of those bombers, the July bombers, made it out of the country and got to Italy where he was arrested.

‘Before the European Arrest Warrant it would have taken years, possibly decades, to get him back to Britain. Now he’s sitting in a British jail having faced British justice. Who wants to give that up when we think of voting on June 23rd?’

But in an article in the Witney Gazette from 2001, David Cameron wrote:

‘Are we really happy that with one telephone call from the Greek, Spanish or German authorities alleging that we did something wrong on holiday, we can be swept off to a continental prison? Rights and safeguards that we have enjoyed for centuries are being stripped away’ (This is Oxfordshire, 17 December 2001).

Revealed: The Five Nightmare Certainties of Staying IN the EU

Mr. Charrington
-
1
Revealed: The Five Nightmare Certainties of Staying IN the EU

 

 

 

 

  1. The UK will continue to send £350 million to Brussels every week.
  2. Free movement of people will continue permanently. This will get worse when Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey join the EU.
  3. EU regulation will continue to cost British companies over £600 million each week.
  4. We will continue to be unable to remove criminals and terrorists whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.
  5. We will have to pay out up to £43 billion in tax refunds to multinational businesses.

 

Commenting, Vote Leave Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:

 

‘If people vote to stay, they are voting for the free movement of people from Europe to the UK, permanently. This will get worse when Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey join the EU. British business will continue to be strangled by EU regulation and we will continue to send £50 million each week to Brussels.

 

‘If we Vote Leave on 23 June, we take back control of our money, our borders and our democracy. That’s the safer option for our future.’

 

 

The UK will continue to send £350 million to Brussels every week.

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… the official statistics are the £19.1 billion’.

 

Free movement of people will continue permanently. This will get worse when Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey join the EU.

After the renegotiation, the unamended EU Treaties will still give every citizen of the EU the right to come to the UK. The EU Treaties provide that: ‘Citizens of the Union shall enjoy… the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’.

In 2015, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU, the equivalent of the population of Newcastle. Net migration was 184,000, the equivalent of adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population each year.

There are currently five candidate countries: Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. When they join, their 88 million citizens will also acquire the right of free movement. As the Government has admitted, ‘once a country becomes a Member State of the EU its citizens have the same rights under EU law as other EU nationals‘.

 

EU regulation will continue to cost British companies over £600 million each week.

The 100 most costly EU regulations have been estimated to cost British business £33.3 billion each year, or over £600 million per week.

This is likely an underestimate. 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.

 

We will continue to be unable to remove criminals and terrorists whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.

EU law prevents us from removing serious criminals. This includes violent killer Theresa Rafacz, a Polish national who killed her husband, including by kicking him in the face with a shod foot while he lay on the ground defenceless and drunk. Mr Justice Hart ruled the offence involved ‘gratuitous violence’. She was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Nonetheless, Mr Justice Blake later ruled that EU law prevented her removal, stating that there was ‘no basis’ which could ‘justify her deportation on the grounds of public policy‘.

EU law prevents us from removing persons our courts have concluded are terrorists. In 2015, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled the UK could not exclude the French national ‘ZZ’ from the UK because of EU law, despite the fact that he was a suspected terrorist. The Commission concluded that: ‘We are confident that the Appellant was actively involved in the GIA [Algerian Armed Islamic Group], and was so involved well into 1996. He had broad contacts with GIA extremists in Europe. His accounts as to his trips to Europe are untrue. We conclude that his trips to the Continent were as a GIA activist’.

 

 

We will have to pay out up to £43 billion in tax refunds to multinational businesses.

Rulings of the European Court have exposed the taxpayer to massive liabilities for tax refunds to big business. The OBR now forecasts that HMRC will pay out £7.3 billion from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021, an average of £270.43 per household. If HMRC also loses every case currently pending (a further £35.6 billion), the UK will be forced to pay out £42.9 billion, the equivalent of £1,589 per household.

 

The UK has tried to block these payouts before but its tax legislation has been overruled by the European Court. If we vote to stay, the European Court will continue to take control over our tax system and require multi-billion payouts to the multinational businesses.

EU Referendum Postal Vote instruction Urges Voters to Stay in EU

Mr. Charrington
-
0
EU Referendum Postal Vote instruction Urges Voters to Stay in EU

In a blatant disregard of electoral rules, the instructions for the postal vote clearly guides the voter to ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ with a graphic of a pencil in the box for that selection.

The instructional leaflets have been sent to thousands of council households with the postal ballot papers.

The guide is most certainly one that leads the voter towards voting to remain in the EU, and has a clearly defined picture of a hand with a pencil within that box.

how to vote

The aim of the EU referendum postal vote instructions, which was created by a pro-EU government agency is to guide the voter to vote remain in the EU, and is a blatant contravention of electoral rules which forbid the suggesting of how voters should vote on election materials.

In a skewed EU referendum, this instructional guide on how to vote to remain in the EU is no surprise. Everything about this referendum has been in favour of the remain camp, and there has been little or no impartiality.

Britain has descended into the electoral practices of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, and even though there is a legal case against these instructional guides, it is probably too late for any legal action as the damage has already been done.

Naturally, no one will be held accountable for what is most certainly a case of electoral fraud.

Leading IN Campaigner Admits Gove and Johnson Are Right On Immigration

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Leading IN Campaigner Admits Gove and Johnson Are Right On Immigration

 

Responding to Sir Vince Cable’s comments on Murnaghan this morning, Vote Leave Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:

 

‘Vince Cable has finally admitted what everyone in the country already knows – we cannot control immigration if we stay in the European Union.

