The Government is considering postponing next year's local government elections from the traditional first Thursday in May until the same date as the Euro-elections in June. Although this question is theoretically the subject of public consultation, most people will be unaware of it, and the Government's predetermined preference for changing the date seems clear to students of such matters.
The main official reason advanced in support is the claim that there will be a higher turnout if voters do not have to go to the polls twice. Possibly it is in reality a Government attempt to avoid another embarrassingly (for the Government) low turnout in the Euro-elections. But running two different elections together in this way usually fudges the issues, and reduces the likelihood that voters will approach each election according to its individual significance, a bad thing for democracy.
The real reason behind this proposal may be more sinister: that the Prime Minister is clearing the decks to give himself the option to call a referendum next March on giving up the Pound, if the opinion polls move sufficiently his way in the interim. If the local elections were to go ahead in May, there would not be the requisite three-month gap between these and a March referendum.
It is by no means certain that this is the Government's thinking, but we need to be on our guard just in case. Mr. Blair will only attempt a referendum if he is confident of winning, and opinion polls remain very firmly against giving up the Pound. A recent ICM poll, commissioned by the No campaign, showed that 68 per cent of the public would vote in a referendum to keep the Pound; 23 per cent were in favour of joining the Euro, while nine per cent were undecided.
Our task is to ensure things stay that way. One of the ways in which we can do that is by disseminating some of the excellent pro-Pound literature that is around. No Pound: No Independence?, commissioned by the League, fits this bill as does The Battle For British Hearts and Minds, published by the Congress for Democracy, and reviewed elsewhere in this issue.
And the economic arguments continue to support keeping the Pound. In one of his recent speeches, also carried in this issue, Lord Stoddart considers trends in international investment. And according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs, either taxes will have to rise or public spending be cut if Britain decides to join the Euro within the next year. This would be needed to offset the inflationary impact of an interest rate cut and a possible devaluation. The degree of fiscal tightening foreseen by Goldman Sachs equates to raising taxes by about £10 billion - roughly equivalent to three pence in the pound on income tax.
Furthermore, Britain's adoption of the single currency would wreak havoc on the country's housing market, according to another recent report, this time by Oxford Economic Forecasting, an independent think-tank. The report suggests that the United Kingdom is four times as sensitive to interest rate changes because of the differences in the structure of the British and continental housing and mortgage markets. (Could this be the real reason behind the Chancellor's announcement, in his recent Budget, of a study of fixed interest rate mortgages for Britain; although these have been available on the British market for several years, they have not proved very popular with homebuyers, who seem to prefer the flexibility of variable interest rate loans.)
And opposition to giving up the Pound is growing in the Trade Union movement. An internal poll in March of 1,252 stewards in the GMB union - traditionally one of the most strongly pro-Euro unions - showed that 67 per cent did not want to join the Euro. The union recently elected a new General Secretary to succeed the strongly pro-Euro John Edmonds, who is retiring.
Paul Kenny, one of the candidates for the post, hailed the poll finding. "Feedback from our membership on the Euro is negative," he said. "This is a growing trend, particularly from our Irish members who have experienced the impact of the Euro."
* * * * * *
So Malta has voted, in an advisory referendum, in favour of joining the European Union, although only by a margin of 53.6 per cent to 46.4 per cent. This actually constituted a No vote, as the number of people voting Yes did not reach fifty per cent of registered electors, which is required under Maltese electoral regulations. Consequently a snap general election was called, in which the party advocating EU membership won a narrow victory. The referendum tale was a familiar one; the No side was run on a shoestring, outspent by the Yes side many times over. It has been estimated that the Yes side spent as much as £10 per voter; imagine what an equivalent sum would have been in a British referendum!
Had the referendum been conducted with the two sides limited to similar levels of expenditure, the outcome would surely have been different. Included in the Yes side's spending was some £2.6 million of propaganda from the European Union itself - paid for, of course, with our taxes - supplemented by campaigning visits from Gunther Verheugen, the "enlargement commissioner" and commission president Romano Prodi himself. Despite this, the Yes side had the gall to attack support for the No campaign by United Kingdom Independence Party MEPs, others from Britain and people from other countries, whose support had been requested by our Maltese allies in the cause of liberty, democracy and national self-government.
The response of the authorities to the Maltese EU referendum contrasts sharply with their reactions to last year's referendum in Gibraltar about their future sovereignty. This produced a vote of 99 per cent in favour of continuing British sovereignty, on a turnout of 87.9 per cent, but Mr. Blair's administration was far from enthusiastic in acknowledging the democratic voice of Gibraltar.
* * *
Talk continues on whether the Government's reforms to the House of Lords should stop where they are or go further. At the same time the House of Commons has undergone considerable changes to its working practices under the guise of "modernisation", although many observers (and not a few Members) feel that these changes are likely to diminish the scope for effective scrutiny of the Government by the elected chamber.
In both of these matters the point is somehow being missed. The malaise in our Parliament is not derived from the composition or working methods of either House, but from the fact that so much of Parliament's authority - and the sovereignty which is vested in it - has been drained away to Brussels. All the reform and reorganisation in the world will not be an effective remedy for this, but if the House of Commons - the elected representatives of the people, assembled in Parliament - resolve to recover this power, on behalf of those they represent, the reputation and effectiveness of British Parliamentary democracy will rise accordingly.
* * *
One area in which the European Union is known to excel is that of fraud and corruption. Legion are the tales of funds that cannot be accounted for, of subsidies paid for non-existent tomato crops and of regional subsidies not reaching their proper destination. Whistle-blowing Commission officials, such as Bernard Connolly, Paul van Buitenen and Marta Andreasen, far from being thanked and rewarded for their honesty and conscientiousness, have been abused and vilified. Most sensible people concluded long ago that the present system is institutionally incapable of being reformed, and that a complete fresh start needs to be made.
This state of corruption is the case not only in the Commission but also in that assembly that likes to call itself the European Parliament. Many anecdotes have been told of MEPs sleeping in their offices and then claiming for a hotel stay, or travelling by the cheapest ticket and then claiming for a first-class fare. It was once said, only partly in jest, that MEPs could live on their allowances and save their entire salary!
Indeed, fraud seems to have been deliberately built into the system; MEPs trying to claim a lesser amount than the first-class fare have insurmountable obstacles put in their way by the bureaucracy, and almost the only MEPs to get into trouble about their expenses seem to have been those from the UK Independence Party, when they sought to use the surplus expenses they had been forced to claim to campaign against Euro-corruption rather than simply putting them into their own pockets.
The media makes hay, quite rightly, whenever a Westminster MP is caught in a piece of financial wrongdoing, although we hear virtually nothing from them about the much greater abuses at Brussels and Strasbourg. But Westminster is far more transparent, and far more effective action is taken whenever a case is found. There was an example of this very recently. Mr. Michael Trend, the Conservative Member for Windsor, was found to have claimed, over an extended period, a Parliamentary housing allowance to which he had not been entitled. The mistake could well have been unintentional. However, since the matter came to light Mr. Trend has repaid the sum involved, and has announced that he will not stand at the next General Election.
The contrast between Westminster and Strasbourg could not be more vivid; it highlights the need to decentralise power back to national parliaments, where the capability and desire for effective scrutiny are much greater.
* * *
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gordon Brown, is an enigma to many of us. Has the experience of running his own economy made him genuinely sceptical about giving up the Pound, or is it all a ruse, so that he can win support for Britain going into Euroland by suddenly telling us that his concerns about the Euro have been resolved?
Recently he has added to the mystery by calling for substantial reform of the European Union's regional aid policy - under which Britain gets back roughly half the amount we pay in. Mr. Brown will be well aware that such a reform is only achievable with the unanimous support of the other Member States. So, what is his game? Is this another attempt to buff up his eurosceptical credentials? Or does he genuinely want to get reform of this policy? Whether genuine or not, Mr. Brown may well find his suggestion carrying him further than he realised or intended; he would have to face up to the reality that Britain can only obtain reforms such as these by breaking free of the EU straitjacket.
* * * * *
Extracts from a speech by Lord Stoddart of Swindon in the House of Lords on 29th January, 2003, in a debate initiated by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on "The Comparative Significance of the Euro and the United States Dollar to the United Kingdom Economy".
I should like to pick up on one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. The first relates to trade and jobs. It is repeated time and again by Government spokesmen that three million jobs will be at risk if we do not do this or that, if we do not go into the Euro and if we do not become further integrated into Europe. They are trying to frighten the people of this country into believing that they could lose three million jobs if we do not join the Euro and scrap the Pound. Of course, it is a nonsensical argument. It simply is not true. If three million jobs are at stake in this country, more than three million jobs are at stake throughout the other countries of the European Union. Those countries are just as dependent on their exports to us as we are to them. If all exports and imports stop, they would be at the losing end because they export more to us than we export to them. So the idea put abroad that our trade with Europe will cease simply and solely because we will not scrap the Pound or do everything the Europeans want us to do simply does not make sense.
Indeed, our adverse balance of trade with the European Union runs at about £4 billion per annum. If one translates that into jobs on a value-added basis of, let us say, £15,000 per capita, that means that we are almost 300,000 jobs in deficit. In other words, if we were not in the European Union, we might very well have more jobs rather than fewer. I wish the Government would stop using this ridiculous argument. It has been used before. It was used during the only referendum held on whether we should be in a Common Market, not a European Union. Again, it was bruited abroad that to save our jobs in the car industry, or any other industry, we must join the Common Market. Of course, that has not happened - it has not worked, as we all know.
I remember Harold Macmillan saying that the reason why we had to join the Common Market was that British industry should feel the chill wind of competition. British industry - he referred to the manufacturing industry - has indeed received the chill wind of competition. Manufacturing industry has reduced from 32 per cent of Gross Domestic Product in 1972 to eighteen per cent, and employs fewer than four million people. That is the result of what happened, so let us hear no more about the three million lost jobs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, remarked, only twelve per cent of our GDP is involved in exports to Europe. That is why small businesses are not in favour of scrapping the Pound. They fear what will happen if we scrap our Pound, and scrap our control of our economy, and give them over to a bunch of bureaucrats in the European Central Bank and elsewhere in Europe.
The overall balance of payments deficit is sustained to a large degree by inward direct investment. Again, allowing for the Netherlands distortion, the largest part of that inward direct investment comes not from the EU but from the United States and Canada, which provide 58 per cent. The rest of the world, outside the EU, provides seventeen per cent. Only 25 per cent comes from the EU.
If one considers the UK's investment in other countries, one finds the same thing. The United States and Canada receive 35 per cent of our investment overseas, the rest of the world 43 per cent, and the European Union only 22 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, our trade with the rest of the world is very important and large - but it is with the world, not simply with the European Union.
I should claim an interest as one of the founder members of Global Britain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I shall put one of our briefing notes, giving details of inward investment, into the House Library.
We do not have to peer into the future to know what could happen if we were foolish enough to give up our currency and go for the Euro. We have only to look at Germany, which once had the strongest and most vibrant economy in Europe. What is happening to Germany now? It is on the verge of recession. Production has increased by only 0.2 per cent, which means that Germany will go into recession very shortly. But Germany can do little about it because it does not have control of its own currency. Things are going to get worse because of that. Just at the very moment when Germany needs a bit of a devaluation and just at the time when it needs its currency to reduce in value, it is going up in value. That will hurt Germany very much indeed because it depends very much on its exports and, of course, it will be more difficult to export because of the rising value of the Euro, which is the only currency it now has. That is an example of what could happen in this country if we lost control of our monetary policy, which would eventually lead to the loss of our fiscal policy as well. As I say, Germany needs an increase in the value of its currency, which is now the Euro, like a hole in the head.
Finally, it has surely now become clear that scrapping the Pound is not only about economics and finance but about the creation of a European superstate dominated by the great duumvirate, France and Germany, who have made their intentions very, very, very clear only this month. It really is time for the Government to re-examine their policy of "me tooism" and make a start by recognising that scrapping the Pound means scrapping the United Kingdom's monetary and fiscal independence and would put our very existence as a nation at risk. It really is time not to mess about with the Euro but to say no to it.
* * * * *
Mr. Vello Leito of the Estonian Independence Party gave an address at the Bruges Group International Conference at King's College, London, last November. Together with the speech by Mr. Anti Poolamets of the Estonian NO To The EU Campaign, made at the same conference, Mr. Leito's address shows how national independence and self-government are being destroyed by the European Union, not only in the United Kingdom, but also in many other countries, some of which are not even members of the EU. An edited version of Mr. Leito's speech now follows:
We are being told all the time that there is a process of globalisation going on on planet earth. The on-going process is global indeed, but it should in fact be called by its right name - the process of neo-colonisation.
A few words about the neo-colonisation process in Estonia. Just after the restoration of Estonian independence in 1991, "superadvisers" Geoffrey Sachs and Ardo Hansson from the International Monetary Fund came to Estonia and our independent monetary policy was overruled by binding the Estonian Kroon to the Deutschmark. And then - alas - some two hundred "superadvisers" came from the European Union - taking, incidentally, around 85 per cent of our Phare Foundation money to fund their "projects". As a result, we got an amazing brand-manipulated legislation which led to the total annihilation of all 43 Estonian commercial banks, and to the selling-off of all our main national enterprises and infrastructure. Now we have:
Another important remark must be made. Estonia has a very high position - fourth in the world - as to entrepreneurial liberty in a country. However, this refers to the liberty of foreign capital in Estonia and does not concern the national economy sector, which is being blocked away from bank loans. Liberty for the neo-colonisers is not liberty for the Estonian national economy. Despite that, it would be relatively easy for Estonia to shift its economic strategy.
Estonia must integrate with all Europe and with the entire world, but not with the European Union, for it is only possible to become incorporated within the EU. Estonia must make an important decision: whether to become an ethnic region of a federal European state, or an independent state in the world, with its economy growing fast and its citizens being masters in their own land.
* * * * * *
Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia states:
The independence and sovereignty of Estonia are timeless and inalienable.
However, the European Union has other ideas.
On 14th September there will be a referendum in Estonia on whether they should join the European Union. Needless to say, this will not be an evenly-fought contest. The EU is already pouring large sums of taxpayers' money into Estonia for propagandising. Despite this the No side still has a majority, and we can help them keep it that way.
A fund, Fairness in Estonian Referendum Fund, has been set up, with the support of the Anti-Common Market League, to help the No side in their unequal struggle. Estonia is a small country, and even a modest sum raised in Britain could make a big difference, so we encourage you to give generously.
Donations to Fairness in Estonian Referendum Fund should be sent to them at the following address: c/o Robert Oulds, The Bruges Group, 216 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street, London W1B 5TB.
* * * * * *
When a country runs into irreversible economic difficulties, it can escape by devaluing the currency. Everyone receives a lower income in world terms, but it is not immediately noticeable. "The pound in your pocket has not been devalued." Imports, including raw materials, become more expensive, but exports and tourism are encouraged.
The remedy is not open to a country in the Eurozone that runs into difficulties. Its government expenditure, including social security, is paid in Euros, and is very difficult to reduce. Borrowing only postpones the evil day, if a lender can be found. Most banks have already burnt their fingers on optimistic loans to unreliable risks. Such a government must increase taxation, encouraging mobile labour, the wealthy and industry to move elsewhere. This reduces the tax base, requiring still further taxation.
An alternative for a country in difficulties is to leave the Euro, either by application or expulsion. The country would return to its old currency at the rate that it joined the Euro, and then immediately devalue.
After devaluation, the country would be unable to return to the Euro at the new rate, since those receiving money from the government, such as government servants and pensioners, would receive fewer Euros, and see the con.
A solution, especially if several countries were economically involved, would appear to be to centralise Eurozone budgets in the EU, with unified tax rates. There would be exemptions of tax for low incomes, of course. Small farmers can enjoy a satisfactory way of life by principally using barter, so very little revenue could be expected from agricultural areas.
But the EU would have to provide for the whole Eurozone infrastructure, plus the cost of pensions for those countries that have failed to fund their pensions. The mind boggles to contemplate the level of taxation needed to be imposed on the inhabitants of cities and industrial areas, plus any of the wealthy who have not left.
The EU is not celebrated for its ability to combat fraud. The ultimate solution will be to abolish the Euro and return to the market.
* * * * *
We have covered this subject in previous issues of Britain and will be returning to it again in future. The regional authorities proposed by the Government will be the means whereby the European Union will be able to extend their power even further into the governance of Britain, by-passing Westminster. They will also be damaging to our traditional system of local government.
While an elected regional authority will only come into existence if approved by a referendum in the region concerned, the Government, rather than engaging in an open debate on the issue, is instead engaged in surreptitious activity to promote regionalism, holding "soundings" meetings to which only supporters of regionalism are admitted. The deliberations of these meetings are then used as evidence to suggest support for holding a regional referendum.
A number of Peers, including Lord Stoddart of Swindon, have raised public concerns about this matter during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. During the Committee Stage of House of Lords consideration of the Bill, on 13th March, Lord Stoddart said:
I should be interested to know about the soundings that have been taken. I have had a number of complaints from people in various parts of the country that official or quasi-official meetings have been held to discuss the desirability or otherwise of regionalisation that have been limited to people who are in favour of them anyway. In many cases, people known to be opposed to regional government have been excluded from the meetings and refused admission.
I am sure that that is not hearsay, because I have some evidence of it. If soundings have taken place, it would be useful to know how, why and when; whether they have been restricted to people known to be in favour of regional government; and whether local electors have been excluded from such gatherings.
We would suggest that anyone with evidence that things of this nature are going on should write to Lord Stoddart of Swindon, at the House of Lords, London SW1. Lord Rooker, replying to Lord Stoddart's point on behalf of the Government, said:
.........if people have evidence of what amounts to maladministration, I hope complaints will be made.
We should take him at his word!
At the Report Stage of the Bill, on 7th April, Lord Stoddart said that several complaints had already been received.
* * * * * *
This is the title of a one-day conference to be held in London on Saturday 31st May, to discuss the extent of political bias on the BBC and how best to tackle it.
The conference will focus on BBC bias on issues concerning the European Union and the Euro. This will be particularly timely at a moment when impartial reporting is vital; the country faces a critical decision on whether to adopt the proposed European Constitution.
It's clear that a great many people are concerned about the main state broadcasting company having become a political tool and want to do something about it. The aim of the conference is simply to bring together individuals and organisations who are actively concerned about ongoing BBC political bias or wish to get involved in tackling it.
Amongst those who have so far expressed an interest in contributing as speakers are Minotaur Media Tracking, the independent media consultancy which twice exposed systematic BBC bias on Europe on behalf of Global Britain; and Vladimir Bukovsky, the former Soviet dissident.
The Conference will hear about the extent and nature of BBC political bias, especially on EU issues, and will enable those attending to exchange information and discuss ideas for stopping BBC bias.
If you are interested in attending, further information is available from conference organisers:
Jerry Wraith on 01737 247461 or Tony Bennett on 01279 635789, or: BBC Bias Conference Steering Committee, P.O. Box 497, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1XH.
* * * * *
This was the theme of the League's most recent public meeting, held in a House of Commons Committee Room and addressed by Sir Teddy Taylor, MP, long known as a supporter of our campaign, and as a scourge of the waste and corruption endemic in the Common Agricultural Policy.
In a characteristically animated and humorous speech, which included several affectionate anecdotes about Parliamentary colleagues past and present, Sir Teddy ranged over several aspects of the subject as he addressed his enthusiastic audience.
He pointed out that the City and the British economy had not suffered since the introduction of the Euro, and that the City's share of international business had in fact increased. He also highlighted how a single currency can only work where there is already a single sense of nationhood, such as in the USA.
No speech on the EU by Sir Teddy would be complete without a (well-justified) swipe at the Common Agricultural Policy, and once again he did not disappoint. We were reminded that our taxes are being used to pay for £1.2 billion of subsidies to growers of high-tar tobacco, while another arm of the EU is spending a different tranche of our taxes on anti-smoking publicity. Other aspects of the CAP were explored, such as the wholesale destruction of perfectly good food, and the damage to local agriculture in third-world countries through payment of export subsidies to EU producers.
Sir Teddy was despondent about declining levels of involvement in democracy, and felt that the EU was responsible for a large part of this. If people thought that everything was decided in "Europe", what was the point of voting for a different Government or getting involved in a political party? He also felt, however, that the next European Treaty, arising from the Convention on the Future of Europe, could prove a turning point, as the question of continuing British membership of the European Union could again become a live issue.
* * * * *
Since public opinion remains resolutely opposed to giving up the Pound, the likelihood may seem remote of the Prime Minister seeking to bounce the British people into adopting the Euro in a snap referendum. However, we need to remain on our guard in case Mr. Blair should try just this next year.
In preparing ourselves for this possibility, and making others aware of it, The Euro: the Battle for British Hearts and Minds is a useful recent publication, and complements another Brian Burkitt work, No Pound: No Independence? commissioned by the Anti-Common Market League.
The Euro: the Battle for British Hearts and Minds outlines current Government policy, and explains how public opinion is an obstacle to the Government's ambitions. The authors conduct an analysis of the Government's Euro-strategy, and think it to be operating along "prepare and persuade" lines rather than the more neutral "wait and see". Lastly, they consider the role of the media.
This new booklet is available at £5 from the publishers: Congress for Democracy, 58 Keswick Road, Great Bookham, Surrey, KT23 4BH.
* * * * * *
This new 32-minute video exposes the facts about EU corruption, the destruction of the British system of justice, and plans for a United States of Europe, in which the British Parliament would be by-passed and perhaps even abolished.
It is available from the League's Worcester Park address at £6 each, two for £10 or five for £20.
* * * * *
This booklet was commissioned by the Anti-Common Market League. It is written by Dr. Brian Burkitt the eminent economist, and includes a Foreword by Frederick Forsyth, the celebrated novelist. It provides a powerful case against giving up the Pound for the Euro, for both economic and political reasons.and deserves to be widely read.
Available at the special price of £3.00 (inc.p.&p.) from the Anti-Common Market League, 28 Highdown, Worcester Park, Surrey, KT4 7HZ
Bulk orders are also welcomed: £10.00 for four copies; £12.00 for six copies
Buy a few for your friends!
* * * * * *
The Euro - The Facts a 27-minute video, recently released, explains what will happen if the Pound is abolished and Britain taken into Euroland.
It was produced by the same team who made the video Britain and The EU - The Facts, released a year ago. Like its predecessor, it was independently researched and produced, and presents an entirely factual and neutral account of the subject, leaving viewers able to make up their own minds. Truly the facts speak for themselves.
Britain and The EU - The Facts has already had a strong impact, and its successor is doing likewise.
The League has a supply of the videos, available at £6 each, two for £10 or five for £20 from our Worcester Park address.
After arming yourself with the facts, you may wish to spread the word by showing the video(s) to friends and neighbours.