Category Archives: Migration

Brexit, and Goals and Ops of the Deep State


We have to start with Brexit, which scored a victory last night. Britain leaves the EU. Bang. Other European countries are ready to put the same referendum up for vote. And George Soros is making money from having invested in gold earlier in the month. Naturally. The vulture never sleeps.

Speaking of money making money, the “hysterical aftershocks” in trading markets, right after the Brexit victory was projected, are all synthetic and artificial manipulations, laid on to prove a point: see what happens when a country defects from the New Order? Meanwhile, the people who had real jobs yesterday still have them today. Life goes on. Britain will still be able to engage in trade with other countries, despite Obama’s warning that they’ll have to stand in the back of the line to make deals with the US. Nonsense. Blather. Obama is failing in his job as front man for Rockefeller Globalists. If he can’t get Senate ratification on the TPP and the TTIP deals now, he’ll be the CFR’s failure of the decade. Hillary, who came out against Brexit, is looking like a clown with egg on her face.

So…what is Britain leaving when it leaves the EU? It’s departing a giant robot, a structure of untold numbers of sub-androids, bureaucrats who have been making life miserable for Europe. Higher debt, unlimited migration, blizzards of regulations, grim political correctness. All in the service of a coming utopia, of course.

The real job of the EU is dehumanizing people, for the sake of humanity. That’s how faceless robot-bureaucrats operate.

The EU is an illusion of authority, in the sense that it pretends to be in exclusive possession of knowledge that will make life better for all of Europe.

The EU built itself as a machine, a structure so maze-like, so complex that “it must be valuable.” It resembles a super-computer. “We have trillions of pieces of vital data. We can plan the future more competently than any smaller entity. Leave the details to us.”

The EU is in all these ways a copy of the Deep Global State, of which it is a part. And now we come to the second section of this article, which I wrote first, as I was becoming aware of the result of the Brexit vote. Consider it background. The Deep State has, of course, not gone away. A much greater degree of dismantling is necessary. Technocracy itself has to be understood and defeated, because it is the leading edge of the new Globalist society…

The State is now involved in making people into robots and robots into people.

Behind all the technological promises and heraldry, this is what’s happening. People are already beginning to feel a fierce unshakable loyalty to machines—and a religious adoration. Up the road, robots will be wise counselors and guides and priests. This is civilization’s version of magic.

Technocracy and theocracy are the same op. They are rule by fictional figures. And the knowledge supposedly possessed by these figures doesn’t exist.

Whether a person or a machine can dispense three pieces of information or three trillion, and whether the dispensing takes a year or a microsecond, the “authority” surrounding the dispensing is window dressing. It doesn’t have any inherent power. It’s laid on in the same way a movie set is built (or a green screen is deployed) to confer authenticity.

The following two statements are remarkably similar: the Pope is infallible; super-computer XYZ is infallible. The latter statement is a modern substitution for the former. It wouldn’t be a great surprise, at some point, to witness the election of a Pope that is a computer. The College of Cardinals might discuss whether to present him as a robot wearing the official costume of office. They might even decide this robot should ride in the Bubble Mobile with its protections, to avoid damage. Vatican technicians would assure the Pope uttered, from time to time, humanitarian messages in a credibly human voice.

On the other side of the op, as humans are fitted into tighter slots in the New Planetary Order, they would, more and more, resemble machines in thought and action. Losing their individuality, through sacrifice for the greater good, they would naturally seek out signs and signals of what they no longer had—and they would find those human traits in robot-computers, which would be built with great care to deliver an imitation of life.

Sit a very young child down in front of a crude robot called a television set, and show her an animated cartoon of Cinderella dancing in the hall of a great palace, and the child experiences trance-like ecstasy. Why, up the road, wouldn’t a sufficiently “mechanized” adult find the same joy, viewing an animated hologram of a remarkably convincing robot that hands out ideological imperatives on the oneness of all creatures on Earth?

—On the subject of taking individuality from humans and placing it into robots:

“Every one of our androids is different. Our company believes in imbuing each of our ‘messengers’ with a unique set of characteristics. This isn’t a sales technique. We’re dedicated to the mission of diversity. Personality isn’t something to be buried under a surface of sameness and conformity. It should be front and center. After all, our robots are conscious.”

They aren’t, but who pauses to notice? Wave after wave of fictional propaganda is launched to make the case that machines are alive. The major target of the campaign is the educated class.

“It is now an established fact that evolution took place through higher and higher orders of information-processing functions. Indeed, the complexity of processing is the definition of consciousness.” Gibberish.

In this technological and pragmatic civilization, many humans already consider themselves, first and foremost, problem solvers. However, recognizing their skills are lacking, especially when it comes to personal issues, people are more than willing to surrender the job to machines. Computers will provide undeniable answers and advice. Of course, to make this system work, the problems and the people will have to be reduced down to manageable proportions—flattened, short-circuited, cartoon-ized. People will need to see themselves as biological machines with only a handful of basic needs. And some historian will one day write:

“Humans were operating on flawed self-destructive programs. The best of them realized this. And so, out of need and desperation, they invented machines that could guide them and work around those errors. This was the patch that was laid on, until we could precisely identify both the programs and the flaws, flush them out of the system, and install new software in the brain.”

This is the future.

Unless individuals, with the power they actually do have, reclaim what is theirs, and dump the whole ridiculous apparatus.

The EU—that machine—is one small part of the whole op.

It is a machine, whose purpose is turning humans into robots and robots into humans.

That’s the bottom line of highly centralized authority in the modern age.

Coda: warning: the BBC is reporting that the British Parliament must ratify the referendum result. And the UK withdrawal from the EU will take place “within two years.” It’s a withdrawal negotiated between the British government and the EU. So various conditions and side-deals could be slipped into the equation.

By Jon Rappoport


(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.



Brexit, and Goals and Ops of the Deep State.

You Cannot Trust Cameron – Vote Leave


David Cameron repeatedly refused to answer basic questions on Turkey

David Cameron repeatedly refused to answer basic questions on Turkey

June 19, 2016 8:41 PM

Responding to David Cameron’s appearance on Question Time, Vote Leave Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:

‘David Cameron repeatedly refused to say that he would veto Turkey joining the EU. That’s because – in his own words – he is the “strongest possible advocate” of Turkey joining. He has said before that he is “angry” that it is taking too long for Turkey to join. The EU has recently accelerated talks with Turkey with David Cameron’s support and UK taxpayers are sending £1 billion to Turkey to help them join. You cannot trust Cameron on Turkey.

‘Cameron had no answers to people’s legitimate concerns on immigration tonight and failed to set out how he would meet his manifesto pledge to bring the numbers back down to the tens of thousands while remaining in the EU. He had no answer on how we would fund the NHS to cope with higher levels of immigration.

‘He has avoided speaking to the British public throughout the campaign because he knows that they do not believe him anymore on the EU. It showed tonight as he was openly mocked by the audience. If you don’t believe Cameron’s spin and want to take back control you need to Vote Leave on Thursday.’

A note regarding factual errors repeated by the Prime Minister and Chancellor

We want to highlight ten objectively false statements made by the Prime Minister and Chancellor recently, including by the Chancellor this morning on the Peston show. We expect some of these statements to be repeated by the Prime Minister this evening. These cover bailouts, asylum, free movement, national security issues such as deportation, the powers of the European Court of Justice, and the legal status of the Prime Minister’s deal. The BBC should not allow the Prime Minister and Chancellor to continue to make these statements to millions of voters unchallenged.

Journalists should make clear the legal facts, in particular those concerning the EU’s ‘free movement’ laws and the Prime Minister’s repeated promises on immigration concerning ‘tens of thousands’ which – leaving aside the wisdom of it as a policy – is not achievable while we remain in the EU.


We want to highlight ten objectively false statements made by the Prime Minister and Chancellor recently, including by the Chancellor this morning on the Peston show. We expect some of these statements to be repeated by the Prime Minister this evening. These cover bailouts, asylum, free movement, national security issues such as deportation, the powers of the ECJ, and the legal status of the Prime Minister’s deal. The BBC should not allow the Prime Minister and Chancellor to continue to make these statements to millions of voters unchallenged.

Journalists should make clear the legal facts, in particular those concerning the EU’s ‘free movement’ laws and the Prime Minister’s repeated promises on immigration concerning ‘tens of thousands’ which leaving aside the wisdom of it as a policy is not achievable while we remain in the EU.

1 The supposed requirement for EU migrants to have a job offer

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that EU migrants must have a job offer to come to the UK. Asked by Andrew Neil whether David Cameron’s ‘fallback then was to say that EU citizens couldn’t just come here looking for work, they had to have a job, that’s what he promised, and he bottled that too, because that’s not the case?’, George Osborne said: ‘I’m afraid it is the case’. Asked to clarify this, the Chancellor reiterated that ‘if you don’t have a job, you have to go.’

This claim is false. 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’. Even David 1 Cameron’s own renegotiation agreement notes that EU citizens are ‘entitled to reside… [in the UK] solely because of their jobsearch’.


2 The purported inability of all EU migrants to claim unemployment benefit

The Prime Minister has repeatedly asserted that EU migrants cannot claim unemployment benefit in the United Kingdom. On SkyNews on 2 June, he claimed ‘if you come to our country

1 R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Antonissen [1991] ECR I745,

summary para [1], link .

2 European Council, 19 February 2016, link


first of all you don’t claim unemployment benefit’. On ITV, he claimed: ‘What 3 I have secured is this idea, this proposal that if people come here, first of all they can’t claim unemployment benefit’.

This claim is false. EU law gives EU nationals the same rights to jobseeker’s allowance as UK nationals following a period of employment of a year in the UK, and an equivalent right for six months if they have been employed in the UK for less than a year.4 It is certainly true that there is no requirement under EU law to pay noncontributory cash benefits designed to provide subsistence to persons who entered the UK seeking work and who have never found it. However, that was clear before the Prime Minister began his renegotiation.5

3 The length of time in which EU jobseekers can reside in the UK

The Prime Minister has claimed EU migrants must leave the United Kingdom after six months. On SkyNews, he claimed that ‘after six months if you haven’t got a job you have to leave’.6 On ITV, he alleged that ‘if they don’t have a job within six months, they have to go home’. George Osborne has told Andrew Neil that ‘if you don’t have a job after six months, you have to go.’

These claims are false. In 1991, the European Court of Justice ruled that article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union forbids the removal of jobseekers from another EU member state regardless of the duration of their stay if ‘the person concerned provides evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged’.7 This applies regardless of the length of time that jobseekers have resided in the UK.

This ruling is incorporated in the Free Movement Directive. This provides that: ‘an expulsion measure may in no case be adopted against Union citizens or their family members if… the Union citizens entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment. In this case, the Union citizens and their family members may not be expelled for as long as the Union citizens can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged’.8 Contrary to the Prime Minister’s claims, therefore, EU law precludes national rules under which all jobseekers are removed after six months.

It should be noted that the Government admitted in December that many jobseekers could remain for longer than six months. The Home Office Minister, James Brokenshire, admitted in December that some EU migrants can ‘keep the status of jobseeker for longer than six months’. 9 It is also the case that there is no mechanism for monitoring whether or not jobseekers remain in the UK for over six months. EU law forbids systematic verification of whether EU citizens are lawfully resident in the UK, providing that: ‘this verification shall not be carried out systematically’.10

3 SkyNews , 2 June 2016, link .

4 Directive 2004/38/EC, art. 7(3), link ; Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, reg. 6, link .

5 Directive 2004/38/EC, art. 24(2), link ; Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig , Case C333/

13, link ; Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa

Alimanovic , Case C67/

14, link ;

6 SkyNews , 2 June 2016, link .

7 R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Antonissen [1991] ECR I745,

operative para, link .

8 Directive 2004/38/EC, art. 14(4)(b), link .

9 ‘EU Nationals: Employment: Written question – 17574’, 2 December 2015, link .

10 Directive 2004/38/EC, art. 14(2), link .


4 The nature of proposed reforms to inwork benefits

The Prime Minister has stated that it is a certainty that proposed reforms to inwork benefits will take place and that these only apply to the United Kingdom. On ITV, he said: ‘Uniquely in Britain, you are going to have to work here for four years paying into the system, contributing to our economy for four years before you get full access to our welfare system’.

This contains several errors. Leaving aside the very real question of the compatibility of the ‘emergency brake’ with the Treaties, there is no certainty that it will come into force. Since the new proposed new Regulation is to be adopted by codecision, it could be vetoed by the European Parliament after the referendum. In addition, the European Council’s conclusions make clear that the Council of Ministers ‘could’ authorise the UK to restrict the payment of noncontributory benefits, not that it would do so. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s 11 claims, there is nothing in the renegotiation to suggest this applies ‘uniquely’ to Britain.

The Government has itself admitted that the ‘emergency brake’ may not come into force since it will be subject to ‘further renegotiation’. Just after the renegotiation agreement of 19 February, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, conceded that: ‘Details of the proposals for restricting inwork benefits for EU nationals will be subject to further negotiation and we cannot speculate on these’. The Minister was unable even to state which benefits the ‘emergency brake’ might apply to.12

5 The supposed ability of the United Kingdom to exclude EU citizens

The Prime Minister has made several false statements about the UK’s ability to exclude EU citizens from the UK. On SkyNews, he asserted ‘of course it isn’t freedom of movement if you are a criminal, it isn’t freedom of movement if you are a terrorist’.13 On ITV, he asserted ‘we can stop anyone at our border, EU nationals included, and if we think they are a risk to our country, we don’t have to let them in’. It is false to suggest that those involved in terrorism cannot exercise free movement rights in the UK. ZZ was an AlgerianFrench national who had resided in the UK between 1990 and 2005. In 2005, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, refused him readmission on return from a trip to Algeria and expelled him on the grounds of public security. Following a series of legal challenges, including a reference to the European Court of Justice, in 2015, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled the Home Secretary, Theresa May, could not exclude ZZ from the UK because of EU law. The Commission noted 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 activis t’.14

11 European Council, 19 February 2016, link .

12 ‘Social Security Benefits: EU Nationals: Written question HL5972’,

8 February 2016, link .

13 SkyNews , 2 June 2016, link .

14 ZZ (France) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSIAC SC_63_2007, link .


It is also wrong to suggest there is no free movement for criminals. The Free Movement Directive (which in this respect is unchanged by the renegotiation) provides that persons can only be removed for reasons ‘based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.’ Recently, the UK was required to readmit a Romanian 15 rapist, Mircea Gheorghiu, whom the Home Secretary had expelled, and grant him permanent residence.16 It is notable that the Government has in the past conceded there is ‘free movement of criminals’.17 It is also false to suggest that the UK can turn away anyone who we think is a risk to the country. EU law requires that ‘the personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent

a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.’18 This is patently a much higher threshold than mere ‘risk’.

6 The effect of the renegotiation on the UK’s ability to exclude EU citizens

The Prime Minister claimed he had strengthened the ability of the UK to exclude EU citizens during his renegotiation. On ITV he stated: ‘in my renegotiation, I strengthened that [the ability to exclude EU citizens] to give us more freedom to do that… my renegotiation means we have more freedom to stop people coming in in the first place’.

This is false. As part of the renegotiation, there is no proposal to amend the Treaties or the 2004 Free Movement Directive in this respect. The proposals agreed at the European Council will be contained ‘in a Communication’ to be issued by the European Commission.19 As the Commission accepts, a ‘Communication is a policy document with no mandatory authority. The Commission takes the initiative of publishing a Communication when it wishes to set out its own thinking on a topical issue. A Communication has no legal effect.’20 The European Court has held that a declaration of member states which purports to limit rights under EU law has ‘no legal significance’ unless and until it is incorporated in EU law.21

The Commission’s declaration states that the UK ‘may take into account past conduct of an individual in the determination of whether a Union citizen’s conduct poses a “present” threat to public policy or security’.22 Yet the European Court has already ruled that a previous conviction can ‘be taken into account in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat’.23 The Commission’s declaration also states that member states ‘may act on grounds of public policy or public security even in the absence of a previous criminal conviction on preventative grounds but specific to the individual concerned’.24 Yet the European Court ruled it was possible

15 Directive 2004/38/EC, art. 27(2), link .

16 Gheorghiu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 24, link .

17 Home Office, 8 November 2014, link .

18 Directive 2004/38/EC, art. 27(2), link .

19 European Council, 19 February 2016, link .

20 European Commission, 2006, link .

21 R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Antonissen [1991] ECR I745,

para [18], link .

22 European Council, 19 February 2016, link .

23 R v Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, para [28], link .

24 European Council, 19 February 2016, link .


to remove persons in the absence of a criminal conviction in 1974 in the first case referred to

that court after the UK joined the EU.25

7 The UK’s supposed exemption from Eurozone bailouts

The Prime Minister has said that the UK can never be required to contribute to a Eurozone bailout. On SkyNews, he said ‘we can never be asked to bail out eurozone countries’.26

This is false. Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (which was not, and could not be changed by David Cameron’s renegotiation) permits the Council of Ministers by qualified majority to ‘grant… Union financial assistance’ as part of ad hoc bailouts of the Eurozone.27 It was article 122 which was used as the legal basis for the creation of the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism in 2010, which was subsequently used to bail out Ireland and Portugal. 28 There is nothing in EU law which would prevent its use to create another fund, financed out of the EU budget, to which the UK would be obliged to contribute.

The European Court has consistently ruled that the establishment of Eurozoneonly bailout mechanisms does not affect the Council of Ministers’ powers under article 122(2). In 2012, it ruled that:

‘The establishment of the ESM [European Stability Mechanism, a eurozoneonly fund] does not affect the power of the Union to grant, on the basis of art.122(2) TFEU, ad hoc financial assistance to a Member State when it is found that that Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control’.29

In September 2015, the General Court confirmed that article 122(2) ‘enables the Union to grant ad hoc financial assistance to a Member State’.30 Unless and until article 122(2) is amended, the UK remains liable to bail out the Eurozone.

8 The VAT lock and last year’s judgment of the European Court

The Prime Minister has claimed that the European Court has not overruled his ‘VAT lock’. When asked on SkyNews whether the European Court was ‘overruling the sense of one of your promises in a Queen’s Speech to decide what British VAT was’, the Prime Minister said: ‘I don’t accept that.’31

This claim is false. The Prime Minister made a clear commitment before the last election that there would be ‘no increases in VAT nor an extension of its scope’.32 Parliament legislated to give effect to this soon after the election. On 18 November 2015, the Finance (No.2) Act 2015 became law. Section 2 of the Act contains the ‘VAT lock’. It provides that no item subject to the

25 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337, link .

26 SkyNews , 2 June 2016, link .

27 TFEU, art. 122(2), link .

28 Regulation 2010/407/EU, link .

29 Pringle v Government of Ireland , Case C370/

12, para [104], link .

30 Anagnostakis v Commission Case T450/

12, para [48], link .

31 SkyNews , 2 June 2016, link .

32 David Cameron, Twitter , 28 April 2015, link .


reduced rate of VAT on the date the Act became law may be made subject to the standard rate of VAT before the next general election.33 On 4 June 2015, the European Court upheld an action by the European Commission against the United Kingdom that the UK’s reduced rate of VAT on energy saving materials was contrary to EU law.34 HMRC has admitted that ‘the UK is required to implement judgments of the CJEU without any undue delay’ and is proposing an increase in VAT as a consequence.35 The UK is therefore obliged to raise VAT on the installation of some energy saving products in direct breach of the VAT lock set out in the Finance (No.2) Act 2015.

9 The supposed absolute requirement for a referendum before further transfers of powers to the EU

The Prime Minister has asserted it is impossible for further powers to be transferred to the EU without a referendum being held. On SkyNews, he alleged: ‘Any powers passed from Britain to Brussels have to be put to a referendum of the British people so Labour could not join or no other government could join the euro without asking the British people in a referendum… you can’t transfer further powers from Britain to Brussels without asking the British people first in a referendum’.36 On ITV, he alleged ‘if there is any proposal to pass further powers from our Parliament to Brussels, automatically there has to be a referendum. So there’s a lock on whether more powers can be passed.’

These claims are false. It is an established constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor.37 As a result, the European Union Act 2011 (to which the Prime Minister must be referring) does not bind future Parliaments. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to suggest there is any legal guarantee of a referendum in case of a future Treaty conferring new competences on the European Union.

Further, it is unarguable that the European Court of Justice can issue judgments that remove powers from the UK. It routinely does so. There is no appeal. There is no referendum. In many respects the remorseless weight of the European Court’s judgments over time is one of the most significant ways in which the EU undermines British democracy.

10 The supposedly ‘legally binding’ nature of the Prime Minister’s deal

The Prime Minister has claimed that the renegotiation agreement is ‘legally binding and irreversible’.38 The justification for this claim was set out by the Government in its White Paper on the renegotiation, which states: ‘As the European Court of Justice has confirmed in the case of Rottmann , it is required to take these provisions into account when interpreting the Treaties in the future, giving our decision force before the courts.’39

33 Finance (No.2) Act 2015, s. 2(3), link .

34 Commission v United Kingdom , Case C161/

14, link .

35 HMRC, 9 December 2016, link .

36 SkyNews , 2 June 2016, link .

37 See, for example, Madzimbamuto v LardnerBurke

[1969] 1 AC 645, 722723

(per Lord Reid).

38 Hansard , 22 February 2016, col. 34, link .

39 HM Government, February 2016, link .


This is extremely misleading. In order to assess the substance of the claim, it is necessary to consider the fate of the Danish renegotiation of 1992, which was cited in the case of Rottmann by the European Court.

In 1992, Denmark was promised via exactly the same type of deal that the UK is now being offered that EU citizenship would ‘not in any way take the place of national citizenship. The question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned’. The Prime 40 Minister, John Major, said the Danish deal was ‘a legally binding decision’.41 Less than a decade later, the European Court broke this agreement , declaring EU citizenship would ‘be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’.42

The European Court explicitly ignored the Danish renegotiation in the only case in which it has been cited, Rottmann . In that case, the European Court said that ‘Member States must, when exercising their powers in the sphere of nationality, have due regard to European Union law’, blocking member states from automatically stripping national citizenship from those who acquire it fraudulently, in direct breach of the Danish deal.43 The European Court took the Danish renegotiation into account (as the Government says), but nonetheless ignored it .

Our own Supreme Court has said the Danish renegotiation has been ignored by the European Court. Last year, Lord Mance JSC said, with the concurrence of a majority of the court, that the decision in R ottmann is ‘in the face of the clear language’ of promises made to Denmark.44 Several leading lawyers have also made clear that the deal will not bind the European Court. These include Lord Pannick QC, Marina Wheeler QC and John Howell QC.45

It is therefore false to claim that the Prime Minister’s deal will bind the European Court, just as Michael Gove pointed out in February. The ECJ itself will decide which parts of Cameron’s deal it will uphold, if any. There is no appeal from its decisions.


The Prime Minister and Chancellor have said repeatedly that the British public should not expect another vote on the EU for at least a generation. The voters are being

asked by them to vote to maintain the current supremacy of EU law with all that entails for the democratic legitimacy of policies as diverse as immigration, tax, and terrorism.

It is therefore vital that false statements made by the Prime Minister and Chancellor are challenged particularly by trusted public broadcasters and that their statements do not continue to mislead the public.

40 Edinburgh European Council, 12 December 1992, link .

41 John Major Doorstep Interview with Jacques Delors, 12 December 1992, link .

42 Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’OttigniesLouvainlaNeuve

[2001] ECR I6193,

para [31], link .

43 Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern [2010] ECR I1449,

link .

44 Pham v Home Secretary [2015] UKSC 19, para [90], link .

45 The Times , 25 February 2016, link ; The Times , 25 February 2016, link ; The Times , 26 February 2016, link .



You Cannot Trust Cameron – Vote Leave

Britain deserves better than the EU

Dan Hannan is worth a listen. He nails it giving the case for Brexit, giving an optimistic view of Britain outside the EU. The EU is a relic from a former age. The only trade bloc in the world that experiences nil economic growth since 2008.

Britain deserves better than the EUAlternative News Network | Alternative News Network.

Germany’s Largest Bank Says Massive UK Growth After Brexit

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne deliver a speech on the potential economic impact to the UK on leaving the European Union (EU), at a B&Q Store Support Office, on May 23, 2016 in Chandler's Ford, near Eastleigh, England. Osborne warned that Brexit would lead Britain into a 'year-long recession'. (Photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Germany’s largest bank has predicted British stocks will be the best performing in the continent and top UK firms will outperform EU rivals by as much as 5 per cent after a Brexit.

The forecast, from Germany’s Deutsche Bank, comes on the same day that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne threatened tax hikes by reaffirming his catastrophic forecast for the economy, based on claims from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – a Europhile think-tank funded by the EU and the British government.

The IFS claims to be “politically independent”, yet receives 50 per cent of its money from the UK government and 10 per cent from the European Research Council (ERC) – financed by the EU and established by the European Commission.

The BBC, meanwhile, has not yet reported the news from Deutsche Bank. Furthermore, last night BBC News cited the IFS to dismiss claims Brexit would make more money available for public services, and introduced their spokesman as “many economists”.

While Europe’s fourth biggest bank and the world’s largest foreign exchange dealer might seem like a more reliable source than the IFS, many online took to Twitter to mock the bank’s claims (which featured on the front page of The Sun this morning) by highlighting yesterday’s volatility in the market.

Deutsche Bank’s predictions are based on the assumption that the value of sterling will continue to decline after falling by eight per cent since its November peak, making British goods cheaper abroad and driving exports.

A note from the bank stated that the UK stock market “tends to outperform during periods of GBP (pound) weakness” and claims the pound could fall by another five per cent by the end of the year.

Deutsche Bank concludes: “In the case of a Leave vote in the UK referendum (a scenario to which bookmakers’ odds attribute a 30 per cent probability), we expect UK equities to outperform the European market, given GBP downside in such a scenario as well as the market’s defensive sector structure.”

When UKIP leader Nigel Farage dismissed warnings about sterling falling after a Brexit by saying “So what?” over the weekend he was similarly mocked. There appears, however, to be sound reasoning behind his stance.


Germany’s Largest Bank Says Massive UK Growth After Brexit.

5 reasons so many Britons favor Brexit and want to dump the EU


Just as Americans wouldn’t want U.S. tax, immigration and regulatory policy to be controlled by an imaginary American Union office based in Buenos Aires, many British don’t like their country being controlled by European Union bureaucrats in Brussels.

That is why the latest polls show more British side with the “Leave” than the “Remain” campaign ahead of the Brexit referendum on June 23.

Americans wouldn’t like an American Union — call it the AU for short — responsible for 60% of laws, which is the share in Britain that come from the EU in Brussels rather than from Parliament in London. We wouldn’t like an AU telling us we couldn’t deport criminals or control our borders, as the EU does to Britain.

We wouldn’t want an AU ruling that we could no longer buy food by the pound, but would have to buy it in kilos because in Latin America food is measured in kilos. That is what the EU tells Britain. Everything from tomatoes to butter to flour has to be sold in kilos.

Americans wouldn’t like an American Union telling us how many hours we are allowed to work. According to EU law, Brits cannot work for more than 48 hours a week, averaged over 17 weeks. People who do work more have to sign a form saying that they agree to opt out of the 48-hour week. People who work in certain occupations, primarily transportation — airlines, shipping, trucking — aren’t permitted to opt out and cannot work more than 48 hours even if they want to do so.

Congress didn’t pass a cap-and- trade emissions trading program when it was proposed under a Democratic Congress in 2009-2010. America wouldn’t like to have such a program imposed by an American Union. But the U.K. has to take part in the EU Emissions Trading System. It requires 15% of electricity to be generated by renewables by 2020, even if this raises the price of electricity for British households.

To meet these EU regulations, the U.K. is burning wood pellets from the U.S. because wood is considered a renewable. America exported over 4 million short tons of wood pellets to Europe in 2014, and about 80% went to the U.K. The U.K. is converting its coal plants to burning American wood. Although environmentalists favor renewables, many, such as Debbie Hammel of the Natural Resources Defense Council, believe that burning wood harms forests and increases carbon emissions.

Americans wouldn’t like an American Union setting standards for cars and trucks. But that’s what the EU does to Britain with its numerous automobile directives.

“Defeat devices,” which allow emissions to appear lower when the car is tested, are banned, but as the Volkswagen scandal has shown us, this has little effect. The EU red tape doesn’t always bring results.

The object of these rules is harmonization. One aspect of the EU is to get rid of national identity, to create a U.S. of Europe. No matter that countries like their national identity. They do not want to be merged into a blended whole. The blandness of the EU is one reason that nationalist parties, such as UKIP in the U.K., the National Front in France, and the Catalan nationalist parties in Spain have grown in power.

Some suggest that the British economy will be more stable if it stays in the EU. But the EU itself has massive economic problems, with a growth rate of 1.4%, underfunded public pensions, and bloated welfare obligations. Its lack of control over its borders has resulted in over a million refugees and economic migrants, some of whom are linked with ISIS and are planning terrorist attacks. Under EU law, all have to be housed and fed at EU taxpayer expense. This is no recipe for stability.

President Obama should appreciate Britain’s desire for independence, said British historian Andrew Roberts in his acceptance speech on winning the Bradley Prize in Washington on Wednesday.

Yet Obama visited Britain in April and tried to bully the British into remaining in the EU by telling them that “the U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue” in any trade deals—even though Britain is one of America’s biggest export markets. Roberts said that when the U.S. wanted help in fighting Iraq, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair didn’t put America at the back of the queue, but pledged his complete support.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Korean War, Britain stood with America. The EU is taking decisions ever further away from Parliament, in contempt of national sovereignty. No wonder the Brits are fed up. Just as the U.S. wouldn’t want to live under an American Union, and declared freedom from England 240 years ago, now Britain wants to declare freedom from the EU.


5 reasons so many Britons favor Brexit and want to dump the EU – MarketWatch.

« Older Entries