Category Archives: Poverty

Brexit and the Matrix

brexit-1478084_777

 

Elites: “how horribly stupid Brexit people are”

The EU and its associated financial institutions were built on the premise that no one would escape. That’s the long and short of it.

But of course, nations could get out if they decided to.

Which is what just happened in Britain.

And now that it has, elites and their fear-mongering press outlets are moaning and shouting and whining: “You fools, do you have any idea what you’ve just done? You’ve thrown a wrench into the structure. Are you crazy?”

Translation: “We’re in charge. We’re the lords in the castles. You’re the peasants in the fields.”

Of course, all along, the cover story has been: the EU is a step toward paradise; it bestows grace and beauty on humanity; it erases ugly borders; it makes people One; it fosters share and care; it smooths out conflicts; it makes us brothers and sisters.

Sure it does. That’s what all huge faceless bureaucracies accomplish.

When they’re exposed, all that fake goodness suddenly goes away. They spew hate. And they scream in anguish.

What’s occurring at the moment is very much like an old horror movie, where the humanoid villain is backed up against the wall, and someone tears his face away and exposes…machinery. Nothing but little wheels and cogs and wires and tubes. The truth is out.

What a monstrous joke it is that the young, in Britain, voted to remain in the EU. The EU is a right arm of Globalist forces. The same young people yammer and protest against Globalism, but because they’re absolutely clueless, they want to stay in the EU. The young: turned into hypnotic products of the education system.

There was a day, not so long ago, when the phrase “decentralization of power” meant something. It’s not used anymore. The press has it on their no-fly list.

Governments, major media, large foundations have worked the phrase out of existence. Instead, they’ve helped create every kind of special interest group under the sun—they’ve taken people who might actually want decentralization and shoved them into various groups, according to gender, race, religion, needs, and so on…and promised them “equality” and special help…as long as they go along with big government…thereby strengthening Control Central.

(And they’ve taken people who already want decentralization and propagandized them as outliers, criminals, psychiatric patients, terrorists, and racists.)

That’s the psyop game.

“We’re talking to you helpless masses now. You might want to decentralize government power? No, no, no, no. You’re looking at things the wrong way. First of all, who are you? What’s your religion, race, gender, disability? We have the right group for you. You can achieve all your aims that way, because we help groups. You see? We’re on your side. We, the government, are rebels, too. But we need our power to make change happen. Revolutionary change. Don’t rebel against us. Don’t try to diminish our strength. Join us. Benefits are waiting for you. Lots and lots. Get it?”

For a moment in time, a lot of people in Britain didn’t get it. They went the other way. They peeled off one layer of centralized control over their lives.

This now sets up a classic dialectic situation. Two opposing forces in conflict. And not just in England. The same sort of reaction is peaking in other European countries who want to test the waters of defection from the EU; and of course, in the US, Trump vs. Hillary represents a “perfect polarization.” Whether or not these oppositions were covertly built in the first place behind the scenes, their existence now makes them ripe for overarching manipulation.

What shape would that manipulation take?

Among other maneuvers, such as “new reports” of increasing unemployment, trading-market chaos and downward trends, we would see an escalation of riots, protests, clashes.

And the “solution, for sake of the population,” would be “restoration of order.” Translation: even more centralized power.

However, plans don’t always work. Don’t imagine that control from above is always flawless and god-like.

Defection from centralized power can take many forms, exposing many cracks in the foundation. Pillars can fall.

Major media are already on oxygen life-support. The Vatican and other crusty mainstay institutions are also sucking some of that oxygen. Because of the Web, untold numbers of people are waking up, in ways too numerous and varied to catalog. Even a few minor whiffs of freedom have their own power, and individual freedom is contagious beyond any kind of political drug or vaccine developed to stop it.

The game is afoot.

Even the most cynical interpretation of Brexit—that it was set up from behind the curtain as a way to flush out rebellion, which would then be squashed—doesn’t fully explain what just happened in Britain.

People can decide they’ve had enough of tyranny. They can take their suspicion of their leaders to a level where palliatives don’t work anymore. They can see the shape of the future that is being created for them, and they can toughen their refusal. They can push away from the table loaded with goodies and freebies, feeling sick, feeling patronized, feeling diminished. They can turn off the talking heads that preach Official Messages. They can discover further ways their freedom is being stolen from them, and they can rebel more deeply.

Eventually, they can come to a place where they rediscover their own existence as individuals, inviolate, alive, absent of the need for a bloated super-structure of “support.”

As this rediscovery happens, you won’t see it reflected in charts of trending stories. Newly awakened individuals will be thinking and creating and muscling their way through the decaying anatomy of the Deep State, making futures that cut away the tissues of connections that formerly bound them.

But bind them no more.

No more.

The grotesque creatures who’ve made their living, for decades, promoting and hustling Globalism as the grand solution, have failed to answer the fatal question: who is supposed to be in charge of imposing utopia on the world? Who are the messiahs of management bringing us all good things for our own good? After all, if gods are descending from the mountaintop to install paradise, shouldn’t we have a look at them, at their faces, at their robes, at their bona fides?

If not, if they must remain invisible, something very much like Brexit is going to happen, as it just did. People are going to leave those messianic fronts, like the EU, in the dust, at the side of the road.

O great gods of Globalism, at the top of the food chain, show us your faces, tell us your stories, answer all our questions, submit yourselves to our extensive interrogation.

Otherwise, bye bye.

Your outpost in Europe, the EU, had its moment in the sun. It lied. That’s all it knew how to do.

Now it stands in a wasteland, winds blowing through its exposed skeleton.

By Jon Rappoport

 

Brexit and the Matrix.

Brexit, and Goals and Ops of the Deep State

EU_pressure

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.

A NOTE TO THE MEDIA 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 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

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

1

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 .

2

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 .

3

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 .

4

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 .

5

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 .

6

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.

Conclusion

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 .

7

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_note_regarding_factual_errors_repeated_by_the_prime_minister_and_chancellor

 

You Cannot Trust Cameron – Vote Leave

Lessons from Norway, Denmark and Ireland – scare stories pre-EU referendums always prove to be wrong. Britain will save £15 Billion in VAT if we leave.

A warning from Norway, Denmark and Ireland: In the context of the IMF story, it’s worth noting a letter in yesterday’s Telegraph from prominent NO campaigners in several countries, who have experienced the blast of EU propaganda ahead of referendums.  They point out that establishment scaremongering always proves to be wrong (as it was in Britain’s €uro debate in the late nineties).  Worth a read.

Lord Guthrie switches to Leave

Field Marshall Lord Guthrie was Chief of the General Staff (Head of the Army) from 1994 to 1997, and Chief of the Defence staff from 1997 to 2001.  Back in February, Lord Guthrie along with other military figures co-signed a letter drafted by Downing Street calling for Britain to remain in the EU.

However he has now switched to Leave, saying that it was a mistake on his part to sign the earlier letter. He is quite explicit about his reasons.  He is concerned about the formation of a European Army, which he believes (as the Leave Campaign believes) will undermine NATO and so weaken the West in the face of possible external threats.  Well done Lord Guthrie.  It takes courage and strength of character to admit you made a mistake, and to correct it publicly.  Clearly Lord Guthrie has little confidence in the assurances from Downing Street that we have a veto on the plan.

IMF: Doom and gloom all over again

Have they no shame?  The IMF has chosen to issue a new warning of a post-Brexitrecession, just days before the Referendum, and during the purdah period.  A cynic might see the hand of Downing Street in this: it is bound by purdah rules, but it can orchestrate interventions from international organisations.  In fact the IMF had previously outlined its findings, but it gets a second bite at the cherry by issuing the detailed report.

Professor Patrick Minford of Economists for Britain dismisses the findings, saying they are based on extremely negative assumptions on trade and investment, and use flawed models.  An economic model is like a computer program – “Rubbish in, rubbish out”.  The IMF concludes that by 2019 the UK economy will be between 1 and 5% smaller than it would otherwise have been.  We should remember that the IMF is a creature of the EU (it has been criticised for trying to bail out the €uro when its focus should be on poorer countries).  And its head, Christine Lagarde, is a former French Finance Minister, and Agriculture Minister.  I suspect her motive is not to protect the UK economy, but to keep British tax-payers’ money flowing to French farmers.  She is currently facing charges and a possible jail term in France for embezzlement and fraud.

A warning from Norway, Denmark and Ireland: In the context of the IMF story, it’s worth noting a letter in yesterday’s Telegraph from prominent NO campaigners in several countries, who have experienced the blast of EU propaganda ahead of referendums.  They point out that establishment scaremongering always proves to be wrong (as it was in Britain’s €uro debate in the late nineties).  Worth a read.

EU status quo?  In the self-same letters column (link above) is a letter from none other than the Duke of Wellington, in which he concludes: “Voters must therefore think very carefully about taking their country down the road of so much uncertainty (i.e. Brexit) against the imperfect but known status quo”.  I resorted to Twitter to rebut this point.  The EU is anything but a “known status quo”.  We have “a tsunami” (Commissioner Sefcovic) of new EU legislation waiting till after the referendum.  Then we have the European Army (see Lord Guthrie above). The €uro crisis.  The competitiveness crisis.  The immigration crisis.  Accelerated Turkish accession.  The EU is no status quo.  It’s a work in progress, a moving target, a runaway train.  Let’s get off before it hits the buffers.

Carney can’t stop scare-mongering

The Daily Mail reminds us that Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, was previously with Goldman Sachs, which has given half a million to the Remain campaign. But Carney claims to be neutral, and “just doing his job”.  You may, if you wish, take a different view.

Daily Star seeks to politicise the Jo Cox tragedy

Generally the media have been pretty fair and respectful in their coverage of the Jo Fox tragedy.  Shock, outrage, anger, but no attempt to score cheap political points.  Several papers report that the assailant shouted “Britain First” as he committed his assault, and some papers link that to a far-right political party of that name

The Daily Star, however, runs a banner headline “MP dead after attack by Brexit Gunman”.  This is disgraceful.  Brexit – the Leave Campaign – is a great, cross-party national movement that seeks to restore the independence and self-determination of our country.  To attempt to smear the Brexit and the Leave Campaign by linking it to a deranged and murderous loner with hard-right sympathies is downright mischievous.  To exploit this tragedy for a political purpose is worse.

Alex Massie in the Spectator:  In a disgraceful piece in the Spectator, Alex Massie makes the same mistake.  Referring to UKIP’s latest Brexit ad featuring the line “Breaking Point”, he says, in effect, that if we say we’ve reached a breaking point, we can’t be surprised if people break.  To paraphrase: if you draw attention to reasonable concerns about immigration, you’re responsible for acts of mindless violence.  Let’s have no political campaigning in case a deranged person misinterprets it.  Sorry Alex.  Wrong.  Cheap. And reprehensible.

And a European Commissioner can’t resist point-scoring over a tragedy: Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, European Commissioner for Migration (yes really)posted a Tweet which clearly linked the Jo Cox murder to the Brexit debate. He should be ashamed.

images

A small technical point that could cost Britain £15 billion a year

This is such a detailed technical point – but with a sting in the tail that could cost the UK more than our net budget contributions to the EU.  Under EU VAT Directive 2006/112/CE Article 402 (yes, it has that many articles), the EU will switch from charging VAT in the country of destination of goods within the EU, to charging VAT in the country of origin.  So what? you might ask.  Won’t it all come out in the wash?  ‘Fraid not.   We currently collect the VAT on all those imported goods sold here.  When the switch occurs, the country of origin will benefit from the VAT.  But because we in the UK have a huge trade deficit with the EU, we’ll collect very much less VAT in the UK.  Of course we’ll get the VAT on UK goods exported to the EU – but that’s a much lower figure.

On the current balance of payments, the loss of VAT to the UK is estimated at around £14 billion a year.  We’ll have to pay it if we remain.  We can avoid it with Brexit.

Angela Merkel and the Top Table

The Times reports Angela Merkel’s aperçu that “Britain needs its seat at the top table”.  She means, of course, in the EU – but that’s a rather quaint idea of a top table.

After Brexit, we shall still be permanent members of the UN Security Council – a real top table.  We’ll be leading members of the G7 and the G20.  And NATO. And the Commonwealth.  And the World Bank. And the IMF.  And the OSCE. And the OECD.  And importantly, we’ll resume our full seat on the World Trade Organisation – currently occupied on our behalf by Brussels.

That’s quite enough top tables to be going on with.  We don’t need to be part of the slowest growing economic area in the world (excluding Antarctica, as Boris has remarked).  I am tired of being told “We need to be able to influence decisions in the EU”, for two reasons: first, we can scarcely influence those decisions as it is.  As an “Anglo Saxon” economy, we’re in a structural minority, and we are outvoted more often than any other member-state.  And secondly, the price for that trivial influence over the EU machine is that we allow foreign institutions to make the majority of our laws.  Not a good deal.  Better to have 100% control over our own country than an 8% vote in Brussels.

You think Brexit might damage the UK? Just see what the €uro is doing to Italy

In recent days the bond spreads of peripheral EU countries have been rocketing skywards.  Don’t imagine for a moment that the €uro crisis has gone away – it’s erupting again in the last week before our Brexit referendum.  Let’s get to the lifeboats before the ship goes down.

Whistling in the dark

As EU politicians start to realise that Brexit is looking likely, they’re whistling in the dark to keep their spirits up.  It will be an opportunity to reshape the EU, they say.  Pity they didn’t think of that earlier.  “We’re not afraid of Brexit” says Guy Verhofstadt. “Sometimes a divorce is better than too many compromises” says Vivian Reding.  Yet they may have a point: the shock (to them) of Brexit may force the EU reforms which we couldn’t achieve as a member.

EU Commissioner sent to UK to campaign

Despite promises by Brussels not to interfere in the Brexit debate, the Express says that Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan is coming over to convince us all of the merits of EU membership. Tough call.  Interesting that they send an Irishman.  While Brexit will be good for Britain, it may be less good for Ireland.  Perhaps he should declare an interest.

The Times declares for Remain

The Times heads it editorial, calling for Britain to Remain, with the words “The best outcome of next week’s referendum would be a new alliance of sovereign nations dedicated to free trade and reform”. Of course – but that new alliance of sovereign nations can only come from a Brexit vote.  It is wholly at odds with the EU as it stands – and the EU doesn’t do reform.  If Cameron failed to achieve even modest reforms when he could wield the threat of Brexit, does the Times imagine we can do better after we’ve run up the white flag?  Brussels will take a Remain vote as the final solution to the British problem, and as an endorsement for more of the same – ever closer union, political and fiscal.

I recently attended a debate amongst (mainly British) academics in Paris, and one of their “experts” castigated me for suggesting that the Times was pro-EU.  Nice to be vindicated by events.

Only five days to Independence Day!

Roger Helmer MEP

 

Lessons from Norway, Denmark and Ireland – scare stories pre-EU referendums always prove to be wrong. Britain will save £15 Billion in VAT if we leave.

Britain’s Exit from the EU: Leave it!

Brexit R-U

I haven’t written a single word about this non-event, precisely because it is a non event. It’s an artificially created argument, with the mainstream reasoning used on both sides, being equally fallacious. A gigantic deception played out with all the pomp and circumstance of a Royal Wedding and just about as empty.

Nevertheless, as pointless as I know it to be, as the result is pretty much a fait accomplis, I will be voting to leave the EU. And in any case, just like a recent referendum in Ireland that went the ‘wrong’ way, if ours too, goes the ‘wrong’ way then the State will just do it all over again until it gets the ‘right’ result.

Others have summed up the many reasons why, so I’ll leave it to them to explain. But here’s an apposite quote from one of the only two, yes two articles I’ve read on the subject which make any sense to me as a socialist:

In effect, the left-wing Remainers will have given the establishment (in particular the Tory party) a firm helping hand in supporting the EU, and though Michael Chessum and Owen Jones will cry out about how the EU needs to be reformed and challenged on its own terms, the dominant forces of parliamentary reaction will simply argue (correctly) that the majority of the political establishment and a large number of progressive campaigns from a number of distinct causes and sectors gave Britain’s post-referendum EU membership a resounding sign of approval. From that vantage point, Cameron and the right-wing media will simply be able to drown out calls for more radical EU reforms and gloat about how the Remain vote secures their position and augments their authority. With the corporate world, mainstream media, military, City of London, arms trade and the majority of the political Right and Centre supporting Remain, a vote for Leave isn’t just a vote against the neoliberal forces of the Troika: It is also a vote against our own ruling classes. — ‘Another Tamriel is Possible: Brexit Proposals vs Solutions’ by Elliot Murphy http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/07/another-tamriel-is-possible-brexit-proposals-vs-solutions/

Elsewhere, a less polite voice has spelt out the reasons that underpins the above:

While the European Union tries to “kettle” refugees in Turkey, turn them back to Libya before they reach international waters, struggles to reign in Italy and its navy which has committed the unpardonable sin, according to the EU, of upholding the law of the sea by insisting on rescuing people at risk on the sea, even where and when those people are of darker skin and a different religion than the EU finds admissible; while the European Union contorts and distorts its own refugee policy to deny safe haven to those fleeing barrel bombs, militias, armies, automatic weapons, air strikes waged, supplied, supported in part, by the very same countries that make up the EU; the big worry, apparently, for some socialists in the United Kingdom is that a majority of people in Great Britain might actually vote to leave this confederation of capitalists; this union of exploiters; this common market designed to flatten every particular impediment to the accumulation of capital. — ‘Little Ado About Something’ By S. Artesian

http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/little-ado-about-something.html

The so-called Leftie Remainers all appear to be suffering from some kind weird delusion about their capabilities to transform the EU but then this is a symptom of the disease that Lenin called Social Imperialism that I prefer to call straight-up opportunism.

Pretty much all the stuff I’ve read from Leftie Remainers about why to stay goes on about ‘uniting the progressive forces of the EU’ and forming some kind of transnational something or other. Talk about delusions of grandeur! And aside from Greece (where even when in government, the ‘Left’ made a complete hash of it and finally capitulated to the forces of Capital, and in the process, sold out the people who voted them in!), the rest, especially here in the UK, couldn’t organise a Garden Party, let alone a transnational political movement. And all, as Elliot Murphy above points out, without explaining anything at all about how this state of Leftie Nirvana will be achieved.

So I think these two quotes make it perfectly clear why I will commit the fruitless exercise of voting on the 23 June, in the vain hope that enough people will see sense and tell the European ‘Union’ to, F…K OFF! Well I can dream can’t I?

Opinions to the contrary are welcome, as long as they’re reasonably cogent and of course, intelligent.

 

Britain’s Exit from the EU: Leave it! | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization.

Does Bilderberg Really Run The World? One Chart To Help You Decide

With the Bilderberg 2016 meeting now humming along at the Taschenbergpalais hotel in Dresden, deep behind closed doors and protected by heavily-armed guards, many have wondered: just how hyperbolic are allegations that the Bilderbergs run the world.

To help readers decide, here is a chart laying out the linkages and various connections – financial, political, statutory and otherwise – between the handful of people who comprise the Bilderberg core and the rest of the world.

 

Does Bilderberg Really Run The World? One Chart To Help You Decide | Zero Hedge.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »