Posts Tagged 'National Sovereignty'

EU Reform: The fantasies and distractions continue

It was never going to take long.  As soon as polls showed recently that UKIP was on course to get the most votes in the European Elections, the lamestream media editorial writers and the party communications teams at Labour, Tory and Lib Dem HQs were preparing pieces like this:

The same old pledges and platitudes are being rolled out, from Sadiq Khan’s apology in an open letter to UKIP supporters, which then outlines policies designed to entice former Labour voters back to Labour; to David Cameron’s ‘understood and received the message’ soundbite before he went on to proclaim what voters want – with neither party actually asking anyone outside the Westminster bubble why 4.3 million voters put their ‘X’ next to UKIP on the ballot paper

A common thread among the legacy parties is that the EU has to ‘change’.  Having pushed this line for many months, they now use it as a crutch to declare that this is what voters want, and they all declare that if only we vote for them they will bring about the reforms we apparently want.

It is, of course, one huge steaming pile of freshly laid bullshit.

Snake oil isn’t close to the product these people are trying to sell.  Rather they are pushing a product that makes the fictional element ‘Unobtanium’ in the film Avatar, or the dragons storyline in the TV series Game of Thrones look real in comparison.

Whatever ‘reform’ the EU might be persuaded to adopt, it will be trivial and will not result in the return of any powers to the UK that reduce Brussels’ control over the free movement of people, control over the free flow of money to different tax jurisdictions within the bloc, control over the movement of goods and services and the tariffs applied to them.

But despite these facts and despite the legion of Eurocrats, Commissioners and MEPs who have stepped forward to point out these facts and explain that the principles of the EU that underpin it are non-negotiable, our politicians and media continue to talk about EU reform as if it is just a negotiation away – and groups claiming to be Eurosceptic continue to make public demands that renegotation is undertaken.

So it is that a significant proportion of those people who say they want the UK to remain inside the EU do so because they have been fooled into believing reform is possible.

They are being taken in by fantasies and distracted from reality – therefore allowing the politicians to avoid the reality that only invoking Article 50 of the EU Treaty (Lisbon) will result in a renegotiation of the substantive issues and only by leaving the EU will the UK be able to take control of the areas where people want to see change.

We can be in, or we can be out. But we can’t be a bit in between.

Straitjacket of EU membership laid bare over China

Following on from the previous post about David Cameron’s inauspicious jaunt to China, we find a report on the BBC that is helpful in reinforcing why EU membership is a straitjacket for a country like the UK.

Irrespective of whether a free trade agreement of the type Cameron has called for is a good thing or a bad thing for the UK, the fact remains the UK cannot form such a trade relationship with China even if it wants to because the EU does not let member states make such agreements.  Any trade agreement with China would have to be made between Beijing and Brussels.

The UK and its business community can be as outward facing as they like, but unless the EU – with its slow moving bureaucracy, 28 member state bloc and all the competing interests that throws up – makes a deal, the UK is powerless to act.  Even if the EU does make a deal, it may still fall far short of what would give the UK and its economic sector maximum benefit.

It is constraints such as these which demonstrate once again that the UK could only seize all opportunities that are in its interests if it were independent.

There are many positive reasons for leaving the EU and its Little Europe mentality.  Opening up other markets to our goods and services and accessing overseas goods and services more cheaply than we do now is just one of them.  Another is being able to speak with our own voice, in our own interests, and helping to formulate the global rules and regulations concerning trade, as members of the global organisations where we have no seat because the EU ‘represents’ us.

For the UK to be able to maximise its influence and potential and seize opportunities, it has to walk tall on the global stage as an independent nation.

The first step in that process is to recognise the EU is and always was intended to be about centralising political power; economic benefits, where they arise, are merely incidental.  So for the good of our country it is imperative that we free ourselves from the EU straitjacket.

Why a campaign rather than parties is the route to getting the UK out of the EU

Anyone who still clings to the belief that voting for a political party, namely UKIP, is the way to bring about a Brexit from the EU could do with thinking long and hard about the following opinion poll response from YouGov.

Party that people would never vote for, from where this information was taken, explains that:

This is from a survey that looks at views of the parties in different parts of the country which doesn’t produce any startling conclusions – the Tories are less popular in the north while LAB had problems in the South outside London.

These YouGov numbers are very similar to what Ipsos-MORI found in August when they asked about liking and disliking parties.

This is not a dig at UKIP.  It is just additional evidence that using the party political process to further the Eurosceptic aims of leaving the EU is at best flawed, at worst futile.

UKIP is the only party that has ever committed to leaving the EU, while the other parties are fully ‘on message’ with the Brussels machine and are either actively purusing further integration and dilution of the UK’s fabled ‘influence’ by way of enlargement, or are cheerleading such activity from the oppostion benches.   The fact that UKIP is by far the most unpopular of a very unpopular set of party entities shows it does not have the capacity for a breakthough that would lead to any form of influence in the Parliamentary process.

Instead the focus should be on having a single non-party political ‘No to EU’ type campaign that brings together all the various Eurosceptic groups to push a clear and easy to understand message about ‘Who should run Britain?’ ensuring the real issue – that of political sovereignty – is not swamped by the deceitful focus on economics and big business interests.

Such an alliance of groups, that allows the respective groups that are part of it to preserve their identity, could more effectively raise the necessary awareness of the impact of EU governance and counter the Europhile lies that have been ignored by UKIP for narrow party political reasons.  Sharing the load, the groups can establish a single shared platform to give an honest counter to the flood of nonsense filling the media, making the campaign the ‘go to’ destination for comment and insight.

A non-party ‘No to EU’ alliance established now – before Tory proxies like Matthew Elliot can undermine the ‘out’ side with irrelevant arguments and diversions – could build significant support around the country, and coordinate the right time to apply pressure to individual MPs and candidates to support an in-out referendum in return for endorsement, rather than get bogged down in fighting an election with candidates and all the problems that entails.

Taking the party political route will ensure we never arrive at our destination.  It’s time to take this essential issue out of the control of the increasingly untrusted and deceitful political class and have a genuine grassroots campaign fought on the real issue – sovereignty.

Police and criminal justice opt-ins expose Tory lies over no more powers to the EU

Jacob Rees-Mogg has one of those tiresome ‘catch up’ pieces in the Telegraph, where he has a light bulb moment about something that Eurosceptic blogs covered months ago and explained was a government Eurosham.

This time it is the turn of the faux opt-out from the police and criminal justice power grab by the EU to come in for Europlastic criticism by one of the backbenchers who helps to prop up what passes for national government in Westminster.

Clearly Rees-Mogg has been and still is labouring under the delusion that the UK is a sovereign nation.  But, playing catch up, he now has moved as far along the track as seeing the potential of the UK to surrender sovereignty as a result of the opt-ins  to the police and criminal justice measures – and ponders what prospect there is for Cameron’s faux renegotation if Tory ministers cede ground on this power grab.

But he does offer some value in his piece (no comments enabled, presumably in the expectation he would be drowned in a torrent of digitial ink) when he posits on the opt-out, opt-in shenanigans that have been taking place in the corridors of Whitehall and reminds us that we cannot trust a word said by Cameron and his fellow quislings when it comes to matters EU:

The Government promised to inform Parliament of its intention in February but delayed until July. At that point there was much urgency which has hindered the efforts of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. The claims made for the block opt-out and opt back in are exaggerated. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, says that the block opt-out is “first and foremost…about bringing powers home” and Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, views it as “part of a process of bringing powers back to this country” yet many of the 94 measures that will be permanently opted out of are defunct or trivial while the 35 to be re-entered bring the full authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission and the European Parliament to bear.

This is a tangible transfer of power against an intangible return. As the report says: “Adherence to any legally binding EU police and criminal justice measure brings with it the risk of legal principles and practices of other jurisdictions influencing or interfering with our own, as the Court of Justice will have the ultimate say on how it is interpreted and applied.”

The only surprise and disappointment here is that Rees-Mogg is suprised and disappointed.  One would have thought he had spent enough time in Parliament to realise many in his party and almost all of his party’s senior leaders are utterly committed to the destruction of our nation state and full assimilation into an anti-democratic bureaucracy, regardless of what the British people may want.

But national sovereignty, seemingly unbeknown to Rees-Mogg, has long since been snatched away from us.  In recent weeks the evidence of that has been all too clear, as EU rules on taxation have prevented the UK from taxing profits made in this country and off-shored to jurisdictions in the form of transfer payments.

The politicians wail and moan and try to rouse a rabble of ill-informed ‘citizens’ to protest at the behaviour of the companies concerned.  But they pointedly refuse to explain why this is happening and why this country cannot stop it from happening as long as we are members of the EU.  It is one of the truths that must not be spoken because the politicians want more of this, not less.

The truth that EuroDave Cameron dare not speak

The BBC reports:

Of course, there is no mention by EuroDave or the BBC, replete with its alloted task and funding from the EU to spread the federalist word, that this sales push has limitations.  This is because the UK and China do not have a trade agreement.

The truth is the UK is not allowed to makes its own agreement with China.  The trade deal and the relationship is between the EU and China.  The UK therefore has to work within the confines of the EU-Sino agreement.  This trade delegation is nothing more than a sales team working within someone else’s rules.

The EU elephant is right there, standing proudly in the room.  But EuroDave and the BBC are desperately pointing away from it and inviting everyone to watch the birdie instead.   Rather than developing a truly Global Britain, EuroDave and his fellow EU cheerleaders are trying to keep this country wrapped in the suffocating straitjacket of Little Europe.

In the absence of candid honesty from the political class and the media, please help to spread word of the reality by sharing this information.

Norway Option finally gets a media airing

From yesterday’s London Evening Standard

The battle facing the UK is over who should run Britain.  The British people and their elected representatives, or unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats overseas over whom we have no control.  It is about sovereignty.

Speaking with our own voice, representing our own interests and shaping the rules that are made in the global committees and forums, would make the UK far more influential than it is today.

Being stuck in the EU means that today we merely implement what has been decided at a global level and handed down to the EU for its member states to follow.  We don’t shape the rules and we don’t get to act in our own interests.  It is high time we took back the power to do so.


David Cameron has today marked himself down as a coward yet again.

Following the CBI’s ludicrous assertions about UK membership of the EU being worth £3000 for each household in the country, Cameron has gone to the organisation’s annual conference to praise as ‘very positive’ their report which called for the UK to stay in the EU.  The Telegraph is reporting his comments.

Anyone can bandy figures around in the way the CBI is doing.  But when one scratches below the surface of what the figures include, it is easy to see this was a desperate attempt to service the vested interests of the CBI’s corporate membership.  Perhaps EU membership is valuable to corporates for the way it enables them to choose where they pay tax so they maximise profits. But these profits do not filter down to UK households.  They leave the UK economy and are sent overseas to the overseas bases of uber-investors.

Anyone Europhile can do a Cridland and go on radio and TV and say that alternatives to membership, such as Switzerland and Norway, aren’t as beneficial as membership, so long as they don’t have to back up their assertion with evidence.  Switzerland is not a good model because although they are independent they have to negotiate every deal they have with the EU.  And the problem with that is?  Norway is not a good model according to Cridland because, well, the only rationale he can come up with is the ‘influence’ lie that has already been comprehensively debunked, but is ignored by our biased media.

And as for that tired old canard that we export half our output to the EU, that too is a deliberate distortion.  That 50% figure includes goods destined for non-EU countries that only transit through other member states.  The lie has long since been exposed, but it continues to be retailed by the likes of the CBI and the BBC, as part of their political motives for keeping the UK in the EU.

But back to Cameron.  He has spent all his time as Conservative Party leader telling the UK what he wants.  That included saying he doesn’t want a referendum on EU membership because he feels membership of the EU is the right thing.  But having been painted into a corner he has had no option but to promise a referendum – so long as the Conservatives are elected into office in 2015.  Only now he talks of seeking ‘consent’ for the UK to stay shackled to Little Europe – a consent he previously said wasn’t required.  How times change.

The bullshit that emanates from Cameron’s mouth is the most putrid kind.  He told the CBI:

Be in no doubt that in the end you cannot stay in these organisations, give up quite a bit of your national sovereignty, unless you take the British people with you.

The British people were told about a Common market, about an economic area, so much has changed about this organisation and so little consent has been granted.

It is time to make those arguments, seek that consent and as Prime Minister of this country that is exactly what I am going to do.

It is an accepted fact that the British people were lied to.  The project is and always has been political union.  The economic argument, the supposed free trade area, was a seemingly acceptable by product which has fraudulently been advanced as the end in itself.  The ‘organisation’ as Cameron puts it has changed, but only in the way it was always intended to do so.  It has simply continued its objective of ever closer union on a path to becoming a single political entity.

Cameron doesn’t even have the guts to admit the truth, in much the same way he doesn’t have the guts to admit that in effect the UK no longer has sovereignty.  We no longer control our laws and we no longer control taxation of entities on these islands.  Without control of these essential pillars of governance, this country cannot consider itself in any sovereign.  We have not given up quite a bit of national sovereignty.  We have ceded control of that without which we cannot claim to be an independent nation state.

Cameron is deluded at best, an appalling liar at worst, if he honestly thinks he can reform how the EU works in advance of a referendum where the changes will be put to the British people.  He has more chance of pulling a living dodo out of his arse.  The whole premise is based on a lie.  No matter what happens, Cameron is going to declare that he has achieved reform and the likes of the CBI will be right there agreeing with him and spewing more lies – without any challenge from the sick-inducing media which is utterly biased in favour of the EU.

It’s not just Cameron and the CBI that are deserving of white feathers.  The BBC deserves one for its prominent coverage on all its radio and TV news of the CBI’s laughable findings that my household and yours are each better off by £3000 every year as a result of EU membership and that CBI members believe the benefits outweigh the costs.  Compare that to the almost zero coverage of the contrary view from Business for Britain that more business leaders now say the costs of EU membership outweigh the benefits – and that despite Business for Britain wanting to remain in the EU!

Ed Balls also deserves – among other things – a white feather.  This supposed economic genius tells us that there is ‘no future for Britain to walk away from our biggest market’ when the EU is not a market, it is a political construct.  He knows the difference, but is part of the agenda and hasn’t the balls to tell the truth.

We are surrounded by lies and deception and spin.  And we are nowhere even close to a referendum fight yet.  We have been sold out by cowards who do not have the guts or honesty to admit that the only question that matters and needs to be addressed is this…

Who should run Britain?

Nothing else matters.  Everything else can be dealt with.  The fight we are in is only about this single, essential matter.

Should the British people run Britain, or should we do what suits the narrow interests of the political climbers and the money grubbing corporatists, and leave the EU to run Britain?  It is all about sovereignty.  Do we rule ourselves or submit to rule from abroad by people whose interests undermine ours?  It is the honest question that Cameron, the CBI, the BBC and Labour dare not ask.  They are cowards.

Tax tourism and sovereignty – defining the real issue

Reading through the comments responding to the previous post, it seems the point I was trying to get across hasn’t landed as intended.  So hopefully this better defines the real issue.

The primary issue is not about whether corporations pay tax, or even how much they pay.  The issue is about who decides, the nation state, or the European Union with its judicial court bristling with legal primacy sitting in Luxembourg.

This is about sovereignty.

Without sovereignty over the law and over taxation rules in this country, the UK does not have the competence – the right or ability – to decide what entities operating here pay tax, or how much they should pay.  As such our nation state cannot effect change, be it positive or negative. We are powerless and at the mercy of foreign legal and fiscal institutions that are beyond the control of the British people and are not accountable to us.

But no one is talking about this essential issue.

It was dodged in Parliament during HMRC’s examination by the PAC.  It has been ignored by the media despite the matter being in plain view and ripe for massive coverage. Crucially, it gives lie to the oft repeated claims of the politicians that we are still an independent country, and are just sitting within a club of member states.

Control over the essential matters that determine whether a nation state is just that, has been removed from our national parliament and legal structures.

This has been done without our permission or consent.  But the emerging consequences, while provoking all sorts of complaints, investigations and hearings – be that concerning taxation of geographically distributed corporations; regulation affecting energy prices and ownership of our energy providers and means of energy generation; regulation affecting water prices and ownership of our water companies;  and even the regulation affecting how we collect and dispose of rubbish and the costs loaded on to us as a result – are not being connected back to the root cause… removal of sovereignty.

That is the real issue.  That has to be the area of our focus.  That is the battleground to determine how and by whom the UK is governed.  It is about sovereignty.

Tax sovereignty, tax tourism, national impotence and the European dimension

According to an entry in Wikipedia, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralised government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.   It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.

The only way a centralised government can be sure it has supreme independent authority over its geographic area is if it controls all laws that apply in that territory and it is controls the setting and collection of revenue through taxation.

In the last three posts on this blog, we have focused on an issue that demonstrates beyond any doubt that the United Kingdom is not independent.  Laws to which British people are subject are made by a foreign entity outwith these shores.  Control of the setting and collection of revenue is similarly determined by an overseas power.  As such:

  • the UK does not have legal sovereignty
  • the UK does not have tax sovereignty

This is of fundamental importance to this country and its people.

The Public Accounts Committee scrutiny of the HMRC Annual Report and Accounts for 2012-13 have brought this essential issue to the fore, yet the far reaching implications of the absence of sovereignty in these areas are either not being understood by the media, or ignored by it.  This is the most serious matter concerning governance in the UK today, yet no one, with the exception of a couple of bloggers, is trying to draw attention to it.

When Margaret Hodge asked HMRC why they have not chosen to litigate and test their powers, in respect of collecting tax based upon revenues and profits made within the UK’s jurisdiction by corporations such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google, the answer from HMRC should have been they they have already tested their powers in the Thin Cap Group Litigation – and lost the case in the European Court of Justice.  Very recently indeed, in 2007.

HMRC lost the case because EU law prohibits restrictions on corporations moving capital between member states and, crucially it prohibits restrictions on corporations making payments between their component entities within the European Union.  This basically means a company can make a huge profit within the UK’s jurisdiction but the UK cannot collect corporation tax on that profit if the corporation chooses to make transfer payments to a European ‘parent’ entity within the EU.

In such matters, as a result of being an EU member state, the UK has been rendered impotent.  It is therefore not sovereign.

Many people have been greatly angered by what they see as corporations ‘not paying their fair share’, not least Margaret Hodge.  But too few of their number understand that what the corporations are doing is legal and enshrined in EU law.  The free movement of capital (a principle which was later extended to include payments) was one of the four fundamental freedoms of the common market.  It is an EU matter.

This has shone a light on an issue far more serious than the actions of the corporations – namely the inability of member states to have tax sovereignty.

Yet this huge issue – tax tourism – with all its far reaching implications, is hiding in plain sight and attracting no attention from even a single media commentator.  Not a single national paper or news broadcaster has explained this point to the public.  The question is, why?

Politicians like Hodge can wring their hands, scream, shout and hissy fit until they faint.  They are powerless.  Their agencies, such as HMRC are hamstrung and unable to do anything.  No amount of hearings or inquiries will change that.

The competence for taking money in taxes from corporations in the UK, that choose base their activities in another EU member state and choose to transfer money made in the UK to that base from the UK in the form of payments for royalties or rights etc, has been removed by European treaties.   The UK has ceased to be sovereign.  The only way this will change is if the UK withdraws from the EU.

Yet you can be certain all those corporate interests will be lining up as they are now, demanding the UK remains in the EU because it’s ‘good for business’.  What has been outlined in this post is the reason why.  National sovereignty and the will of the people don’t matter a jot to them, only achieving the largest profit possible by paying the lowest tax rate they can find.

No, não, nein, non, nie, nei,

Regardless of the language being spoken, there is one word in particular where the clarity is unequivocal, the meaning is absolute. That word in English is no.

So when President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, was asked by a journalist to comment on whether David Cameron was going to be able to repatriate any powers from Brussels, and brushed him off with a contemptuous laugh; but was followed by his Chief of Staff, Johannes Laitenberger, who responded with a firm ‘no’, the conclusion we can draw is very simple.

As Richard has already made clear, Cameron thinks he is setting the pace on cutting EU bureaucracy.  But he is two weeks behind the curve as the European Commission had already announced its REFIT initiative which at least claims to be seeking to do just that.

And now Cameron thinks he is making the weather on the subject of repatriation of powers, despite the very notion running completely contrary to the principle of ever closer union.  Yet here we have Barroso chortling away at the idea of the UK getting cherry-picked powers back from the EU, while his Chief of Staff – who as an experienced communications professional knows about how to deal with the media in surefooted fashion – slams the lid on the idea with a clear ‘no’ in response to the question.

This shows there is a clear disconnect between Cameron’s self aggrandising perceptions and reality.  Too much time spent in the Westminster bubble seems to have exacerbated Cameron’s capacity for delusion.  Nevertheless, those sections of the media that worship at the altar of prestige eat it up.  They can’t get enough of it.  And so the public continues to be deceived and the interests of the establishment are maintained.

The Hannan paradigm

The story we covered earlier concerning Lord O’Donnell’s puff piece, in support of handing more power over the political process to civil servants and Parliamentary has-beens, has attracted the ire of Douglas Carswell.  Fair enough.

But this has subsequently prompted Daniel Hannan to weigh in, after spotting an opportunity to make one of his favourite points – related to comments made by O’Donnell on a different occasion – about how EU membership prevents the UK from negotiating trade accords with non-EU states.  The problem with Hannan’s observation is that while true, it doesn’t come close to getting to the heart of why a UK exit from the EU is vital.

The prior comments of O’Donnell that Hannan fixes upon are these:

Britain is, above all, an open trading nation, but unfortunately our main trading partner, the euro area, is unlikely to increase its demand for UK exports very much in the short or medium terms. Our historical trading patterns, which have been so beneficial in the past, are likely to condemn us to the global slow lane for years to come. Our share of world trade has declined over the last decade by more than that of all our G20 partners.

This prompts Hannan to postulate that:

[…] Ever since the mid-1960s, as Hugo Young showed inThis Blessed Plot, the campaign to mesh Britain into European political structures has been led by our permanent functionaries. It wasn’t that they were unpatriotic. Rather, they had made a calculation, understandable in the context of its time, that economic growth would be concentrated in Western Europe.

Today, no one makes such a calculation. Every continent in the world is growing except Europe. Britain, the only one of the EU’s 28 members that conducts the majority of its trade outside Europe, is especially well placed to benefit from the growth overseas: we are linked by language and law, habit and history, to the places that are doing best. When even Sir Humphrey has internalised that point, our exit is just a matter of time.

What Hannan doesn’t explain, perhaps because he hasn’t grasped the reality of the genuinely bigger picture before us, is the more crucial point that Britain, because of its EU membership, has no direct influence at the level where trade rules and regulations affecting manufacturing and the standards for a vast number of goods are decided.  Namely around the tables of various global bodies and organisations where no EU member has a seat.

While Britain’s ability to strike trade deals is important, of far greater importance is our ability to inform and shape, in our interest, the rules that will bind most countries around the world that are signed up to various conventions and treaties – and which consequently impact international trade deals involving most of the goods we make and most of what we buy.  This is what membership of ‘Little Europe’ denies us and why we have to get out.

Leaving the EU is not an end in itself.  It is merely an enabler that gives us an opportunity to fight our corner in our competitive interest, in the forums where the rules and standards are made.  The hard work therefore does not end when we simply have the ability to strike agreements with other countries on our own terms, rather than the consolidated and diluted terms suiting 27 other European countries.

Hannan’s trade paradigm is only a narrow part of the imperative for leaving the EU.  If he understood and articulated the bigger story from his substantial platform, he may actually help more people understand the benefits of British independence.

Global Governance has turned the EU into ‘Little Europe’

We do not have ‘global government’.  There is no such thing.

We do however have ‘global governance’.  This is all too real.

Most people in the UK and across Europe do not see or even realise the existence of global governance, because of its remote and distributed nature.  All that is seen is the face of governance that advertises and promotes itself – such as the EU and national governments in capital cities.  Increasingly, people are becoming familiar with the raft of diktats, regulations and laws that apparently spawn from the very visible EU and are implemented by national governments.

What is not understood is that most of what is handed down from the EU does not originate in Brussels and is not shaped in Brussels – it is handed down from global bodies that make up the system of global governance.  The EU is only a proxy, a delivery mechanism if you will.  While it governs a regional bloc of nation states, the EU takes its direction and instructions from global bodies, where the true power and influence truly rests.  The development of this network of bodies, on which most individual countries are able to represent themselves and their interests, has trumped the EU to become this country’s real supreme governor.

Global governance has neutered the power of the supposedly mighty EU to such a degree, a truer description of it today is ‘Little Europe’.

As a consequence, and in direct contradiction of the mantra so often uttered by the Europhiles, the influence of EU member states has been sharply reduced on the world stage. The 28 EU member states do not have their own voice on the global bodies.  The EU has one seat and speaks for all 28 at once, the EU negotiation position being a messy compromise of watered down competing EU member state interests.

This is in sharp contrast to countries such as Norway and Switzerland, which have their own seats on the global bodies and can advance their own national interests, undiluted and directly.   So as regulations and laws are formulated by these bodies in their power centres, such as Geneva, Montreal and Basle among others, Norway and Switzerland have as much influence in shaping the regulations as the EU representatives, and substantially more than every EU member state, including the United Kingdom.  All of which underlines the lie propagated by the Europhiles that countries like Norway have to implement what the EU tells it, without any say in what is handed down.

What does this mean for the UK?

In short, this country’s political class, which is trying to shackle this country to the EU middle man for political reasons, is waiving the opportunity to influence and direct input into the regulations and laws that are formulated at a level above the EU, and implemented by just about all of our trading partners.

Too much of what is decided does not suit British interests, but the UK’s capacity to shape these global regulations is hamstrung because instead of being at the top table and having influence, our politicians have given up our seat to the EU.  So the UK instead sits on the floor, knowing what it wants from the menu, but letting someone else order for us what it thinks we should have and throwing us what has been cooked up, cold and part eaten.

The EU model of government is past its ‘use by’ date.  The politicians are trying to tie us in to a system more than half a century old, that is now obsolete and detrimental to the interests and prospects of a nation such as the UK, with an economy and trading base that is among the biggest in the world.  It’s a big world out there and the UK can play a big part in how it works.  Instead, our blinkered politicians and their big business proxies want to keep us locked into Little Europe and its shrinking sphere of influence.

For political – and as this post shows, economic reasons – getting out of the European Union is an imperative.  But it is not an end in itself.  Freeing ourselves from the Brussels bureaucracy is only an enabler.  It merely provides this country with an opportunity to have real influence, a direct role in governance and a big part in shaping the rules of trade and the standards for products and services.

If we want the UK, our country, to be more successful, if we aspire to realise more of our potential, then we need to leave Little Europe and its passe vision and structures behind.  We need to rediscover our confidence and regain or independence.  Only then can we stake our place in the world and develop trade and partnership agreements on our own terms.

Leaving the EU is the starting point for determining our future and improving our prospects.  We have a choice, be part of Little Europe, or become Big Britain.

Of independence, protections and democracy

Where’s the benefit in striving to have a new boss, when he’s actually the old boss, and mostly just as bad if not much worse than the new old boss he would be replacing?

Put differently, what is the point of British people seeking independence from the EU, when putting British politicians back in charge to govern us from Westminster results in outcomes that are every bit as bad, if not worse, than what is forced on us by the crowd in Brussels?

Today’s earlier blog post about the squeeze on legal aid forcing some law firms to close down or restructure, focused on the consequences of long term abuse of a system designed to provide protections under the law for this country’s citizens and visitors.  The passing reference to cuts to the legal aid budget having ramifications for the ability of less well off people to have access to justice, really didn’t do justice to the magnitude of the changes being made by the coalition.

So this follow up seeks to put things into greater context.

What the cuts to the legal aid budget will result in was made clear in 2011.  As part of the cost saving plan, the UK informed the EU that it would not opt-in to the proposal for a Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest.  The reason was clear.  Clause 12 of what was then the Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, contained provisions that restrict access to legal advice for criminal suspects, with cost saving one of the reasons given for it.

Ostensibly the provision was to pave the way for means testing of defendants to determine if they should get legal aid, as a step change on the route to removing the automatic right of those arrested and in police custody to have access to a lawyer at the police station.  A director of legal aid would decide which detainees should get legal aid in the ‘interest of justice’ without any right to appeal – leaving the way open for the state to persecute individuals who, if of limited means, would be denied access to counsel.

Note the ‘interest of justice’ element of the clause.  It suggests this is not merely a financial consideration, but the state giving itself the ability to determine whether it’s in justice’s interest to have a defendant assisted by a lawyer if he can’t afford one.  It’s a wide open swinging door to abuse and miscarriage of justice.

By any measure, using the cost savings yardstick, it would be wrong to equate the entitlement to legal counsel upon arrest with the kind of abuses of legal aid that have seen millionaires defended at public cost.  But that was the excuse being used to push through a pernicious and worrying bill.

Now fast forward to two weeks ago in Brussels.  There we find the European Parliament plenary adopting a proposal from the European Commission to make a new law, to guarantee the rights of all citizens to be advised by a lawyer when facing criminal proceedings.  This is what the UK opted out of.

So what we see are protections being afforded to EU citizens that are not available to UK citizens.  Being in a signatory EU member state, ironically, would ensure the interests of defendants are protected far more than here in the UK.

This goes back to a long standing question.  Why bother pushing for independence when that still leaves us at the mercy of politicians and civil servants who are every bit as bad, if not worse, than those we seek to escape from in Brussels?  Out of the frying pan and into the fire.  It’s all well and good arguing for independence, but it is ultimately meaningless unless the UK becomes democratic.  Truly democratic.

That does not mean merely voting every 4-5 years then having no influence or control over the people we send to Parliament.  It means the people holding the power, and politicians not being able to impose on us restrictions and laws, like the eroding right to legal counsel paid for by the taxpayer, without our consent.

This is brings us to the intersection of independence and democracy, where there is a crossroads between the campaign to leave the EU and the embryonic campaign to realise the Six Demands of the Harrogate Agenda.

This post is just food for thought, and a reminder of the complexity that faces us as we seek to define the future of this country and our people.  Things aren’t always as black and white as they seem.  Getting out of the EU isn’t the end in itself, only the means to enable us to formulate the end for ourselves in the future.

(With more time I would probably do a better job of connecting the dots, with far better writing than the jumble above which was banged out in a few minutes of downtime. So this post may be revised slightly over the next day or so, to complete thoughts, add emphasis or generally improve it.)

UK’s New Deal for Somalia

Perhaps the UK will be proud of its role in the New Deal for Somalia which is being discussed today in a bilateral meeting with the Somali President, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, as part of a wider conference that is taking place.

Only the UK is not in the room.  Matters such as these are exclusively handled ‘on our behalf’  by the EU.

Therefore, the meeting is between Mohamud and the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy.  This is the reality of our EU membership.  The politics being done is being done for us.  We are bound by treaties to honour any agreements or promises that are made because they would have been made in our name.

A consequence of EU membership is not being allowed to discussing our own interests and make deals with other nation states.  Our interests are diluted and compromised until they fit in with the ‘common position’ adopted on behalf of all 28 member states.  This is one of the reasons why we must leave the EU.

This is all about politics, not economics.  It is about having a seat at the table and doing what is in the UK’s best interests.  Without independence the UK will not have genuine influence on the world stage.  The interests of the British people are not, cannot and will not be put first until we can speak with our own voice.

Cameron’s ‘independent Britain’

An interesting, if unsurprising, finding over the weekend was the result of a YouGov that revealed privatisation of the Royal Mail is just as unpopular with voters as launching a military attack on Syria.

Only 20% of voters questioned support the Royal Mail privatisation (page 10 of the survey).  But one wonders how many of the 70% who oppose the privatisation plan (and the rest who don’t know what they think) realise it is only happening because the EU said it should.  A safe assumption is that it is a very small number.

Once again we see the all-too-living hand of the EU making full use of the power given away to it by the politicians in Westminster.  Despite the party political bitching on the subject and David Cameron’s verbal drivel about an independent Britain, just try finding a politician who openly concedes the origin of the privatisation plan is Brussels and the plan is a direct consequence of the UK being a member of the EU.

While the parties get their little helpers, hangers on, proxies and useful idiots to loudly spread industrial scale quantities of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) by falsely claiming the UK will be adversely impacted economically just by leaving the EU (by conflating that with access to the single market) they are resolutely silent on the real world adverse impacts politically of continued membership, such as Royal Mail privatisation.  And that is the issue.  The urgent need to get out of the EU is a political imperative, which is entirely separate from the economic issues constantly thrown up as a fear-stoking smokescreen by those who see Britain’s place as being ruled forever from Brussels.

The reality is that unlike Norway, a non-EU country but member of the single market, which vetoed the EU’s 3rd Postal Directive (2008/6/EC) the UK cannot opt out of the Directive.  So no matter how many strikes there are by postal workers, how much disruption is experienced by households and businesses, or even which political party a Briton votes for, the UK is stuck with having to obey the EU’s demands.  The Royal Mail will be privatised because the EU has told the UK to do it.  Discussion over.  End of subject.  Case closed.

It is essential that people are not conned into thinking that leaving the EU means the UK has to give up economic benefits of trading within the customs union.  By exercising Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the only guaranteed way of initiating a negotiation with EU bodies, the UK could secure an agreement that maintains the existing trade rules while putting an end to rule from Brussels.  The political and the economic would thus shown as distinctly separate.

The ‘out’ campaign today, and in the future in the event of any referendum on EU membership, needs to focus all attention on the political issue at hand.  Leaving the EU is all about ensuring political decisions affecting the UK are made within the UK by people that only Britons vote for.  At this time there is little benefit to that because the British people have no democratic control over elected representatives.  But the principle is clear.

The EU in its present and former guises always has had and always will have but one destination – ever closer political union.  It was not created for the purpose of free trade, it was not created as a customs union.  It is a simply a political entity.  Nothing else.  That is what we need to leave and that is what we must focus attention on.  The Royal Mail privatisation issue should be used to help people understand what any future In-Out referendum is really about.

Seeking permission from the European Union…

Remember how the likes of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband keep prattling on about a strong and independent UK within the European Union?

The extent of that strength and independence is shown up for what it is today in the story about a desire to extend a scheme that grants certain rural areas a discount in the amount of fuel duty they pay.  The scheme is designed to offset the additional expense of getting fuel to remote areas with a smaller customer base, so the total paid per litre is not too much more expensive than elsewhere in the country.

So independent is the UK, the government does not have the right to extend the scheme to other rural areas.  Instead it must ask permission from the European Commission.

Despite this being an exclusively domestic matter, the people elect by those who see any point in voting do not have the power to do this without permission from foreign politicians and bureaucrats.  That power was given away, without our consent, by the same political class that now has to go cap in hand to Brussels in humiliating fashion asking to be allowed to do something within our own borders.

If Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein or Iceland want to reduce the duty on fuel, they can just do it through their own structures.  They don’t need anyone else’s permission.  These four countries are independent and work in their own interests.  They are also part of the single market through their membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), enabling goods and services to flow in and out of their countries without being hindered by the constraints of the EU customs union.

This subject is a superb illustration of what the campaign to leave the EU is all about.  It is about throwing off the political control Brussels has over this country.  It has nothing to do with trade, or employment that is underpinned by it.

David Cameron and his pro-EU sockpuppets at Open Europe, the CBI and Roland Rudd’s PR business, don’t want voters to understand the difference between the political EU and being part of the European Economic Area (EEA).  Leaving the EU and its political control does not mean we have to give up access to the single market and economic benefits that can be realised.  There is an alternative, a stepping stone if you will, provided by joining EFTA.

What’s that you say?  EFTA countries have no say over EU laws but have to implement them anyway?  You heard David Cameron, Concrete Willy Hague, Open Europe, the CBI and even Norway’s foreign minister say so?  Think again.

The reality is very different.  The political class all want to be part of a political union that voters oppose.  So to stop us rocking the boat and preventing them from serving their own selfish interests, they have lied about the reality while their media hangers on have doggedly refused to expose the dishonesty.

The world they want will see the UK having to ask the EU for permission to do things ever more often for ever more activities.  That is what any future referendum is about.  It’s about the politics for sure.  Do we decide for ourselves how this country is run?  Or do we leave the decisions to people who we do not elect, cannot remove and who are not accountable to us?  But most important of all, this issue is about one overarching thing…

It is about democracy.

The most powerful rebuttal yet to David Cameron’s deceitful ‘Norway Fax Law’ claims

If, dear reader, you read nothing else this week, please click on the image below and take a few minutes to read the most powerful rebuttal yet to David Cameron’s claims – also made by others such as Nick Clegg, Roland Rudd, John Cridland and others – that Norway outside the EU has to accept EU laws without having no say over them.

The rebuttal of Cameron’s falsehoods and description of the reality for Norway comes not from a mere observer, but the State Secretary at the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, Anne Beathe K. Tvinnereim.

Tvinnereim not only shoots down Cameron’s claims with factual reality, she also corrects the previously reported pro-EU motivated claims of Norway’s Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide.  While the pro-EU sycophantic UK press – particularly the BBC – uncritically reported Eide’s claims that Norway has no influence over EU laws (most of which originate at global level where Norway represents itself and has direct influence), it transpires they were challenged in Norway itself and were a personal opinion not reflected by the majority of Norwegian people.

For the reality that Cameron, Clegg, Cridland, Rudd and other EUphiles pretend does not exist, so they can keep the UK trapped in the political clutches of the EU, click on the image above to read the whole piece.

The globalists are worried so they pile on yet more EuroFUD

Methinks the Obama administration doth protest too much.

The scandal-ridden government of the Hopey-Changey one has certainly has developed more than just a passing interest in whether or not the UK remains a member of the EU, as per the American tendancy to stick its nose into the domestic matters of other countries.

As expected the US has taken a side to service its own interests and is spreading propaganda accordingly, with the latest flood of FUD from Obama’s officials saying that the UK would probably be excluded from a trade agreement with the US worth billions of pounds a year if we were to leave the EU.  This follows on from January’s intervention by the US Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, Philip Gordon, who articulated the US view of the world as having the UK firmly inside the EU prompting this response from this blog.

On the face of it this threat is a serious impediment for the withdrawalist ‘No’ campaign.  It certainly provides a killer blow to the badly thought-out and dangerous argument of some withdrawalists that we should simply repeal the European Communities Act 1972, reject all EU law and abrogate all EU treaties to which we are signatories so the UK can be sovereign – without having negotiated access to the single market for our exports, or established transitional treaties with countries whose trade deals with us are only applicable while we are an EU member state.

But scratching beneath the surface of the American warning, a look at the detail suggests this is just another piece of EuroFUD dished out from the political establishment in a crass effort to frighten the natives away from the notion of withdrawal from the EU and sovereignty for the UK.   At the very least it underscores the absolute need to carefully negotiate trade and economic agreements before departure from the EU, via the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Breaking away from supranational entities such as the EU undermines the effort of the political elite to bring about a formal system of global governance (not global ‘government’, the two are rather different).  The globalist vision is intended to reduce accountability to voters and centralise power within a small, more easily coordinated bureaucratic ‘elite’ that can serve corporatist interests of the uber wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

For the globalists it is frustrating enough that Iceland is unilaterally ending its EU membership ambitions.  But a more significant economy and trading power such as the UK leaving the EU would actually reverse the direction of travel and potentially stimulate other countries to follow suit, which is why it is being resisted so doggedly by the political elite in Europe and elsewhere who should not have any interest in our domestic matters, but are becoming increasingly exercised by the growing clamour of voters to get out of the EU.

Their only answer is to flood us with FUD in the hope we don’t see the wood for the trees and lose confidence in being a self governing, independent nation state.  Expect plenty more of the same and be ready with the counter arguments presented by those who ‘do detail’ and have deciphered the game and learned how it can be won.

If EUphile delusion is a disease, this man could be the unwitting cure

If there is one thing we can all respect about fanatical EU federalists, it’s that they invariably tell the truth about the EU project even if to further its aims they slip in the odfd misdirection to keep the less informed on side.  Contrast that with the UK political class, which spends all its time attempting – clearly with some success – to deceive the British public into believing the EU is only about the single market, rather than the decades-old objective of political union.

Reading the piss-poor Huffington Post ranks lower on my list of enjoyable activities than having teeth pulled without anaesthetic or undergoing a vasectomy with garden shears. But every so often that paean of quasi-Marxist groin-centric spherical objects, does manage to extract a valuable contribution from one its fellow travellers that underline the scale of the task facing we democratically-minded, classically-liberal freedom lovers.  On Friday that digital equivalent of used toilet roll delivered one such soul-destroying jumble of bovine colonic detritus.

The former prime minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, replete with those thick framed spectacles that are the essential fashion eyewear of socialist authoritarians the world over, for the benefit of the UK audience briefly used the tired but seemingly effective trick of conflating the EU and it destination of political union with the single market. Cue yawns, or in Nile Gardiner’s worthy case a short rebuttal in the Telegraph. But thereafter the true EUphile colours streamed through. Following the typical EU federalist falsehood came some welcome honesty:

Cameron will not succeed if he attempts to hold his European partners to ransom, exchanging acquiescence to EU treaty change over the eurozone for a unilateral repatriation of powers. Moreover, the rest of the EU knows that stability and economic recovery in the eurozone is vital to the UK’s own economic interests. Some have said Cameron is not going to get his way by pointing a gun at everyone else’s head. I believe a more apt metaphor would be that of a madman, threatening to blow himself up unless he gets his own way.

One issue on which Cameron has been deliberately vague is what powers he seeks to repatriate. Social and employment law which sets minimum standards for annual leave, maternity, working hours or health and safety practices? Police and judicial cooperation which leading law enforcement figures have said are vital to the UK’s national security? The Common Fisheries Policy, which is already currently undergoing major reform? Do the fish even know wherei (sic) international borders are anyway? The only thing Cameron will achieve by seeking to renegotiate terms of membership is that Britain will be left ostracised, resented and alone. And the failure to meet expectations back home for a repatriation of powers would risk sending the UK hurtling towards the exit.

We can but hope.  But this honesty, even though it has been spilled out in a curious effort to make Britons want more of this rather than less, once again exposes Cameron’s empty rhetoric and the bleating of supposed business geniuses for what it is.  What it also does is provide ‘outers’ with yet more valuable ‘horse’s mouth’ material to show the renegotiation meme so beloved of Cameron, the leaden Tories and their partisan cheerleaders, is a fantasy option.

People are being lured in to supporting a non-existant ‘renegotiation’ option or reluctantly accepting continued EU membership because of establishment scare tactics and the concealment of the benefits of independence; which is why Mr Catherine Ashton’s recent YouGov poll (for the EUphile Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the socialist authoritarian Fabian Society) saw a fall in the number of people aged 18-34 wanting to leave the EU with more in that group wanting to stay put. Across the whole electorate the split for leaving the EU/staying in the EU is 55% / 43%.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

People desiring a major renegotiation of the terms of EU subordination is perfectly fine in itself; but its prospects are even less likely than me fulfilling my desire of engaging in an extended passionate, Monte Carlo based extra-marital liaison with Bar Refaeli, Kate Beckinsale, Doutzen Kroes and Blake Lively.  However many people polled say they support the idea, it’s just not going to happen.

While Verhofstadt then deviates back into the realms of lies and gross distortion by repeating the agreed line on EFTA and the ‘fax law’ fallacy, misleading people by describing the more than 50% of UK exports that travel through the EU as being exports to the EU, (the UK Treasury Pink Book, the OECD and the European Commission all put the figure at below 50 per cent, with the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics showing the Eurozone accounts for just 47.1 per cent of our exports of goods) and desperately trying to convince people that having your voice and interests diluted and weakened by combining it with 26 other competing and conflicting voices and interests is more effective than using your own voice to articulate your own position, he has nonetheless offered some service.  If little Guy reads the HuffPo comments in response to his rant he may also be rather disheartened to see how many people reject his premise and see the need and value to be an independent country again.

But before heading back to his seat on the gravy train and some back-slapping from the ‘colleagues’ who are desperate to keep the whole stinking ediface intact, Verhofstadt leaves us with a fisking opportunity:

In fields as diverse as the single market, foreign policy, trade and enlargement, the UK has shown that it can play a leading role. Crucially, Britain’s liberal instincts have helped ensure that the EU remains competitive, outward looking, and a force for peace and trade liberalisation throughout the world. It has achieved this not through blackmail, but by building alliances and pushing for EU-wide reform.

If put accurately and truthfully that would read: In fields as diverse as the single market, foreign policy, trade and enlargement, the UK has tried to play a leading role but has been ignored. Crucially, Britain’s liberal instints have been abused to keep it firmly inside an EU that is anti-competitive, insular, and a force for empty rhetoric and corporatism throughout the world. It has achieved this not through blackmail, but by being lied to and blackmailed by EU federalists who determine the UK’s alliances for her and reject every call for EU-wide reform.

Thanks for your help, Guy!

No, not bullshit…

But another product generated by bulls that furthers the continuation of the species…  Yes, even bull semen is regulated, as you can see in the list below.

It’s always interesting to see a snapshot of just one small element of the EU’s control over this country – in this case regulations imposed on DEFRA as a direct result of EU legislation. There is no reason why the UK could not draft essential regulations itself rather than wait for Brussels to hand down the diktats for implementation, but our EU membership means we have to adopt whatever our supreme government overseas decides is best for all 27 member states, regardless of their differing needs and situations.

Tory MP, Priti Patel, likes asking questions like these to elicit a written answer in the House of Commons.  While she doesn’t seem to do much with the information, eurosceptics can benefit from it.  The range and scope of EU legislation and regulation that will need to be reviewed and unpicked will take many years to deal with to suit this country’s needs.  There will need to be a period of transition from EU member state to independent country so we can take control of our own affairs once again.  A unilateral withdrawal without attention to the consequences would be a disaster – something Nigel Farage needs to learn pretty bloody fast.

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which regulations his Department introduced as a result of EU legislation in (a) 2011 and (b) 2012 to date; which regulations his Department expects to implement as a result of EU legislation in (i) 2013 and (ii) the next two years; and what estimate he has made of the cost of each such regulation to the (A) public purse and (B) private sector.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA introduced the following regulations in 2011 as a result of EU legislation:

Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2011

Energy Information Regulations 2011

The Seed Marketing (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Marketing of Fresh Horticultural Produce (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011(1)

The Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2011

The Reporting of Prices of Milk Products (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Wine Regulations 2011(1)

The Pollution Prevention and Control (Designation of Directives) (England and Wales) Order 2011(1)

The Animal By-Products (Enforcement) and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2011

The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011

The Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (England) Order 2011(1)

The Bovine Semen (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Poultrymeat (England) Regulations 2011

The Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

The Non-Commercial Movements of Pet Animals Order 2011

The Rural Development Programme (Transfer and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2011(1)

The Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011

The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

The Plant Protection Products (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2011

The Poultry Health Scheme (Fees) Regulations 2011(1)

The Charges for Residues Surveillance (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Eels (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Landfill (Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2011(1)

The Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water and Bottled Drinking Water (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Commencement No.5, Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011(1)

The Pigs (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 2011

The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

DEFRA introduced the following regulations in 2012 as a result of EU legislation:

The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Agriculture, Animals, Environment and Food etc. (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2012(1)

The INSPIRE (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Veterinary Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Uplands Transitional Payment Regulations 2012(1)

The Zootechnical Standards (England) Regulations 2012

The Bluetongue (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Plant Health (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2012(1)

The Seed Marketing (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products Regulations 2012

The Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2012(1)

The Plant Health (Fees) (England) Regulations 2012

The Quality Standards for Green Bananas (England and Wales) Regulations 2012(1)

The Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (England) Regulations 2012(1)

The Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Transitional Provisions) 2012(1)

The Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012(1)

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulations 2012

The Controlled Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2012

The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012

The Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012

The Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012(1)

The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012

The Contaminated Land (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Plant Health (England) (Amendment) Order 2012(1)

The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012

DEFRA does not capture estimated costs to the public purse of new regulations but does capture estimated costs to business. These are set out in individual impact assessments which can be found on the Better Regulation Executive’s Impact Assessment Library:

Details of forthcoming Government regulations on business are published every six months in Statements of New Regulation. The most recent statement was published on 17 December and details new regulations expected over the period 1 January to 30 June 2013, including those to be introduced as a result of EU legislation. This Fifth Statement can be found on GOV.UK at:

(1) There are no associated impact assessments for this legislation because the legislation was not expected to have an impact on business or civil society.

And there’s plenty more where this lot came from…

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: