Little Norway

The EU pays a visit to Oslo in an effort to hand down some legislation…

Courtesy of Gill

The Norway influence saga – what does it all mean?

Judging by the amount of people visiting this blog, EU Referendum, Witterings from Witney and The Boiling Frog; and those reading the articles and comments left on the Open Europe blog and at the Telegraph, there is a lot of interest in alternatives to EU membership.

David Cameron’s repeated claim – echoed by Tories, Lib Dems, Open Europe and a raft of media commentators – that he doesn’t think it’s right to aim for a status like Norway or Switzerland because you have to obey all the rules of the single market but you don’t have a say over what they are, has been exposed as a lie.

Over the course of several days, a small band of bloggers working independently, along with a larger number of casual commenters, have presented a raft of evidence that utterly refutes the claim and proves Cameron completely wrong. So what does it all mean? Let’s summarise it.

The reality is Norway, as a member of EFTA and part of the EEA has a veto, and has influence in shaping decision relating to the single market that even the UK doesn’t. Whether it chooses to use the veto and how it decides to shape legislative decisions is of course a matter for itself. But the influence demonstrably exists in no small measure.

The evidence is inescapable that Cameron has deliberately attempted to deceive the public, aided by the disgraceful media, as part of an establishment effort to hide workable alternatives to EU membership and pretend that outside the EU we would just have to accept whatever Brussels churns out.

For all their talk of renegotiation and repatriation of powers, the establishment wants to stay firmly inside the EU and therefore leave Brussels in overall control of the UK. They are committed to political union.

That is the issue here. The politicians are being dishonest and they have been caught out, but the media is turning a blind eye, treating the British people with cyncial contempt. The UK can not only survive outside the EU, it can thrive. The politicians, with their vested interests and with their media puppets in tow, just don’t want people to know.

Norway to EU: “Ingen”

David Cameron and his little EUrohelpers at Open Europe were probably, like us, too busy looking forward to Christmas to have spotted this important piece of information published by EFTA regarding EU plans for harmonisation of environmental policy relating to oil and gas energy:

The European Commission has recently proposed legislation aiming at harmonising the environmental procedures and risk management related to offshore oil and gas activities. A proposal for a regulation on the safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities was presented by the Commission on 27 October 2011. Under the rules of the proposed new legislation, offshore oil and gas firms would have to submit major hazard reports and emergency response plans before getting a licence to drill in European Union territory. It is currently being discussed in the EU institutions whether the proposal for a regulation should be changed into a directive.

The Norwegian government has taken the view that the proposed regulation by the European Commission falls outside the geographic and substantive scope of the EEA agreement.

Oh dear, David Cameron and Open Europe caught out lying again. You would think the media would be all over this, unless of course they have vested interests or are getting pressure from their owner barons to exercise bias by omission and ignore this important story…

OK, ‘En svale gjør ingen sommer,’ as they say in Norway. But we are not talking about one swallow, this is yet another example – and there are many more – of Norway having a big say in what legislation is adopted. Conversely, when the EU declares this is the way things will be, the UK will have to accept it lock, stock and anti-democratic barrel.

So can we expect to see Cameron and Open Europe correct their false assertions? Or will their rampant Europhilia and fetish for pleasing their masters in Brussels see them continue peddling blatant lies about Norway and Switzerland supposedly having no say in EU matters yet having to accept everything handed down from the EU bureaucrats?

More evidence that Cameron lied about Norway and Switzerland

The europhile narrative when it comes to Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland – the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members of the European Economic Area (EEA) -  is that they are obliged to adopt all EU legislation related to the single market.  The stated exceptions are in matters of agriculture and fisheries.

Indeed, as we have seen recently seen David Cameron say of Norway and Switzerland’s position (blindly accepted and repeated by organisations that take their lead from Conservative Central Office):

[...] basically you have to obey all the rules of the single market but you don’t have a say over what they are.

So, poking around various websites, it was very interesting to come across this information published in mid-December on europolitics.info concerning the assessesment of relations between the EU and the EFTA states by the European Council:

The EEA agreement “has proven to be effective and in the interest of all,” state the draft conclusions by the 27, which nevertheless regret that Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland have not yet incorporated into their national laws a “large number” of legal acts adopted in the EU. The homogeneity of the internal market and its “credibility” depend on their doing so, notes the text.

You can read the full report that spawned the article here.  The full text of the article is at the bottom of this post.

It seems the ‘obligation’ to adopt all EU legislation relating to the single market is nothing of the sort and the EFTA countries continue to enjoy autonomy, much to the chagrin of the EU.  It is worth noting that Switzerland comes in for a hammering in the assessment from the Council, for having the temerity to act in its own interests and not adopt evolving EU law and the various mechanisms (surveillance, judicial control and dispute settlement) that the EU says guarantee “homogeneous interpretation and application” of the internal market rules in the EU.

That being the case and the fact the UK was party to the drafting of the Council assessment, it demonstrates ever more clearly the deceitful nature of Cameron’s false assertions.  Perhaps Cameron’s quote would be accurate if he had said; ‘basically the EU wants EFTA countries to obey all the rules of the single market they have had a hand in shaping, but they can and do sometimes refuse to adopt them leaving the 27 reduced to threatening, cajoling and bullying in the hope they finally cave in’.