 

‘A vote to stay in is a vote for unlimited EU immigration and further strain on our schools and our NHS, which will only get worse when we pay for Turkey and its population of 77 million to join the club.

 

‘It is only by Voting Leave on 23 June that we will be able to take back control of our borders and the £50 million we hand over to Brussels every day.’

 

 

Sir Vince Cable admitted that Michael Gove and Boris Johnson are right, that it is impossible to control migration within the EU.

On Murnaghan, former Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Sir Vince Cable, admitted that the points made by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson on immigration today were ‘actually valid‘.

He said: ‘I think what was said this morning about the immigration target this morning was actually quite interesting – Mr Gove and Boris Johnson – I mean the Liberal Democrats argued throughout the coalition that it was not sensible to have a rigid immigration target that couldn’t be met. It isn’t just because of migration from the European Union. You can’t control emigration from Britain. I mean we’re not East Germany or North Korea and of course if you manage to reduce British emigration, if British people stay at home and work at home, of course you then make the net immigration position worse, so it was a foolish target to have met and you have got different groups of people, you’ve got asylum seekers, workers, families, overseas students, who are not actually immigrants at all, all in the same number and we urged them to drop this target because it wasn’t achievable, and they repeated it again in 2015, so I think the basic point that Mr Gove is making is actually valid in its own terms‘.

Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart’s open letter to the Prime Minister on migration was reported in the Sunday Times.

Sir Vince also slammed the Prime Minister’s campaign to do Britain down for its exaggerated claims.

Sir Vince Cable admitted on Murnaghan that ‘there is exaggeration‘ on the part of the pro-EU campaign.

Sir Vince also admitted: ‘I don’t expect we are going to get Armageddon either way.‘

Project Fear: A Definition of Sanctioned Institutional Terrorism – ‘Using Fear as a Tool to Control the Masses’

Mr. Charrington
-
0
Project Fear: A Definition of Sanctioned Institutional Terrorism – ‘Using Fear as a Tool to Control the Masses’

 

 

The definition of terrorism is: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Although there has not been any violence, there has certainly been intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, the aim of course being of scaring the public enough for them to vote to remain in the EU.

How does the government feel about resorting to such terroristic tactics to engender fear amongst the population? Well, the orchestrators of this fearful terrorist technique do not feel anything. Their only goal is to achieve their target of a remain vote in the EU referendum, in fact, if they ever felt any form of emotion, these operatives would not function well within Project Fear. It is only up to the public to feel something, they are the targets of this terror technique being employed on a daily basis during the EU referendum.

At some points, we would get three or four fearful headlines from prominent institutions told to relay some scripted horrid headline; when the Bank of England says something, it sounds official. When the head of the IMF spouts out a fearful headline or soundbite referring to the EU referendum, people get hot under the collar as the words seep through all news outlets.

It is the utilisation of official institutions and offices which shows how the government had no qualms about defiling these organisations with scripted terrorist headlines.

Defiling a known institution is exactly what Cameron has done with his terror campaign. How can we trust these institutions again, especially when analysing their skewed pro-EU data and finding so many falsities, blatant lies and massive holes in their data?

World War III

The government’s Project Fear is terrorism, it fits the exact definition of terrorism, and it acts exactly like terrorism, and the government has been using the exact same technique of engendering fear in the populace as ISIS, sans burning pilots in cages.

David Cameron’s pro-EU government uses the same technique a shepherd uses on sheep to herd them into a pen, where the shepherd uses dogs to cause fear upon the sheep and make them move into a pen, Cameron uses governmental institutions, world leaders and the media to herd the masses into acting out of fear, to be herded into only one singular thought pattern, when in reality there are many choices, the government has sought to create a funnel of fear, a corridor where there is no other choice but to choose the path he has created for them.

The reality of the EU referendum is that there are multiple avenues and variables, and Cameron’s role as a seasoned fearmonger is to narrow the field into only one choice for the masses through herding techniques of fear.

Repetition

The constant repetition of a false piece of information makes it true in the eyes of the public. This technique is borrowed from Nazi Germany’s propaganda technique and is being used by the Cameron government mercilessly.

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” – “War Propaganda”, in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler

If one is knowledgeable, there is no fear. Ignorance is a staple that Cameron and his corrupt cronies are counting on and exploiting to full effect.

The leaflet Cameron effectively financed by stealing from the taxpayers purse and foisted on the populace is such an example, and was full of inconsistencies, lies and disinformation. It was summarily debunked.

Do not fall for the same tricks utilised during the Scottish referendum, as the exact same techniques are now being employed during the EU referendum.

Do not fear, do not believe a word they say as it is all calculated to sway you towards a certain point through fear. Do your own research, question everything, cross reference data.

Terrorism can also be defined by the state use of fear, and the British people have been attacked by terror techniques for the past two months by their own government, albeit one that has been compromised by internal terrorists.

We are now in a period of purdah before the final vote on June 23, and the fearful headlines have died down slightly, but they will continue right up until polling day.

There is no fear in knowledge. Vote Leave on June 23.

1...484485486...823Page 485 of 823
squib footer 270

Breaking News

Copyright © Daily Squib 2026.

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

KAjwhriuw024hvjbed2SORH