'THREE' of the Great Myths of staying 'IN' the EU Destroyed if the People of the United Kingdom Would simply Use Their Common-Sense and Read into the TRUTH
Myth busting 1. - UK Trade will Suffer
There is a great deal of fear-mongering by the 'IN Camp' and that economic Agamemnon will be the result if we become a self-governing and determining nation. The truth though is that the UK would be far better off economically in the future once able to trade across the world and with EU nations as an independent nation. There is nothing stopping us trading with any EU nation in reality and indeed they will wish to still trade with us outside the EU straightjacket. For they sell more of their goods to the UK than we buy from them by a very wide margin. Therefore they need the UK for trade more than we need them. Indeed does anyone for one minute think that BMW, Volkswagen (the largest company in the world a mere seven and a half years ago, when Porsche was perceived by the markets to be launching
a bid for Europe's largest car maker), Mercedes et al would want to stop selling us their cars?
In 2014 there was a trade deficit of over £50bn, with a current account deficit of nearly
£100 billion. Indeed, it seems highly unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which
is so beneficial to itself.
But don't' take my word for the baseless fear-mongering propaganda about UK trade and security of jobs, just listen to what one of the world's leading Macroeconomist has to say about the EU and where the UK and its people would not be affected economically and job-wise by coming out - Professor Patrick Minford.
'Prof Patrick Minford schools the idiots in Parliament about the EU and trade' (Both Conservatives and Labour Politicians on the UK's Foreign Policy Committee) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leKEUT1TiLU
Indeed, on our own we could create far more jobs away from the straightjacket of the EU. The reason, according to global research by the Japanese government (MITI) and the Germans, the people of the UK are most creative and inventive in the world by far. So much so, that the Japanese determined that the fundamental thinking that has made the modern world what it is today, was down to the people of the United Kingdom and to the tune of 53%. The Germans came up with a figure of 51%. So the UK is sat on an absolute goldmine of creativity and innovation. Therefore you might ask, what has been the greatest obstacle in liberating this greatest of all economic determinants, that of Innovative thinking. The answer in the main is, the bureaucracy and stifling effect of the European Union, that does not allow the dynamics of creativity to flourish and subdues it. Lift this huge weight off the people of Britain and we would see Britain great again. One has only to look at one UK invention that has changed the world forever and where the modern world COULD NOT operate without it - Sir Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide WEB (WWW)
But Britain does really dominate global creative and innovative thinking. All we need is the bonds and chains of the EU to be released to mobilise and exploit this supreme economic strength that no other nation possesses, in the abundance that our people have - 'Why the 'Innovation Chain' is so Important for the Future World and Why things have to Change for Humanity' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/why-innovation-chain-is-so-important.html
Myth busting 2. - The NHS is safe if we are within the EU
The EU is going to sign up to the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership), which is a so-called trade agreement, the biggest in the world. The truth is that this treaty has been undertaken in secrecy between US and EU political negotiators (not really trade negotiators) and where there are secrete corporate tribunal courts that override all sovereign laws of all the EU nations including the UK. But what we do know is that the TTIP will destroy the NHS by placing it over time into the hands of large private companies with only one intention, profit and evermore profit. For the killer blow in the treaty to the NHS and which will become law is, that monopolies CANNOT Exist. What is the NHS, the biggest monopoly of services in the UK and the EU. Therefore the TTIP will bit-by-bit dismantle the NHS from there-on will go back to the Victorian days where only the rich can afford such luxuries. Therefore do not believe Cameron and Labour's Johnson et al, as you and your children will live to greatly regret an 'IN' vote. Indeed, if the TTIP was so good for the people why aren't the EU letting people know about the TTIP before it is signed by EU unelected politicians/bureaucrats. They have even kept the matter secret with your MEP also to a great extent and they have been sworn not to disclose anything. Added to this the secret corporate courts when say Britain is being sued by a mighty corporation because they have been restricted in making profit, the payments (taxpayers funds(, will not be disclosed to the people. If this is democracy I have never seen it in this draconian guise before and the people should cry out and get from their political elites, why is this the case and they are not being told? Once the referendum is agreed to stay IN, the TTIP will be enforced on all of us from there on and where the TTIP is irrevocable and forever. The treaty says that also as it becomes EU law, enforceable by the draconian might of the EU. Then the UK would only have one option, to pay out to extortionists and where that is the EU.
'The TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) will be an Absolute Disaster for the People of the EU (European Union) and the People of America (USA) in the long-term - We simply have to Vote AGAINST this behind closed doors Transatlantic Trade deal before it is signed up and too late for the People to do anything about it' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-ttip-transatlantic-trade-and.html
Myth busting 3. - Better in the EU to make reform happen from the inside
Like Nicola Sturgeon, David Cameron, Alan Johnson, George Osborne, Angela Eagle who mumble on about, but where the truth is that we have been in the EU and its forerunners for 43 years and we have never changed the EU in any way significantly. Indeed if the people of the UK vote to stay in the EU, the EU's political elites will know then, because the UK can never have another referendum, that they can do whatever they want and put two fingers up to us if they wish every time. So how would we reform the EU after 40 years of trying to change the EU, but not doing so, and from a weaker position? It's mad and just does not stack up to anyone who has a
brain and normal intelligence.
EU Annual Accounts
The Myths about The EU's Accounts Being Signed Off and Not Being Corrupt in the Slightest - The 'Truth' is Completely Different and That is Even from the EU Own Auditors and Their own Findings, so It Must be True, as otherwise, The EU would be Lying
Indeed, how anyone can back further EU membership, when you look at the EU's own Auditor's findings for their highly qualified EI accounts, is an insane judgement and beyond my comprehension in human intelligence.
For what really those who want to stay in the EU are saying is that they are happy with signing off the EU's accounts in what we do not normally understand or accept accounts for the UK and where this is not the same as for transparent and balancing UK accounts, as they could not be signed off here in Britain.
In this respect, the EU accounts are highly qualified as I have stated previously and where no-one in the UK could get away with what the EU Auditors state in their annual findings, as they are totally unreliable.
Therefore if those who want to stay in the EU mean that Auditors of the EU sign off unreliable accounts they are right, but where you also have to agree with the statement, that also they are not signed off on the basis of what is accepted in all other walks of life. If they were, we would all be in prison, serving time.
Therefore for people's information, I copy and paste the 'exact' extracts from the 2014 EU Auditor's Report so that readers are respectfully informed of the true state of the situation. But to comprehend what is the 'truth', it depends on your understanding of signing off of acceptable accounts, as bad accounts can be signed off if you wished to do that also and that is exactly what the EU has now done for 20 years, signing off highly 'unreliable' accounts.
The following is therefore listed as verbatim and taken from the EU's Auditor's actual reporting for the 2014 accounting period.
2014 - EU audit brief
Introducing the 2014 annual reports of the European Court of Auditors
...For many years now, we have identified persistent high levels of error in EU spending.
So, we highlight the scope for making better use of available information and full use of corrective powers to reduce errors further and recover more misspent funds...
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President of the European Court of Auditors
Payments for 2014 are materially affected by error.
We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
...It is important that the Commission analyses the areas of persistent high levels of errors as soon as possible and assesses opportunities for reducing this while strengthening the focus on performance in spending.
Personal Comment: Signed off but highly qualified
Example: Significant errors in research and innovation costs declared for reimbursement under FP7 by an SME
We found that €764 000 of costs declared by an SME working with 16 partners on a renewable energy project financed through FP7 were almost entirely ineligible. The SME owner had charged an hourly rate well above that set in the Commission's guidelines.
Moreover, we identified sub contracting costs which were neither an eligible component of costs nor procured by means of a tendering procedure.
The declared indirect costs also included ineligible items, which were based on estimates and could not be reconciled with the beneficiary's accounting records.
The main source of error for the spending on economic, social and territorial cohesion as a whole continues to be infringement of public procurement rules, accounting for nearly half of the estimated level of error. This is followed by the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries' cost declaration, infringement of state aid rules and the selection of ineligible projects.
Cases of serious failure to comply with public procurement rules that we identified in our audit work include, for example, unjustified direct award of contracts, additional works or services, unlawful exclusion of bidders, as well as cases of conflict of interest and discriminatory selection criteria.
Example: Unjustified direct award of public works
In a project in Malta related to the reconstruction and upgrade of a motorway section of a TEN road network, the contracting authority negotiated directly a contract with one company without a prior call for competition. This is not in line with EU and national procurement laws and the expenditure declared for this contract is ineligible. Another main cause of error is ineligible expenditure. This is due to, for example, expenditure declared outside the eligibility period, overcharged salaries, the declaration of costs not related to the project, non compliance with national eligibility rules, or revenue that has not been deducted from the declared costs.
Example: Incorrect declaration of salaries
In a project in Portugal related to a training programme for young people, the grant agreement provisions on how teachers’ salaries are to be calculated were not complied with by the beneficiary. In addition, the teachers did not work as many hours as declared. This resulted in personnel costs being overcharged.
Examples of overstated or ineligible claims
Aid for permanent pasture
In the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Poland, Slovakia and Spain, some land claimed and paid for as permanent grassland was in reality fully or partly covered with ineligible vegetation (dense shrubs, bushes, trees and rock).
Aid for arable land
In the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom, we found cases of land claimed by beneficiary farmers as arable when this was not the case. In Spain, aid was paid for land claimed and recorded in the land parcel identification system as arable land which was, in reality, a motocross track.
Examples of eligibility errors
We found three cases of suspected intentional circumvention of the rules when claiming for aid. These cases were forwarded to the European Anti Fraud Office for analysis and possible investigation. For confidentiality reasons, we cannot disclose specific details of these cases but can describe the general nature of these errors:
Well established companies, which would not qualify for financing, set up new entities to artificially meet the eligibility and selection criteria.
Groups of persons set up several entities for the purpose of obtaining aid which exceed the ceiling allowed under the conditions of the investment measure. Although the beneficiaries declared that these entities operate independently, this was not the case in practice.
Examples of non compliance with agro environment commitments
We detected six such cases in Germany, Italy and United Kingdom. For example, in the United Kingdom, a beneficiary did not respect the commitment he made to close off a hay meadow for grazing before 15 May of each year.
We found significant weaknesses in nine of the 12 reviewed systems of Member States. For the five paying agencies that we visited on the spot, the system weakness that we found were very similar to those identified and reported in previous years.
Comment & Conclusion
The EU's Accounts are signed off on the basis of a great deal of riders as briefly outlined above and are highly qualified. The EU's Auditors make this very clear in their declarations.
The most damning statement being, We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
No other accounts in the UK say, would be allowed to do this as they are not a true picture of reality, as the books do not balance and there is a high degree of corruption as stated in outline above. As previously stated, all copied and pasted verbatim from the actual EU audit for 2014.
For if you were a potential investor in a company called EU Limited and knowing the highly qualified accounts, you would not buy into such a company due to its inherent corruption (and based upon the EU's Auditors comments).
Or, the big question is to all those who just want to stay in the EU, would you, no matter what?
Other Myths about Leaving the EU from 'Better Off Out' website (currently being blocked by Google for some strange Reason). You don't think that it has anything to do with their cushy agreement they have with HMRC and paying very little tax do you, or am I getting paranoid?
1. BRITAIN WOULD LOSE THREE MILLION JOBS IF WE LEFT THE EU
If Britain withdrew from the EU it would preserve the benefits of trade with the EU by imposing a UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.
The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2014 there was a trade deficit of over £50bn, with a current account deficit of nearly £100 billion. It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.
Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide. These alone would guarantee the trade upon which most of those 3 million jobs rely.
2. BRITAIN WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM TRADE WITH THE EU BY TARIFF BARRIERS
The EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is currently negotiating a number of other agreements.
EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway. In 2009 UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports. This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls.
3. BRITAIN CANNOT SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY OUTSIDE THE EU IN A WORLD OF TRADING BLOCS
Major economies eg. Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc.
The EU is not the place where most economic growth is occurring. The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 22% in 2025, down from 37% in 1973.
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US.
4. THE EU IS MOVING TOWARDS THE UK’S POSITION ON CUTTING REGULATION AND BUREAUCRACY
EU directives are subject to a ‘rachet’ effect – i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.
Less than 15% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 5th largest in the world)
Over 70% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK, but still subject to EU law.
In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year.
In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.
Whilst red tape savings are not direct cash savings, deregulation would result in a true ‘bonfire of regulations’ that could fund either sizeable tax cuts or additional public spending.
5. IF WE LEAVE, BRITAIN WILL HAVE TO PAY BILLIONS TO THE EU AND IMPLEMENT ALL ITS REGULATIONS WITHOUT HAVING A SAY
We have very little say within the EU, and would have far more leverage outside EU as an independent sovereign nation and the world’s 5th largest economy.
The UK currently has only 8.4% of voting power ‘say’ in the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty ensured the loss of Britain’s veto in many more policy areas.
Britain’s 73 MEPs are a minority within the 751 in the European Parliament.
With further enlargement (Croatia, Turkey’s 79 million citizens), British influence would be further watered down.
As for continuing contributions by an independent Britain, Swiss and Norwegian examples show that the UK would achieve substantial net savings.
Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
NORWAY CASE STUDY:
Norway only had to make relatively few changes to its laws to make its products eligible for the EU marketplace. In 2009, the Norwegian Mission to the EU estimated that Norway’s total financial contribution linked to their EEA (European Economic Area) agreement is some 340 mln Euros a years, of which some 110mn Euros are contributions related to the participation in various EU programmes. However, this is a fraction of the gross annual cost that Britain must pay for EU membership which is now £18.4bn, or £51mn a day.
6. THE EU HAVE BROUGHT PEACE TO THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT
Even now, the EU is only 28 nations of the 47 European nations listed as national members of the Council of Europe.
The forerunner to the EU, the Common Market, didn’t come into existence until 1958, and then only with 6 nations, and yet there was no war between European countries from 1945 to 1956 (except the Hungarian revolution). Whilst peaceful international cooperation is welcomed at all levels, to say the EU is the sole guarantor of peace is an extreme exaggeration that is dishonest in its application.
It is NATO, founded in 1949 and dominated by the USA, and not the EU, that has actually kept the peace in Europe, together with parliamentary democracy. Both of which are being undermined by the EU.
The former German President Herzog wrote a few years ago that ‘the question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy’. This was owing to the number of German laws emanating from the EU- which he assessed at some 84%.
The break up of Yugoslavia was a major test of the EU’s ability to keep the peace. It was EU interference that helped trigger a major civil war and its dithering contributed to deaths of some 100,000 people. It was only decisive action by the US/NATO forces that stopped the violence. Peace was established by the US-brokered Dayton Agreement.
7. THE EU HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE BRITISH ECONOMY
British industries such as fishing, farming, postal services and manufacturing have already been devastated by Britain’s membership of the EU.
EU membership costs UK billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
The Common Fisheries Policy has cost British coastal communities 115,000 jobs (Lee Rotherham, 10 years on)
8. BRITAIN WILL LOSE VITAL FOREIGN INVESTMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LEAVING THE EU
In a 2010 survey on UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, Ernst and Young found Britain remained the number one Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) destination in Europe owing largely to the City of London and the UK’s close corporate relationship with the US. EU membership was not mentioned at all in their table of key investment factors, which were (in order of importance): UK culture and values and the English language; telecommunications infrastructure; quality of life; stable social environment, and transport and logistics infrastructure.
In any case, open access to the EU market would continue through a Free Trade Agreement in the manner of Switzerland and Norway whilst the UK would gain from higher growth, less regulation, more public spending and/or lower taxes and more suitable trade deals.
9. BRITAIN WILL LOSE ALL INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD BY BEING OUTSIDE THE EU
Britain has a substantial ‘portfolio of power’ in its own right, which includes membership of the G20 and G8 Nations, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (one of only 5 members) and seats on the International Monetary Fund Board of Governors and World Trade Organisation.
The UK also lies at heart of the Commonwealth of 53 nations. Moreover, London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy. The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.
Far from increasing British influence in the world, the EU is undermining UK influence. The EU is demanding there is a single voice for the EU in the UN and in the IMF. The EU has also made the British economy and City of London less competitive through overregulation, and negotiates more protectionist and less effective trade deals on behalf of the UK.
The European External Action Service (EEAS) and its EU ‘Foreign Minister’ Federica Mogherini are undermining national diplomatic representation and the furtherance of British political and commercial interests through British embassies, which are being closed or downsized around the world.
The Commonwealth is increasingly discriminated against by the EU policy on visas, so that non-EU Commonwealth citizens face having to obtain visas whilst citizens of even new EU entrants have automatic entry. Historic Commonwealth bonds with Britain are being lost.
10. LEGALLY, BRITAIN CANNOT LEAVE THE EU
Technically, Britain could leave the EU in a single day. Legislatively, this would be achieved simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster.
If the British people voted to leave in an In/Out referendum or by voting in a party with EU withdrawal on its manifesto, Parliament would have to respect the will of the British people and there would be no justification for delay or obstruction in either House.
However, the process of setting up a replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement will take longer, though there would be no need for time-consuming negotiation of tariff reductions if the UK/EU Free Trade Agreement merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.
In addition, even the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 enshrines the right of member states to leave the Union, albeit in an unattractive manner. The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Greenland established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985, and is prospering well outside of it. With Westminster still sovereign (for the moment), it is the British Parliament who will decide how and when Britain leaves the EU.
Stop Press - Cameron Forced to put in the Queen's Speech or suffer defeat in parliament if he did not exclude the NHS from the TTIP trade negotiations
Cameron was forced to include a clause yesterday (19.05.16) so that the NHS was excluded in the TTIP negotiations. This should tell everyone that he is working for the corporations, as the TTIP is a corporate treaty in reality and why should he have had to be forced to do this if the TTIP is so good for the people?
But he is having to do this under duress. Unfortunately for the NHS this will not stop the EU from privatising the NHS over a relatively short period of time when we have signed to stay in the EU and where because the TTIP makes it clear that 'MONOPOLIES' cannot exist, the EU will demand that the NHS is privatised.
And Britain will not be able to do a single thing against this, as we would then be trapped inside an all-powerful EU and under their total control. Don't believe me, return here in a mere 10 years time to see that all the above has unfortunately come true if we stay in the EU. For only by voting OUT can the NHS be saved and that is ultimately the truth.
I just wish people would wake up to the reality of the EU and where we shall definitely not be able to save the NHS and anything else for that matter that we cherish so much, once we sign to stay in the EU. For this time it will be forever.
Dr David Hill
CEO, World Innovation Foundation
29 February 2016 (updated 20 May 2016)
'World’s Largest Aircraft Builder Ignores ‘Project Fear’, Picks Britain For New European HQ' -
'Now the EU has signed up to Kill us slowly and to Give us Cancers Through Carcinogenic Crop Sprays & GM Foods - How long will we stand for such madness to continue is the big question?' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/now-eu-has-signed-up-to-kill-us-slowly.html
'VW becomes world's biggest company...' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/3273525/VW-becomes-worlds-biggest-company-as-short-sellers-panic-drives-shares.html
'Politicians are Allowing Corporations to Kill us - The TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is so evil that our political negotiators are now allowing 'Cancer' creating carcinogenic crop sprays to be used in the European Union' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/politicians-are-allowing-corporations.html
'The European Union (EU) is Heading Towards Terminal Economic Decline, but where their Politicians Haven't the Knowledge to Realise What is happening and Why?' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-european-union-eu-is-heading.html
'The European Union ( EU ) is a long-term ‘Disaster’ waiting to happen over the next two-decades and therefore why should we the people pay for an ultimately failing system - especially when there is no accountability and the costs are astronomical and rising?' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-european-union-eu-is-long-term.html
'Does the UK Government ‘CARE’ more about the European Union (EU) than the People of Britain?' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/does-uk-government-care-more-about.html
'The EU-USA Trade Agreement if our politicians vote it through will be a Disaster for the People of Europe & the People of the USA' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-eu-usa-trade-agreement-if-our.html
'EU Referendum for the People of the United Kingdom will NEVER happen - because Our Political Elites do not Want It to happen' - http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/eu-referendum-for-people-of-united.html