Full Text of article

Good marks for EEA, bad marks for Berne
By Tanguy Verhoosel | Tuesday 18 December 2012

Liechtenstein: good. Norway and Iceland: average. Switzerland: unsatisfactory.

These are the very contrasting marks the 27 will be giving to the four European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) countries, on 20 December (1). Every two years, the Council assesses relations between the EU and the EFTA states. The three – Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland – that are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) earn the highest marks.

The EEA agreement “has proven to be effective and in the interest of all,” state the draft conclusions by the 27, which nevertheless regret that Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland have not yet incorporated into their national laws a “large number” of legal acts adopted in the EU. The homogeneity of the internal market and its “credibility” depend on their doing so, notes the text.

Individually, the Union praises Liechtenstein, whose “political determination” and “significant administrative efforts” are seen as exemplary. The principality can be considered a “reference” for other countries of small territorial size – Andorra, San Marino and Monaco – with which the Union wishes to intensify its relations.

CRITICISMS OF ICELAND
The 27 particularly applaud the steps taken by Vaduz to step up the fight against tax fraud and evasion. The spirit of “solidarity” shown by the people of Liechtenstein through their financial support for new EU member states to 2014 is also appreciated.

The compliment is also valid for Norway and Iceland, which nonetheless receive lower marks than Liechtenstein.
Norway and the EU have developed successful cooperation in recent years in a number of sectors – Norway’s contribution of more than €7 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the context of the economic crisis, police and judicial cooperation, foreign and security policy, fisheries and energy – note the EU conclusions.

On trade, however, the Council “regrets” that Norway has decided to make use of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings against EU measures on trade in seal products and that it has raised customs duties on certain agricultural products.

Certain criticisms are also addressed to Iceland, held at least partially responsible for the failed negotiations with the EU on joint management of mackerel stocks.

The Council applauds Reykjavik’s measures to stabilise its economy following the bank sector crash in 2008. However, it notes “remaining weaknesses” in the financial services sector and adds that certain economic issues, including capital controls, still need to be addressed.

SWITZERLAND: STALEMATE
The biggest problem for the EU is Switzerland (see Europolitics 4534 and 4548).
The 27 reiterate their determination to develop their relations with Switzerland. However, the negotiations launched by the two partners on further Swiss participation in the internal market “have been marked by a stalemate” for years and are not likely to advance until the institutional issues highlighted by the Union since 2008 have been “solved”. These concern adaptation of agreements with Switzerland to evolving EU law and the introduction of various mechanisms (surveillance, judicial control and dispute settlement) to guarantee “homogeneous interpretation and application” of the internal market rules in the EU.

Switzerland presented proposals in this respect in June, but Berne needs to take “further steps” to achieve this objective, from which the EU will not turn away. Switzerland is not engaging solely in a bilateral relationship with the Union; it has become a “participant in a multilateral project”.

For the 27, this justifies the creation of a “legally binding mechanism” on incorporation of the acquisand “international mechanisms” for surveillance and judicial control, similar to what exists in the EEA.

“Exploratory discussions” in this context will continue – Swiss State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Yves Rossier is expected in Brussels on 29 January 2013 – before the possible opening of formal negotiations.

The 27 also denounce certain Swiss measures “that are not compatible with the provisions and the spirit” of the agreement on the free movement of persons. They urge Switzerland, among other things, to reconsider its decision to limit access to its labour market for nationals of Central and Eastern European EU member states.

On business taxation, the Union remains “deeply concerned” about certain canton-level tax regimes (favourable to holding companies, domiciliary companies and joint enterprises) that create “an unacceptable distortion of competition” in Europe. The Council calls for their “abolition”.

Although “progress” has been made in the ongoing “dialogue” between the Commission and Berne, the conclusions state that Switzerland remains reluctant to take all the EU’s concerns, which also relate to certain federal tax regimes, into account.

Foreign policy represents another point of friction.

The 27 welcome Switzerland’s participation in several EU missions, but regret that it has not “fully aligned itself” with EU sanctions against Iran. Reading between the lines, the Council suggest that its refusal to impose an embargo on Iranian oil products dictated first and foremost by its determination to protect the many trading companies based in Geneva.

The 27 also highlight the need for an additional Swiss financial contribution to the reduction of economic and social disparities in the Union. This is only fair since Switzerland has been granted access to this “enlarged internal market”.
To date, Berne has contributed around €1 billion to the ten Cental and Eastern countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. The Council “reaffirms” its expectation that “this expression of solidarity, which underpins the relations between the EU and Switzerland, will be extended” to Croatia, as a start. The Commission has been given negotiating directives in this framework.

The Union remains “deeply concerned” about certain canton-level tax regimes in Switzerland

(1) The draft conclusions are available at http://www.europolitics.info > Search = 327164

Proof that Norway has influence in the regulatory process from outside the EU

By now readers will be familiar with the scare tactics being employed by various political and institutional figures.  The current line of attack is the false claim that unless the UK remains in the EU it will have no influence over trade and commerce issues in the single market and would be subject to ‘fax democracy’.  Some of the recent quotes include:

I don’t think it’s right to aim for a status like Norway or Switzerland where basically you have to obey all the rules of the single market but you don’t have a say over what they are.
-  David Cameron, Prime Minister

———-

The EU Federalists have already written the script for the UK’s new relationship as an “associate member”.  We will be subject to all the regulations and costs of EU membership without any influence or voting rights.  That is roughly the deal Norway currently has.
-  Tim Ambler, Adam Smith Institute

———-

Either way the idea is for the UK to effectively be given access to the single market but with little say – like Norway but with some twists and without the EEA-wrapping.
-  Open Europe Blog, Tory front organisation

Setting aside the fact Norway and Switzerland’s situation has only been held up as an example of what the UK could achieve outside the EU and that no one has argued it is the only option, the fact is the assertions of Cameron, Ambler, et al are false.  Norway does have influence in the regulatory process.

More than that, at times it actually shapes regulatory frameworks that the EU later finds itself adopting.  Evidence of this has already been provided on EU Referendum.  But to further reinforce the point Richard has provided details of yet another example that explodes the lies and deceptions contained in the quotes above that the media is all too quick to publicise in an effort to scare eurosceptic voters away from supporting the idea of withdrawing from the EU.

The lies of Cameron and co are designed to one end, to keep the EU in control of the UK.  We are bound into a developing political union which is not required to achieve free trade or access the single market.  But the vested interests of the political class demand that the EU becomes the government of the member states against the wishes of voters, so the lies are told and repeated without challenge by the craven media which is desperate to keep ‘access’ to the politicians.  That’s how the game works.

What the Norway massacre is telling us

The car bombing in Oslo and depraved mass murder on Utoya carried out by Anders Behring Breivik represents the most shocking act of political violence seen for many years.  It was an act of terrorism and it was an outrage.  Particularly the murder of children which was especially heinous.

The media, in its own inimitable style, has dug up any number of angles to explain these joint incidents.  But the hacks have alighted on the ‘far right’ angle of an attack by a ‘Christian fundamentalist’ pursuing an agenda of ‘anti immigration bigotry’.

That the musings of Breivik – being taken down from Twitter, Facebook and websites as quickly as the authorities can – display his intolerance for Muslims, ‘cultural Marxists’ and the left wing Labour government in Norway amongst others is indisputable.  Breivik’s apparent claims of advising groups such as the English Defence League remain as yet unproven.  But what is notable is that the hatred and intolerance visited upon the people of Oslo was not directed against immigrants or people of the Islamic faith, as one would expect given the picture of Breivik that has been painted.

The murderous violence was directed against the government and its activist supporters.

Many commentators are describing this as the act of a madman.  That may or may not be the case.  But to commit the atrocity Breivik did certainly required him to be at the very least a person devoid of sympathy and any sense of compassion for his victims, and consumed by hatred, rage and frustration. Many of those same commentators argue that in a democracy, where people enjoy freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully, there is no need to engage in violence.

But what about when those rights are perceived to be hollow?  What can one do when the established political parties with their secure positions and consensus views on major issues of concern actually deny a true democratic choice to the electorate?  What can one do when the apparent freedom of speech is shut down by shrill accusations of racism, xenophobia or narrow mindedness, which causes people to shy away from setting up a new political opposition, as we have seen across Europe for years?  What can one do when all forms of peaceful protest are ignored by the political class because there is no swift consequence for ignoring the people they are supposed to represent? Indeed, what can one do when the accepted media outlets choose to omit stories or ignore valid arguments in order to hold the line for the establishment?

What the mass murder in Norway is telling us is that some people have a breaking point beyond which, in the absence of any other form of recourse against the people who rule over them, they resort to extremism and violence.  This argument has been used to justify political (and religious inspired) violence in places as diverse as Gaza, Kashmir, Thailand, Libya and Syria, among others.

Calls for reform in those places swiftly follow – usually led by the political left in Europe which sees any such action as revolutionary and therefore justified – and are sometimes supported by the libertarians who see such uprisings as cries for self determination and freedom.  But when such revolutionary type violence breaks out in enlightened western Europe, where the left holds political sway, the acts are immediately labelled as right wing extremism or the actions of madmen, because the left cannot believe that anyone could disagree with their worldview – and if they do they must be inherently selfish and evil.  The contradiction is clear. The ignorance is startling.

Where security experts are stating this week that there is a rise of the ‘far right’ in Europe, perhaps they do not realise we might be looking at nothing more than the an increasingly extreme form of rejection of socialist political control and the creeping internationalism that sees the political class seeking to transform European nations while doing everything possible to avoid asking the electorates for their permission to do so.

The antidote to political violence in Europe is simple… the restoration of genuine democracy where the people, not the political class, have the power.  In many ways what happened in Norway is made all the more curious because Norway still enjoys self determination outside the EU.  But a more forensic examination of domestic politics there might throw up faultlines that could explain what Breivik felt could only be be tackled by killing the current leaders of the Norwegian Labour Party and its next generation of leaders. In other words resorting to the extreme.

There are many issues where the political class across Europe defy the wishes of the people who elect them.  Anger and frustration is growing as people realise nothing they can do within the law can sway the politicians from their chosen direction.  Protest marches, letter writing, distribution of campaign material… all can be and are routinely ignored by the politicians.  There is a sense of detachment from the people that gives the political class a false sense of security from consequences for their actions.

What happened in Norway may now shake the politicians out of their complacency.  Sadly it doesn’t appear to be in the way we would hope.

As William Hague’s comments to Andrew Marr today demonstrate the politicians remain wilfully blind to the causes of such extremism and instead they will only focus on looking at ‘the lessons to be learned’ from a security perspective – in other words they will continue as they have done and just seek to learn better techniques in self preservation.

As such they have learned nothing of value.  Without a change in approach by the politicians and a willingness to finally do what they are paid to do and listen to the people, at some point another angry person or persons will snap and go on the rampage.  These people will direct their ire against the political class, but only hurt others because of the ring of steel, bullet proof glass and bomb resistant vehicles that insulate the politicians from the people they are supposed to serve.

Breivik is not the first, and as we can see from the political class’ response, tragically he won’t be the last.  It is all so avoidable.

And the basis for this claim is…?

Dismissing those who argue that Britain could negotiate a trade deal with the EU once it had left – note carefully the FUD-inducing avoidance of any reference to negotiating before leaving the EU, which Article 50 provides – Kevin Daly, an economist with the universally admired and respected investment bank Goldman Sachs, is quoted by the Daily Telegraph:

Given the size and importance of the UK economy, it is unlikely that the UK could negotiate the same access to the EU single market that Switzerland and Norway have achieved.  In particular, the UK’s ability to conduct business in financial services across the European Union is likely to be severely compromised by a departure from the EU.

And what of the evidence for this assertion?  Come on reader, you didn’t actually expect such a facile claim to be supported with any evidence did you?  That’s not the way FUD works!  But clearly the FUD flood season is upon us.

This is the same Goldman Sachs which encouraged its investors to get their money into gold investments last year as it predicted the value would rise to $1,840 per ounce, then this year, in concert with other investment banks, encouraged its investors to sell out of their ‘paper’ gold positions forcing the price to crash – enabling Goldman and the others to cash in by stocking their own vaults with physical metal on the cheap while their investors were forced to trigger stop losses and pay huge amounts to cover margin calls.

We won’t be taking any lessons from this lot of self interested troughers either.

We won’t take any lessons from these self interested Europhiles

According to a claque of pro-EU corporate captains, we eurosceptics are putting ‘politics before economics’.  In other words, we are being accused of putting democracy and self determination before the money making interests of these extremely wealthy individuals.  How very dare we put the democratic rights of millions of people before the bank balances of the well connected claque.

But even that premise of ‘politics before economics’ is utterly flawed, as there is no earthly reason for us to be trapped in a political union simply to be a part of the single market.  And when they try counter this fact with their claim that in leaving the EU we would allegedly lose our ‘influence’ and have to accept all the rules without shaping them, they are talking utter bullshit.

Do we shape the rules of the Chinese market?  Or the US?  No, but that doesn’t stop us trading with them.  So where do they get the idea that being politically independent means we won’t be able to trade with the EU?

Because of our EU membership, countries like China and the US perversely have more say in shaping our rules than we do – because the EU speaks for the UK in all trade matters on global bodies, whereas China and the US speak for themselves in their own interest.  The UK’s interest, however, is diluted to accommodate the wishes of 26 other countries.  So much for influence.  Norway and Switzerland have more say in shaping the single market trading rules that affect us than we do, and they are non-EU countries with access to the single market.  This is the reality we need to spread far and wide so people with no or little interest in governance understand the contempt this country’s people are held in by the political class and corporate tycoons.  They have some other agenda because their argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

So, terrified of these facts and the reality dawning on a generally disconnected docile nation, we are once again treated to a huge dose of FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – which is the only line of Europhile attack.  But, what is also interesting is the history of some of these great sages who presume to tell us to sod our interests, as conveniently collated by Guido…

• Roland Rudd – corporate lobbyist for multinational firms and campaigner for Britain’s membership of the single currency which he still believes in.
• Richard Branson – non domciled, campaigned for Britain to join the Euro and wants a single European army.
• Martin Sorrell – Chief executive of advertising agency WPP – Roland Rudd’s boss who owns Rudd’s Finsbury PR.
• Dame Helen Alexander – former chief executive of the Economist.
• Lord Kerr – Foreign Office and UKREP career as a diplomat who helped draft the EU constitution.
• Sir Andrew Cahn – career civil servant and worked for Lord Kinnock at the EU Commission, who infamously with his wife Glenys received more than £10 million in pay, allowances and pension entitlements during their time working at the European Union in Brussels.
• Sir Nigel Sheinwald – non exec director of Shell, who brokered the ‘deal in the desert’ between Tony Blair and former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
• Sir Roger Carr – Chairman of Centrica who criticises business for their “greed” while hiking energy costs. Outgoing President of the Euro-loving CBI.

Oh yes, these people are really representative of the man on the street who suffers the consequences of living under EU rule.  Why would anyone be bothered about what these people have to say, when they’ve spent their entire business lives servicing their interests at the expense of the rest of us?  They see us as expendable cash cows who are saying we should shut up and stay out of their way.  For heaven’s sake, some of them don’t even live here so they don’t have to put up with that they wish to have imposed on the rest of us.

We should all say no.  The spin, distortions and casual deceptions of the FUDmongers must not be allowed to con and scare the voters into staying part of this anti democratic, corrupt, wasteful club, built by and for a self selecting elite that sees us as nothing more than funding fodder for their games and personal enrichment.

Sausages and laws, the media doesn’t understand how either are made

Witterings from Witney picks up on an article in the press about proposals for more 20mph speed limits and enforcement cameras, one in which the well-paid hack has failed to ‘dig beneath the surface’ of the story where the origin of legislation is concerned.  It indirectly provides more evidence of the fallacy of the ‘fax democracy’ the EU supposedly dictates to non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA).

It is a valuable piece that all readers would benefit from taking on board, as it shows that much of the legislation being introduced by national governments – and the European Union – is not ‘home grown’ and does not even originate in the European Commission, but rather is formulated by sovereign nations and handed down by UN bodies to which they have acceded.

The EU’s ‘common position’ as representative of its 28 member states therefore mean each member state has less of a voice in shaping these decisions than independent nations such as Switzerland and Norway – who engage directly with the UN bodies to shape legislation with their own voice.

As WfW wryly observes:

As mentioned on twitter by @WhiteWednesday, no doubt – and hopefully – the Swiss “faxed” Brussels to give them advanced warning of legislation they would shortly have to introduce – but I digress again.

Quite.

Germans united in regret (and self interest) over Britain’s EU stance

Different day, same inane rubbish in the media where they repeat the same establishment arguments already made ad-infinitum.  This time it’s the turn of the BBC’s Mark Urban to offer a variation on the ‘Germans are displeased with us‘ theme.

There is no real dissent across the German political spectrum on the issues of integrating the European Union (EU) more closely, apart from on the extreme right.

gushes Urban.  Well Mr Urban, with the exception of UKIP, there’s no real dissent across the British political spectrum on the issue either – Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP all crave more ‘Europe’.

From Ralph Brinkhaus, a local member of the German parliament, the Bundestag, to Christine Lemster, a chemistry student at Hamburg University, we heard a similar refrain – the UK and Germany ought to be natural allies, and it is too bad that they cannot unite around EU issues.

Stop, Mr Urban, you’re breaking my heart.  Of course we can be natural allies and we can unite around issues with Germany.  But where is the explanation about why we need to hand over control of our country in order to do so?

We are natural allies with the United States and unite with them around issues, but no one is suggesting we need to have political union with them to achieve it.  So why do we need political union in Europe?  As ever the europhile and EU grant-grabbing BBC demonstrate the closed thinking that colours their reporting of the issue.

The second issue on which there appears to be wide agreement is that Germany opposes the type of renegotiation of membership terms or competencies that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has talked about.

Well, heaven forbid this country should have the temerity to do something that doesn’t suit the agenda of the political class in Germany, or France, or Spain, or Italy.  How damned unreasonable of us.  We should be bloody well ashamed of ourselves for such harbouring such disgracefully selfish thoughts.

The last topic where the Germans offer Tory Eurosceptics cold comfort is on their idea that Britain, even if it actually left the EU, could negotiate the same type of free trade arrangement with it that Norway or Switzerland have.

We went to the Sennheiser audio plant near Hanover; where something like 10% of their worldwide sales are made in the UK, to canvass their view on this:

“I know how complicated it is to negotiate”, said board member Volker Bertels, referring to Switzerland’s long discussions over the terms of access to the European market, adding that in the case of the UK, “we all need to be careful about putting up additional obstacles”.

Once again the media paints this issue as being about one section of one political party.  They are actually doing contortions now to avoid any recognition that it is voters who have pushed this debate to the forefront through opinion polls and their possible voting intentions.  So it’s hard to get an agreement in a short time.  Switzerland got plenty of bi-lateral agreements because they have what others want and are interested in buying what others have to sell.  Provided the trade rules were in place to allow the free flow of goods and services then the market will do the rest.

So many words written by Mark Urban.  Yet none of them are devoted to any examination of the UK’s interests.  Instead he uses his platform to effectively shill for the Germans.  Such is the mindset of the establishment’s state broadcaster.  Is there anyone in the British establishment who gives a damn about this country’s interests rather than agonise about how inconvenient our potential actions might be for other countries?  There’s a word for these people.  Quislings.

Open Europe displays its europhile Closed Mind

Returning home this evening I intended to draw attention to a piece in the Barclay Brother Beano.  However Richard has done it justice already, so rather than spend time recreating the story with slightly less panache, here is how Richard sets the scene on EU Referendum…

Unable to fight his corner even on his own blog, after the assertions he made on Norway were challenged, Mats Persson of Open Europe has scuttled off to his Telegraph clog, repeating his propaganda in the hope of reaching a more gullible audience.

However, while desperate to support the Cameron line that Norway, within the EFTA/EEA matrix has “no say” over the framing of EU rules, Persson has been forced to concede that Norway does indeed have some input on the framing of laws. All he will grudgingly allow, though, is that “Oslo has exceptionally limited ability to influence them”.

There’s more where that came from, once again exposing Persson’s shallow and ill-informed assertions for the misleading rubbish they are.

The comments section under the post in the Beano are a joy to behold as they almost universally rip little Mats’ argument to shreds.  Christmas may have come and gone but one Persson is still working as Cameron’s EuroElf.  However the goodies coming out of the sack are shoddy imitations and already broken before they have been opened.

Telegraph’s hack pack continues ramping up the pro-EU narrative

If anyone was in any doubt that the Barclay Brothers’ Telegraph is planting its flag firmly on europhile ‘in’ campaign ground, then their Head of Business, Damian Reece, has provided clear evidence of it in that comic, declaring in a piece titled ‘We may soon need Europe more than Europe needs us’ that:

For as long as I have been in work I’ve been writing about Europe’s single currency in one way or another, from the Exchange Rate Mechanism to a eurozone break-up.

We could try to negotiate our own bilateral trade agreements but given our market of 60m people we’re unlikely to win such attractive terms as a market such as the EU’s 500m.

All that time I’ve maintained a stubborn opposition to Britain’s membership. But now an equally difficult choice is looming, which centres on what sort of Europeans do we want to be or, perhaps more realistically, what sort of Europeans can we be?

Having spent years currying favour with its readers with various criticisms of the EU, now that push is coming to shove the Telegraph’s hack pack is declaring itself for the UK to stay firmly inside the EU pumping out evidence-free strawman articles and commentary, while downplaying or completely ignoring every negative aspect of membership.  For example, in light of a raft of opinion polls how could Reece have possibly concluded that:

There is a consensus here that the UK must retain its membership of the single market but that we should remain outside the single currency.

Where there is evidence that Reece’s assertions simply don’t stand up to scrutiny, he simply dismisses it, as he does in this little section:

But as the brakes come off world trade, the biggest beneficiaries will be members of the biggest trading blocs. Those outside these groups risk missing out on the biggest benefits of multilateralism and trying to join after the event risks less favourable terms. We could try to negotiate our own bilateral agreements but given our market of 60m people we’re unlikely to win such attractive terms as a market such as the EU’s 500m. It’s true the likes of Switzerland do it but I don’t believe we should be aspiring to be Switzerland — no offence to the Swiss.

So his argument is undermined by evidence that the Swiss, a much smaller entity than the UK, successfully negotiate bi-lateral agreements. So to deal with that inconvenient fact he puts up another strawman that we shouldn’t be aspiring to be like the Swiss.  Eh?  That’s the only way he can make his argument stand up?  Such deep thinking.

The even more inconvenient fact Reece dodges is that Switzerland – with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – make up the EFTA group of countries. and they do have real influence along with all-important independence.  The EFTA countries are highly competitive, open economies representing a sizeable market with strong per capita purchasing power.  There is always an option for Britain to join that bloc, if only as a temporary step, and that bloc could easily cooperate to secure attractive world trade terms.  Indeed, EFTA could easily transform itself into something different and even more beneficial.  But of course when europhilia is coursing through one’s veins, one is blinded to any alternative to remaining in the EU’s unnecessary and anti-democratic political union.

It seems the only europhile argument is that we should sacrifice this country’s ability to govern itself in return for the illusion of ‘influence’ and access to a market that is in any case open to other countries outside the EU.  And Reece is buying in to it along with the mythical renegotiation meme pushed by the Tories and their little helpers that still leaves the EU in control of the UK.

As faith in the political class is at an all time low and still falling, thankfully so is faith in the fourth estate as the disdain and mistrust extends out to encompass the whole establishment – a point Lord Justice Leveson would do well to grasp.  That much is clear from reading the almost 900 comments the overwhelmingly majority of which ridicule, challenge and deconstruct Reece’s supposed new-found europhilia.

But the important fact to take from all this is the establishment is setting itself against the wishes of the people, therefore serving interests other than ours.

It will necessitate an organic, grassroots campaign of a type not adopted here before, reaching out directly to the electorate to explain why leaving the EU will be beneficial for this country.  It’s the only way a positive message can be presented that by-passes the lies and distortions of the political class and their poodles in the mainstream media.  Battle needs to be joined for the future of the United Kingdom.

The supposed listening Prime Minister

David Cameron and his Cameroon Tories are very fond of telling voters that the Conservatives are ‘listening’ to them.

One wonders if Cameron will be listening to one of his Witney constituents who has published a robust and uncompromising open letter to Cameron, accusing him of lying to the general public when he stated of the UK’s future:

I don’t think it’s right to aim for a status like Norway or Switzerland where basically you have to obey all the rules of the single market but you don’t have a say over what they are.

Witterings from Witney’s accusation is well founded even if the language is somewhat unparliamentary. But who couldn’t excuse his frustration?

The only way to challenge false assertions is through attention to detail and citing evidence that proves the assertions are untrue. Witterings does this with finesse as he tells Cameron:

Where the rules of the single market are concerned you are fully aware that your statement belies the way most single market legislation is made. It is well known that most proposals, by the time they reach the Council for a vote, are already cast in stone and thus unable to be changed; consequently the voting issue is the last and least important part of the process. Not least, a huge amount of technical legislation is formulated at a global or regional level, in bodies such as UNECE (on which Norway is represented) and then handed down to the EU institutions as “diqules” which cannot, in substance, be changed. Thus Norway, for example, has a considerable say in the nature of regulation, long before it gets anywhere near the EU.

Witterings adds more solid evidence for good measure that you can see by visiting his blog. It would be a delight to sit down with some popcorn and watch Cameron twist and turn, bandy weasel words and obfuscate furiously in an effort to qualify his assertion in a forlorn effort to make it fit with this powerful contradictory evidence. However it is more likely Cameron will not ‘listen’ as he claims and instead remain in the ‘transmit’ mode that seems to infect politicians who play their idiotic games inside the Westminster bubble.

As such this blog (and I hope, you, dear reader) will do its bit to spread the word about these false claims and point to the truth until even the media cannot ignore it any longer and are forced to put Cameron and his ilk on the spot about these falsehoods in front of a large audience.

A question the europhiles don’t want to be asked or answer

In anticipation – if we could describe it as such – of David Cameron’s courageous sally from his Eurobunker to ‘bang on about Europe’ (meaning our membership of the EU), The Boiling Frog speculates on the true nature of the ‘real choice’ Cameron supposedly plans to offer the British people.

As part of the ongoing europhile use of the scare tactic playbook, Cameron continues to articulate the demonstrable lie that the UK leaving the EU and instead having a relationship with it, perhaps as part of EFTA alongside Norway and Switzerland, means having to obey all the rules of the single market without having a say over what they are.

The Cameron, europlastic, Open Europe argument goes that staying in the EU means the UK has ‘influence’ over its policies and direction. This prompts the estimable Frog to counter thus:

The obvious question though is if we have so much power and influence as members of the EU then why are we having to claw back powers?

We won’t bother holding our breath for an answer.

Rodney Leach – Tory, Baron and pro-EU quisling stooge

The shape of a new Europe therefore writes its own script – a neighbourly alliance, partly federal, partly by treaty between independent states, in which those who want to share a currency and economic sovereignty and those who just want co-operation would be equally welcome. Only trade, the bedrock of the original Common Market, would be universal. In truth, it is not the eurozone that is the “core” of Europe – it is the single market.
-  Baron Leach of Fairford (Rodney Leach)

Actually Rodders old chap, the core of ‘Europe’ (by which the lazy Lord means the EU) is not the single market.  It is the goal of political union.

Everything the EU does – and everything it has done in its previous guises – is and has been designed to further the federalist ambitions of creating a super-government to rule the entire continent.  The single market was just a construct designed to enable politicians like Edward Heath and Harold Wilson to lull their electorates into a false sense of security as they signed away the independence of their country thinking they were just joining a trading bloc.  Leach knows this but won’t say it for fear of frightening the horses.

Yet this is the man in charge of the supposedly eurosceptic organisation, Open Europe, which tries to deceive people into believing that they share the same values and aspirations as those who want the UK to leave the EU, while working actively to keep the UK firmly inside the EU.

If Leach’s cannot be relied upon to be honest in describing the objectives of the EU how can anyone rely on anything he says?  Leach is clearly not a eurosceptic and nor is the organisation he chairs.  For the avoidance of doubt, in the paywalled Times article – laughably titled ‘The sceptics have won. Now for a new Europe… This is the perfect chance for Britain to work out how to loosen its ties with Brussels’ – from which the quote above was re-produced by ConservativeHome, Leach also said that the voice of:

moderate sceptics, who want to stay in the EU but might want “out” if the Government can’t negotiate a changed relationship… is too seldom heard.

There it is again.  The europlastic ploy of the hijack and redefinition of the term ‘eurosceptic’ to make it fit with the interests of the political class.  Now it seems the mood music being played by the Tories is that being a ‘moderate sceptic’ means wanting to stay in the EU if things change a bit. What does that mean, exactly?  Leach helpfully explains by saying these supposed moderate sceptics want to:

limit Brussels’ involvement in areas such as policing and crime, fisheries, farming, employment law and regional policy

Loosening the ties, as the now clearly identifiable EuroLeach puts it.  In other words, they only want some powers back but otherwise want to leave Brussels in overall control of government of this country and its affairs. And they push this line despite the raft of evidence that the pick n’ mix approach EuroLeach and co are pushing is a fantasy option that is rejected by the ‘colleagues’.

So it’s clear the only purpose of the changed ‘relationship’ with the EU that EuroLeach and his cohorts at Open Europe advocate is to make continued membership of the EU and government from Brussels easier to take (hence their effort to suggest being a member of EFTA leaves a country like Norway with no influence over EU trade measures resulting in rebuttal by Witterings from Witney, Boiling Frog and EU Referendum, and a certain amount of embarrassed Open Europe backtracking of the claims).  It has nothing to do with the UK taking control of its own affairs again.  Yet these are the go-to people for the media seeking ‘eurosceptic’ viewpoints on a range of EU-related stories.

Far better to describe EuroLeach and Open Europe for what they are… the enemy within.  They are unreconstructed pro-EU quisling stooges.

Norwegian Foreign Minister lies about EEA to help British ‘in’ campaign

There is only one kind of person who is even more enthusiastic about the EU than the legion of EUrocrats, and who will say anything – even blatant lies – to advance its agenda.

That person is a furiously frustrated member of the political class who is a wannabe EUrocrat, but is trapped outside the doors of the Brussels/Strasbourg gravy train by the voters in his/her country who are determined to remain independent.

One such EUthusiast is the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide.

Like the rest of the political class in Norway, Eide is desperate to take his country into the EU.  Although Norwegian voters continue to return socialists to office in Oslo, they savour their independence and do not want to be part of the EU.  It is a classic political class/electorate disconnect.  The political class see they can do nicely out of the EU, the voters see it will be a bottomless pit into which they will be required to pour their money while at the same time giving up tcontrol of their own laws and regulations.

As an EU wannabe, Eide is keen to suck up to the EUrocrats at every opportunity in the hope of some financially lucrative reward later down the line.  This explains why Eide lied shamelessly in an effort to con Britons into thinking that leaving the EU and becoming part of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) – which along with the EU makes up the European Economic Area (EEA) – would strip Britain of any remaining influence in Europe and lead to ‘regulation without representation’.

Eide knows it’s a lie.  The EU knows it’s a lie.  And thanks to this clinical dissection by Richard over at EU Referendum, you too can now see for yourself that it’s a lie.

It’s interesting to note that the BBC was very keen to promote these lies.  Where was their fact checking?  Where is the evidence of their duty to impartiality and accuracy? This is another glaring example of the ludicrous nature of Lord Justice Leveson’s assertion that mainstream journalists enjoy a “powerful reputation for accuracy”.

Clearly Leveson’s cocksure comments were just another steaming pile of establishment-generated bullshit.  Once again it has taken the blogosphere to uncover the truth and publicise it in the face of concerted political and media deception.  Let the good Lord Justice hold a lucrative enquiry into that and force the BBC to be held to account. We won’t hold our breath for that to happen.

5 Star Blogging

An occasional piece offering you a selection of five great recent posts by independent bloggers that are heartily recommended for being thought provoking, insightful, covering interesting subjects or comprising quality writing. We hope you enjoy…

1. The Boiling Frog: Government by fax? Norway has a veto

2. A Tangled Web: Pat Finucane – an alternative view

3. Ian Parker-Joseph: Biggest social media sites censor alternative news

4. EU Referendum: EU Defence: another ‘accurate’ report?

5. Samizdata: The free-marketeers who favour monetary socialism

   As a weekend bonus, two more great posts you don’t want to miss…

6. Adam Smith Institute: We really do need to lower UK corporation tax rates you know

7. A Place to Stand: 28gate the Foreign “Aid” Advertising Agency Behind the Curtain

David Cameron’s ‘fax democracy’ lie nailed by the facts

If you read about this…

Then please do take a few moments to read this by Witterings from Witney, followed by this from Richard at EU Referendum.

It might not please some of the Cameroon true blue Tory partisan party animals but the truth, rather than Cameron’s shameful lies, should be told.  When you see the scale of the deception you have to ask what other lies are being told.

Similarly it might not please some of the Farage fan club in UKIP but the content of those two blog posts, rather than tweets such as the one below a day after the lies were told, is how you tackle and defeat Europhile untruths.  It makes one wonder whose side he’s on.

Boris’ fairytales: Chapter 317

So Boris Johnson wants the UK to form an “outer-tier” of the EU with countries like Norway and Switzerland.  He has called for a “pared down” relationship with the EU.

And I want the end of every rainbow to land in my garden so I can collect all the pots of gold from the leprechauns. And peanut M&Ms to be free in every retail outlet.

The problem is neither is possible.  The acquis communautaire dictates you are either in the EU or you’re not.  There is no EU-lite choice.  It is not an option.  To suggest there could be such an option, in clear violation of the EU’s very construct and agenda is as much a myth as the rainbow’s leprechauns and free M&M’s I am calling for.

Police swift to seize the new opportunity

Barely a week has passed since the mass murders in Norway.  But that hasn’t stopped Britain’s ‘finest’ using the attacks by Anders Breivik to justify their own paramilitary behaviour in defence of the establishment.

A reader has written to AM today with anonymised details of something that happened a few days ago.

A man was arrested in an English town following his written demand for a senior council executive to resign from their job, over their refusal to listen to local residents’ demands for a proper consultation over a contentious issue.  The man sent in a strongly worded communication, including his details, and with typically British humour included some tongue in cheek comments to demonstrate his annoyance.

The authority in question chose to interpret the letter as a threat and called in the police in an attempt to criminalise the individual.  Contempt of local government is clearly a priority for the police and so, at 6.00am, several officers arrived at the individuals address, arrested him and also removed his computers.

It was during this daring operation that one of the officers explained to the gobsmacked individual:

‘After Breivik we can’t be too careful’.

!!!

He was later released and his computers returned to him, but to satisfy the lust for retribution from the local authority the police gave the man a caution for good measure.  On the advice of his solicitor he has asked that no information that can identify him or the easily offended authority be published, in case it results in further attempts to acquaint him with various organs of the state whose intrusion and interference would make life somewhat less enjoyable.

Suffice to say this is another example of police over reaction. Never slow to miss an opportunity to impose themselves on people in dubious circumstances they are already citing the Breivik factor as justification for their disproportionate and heavy handed behaviour.  Didn’t take long, did it?

Had a member of the public reported an actual threat they could only dream of this kind of police response on their behalf.  Clearly we have a two tier nation where the establishment can make vexatious complaints and count upon rapid and fullsome police action, but ordinary people are often left to fend for themselves when faced with genuine threats.