Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
The European Union is the Largest
Unelected Regime Outside China
The EU is not the people or countries of Europe, it is not a
country, it is
an organisation, it is a group of the elite
international governing class of administrators who
seek, in the most spectacular coup d'état, to replace the
democracies of the various peoples of Europe with the
rule of their own administrative elite class,
to replace it
with their own organisation, and call it a state. You can get rid
of a government, but an administration is permanent.

They think democracy has gone wrong; they think, they
know,
that they can do things better...without the electorate.
Here is what the EU itself says about it;

José Barosso,
until October 2014 President of the EU
Commission
A former Maoist, he says that "The EU is an antidote to
democratic governments"
. In his view government is best
left to the experts; democracy, the people, cannot be trusted.
As he points out;
"Decisions taken by the most democratic
institutions in the world are very often wrong"
. No doubt.
How fortunate then that the EU is not a democracy.
Fortunate too then that, in Barosso's words,
“a federal
Europe will be a reality in a few years"
 (largely because
they won't let the people of Europe vote on it).
The EU suckers in the TUC then tells millions of  low
paid workers Europe wide "get on your bike!"

In 1975 the Labour Conference voted for Britain to leave the
EU by 2 votes to 1
What happened ? Why have Labour and their supporters
changed to being in favour of the EU?

The explanation for left wing support of the EU;

In 1988 Jacques Delors
in a famous speech to the TUC, took
advantage of the left's frustration with Thatcher's Tories and
their inability to win an election against them and tempted
them with the offer of winning their aims by the back door, by
anti democratic means, and they fell for it. Since then the left
have been prepared to sell the basic principle of democratic
rights in exchange for nothing, and given their support to a
capitalist club geared to providing cheap labour and driving  
down wages.
They thought they could get Socialism by the back  door
- instead they got Capitalism by the front door.
They thought EU regulations would somehow bring
working class victory,  it brought middle class
domination.
In part it is symptomatic of the left taking their eyes off the
wages ball, and settling for peripheral gains; As a consequence
the plight of the lowest paid remains the same as it was in
1988, presided over by the
EU low pay/ migration policy;
That shameful act has now to be reversed; the duty of the left
is now clear; to resist the coup d'etat of the social and political
elite of Europe, and claim back the people's democratic rights.
Most people, lets face it , are quite ignorant of how the EU
works. That is part of how it has managed to fool us into
complacency for so long. Like the banks that are too big to fail,
the EU is felt to be  too complicated to understand or criticise
or get rid of; The well-meaning image of the EU conceals the
stark truth behind the facade; the EU is deliberately anti
democratic;  President Barosso's
"antidote to democratic
governments"
.
How much longer are we going to go on believing in a "benign
dictatorship".

The French, the Dutch and the Irish have all rejected the EU
in referendums, but been either ignored or asked again until
they said yes. That is why the EU are dead against
referendums, especially in the Britain. They know what the
people think, and won't ask them until they have had the
chance to change their minds
A few Q&As about the EU and democracy:
Q What is meant by "unelected" and "not democratic" ? Is this
an exaggeration?
A The EU is not a democracy, the government of the EU is
not democratically elected.
Q What is the Government of the EU?
A The Government (the executive) of the EU is called
the
Commission.
Q Isn't that elected?
A No it is appointed.
Q Who appoints it?
A The Prime Ministers of the member states.
Q So what are the EU elections about then?
A They elect the MEPs.
Q And what do they do?
A The MEPs sit in the European Parliament
Q Doesn't that mean it's a democracy then?
A No, because the European Parliament doesn't form the  
government of the EU, and no MEPs are in the government.
There has so far been no connection whatsoever between the
European Parliament and the EU government.
Q So when we have an election for the MEPs, that doesn't
change the government?
A No
Q How come?
A It was never intended to. The MEPs, the parliament, are
just a consultative body. Also they give an impression of
democracy. After all, people expect there to be a parliament of
come kind. People just presume it has something to do with
the government. This one doesn't. It's what you could call a
rubber stamp.
Q So what's all that about the European parliament making
so and so many 100 laws per week.
A It's not true. They don't make any. They approve
them.They are allowed to make some regulations
Q So who makes the laws?
A The Commission, the Commission is the government.
Q And the Commission is just appointed?
A That's right.
Q How long has this been going on?
A  Twenty years.

The good news is that in 2014 the EU made a gesture
towards rectifying what they euphemistically call the
"democratic deficit". For they are well aware of the dangers of
the 450 million people they govern finding out finally despite
years of deception, that the EU is not a democracy.  After the
elections in May 2014 the European parliament was allowed
to put forwards their own
suggestion for the leader of the
Commission, called the President of the Commission. This is
a very exciting moment for the EU as it is the first time since
its beginning, that there has been any sort of democratic link
between the parliament and the government; a really
interesting experiment for them, bringing them out of the
middle ages right into the early 18th century. Maybe by the
time our children's children are voting the EU might go the
whole way. They may for example introduce the idea of a
prospective government having to put their proposals before
the 450 million people who form the European Union
electorate, to try to get their votes, like in a real election.

However, there is a strong opposition to that idea. Many of
the most powerful Eurocrats believe that involving the
electorate in determining policy (what we would normally call
democracy) would undermine the workings of the EU. They
believe that party politics would be a bad thing for the EU, as
it would mean that instead of getting the best policies for
Europe, decided by those who know best, there would be the
intrusion of the electorate's opinion.

read more about this below

There is another somewhat important question on which
they feel it is dangerous to ask the electorate's opinion; and
that is the question of whether they want to be in the EU at
all. When people in the existing member states have been
asked , except in Spain, they say no. The EU   therefore does
what it can to avoid the national governments holding
referendums.
The EU, how it works.
If people knew the facts about the European Union they
would be worried about it. If it were suggested outright to the
British people as a proposal it would be rejected, even
violently opposed.
Instead, it hs been a sneaking change whose aims its
proponents refuse to declare openly. It is a monumental
political change which substantially reduces our democracy.
But because it is done bit by bit, and because they have
repeatedly denied intentions which they then later carry out,
opposition never forms against it as it otherwise would.
Most people don't know how the European Union is
structured. There follows below a very brief outline. Read
this, or in any other way you can (by visiting the European
Union's own web site for example) try to find out how the
European Union works, as it can and does make laws which
you have to obey, and which overrule our own laws

THERE ARE THREE MAIN PARTS of the European Union.
The parliament is only one third of the structure. There are
two other bodies more powerful than the parliament.

1 The
EUROPEAN COUNCIL (0r sometimes called the
Council of Ministers). These are the Prime Ministers of the
member states. This is where the main general policy
decisions are made. {There are other smaller summits, of say,
the Environment Ministers of each of the member states, or
the Foreign Ministers and so on, and these are called the
Environment Council, Foreign Council etc. But when it is the
Prime Ministers this is called the EUROPEAN COUNCIL}.
This Council of Prime Ministers is the main decision making
body. They make all the decisions about the direction the
European Union will take. These are the areas these councils
cover;
General Affairs
Foreign Affairs
Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN)
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs
Competitiveness
Transport, Telecommunications and Energy
Agriculture and Fisheries
Environment
Education, Youth and Culture

How they actually vote is that each country carries a certain
number of votes according to its population. Except in the
areas of tax, immigration, asylum, security and foreign policy,
where voting has to be unanimous, a majority of 255 out of
345 carries the vote, as long as it "represents" 62% of the
population of the European Union (none of whom have been
consulted on the policies implemented, or had them
presented to them in an election campaign).
Each minister in these councils is taken as having the full
authority of his country, that is, of his government and his
parliament (even though he doesn’t), and therefore his people
(even though he doesn’t). His signature on an act is binding
and becomes law, which must be obeyed in all countries in
the European Union.

2 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The Commission is the executive, the government of the
EU
You could say that the Council of Ministers too is the
government; in other words the executive is in two parts (the
parliament is not one of them). This is the body which
actually drafts the laws to govern all the European Union
territories in the policy areas listed above.
{To Compare; in Britain, and in most other parliamentary
democracies, it is Parliament which makes these laws, and
Parliament is dominated by the party which has won the
most seats in a general election. In the EU the Commission is
akin to both our parliament and our executive (government),
see below}.
But the Commission is
not elected.

This COMMISSION is a body of 27 people, one from each
member state, who are however
appointed by the Council of
Ministers, and stay in office for 5 years. This appointment
has  been made for 20 years without even the slightest hint of
democracy interfering in it. It wasnt until 2014 that the EU
has hurriedly made some changes to allay some of the
widespread criticism of its lack of democracy; it has decided
therefore that for the first time the MEPs  will have a chance
to select their own
candidates (to rival the appointees) for the
post of President of the Commission.

At present Britain's appointee to the Commission is Lord Hill,
previously it was Baroness Ashton. Previous Commissioners
from Britain have included Neil Kinnock, John Patten, Leon
Brittan, Roy Jenkins, Christopher Soames and Peter
Mandelson. None of these were ever accepted by the
electorate as Prime Ministers, and yet they quietly wielded
one 27th part of dictatorial power in Europe, with no need to
ever refer to the electorate or to public opinion in any way.
The Commissioners are expected to be independent of their
countries and to instead uphold the interests of the European
Union as a whole, rather than the interests of their own
countries. They are also quizzed as to whether they are pro
EU or not. If they aren't they are rejected. This is a power
the parliament
does have, to interview the appointees. It can
reject all of them, but it cannot reject single appointees. If it
rejects the whole list, the Commisioner has to
re-shuffle, or
chose some others from the list of appointees. It is still the
Council of Ministers who decide the list of appointees.

These 27 appointed people,
not the parliament, are the only
body with the power to draft proposals for laws, which they
then present to the Council and then to the European
Parliament (see below) for approval. They are responsible for
drafting the budget and for implementing the European
Union's laws and programmes, and spending its funds.

3 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
This is where the Euro MPs sit (MEPs) and they are elected
in the Euro elections once every 5 years.
The European Union elections do not decide who
forms the government of the EU. This is not where
the government of the EU sits, and the government of
the EU has never come from the European Parliament.

There are 735 seats, each country having seats in proportion
to its populatio n(thats one consituencies for roughly 640,000
people)
The parliament's role is largely consultative. Unlike our
parliament,
it does NOT at present control or determine, in
any way, the executive.
It has to be consulted and has the
choice to give assent to a proposed law, or to reject it. In some
cases only it has the right to ask for amendments. More
recently a system called Co-decision is being used for most
EU legislation, to give parliament more power,
supposedly
but not
 equal to the Council.
Most importantly, the European Parliament is not sovereign
(as Westminster is, and most other parliaments in the other
European countries. The EU represents a loss of democracy,
not just for Britain but for the whole of Europe).

The EU elections are therefore not to determine the
government. At most they can be said to determine the
consultative body, something similar to our House of Lords,
but without even its limited power of veto. It has the power
to scrutinise laws.
As mentioned above, it was not until 2014 that the EU
parliament had
any influence over the choice of
Commissioner. The Lisbon treaty therefore proposed that the
appointment of the Commissioner should "take into account"
the results of the MEP elections. This ambiguous phrase
need not mean very much. It led in fact to nothing more than
the biggest party in the EU parliament adopting one of the
Council of Ministers' grouping from which commissioners
have always been chosen, this time the Prime Minister of
Luxembourg, and supporting him. There was even a charade
of a campaign - a campaign bus, men dressed as babies, a
leather whip and supply of beer (the appointed candidate,
Jean Claude Juncker, visited 17 places to cover a population
of 450 million, 6 of these were near Brussels, none were in  
and none were in Britain, Czeck Republic, Austria, France,
Italy , Greece , Spain etc   places where the EU isnt so
popular). If this was intended to give the impression that the
voters of Europe were in some way voting for the person of
Juncker as the head of government ruling 450 million people,
then it failed; such a serious travesty of democracy resembles
the antics of totalitarian regimes the world over who seek to
create the semblance of democracy to try to validate their
regimes.
In reality of course, Juncker is the choice of the heads of state
who form the Council of ministers, it is they who appoint the
President, and not the electorate, who have no opportunity to
vote for or against him.
This is a long way from the elections actually selecting the
winner, or from elections being able to remove the party or
faction in power. Those in control of the EU try to portray
themselves as no faction at all, and claim that to introduce
democracy into the system would create divisions, and
oppositions, it would "remove the impartiallity of the decision
making organs". In other words it would be contrary to the
EU idea of government by permanent faction, a governing
elite who make as little reference to any electorate as
possible, and are not themselves elected.

The EU parliament sits in Strasbourg,
273 miles away
from the seat of government in Brussels.

4.Along with these bodies is the EUROPEAN COURT OF
JUSTICE
, which is responsible for enforcing the laws made
by the European Union. Any country found to be breaking
one of these laws can be heavily fined and this way the laws
are imposed.

Criticisms;
So, in the interests of free trade, within Europe, we are being
asked to accept dramatic reductions in our democratic rights,
including the right to elect our government and to dismiss it
in an election. The only way this is not true is that SO FAR
we still have a national government; but its laws are
overridden by EU law, and this is a
process, the process of  
federalisation. In that process the powers of Westminster will
diminish.

The supreme government of Britain is the EU
Commission, unless we leave the EU.

Customarily capitalism is associated with democracy and
freedom - Since when has it been necessary to give away
democracy just to be able to trade?

Remember, the whole purpose of the European Union is
supposed to be economic. Never has it been proposed to the
people as a political proposal, uniting Britain with European
Countries in a federation (a state such as the United States of
America) or any other arrangement. Indeed any such idea has
always been
strenuously denied by the British politicians in
favour of British membership. They will go on denying it...
until it is a fact.
In Europe however, the federalist
intention
is no mere suspicion, it has always been the
explicit intention, and it remains the aim of European
officials
. It may take them some time more to achieve it, but
it is not an intention that will go away. British opposition to it
is regarded as a temporary hurdle which will eventually be
overcome or simply got around. Concealing the federalist
intention from the British people is routine for them. A kind
of joke.

Why a treaty instead of a constitution?
There is no constitution of the EU, it is held together with
treaties. This is for one good reason; a constitution needs
referendums, treaties don’t.
A treaty can be signed by Prime Ministers without reference
to the people. But these aren't normal treaties, these are
treaties that give away sovereignty, that change the
constitutional realities of the countries concerned.

That is what happened when they were planning the Lisbon
Treaty. Initially they had intended to have a constitution,
until it was
rejected by the French, Dutch and Irish
people in referendums
; they realised that for the British
Prime Minister to sign a constitution he would have to give
the British people a referendum too; so they scrapped that
idea and replaced it with a treaty, which a British Prime
Minister, and other Prime Ministers, could sign without an
election or referendum; a deliberate trick to prevent the
people of Europe from having a say over their destiny.

Valerie Giscard D' Estaing is an ex French President and
chairman of the committee which drew up the constitution.
He maybe has an instinct for imperial pan-Europeanism,
being a descendant of Louis XV and Charlemagne. He was
accused in France of accepting diamonds from Bokassa, the
fleeing dictator of Central African Republic to whom
D'Estaing had given military aid,  who had looted his own
treasury of millions. He confirmed that the Lisbon Treaty
was "almost the same" as the previously proposed constitution
which had been rejected in French and Dutch referendums.
"The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected
constitution. Only the format has been changed to
avoid referendums".
He himself acknowledged that "public opinion will be led
to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals which we
dare not present to them directly"
and "all the
proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden
and disguised in some way".
He conceded that this "would confirm to European
citizens the notion that European construction is a
procedure organised behind their backs by lawyers and
diplomats."
(Le Monde 15 June 2007.)

What they did was to take the controversial aspects of the
Constitution and spread it out in treaties to conceal it. This is
deception on a staggering scale, a political coup d'état against
the democracies representing 450 million people.  A coup
carried out by the elite class of administrators and politicians
who feel justified in their deception because they know best.  
Is this too bad to be true? Hard to believe? This is what
Gisgard D'Estaing said himself;
"They have taken the original draft constitution, blown
it apart into separate elements, and have then
attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The
Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It
is unpenetrable for the public."
 
And where did he make this startling statement? Was it
whispered on the back stairs of an EU building? Overheard
by an undercover reporter? No, he wrote it in an article in the
Independent newspaper, 30th October 2007.
Read it online
for yourself.

Of what significance is the "impenetrability" of the Treaty?
This is what Jens Peter Bonde, the centre left Danish
politician and MEP, author of over 60 books on the EU, said
about it;
"How can we be sure that none of them (the 27 Prime
Ministers) had read what they signed? Very easily. The
text is quite simply unreadable! In the French version
there are 329 A4 pages of different and unconnected
amendments to the 17 existing basic treaties. The
amendments can only be read and understood if they
are inserted at the appropriate places in the 2800
pages of relevant treaties. That is the only way in
which to see what is amended and how. It is only after
a comparison has been made that it is possible to
understand the amendments and start to think about
the consequences of implementing them. It does not
take days but weeks to grasp the whole context, even
for specialists".

Yes, the 27 Prime Ministers signed the Treaty of Lisbon
without reading it.

Guliano D'Amato, he is Vice Chairman of the committee
that framed the rejected EU constitution, and an ex-
president of Italy, who served for one corruption-scandal
ridden year. He served again during 2001 despite not being a
member of parliament. After the term in office, dismissed by
the electorate, he solemnly vowed to leave politics. He didn’t
however, and went on to a bright career in the EU, where
electorates don’t have to be faced.  He said, at a meeting of
the
Centre for European Reform on 12 July 2007, that EU
leaders “
decided that the document should be
unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to
produce a document that they will never understand!”
and  "The good thing about not calling it a Constitution
is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
- 21
February 2007.

Jean Claude Juncker Prime Minister of Luxembourg,
now President of the Commission
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers
of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the
attention of public opinion to this fact?"
- (Daily
Telegraph 3 July 2007).

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister “The aim of
the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the
aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...The
Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had
to be unclear. It is a success.”
- (in Flandreinfo, 23 June
2007).

As Dr Garrat Fitzgerrald explained in the Irish Times  
"They (the treaties) have simply been designed to
enable certain heads of government to sell to their
people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action
rather than by referendum."
-(Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

Andrea Merkel, The German Chancellor makes her
views very clear to the European Parliament;
“European integration has to be striven for and
consolidated time and again.”
The federalists who dominate in the EU do not care either
that the populations of all except one of the few existing
member states which have enjoyed the courtesy of being
asked in a referendum, have shown their rejection of the idea.
The federalists, if they feel the need to ask at all, will simply
keep asking the same question until the answer is
yes.
But their policy is to avoid referendums. And that is what the
Lisbon Treaty was for.
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
Jean Claude Juncker,transfers of sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels
Jean Claude Juncker Says he is "not afraid of Prime
Ministers" and accuses Cameron of "having a
problem with other Prime Ministers". He doesn't
want to "draw the attention of the British public to
the fact of transfers of sovereignty from Westminster
to Brussels"
Kerel de Gucht
Kerel de Gucht "the aim of this treaty is to be
unreadable... this (Lisbon) treaty had to be
unclear. It is a success.”
Andrea Merkel
Angela Merkel "European integration has to be
striven for and consolidated time and again".
Guliano D'Amato; (Lisbon Treaty) should be unreadable,
Guliano D'Amato;“we decided that the document (Lisbon Treaty)
should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to
produce a document that they will never understand!” and  "The
good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask
for a referendum on it."
Guilian D' Amato; Italians took to the streets to prevent him shielding corruption in Italy.
Guilian D' Amato; Italians took to the streets to
prevent him shielding corruption in Italy.
Giscard D' Estaing
Giscard D' Estaing
Giscard D'Estaing, Architect of the EU Lisbon Treaty same as EU Constitution
Giscard D' Estaing "The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a
catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the
public"
Giscard D' Estaing "public opinion will be led to
adopt, without knowing it, the proposals which
we dare not present to them directly"
Coup d'etat by European elites; Giscard D' Estaing,
Architect of the EU, decendant of Louis XV; the Lisbon
Treaty was "almost the same" as the previously proposed
constitution which had been rejected in French and Dutch
referendums
EU parliament The biggest rubber stamp outside China, have no effect on EU government
Strasbourg  "Parliament"  The biggest rubber stamp outside China
Elections of MEPS have no effect whatsoever on the EU government
EU Unelected bureacracy governing 450 million Europeans
The unelected bureaucracy governing 450 million people
Versailles, a Palace of Mirrors
French Revolution and the EU elite
EU buildings at Strasbourg. A palace of mirrors.   
Too big to fall?
Versailles; Another Palace of Mirrors they thought was too
big to fall
It fell
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
But surely the EU is vital to trade? -

This is what you have been led to think, but Gordon Brown
didn't seem to think so. We have a page about the EU and
trade, including the last great Labour Chancellor's views on it,
Click
here to read it now, or continue with this page and read it
later. But in the meantime remember this;

The EU was set up to make trade
within Europe easier, to
lower trade barriers and to promote competition, and to provide
cheap labour by removing immigration restrictions. In this aim
it has been largely successful, at a cost to the working classes
whose pay has been kept down.
But The EU has the opposite
effect on competitiveness
outside Europe; Trade is now global.
The multitude of rules and restrictions for which the European
Union is notorious make competition with the eastern
economies
more difficult than it already is.
The European Union is not democratic

The political cost we pay for lowering trade barriers inside
Europe is a very high one. We have to accept an endless stream of
new laws from a source completely outside of our democracy. We
do not vote for the Commission of 27, it is appointed by the Prime
Ministers. We only vote for the Parliament, which has only a very
limited power, akin to the power our Parliament had... under the
Tudors.
Unlike our own  present day parliament, the government
of the EU does not come from parliament.
 When we vote in
the Euro elections for MEPs we are NOT voting for an EU
government.
That is appointed. We are voting for the rubber
stamp. Is it possible that the British people are willing to swap
being governed by Parliament for being governed by appointees?
Are the British people willing to go back hundreds of years in
terms of their political rights?


Do the other European people even want it?

The European Union is not wanted by many of the other
populations of Europe either. Some Eurocrats fear that if Britain
left then other populations would demand referendums and leave
too.

It is the project of the elite class of  politicians and officials whose
enthusiasm for it has driven right over the will of the peoples.
Each time some aspect of their scheme, the Euro, or the new
constitution, for example, is rejected by an electorate in a
referendum, the plan is merely shelved until they will be asked
again. Since 2001, Denmark and Sweden voted against the
EURO, Spain voted in favour of the constitution but France, the
Netherlands and Ireland voted against the constitution and the
Lisbon treaty, (Ireland were then
asked again, and voted in
favour). Each nation will be asked again until they say "YES" to
whatever they are asked to accept. Then, and only then, can you
be assured they will be asked no more.
Twenty Seven Masters of Europe

The sheer amount of power given to the heads of state, in the
European Council (they appoint the 27 Commissioners who
then frame the laws), is beyond the intention of the people
electing them. In one room can be contained the 27 Prime
Ministers, who can decide between them in principle the
laws  450 million Europeans, must obey and the direction the
whole of Europe is to take. The EU is in effect the largest
dictatorship in the world outside China. Such a process is like
going back to absolute monarchy, with a rubber stamp
parliament. Remember, in British politics, the Prime
Minister is really merely the leader of the party with most
votes in our parliament, until the next election. He is not
intended to be the elected dictator to decide all our futures,
along with a small group of other men in the same position in
the other countries of Europe.
If a British minister, including a Prime Minister, wants to
make a law he has to face parliament, but if he goes to
Europe, he can push it through the Council of 27
likemindeds, never face parliament and, bingo! it's a law.


European elections do not remove European legislators

The use of the words European Parliament, and Elections,
give a wholly false impression, and invite a misleading
association of ideas with a proper parliament. The European
Parliament is not sovereign; it doesn’t rule.  In Britain we get
rid of our national government if we want to, in an election.
Euro-elections, on the other hand, do NOT get rid of the
government of Europe, because the government is not in the
parliament. The EU government are the Commissioners
appointed by the Council of Ministers; and the group of Prime
Ministers themselves, in their role of controlling the
European Union, govern without being accountable to a
parliament.

You cannot change the direction of the European
Union by voting

While after each European Election the MEPs (Members of
European Parliament) change, the Commissioners, the actual
legislators, are not changed. When they do change, the
change, though they stipulated in 2014 that it should at last
"take into account the outcome of the elections"
it is not in
fact determined by outcome of the election
; a new set of 27
appointees is put in their place, chosen in the same way by
the same Prime Ministers who chose the previous ones, and
business proceeds as before. This happens 6 months after the
election. They have merely coincided the new appointment
with the time of elections to give the
 impression of
democracy.

It is taken for granted that the Commissioners are "pro-
European" in their opinions. That is what they are appointed
for. No one is chosen to be a Commissioner if he is Euro-
sceptic. Only one type of opinion is able to flourish and gain
power in the European Union. Neither we the British
electorate, nor any other electorate can vote it away, just as it
was put there with no reference to our opinions.

But remember that the other 27 Commissioners will
still be
appointed and never have to face an electorate.

The question worrying the Eurocrats now is whether a
partisan Commission President, one who has had to present
his policies to parliament (but not to the people), can function
in the same way as Commissioners have done before.
Eurocrats tend to think that even a tentative flirtation with
democracy might spoil the free hand with which the EU
Commission has been able to act until now.
"For the past
20 years, the heads of state and government have
picked the Commission President from among their
own group because they trust Prime Ministers who
have experience in running large and complex
administrations. The Commission’s effectiveness
depends critically on the President’s ability to work
with national leaders, and she (sic) would be taken
more seriously by them if she is one of their peers"

(
Heather Grabbe, former senior advisor to the European
Commissioner for Enlargement
) -a precise and subtle
description of a ruling class unused to interference from an
electorate. The sad truth is that it will likely make little
difference. The  belated move to try to correct  the impression
of a lack of democracy) means that MEPs can have a say in
the choice of dictator, the man who can rule Europe above
the heads of the 450 million Europeans, the man who doesn't
have to say one word to one single elector about his proposed
policies. The abhorrence with which the Eurocrats regard the
electorate makes it unlikely that the relationship between the
Commissioner and the people will be any more direct than
that.

Surely we determine our own budgets though?

And if you are still in any doubt about the degree of power
the Commissioner has, then the new powers given to him  
ought to clear that up;
"Member-states have agreed that
the Commission should monitor and enforce fiscal
discipline across the eurozone under new rules aimed
at reducing budget deficits and public debt. These
powers intrude deeply into national sovereignty
because the Commission analyses countries’ draft
national budgets
before national parliaments even
debate them,
and can ask for revisions. The
Commission then makes recommendations and its
proposed sanctions can only be stopped if a qualified
majority in the Council of Ministers votes against
them."
(Heather Grabbe).  In other words, the EU now has
the power to stop an elected government's budget. Democracy
is now at an end, in Europe. We are the children and the
rulers are our unelected parents.

You must obey European Union laws -
- however undemocratically  they are made.

Everyone deciding about Europe should understand one
thing;
The laws made by the European Union are
legally binding and you must obey them
. EU laws
override our own laws. We are used to taking it for granted
that we are governed only by our Parliament, and have only
to obey British law, which we have developed ourselves and
which we have some control over. But that is no longer the
case. European law, made by a handful of appointed
Commissioners, takes precedence over British law.

Democrats in France and other countries protest as we do,
but that is the fact of life in the European Union.

This dreadful project relies upon the ignorance of 100s of
millions of people. The complicatedness, the similar sounding
names for all the functions and bodies, the Councils and
Committees and Commissions, all contribute to a certain
power that lies in unknowability. The overall impression is
one of a frustrating but vague bureaucratic body. However
that impression conceals a far more sinister truth; the
replacement of democratic government by an unelected and
unremovable bureaucratic administrative dictatorship.

Unless you feel confident that you are influencing the laws
being made in Europe when you vote in a Euro-election, you
should think about what power is being wielded over you.



Who, if anyone, has the right to give away the British
people's right to elect their government?

The British Parliament has hidden this outrage against
democracy by routinely making EU directives into British
law. The signing of successive treaties which have piecemeal
given away British sovereignty is a betrayal of trust. We have
not elected our MPs to give away British sovereignty, and in
fact they have no legal right to do so. Technically they are
probably guilty of treason, and the Queen's signature on the
Acts means that she has broken her Coronation Oath to
uphold the constitution.

We need to address the question very quickly about who, if
anyone, has the right to actually give away sovereignty, before
any further moves are made.
Even aside from the EU's gross failings in elementary
democracy, the sheer scale of the European Union works very
much against the chance of there being effective control of
the executive by the people. There are 450 million people in
the European Union. That fact alone makes the proper
functioning of democracy problematic. The fact that those
450 million people are from entirely different countries with
completely different histories and internal developments,
different outlooks on life, ways of life, philosophies, beliefs
and religions, as well as being at different stages of economic
and even social and political development, adds to the
difficulty. If there were no choice but to have one rubber
stamp parliament for 450 million people with only 700 seats,
(that's one seat for every 640,000 people; in our democracy  
it's one seat for every 99,000 people) and to have an endless
series of diktats made by 27 appointees, if this were imposed
upon us by force, then it would seem a dreadful fate. But to
voluntarily place ourselves in that situation is perverse, and
we cannot simply presume that it will not lead to a very
substantial loss of freedom, or worse.

The EU - in breach of the self determination principle
of the United Nations?
The setting up of the EU without plebiscites also goes against
the
Self Determination principle which is at the very
foundation of the United Nations. The right of a nation to self
determination has been one the guiding principles of
international law since the League of Nations was formed in
1919. The forced change of nationhood that the gradual
formation of the EU into a state to replace the 27 nation
states involves, is in contravention of Article 15 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states;  
"
everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one
should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality"
.

The persistent refusal to hold referendums in the member
states of the EU is a serious violation of this basic principle,
which has been written into international law as a human
right. Despite the seriousness of the denial of such a right to
millions of people, the demands for a referendum in Britain
are deftly handled by deflection as if it is a mere political
game, which can be won by delay and postponement  - until it
is too late. If a government were to refuse a referendum on
the removal of basic democratic rights in any other
circumstances, there would be an uprising, even in Britain.
There isn’t, simply because people don’t know what the EU
actually is.
Politics depends very much on a local connection to power. It
depends on the possibility of changing things. Even now we
feel insufficiently powerful to effect change through voting,
that is why there is such a low turn out at elections. That is
also, paradoxically, why we seem prepared to give away our
democratic rights. But in a European constituency of 450
million people, the chance of influencing politics, of bringing
about change, shrinks drastically, once power has been made
so immense and to cover such a large area.

Dangerous To Leave?
Already the sheer scale and complexity of the European
Union and our involvement in it is being used as a reason
why we cannot leave it. What does that tell you about how
responsive a democracy it is? Are people on the left so afraid
to upset a bureaucracy that they wont stand up for the
people's democratic rights to chose their governments? If the
left doesn't believe in better pay for the working classes , and
doesn't believe in democracy, what does it believe in?

Federal creep - what is next?
Economic policy and all laws concerning trade, right down to
how you weigh your vegetables or measure cloth or wood, are
now largely decided by the EU Commission (with
punishments attached for disobedience). Federalists, who are
the driving force behind Europe, have the ambition to extend
European law into more areas, and to unify European law.
Already the Commission has been given new powers to
control and sanction, and therefore over-rule, national
budgets made by elected governments. It is a long slow
relentless drive, that can never be defeated, only slowed down.

What if the EU was to become democratic?

What if there is a sudden change, what if against all the odds
the EU does really become democratic, so that its government
is actually formed by the opinion of the 450 million disparate
peoples of Europe? What would that be like? Would it be a
good thing to be a part of the huge multinational EU, even in
those circumstances? It will be European opinion, if any, that
will determine our laws, not British opinion. Do you feel we
have the same needs from criminal law as Poles, Romanians
and Germans? Is one law to suit all countries the best way to
get good laws?
And how would the party system work then? How would the
voting blocs work in the European parliament (if the
parliament was to form the government). If loyalties and
alliances were formed along the current lines, would then for
example the socialist MEPs of Romania vote alongside the
Labour MEPs from Britain; the conservative MEPs from
Lithuania vote alongside the conservatives from Sweden or
Denmark, and the outcome, the government of Europe,
would that be formed by those alliances? Remember the
uncertainty we felt before the 2015 election when it seemed
deals would be made after we voted?  In what way would
those very different forms of conservatism and socialism be
determining the kind of government they wanted by voting
together? And what if they didn't vote together, for that very
reason? What chance would voters in Britain or Romania
have of being able to know about, predict, or understand the
actual outcome of elections, across such a diverse and
contradictory constituency, where the parties and groupings
have  misleading names? In what way would such an
electorate be enjoying real self determination? Would the
outcome of such an election reflect the intentions of the
voters? People complain already, in our own comparatively
homogeneous nation, of frustration at feeling powerless to
effect politics. Making the electorate 7 times bigger and 27
times more disparate is not likely the way to create a
responsive democracy. If it feels pointless to vote now,
imagine what it would feel like to vote for a government of
Europe? One thing is for certain, if the EU does ever become
a real democracy, then Westminster will disappear. Feel the
law should be changed? Want to protest about your local
hospital closure? Then write to your Euro MP with his
constituency of 650,000, and see if he can change the course
of a state of 450 million people.

And concerning the location of political power;
A reminder...

It may seem odd or it may seem obvious, but one important
but unspoken part of the invisible contract which supports
democracy, is the physical relationship between us and those
who rule in our name. In Britain we have never had a large
standing army. Our small army could never hope to contain
the people if the consensus that allows the government to
have power over us ever broke down. This is a very good
safeguard of our freedoms. If they go too far, if they refuse to
have an election, we know where they are and we can go and
remove them by force.

But imagine 20 years from now, when the European Union
has extended its undemocratic legislative powers into all areas
of life, criminal law, the police, domestic taxation,
immigration, and all domestic laws. Imagine if we decide that
we would prefer, after all, not to obey the dictatorship?
Where will we go to lay hands on the government that will
control us then? To Brussels? To Strasbourg?

Or maybe we will soon face the water cannons of EuroPolice
on the streets of London? In the 1961s 200 Algerian
demonstrators were brutally massacred in a 2 hour rampage
of race hate fuelled, uninhibited murder by the French police,
under orders. Mangled, beaten bodies appeared for weeks  
after in the Seine. Don't like the British Police? Try the
European ones.

THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT GOVERNMENTS IS
THAT YOU NEED TO KEEP THEM WHERE YOU CAN
GET AT THEM.
Q Do we have to leave? Can't we reform it from the
inside?

One of the main features of the EU, that makes it so
undesirable, is its enormous and unwieldy nature. Its own
constitution, expressed deceitfully in treaties, is deliberately
impenetrable, while the sheer size of the bureaucracy acts as
a protective shield against comprehension, let alone reform.
Even if it were the most democratic body in the world, which
it is not, it is in fact one of the least democratic, it would still
be difficult for the will of the people to be effectively
expressed across such a vast constituency. To reform, to
direct, to change, to influence such a vast organisation is not
just difficult but in fact contrary to its design and purpose.
The EU is conceived as a bulwark against the will of
the people, which is seen as prey to mistakes and
demagoguery. The EU is set up by administrative
bureaucrats for administrative bureaucrats, and is
hostile to democratic expression.
 That hostility is built
into its institutions. Maybe in 100 years time, after many
trials and upheavals, it may turn into a democracy, but it isn’t
one now. We already have one, at Westminster, where the
will of the people can be  expressed and heard.
Only people who think that the status quo is
satisfactory should want to surrender our political
rights to an unelected EU government, that pays no
heed to an electorate.

If anyone on the left for example thinks that something
remains to be won, such as equality of wealth, pay, housing
conditions, in Britain, then they had better make sure that
we preserve democracy.

It is, to say the very least, unwise to give away democratic
power in fair weather that cannot be easily regained in foul.
Our parliament is where the British people express their
political will. With each bit of power that is taken away from
Westminster and put in Europe, we must ask ourselves 1) if
we can afford to lose that power and 2) if we would ever get it
back again.
Does it make good sense to allow a new upper class of political
elites, outside the reach of democracy, who live abroad, to
rule us from abroad?

While you read this you are possibly thinking "Yes, but its not
literally true". But it is. European laws have to be obeyed, and
they are made in all areas except, so far, criminal law,
immigration (which is anyway determined by European law),
and taxation (except that national budgets are now going to
be subject to the Commissioner's approval before Parliament
even sees them). When we are completely subject to
European law in all areas of the legal system, how long will it
be then until there will be talk of scaling down the British
Parliament, as it will gradually become obsolete? 30 years? 20
years? 15 years? How long have we got?

How long will it be before people are led by the press into
thinking that Westminster is an unnecessary expense as it no
longer makes the laws?
People are used to presuming, without justification, that
European Union laws are more liberal than our own. Well, if
they are, which they are not, what happens when they aren't?
What will you be able to do about it? Will you go on a protest
march in Trafalgar Square? Will your EU masters be
bothered by that? Do people consider that EU laws can be
used to over-ride trade union collective bargaining, as they
already have been in Sweden and Luxembourg and Finland,
and Germany; and that they are framed to do just that?

Are you complacent about handing over power to the
European Union?

Do you trust it will be ok? Do you think the sound of the EU
is more forward-looking than our old fashioned democracy?
Do you perhaps not know or bother to find out, how it works?
Do you maybe not know how our own system works? Do you
think 'they're all more or less the same'? Do you think all
politicians are "corrupt" so it doesn’t matter anyway?

What happens when EU laws are not the kind you want?
When they are not liberal, or socialist or social democrat or
whatever it is you want them to be? It is staggeringly naive to
simply trust a regime to be "nice" because you have the vague
impression that they are, based largely on them seeming to be
more "modern" or progressive than our democratically elected
representatives. And when you notice that they are doing
precisely what they want with no reference to any sort of
political influence from the people, what then will you do?  

What happens when you realise they form governments
without even mentioning to the electorate of Europe what
their policies are going to be? How then will you fight for
higher wages, for better schools or hospitals, or for the rights
of minorities, or for control of the police force, or for the kind
of laws you want there to be?

You might dislike the government our democracy has served
you up with this time, but at least you know who they are,
you know their names, you know their policies; and they have
to justify those policies before a vigorous opposition all day
every day in parliament, and you know that eventually their
popularity will wane and you and people who think like you,
will be able to get rid of them in an election; you know that
after that government has lost the election, they have to go,
not the following week, or the following month or the
following year, or never, but the following morning. Out!
Gone! Door slammed after them.

Cynical attitudes to democracy rob the people of the
means of getting political change
Whatever infantile remarks we can make about how "this lot
is the same as the last lot, they're all the same as each other"
etc, the fact is - it's not true in our system. And in some
systems
it is. Literally. Literally the same people are in
power from one government to the next. We need to be very
careful before we allow our "healthy cynicism " about our own
system to allow us to talk ourselves into something a lot
worse. A people that willingly allows its democratically elected
representatives to be replaced by appointed ones - deserve to
get a shock. And if we do it we will get one.

The fact that most people still do not know how the EU
works ought to ring alarm bells. It is most unfortunate that
ignorance and complacency about our own political system
has reached such depths, just at a time when we are in
danger of giving power away to an essentially non-democratic
organisation. It is more important than ever to teach about
our Parliament in schools, before we have bred a generation
who will know so little of it's value that they will give it away.

It is perhaps partly because the working classes have felt so
long they have no party to represent their interests in
Parliament, and that material equality is an ever-receding
goal, that cynicism about Westminster is at its height. That is
a very dangerous thing.
For however useless our own
parliament may seem to the low paid, they can expect
little mercy from an unelected dictatorship of
bureaucrats whose  aim is to provide cheap labour.

Better the devil you can hang from the lamp-posts in
Westminster than the devil you cannot get to and cannot
remove by either election or insurrection.

We must work to get an exit vote in the referendum to get
back the people's power to vote for economic and social
change in Britain.
Stay in the EU to shape it ?

Pro EU parties and governments tend to say; "Vote for a
strong British presence in the EU, so that we cant shape its
destiny". Here is a somewhat naive over-estimation of our
power and influence and importance in Europe. When we are
in the EU, dragging our feet, as we always do, and must, we
are and never will be at the centre of the determinedly
federalist project that is the EU. To the driving forces of the
EU Britain is a known quantity and one which they know
how to get around; they need us for our size and thats about
it. They do not want or welcome any different vision of the
future development of the EU that we may have. We are
sidelined, not because of the attitude of any one party in
government, but because Britain's role in European history
has always been the same; our interests are best served by
resisting any too great a consolidation of homogeneous power
there. It is expected of us, (at times we are depended upon for
that resistance). But to the architects of European
Homogeneity we are nothing but an obstacle to be overcome,
by stealth, by force, or whatever means are appropriate. This
is not the first time the working people of Europe have
depended upon the British ability, always somewhat belated,
to resist the monolithic domination of Europe by one single
edifice.
Jaques Delors, ex-Commission President and one of the
chief architects of a federal Europe, and  a previous sparring
partner with the British, has accepted already that Britain
may very well leave the EU, and even he has come to terms
with it;
"
The British are solely concerned about their economic
interests, nothing else. They could be offered a
different form of partnership
," he told Handelsblatt, a
German financial newspaper.

"If the British cannot support the trend towards more
integration in Europe, we can nevertheless remain
friends, but on a different basis. I could imagine a form
such as a European economic area or a free-trade
agreement."
This is excellent news for anyone feeling faint-hearted about
imagined "consequences" if we leave the EU ; a Free Trade
Area, something like what we thought we were entering in
the first place.
If anyone on the left thinks that something remains to be won, such
as equality of wealth, pay, better housing conditions, in Britain, then
they had better make sure that we preserve democracy.
Home
They will not allow there to be an elected EU government
formed by parties of MEPS for the simple reason that they do
not think it is desirable, in fact they think it is dangerous;
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
EU buildings, too big to fall?
Why we haven't been allowed a
referendum. Electorates have been
misbehaving
President of the EU Commission, unelected
Know who he is? The most
powerful man in Europe, the
unelected President of the
unelected Commission.
He makes
70% of the laws in the EU (yes
including your country)
but he never
has to face an electorate. Still don't know
his name? Why not?
How did he get there? He was appointed.
Who is he? Yes, its David Cameron.  
Don't like him? Then don't worry
because when we as an electorate
vote against him he will be gone the
very next day.
How did he get there? We elected
him. You win some you lose some.

How will you get rid of that other
one? You can't.
Cameron, elected
Britains EU commissioners, Roy Jenkins, unelected
Britains EU commissioners Leon Brittain, violent criminal
Britains EU commissioners Chris Patton
Britains EU commissioners Kinnock on the gravy train
Britains EU commissioners Mandelson, unelected, urges low paid to be aspirational
Britain's gallery of members
of the Commission, the 27
appointed Kings of Europe
Roy Jenkins, Britains only President of the Commission
The notorious Leon Brittan, expert on violent crime
Chris Patton
Kinnock, served two terms as EU commissioner.
He and his wife earned millions in salaries and
expenses from the EU gravy train
Mandelson, a real national favourite, and EU
Commissioner, has now joined with Ken
Clarke in the pro-EU campaign. He
inexplicably found Labour's 2015 campaign
too left wing, and urges the low paid to be
"aspirational"
A backwards  step; The House of Commons under Henry VIII had roughly the same powers as the EU parliament does now
A backwards  step; The House of Commons
under Henry VIII had roughly the same
powers as the EU parliament does now
Queen at Traitors Gate,Did the Queen make a mistake when she signed away British sovereignty to the EU?
Did the Queen make a mistake when she signed away
British sovereignty to the EU?
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  
states;  "
everyone has the right to a nationality and that no
one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality"
.
European Union Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  states;
EU police Belgian police deploying water cannon during a demonstraion in Brussels, 2011
Belgian police deploying
water cannon during a
demonstraion in Brussels,
2011
The kindly Jacques Delours doesn't mind if we leave the EU
The kindly Jacques Delors doesn't
mind if we leave
Page 3 of 6
The EU Parliament at Strasbourg -
at 273 miles its a safe distance from
the seat of  government in Brussels;
you pass through 4 countries to get
there
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU