Copyright © 2015 - 19 All rights reserved.

Loss of control by all members states in the EU - this is a blueprint for central control of the member states from Brussels (Berlin). 

​​​​​​1st January, 2017

IPPR Report

When we first looked at the Institute of Public Policy Research (IRRP) report it appeared to be describing the most recent, current and developing situation, which are consequences of being in the EU, as part of the Single Market and the Customs Union, and began largely since the Maastricht Treaty (1992) - The start of the Eurozone, the Euro and the birth of the EU, which subsumed the European Economic Community (EEC) aka the "Common Market", after renaming it as the European Community (EC).

It also marked a major change in the relationship between the (EU) and its member states.

The new relationship marked the establishment of the three pillars of the EU (devised in the Treaty of Rome (1957)) which included formal establishment of the structures to control; common Justice and Home affairs (Corpus Juris), Defence (EU Armed Forces) and Fiscal (Taxation, Pensions and Monetary) responsibilities to the EU elites.

The key to the dire fiscal and demographic situation we find in the UK today derives; partly from the effects of the EU wide austerity, with its dictates of percentage GDP debt and deficit ratios, introduced by the Maastricht Treaty (1992); partly from the economic collapse precipitated by the Clinton administration, which was considerably worsened in the UK by New Labour, which increased the UK debt from 40% of GDP in 1997 to 80% of GDP in 2010; and partly because of the Four "Freedoms" of the EU. 

The majority of these changes and their detailed developments have been established behind the backs of the populations of the EU member states, with politicians, for example, lying about the formation of an EU Army, which is known to be at an advanced stage; through the connivance of overly compliant politicians in the member states, mostly claiming to be Centre Left. To be more precise, the compliant politicians are closer to Communism than to Buddhism; most importantly these changes are taking place without the consent of the populations of the EU.  These additional powers (Competences - to use the EU jargon), and more, are being constantly given over to the EU.

The final insult to those who were never given a vote of any of these treaties (since 1975) occurred with the Lisbon Treaty (2007) by which the EU became a legal entity in its own right, separate and superior to its member states. To add insult to injury, in order to effect a complete take over of its member states, the Terms and Conditions (Articles and Declarations) of the Constitution for Europe (2004), which had been previously rejected by the French and Dutch in referenda in 2005, were hidden within its texts.

As mentioned above, the Treaty of Rome (1957) included the Four "Freedoms" (Capital, Goods, Services and Workers), whose effect on the UK, began largely during the tenure of New Labour, have placed the UK in a position in which its very nature is being overwhelmed and destroyed, through overpopulation, privatisation, and foreign ownership of our infrastructure, public services, the systematic sidelining of our culture and wanton destruction of our natural environment.  

Moving on. Apparently, the IPPR is known as "Blair's favourite think tank" - a quick look on Wikipedia indicates that they certainly have a lot of supporters, if their financial sponsor list is anything to go by - but the analyses of the data upon which they base their predictions lead, necessarily to "Crystal Ball" predictions at best. 

What is more interesting is that no account of the effects of the above changes that will take place within the EU are even mentioned, let alone critically assessed - in particular, what our future will be like when Britain ceases to exist - broken into regions of a Federal State - and when austerity, taxation, pensions and insurance, etc., are added to the list of directives to be determined directly from the EU, after we are forced into the Eurozone, and forced to adopt the Euro, as the price for access to the EU markets.

In reality, we cannot be forced into unacceptable terms of trade with the EU once we leave, since both the EU and the UK are members of the WTO, and are required to trade with each other, as part of the WTO, and therefore the EU cannot prevent access nor legally enforce, onerous terms for trading. The only way that Britain can continue to be trapped in the EU is with the connivance of politicians, peers and justices who are willing to act on behalf of the EU, and thereby betray the British People.

If we remain in the EU, even partially, without repealing the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 though, we can look forward to the same as we have seen in southern Europe: mass youth unemployment in the 40%-50%, direct control of our parliament, including the imposition of an EU technocrat to replace our Prime Minister; the sale or privatisation of our public services and infrastructure, the imposition of uncontrolled mass immigration, with its associated job insecurity and undermining of workers' rights - all directed and determined by those in the EU who wish to determine the optimum EU distribution of economic activity that best suits the maintenance of a weak Euro to assist German manufacturing.

The IPPR report suggests that Britain will suffer if we leave the Single Market and the EU, which is total propaganda and almost certainly very much over exaggerated - and the alternative is far more terrifying - not surprisingly though, the IPPR does not want you to realise that - the relative success of the "fear of leaving the EU" campaign is the main reason why the Remain camp continue to push the "fear factor." So that they can continue to frighten people into remaining in the EU.

This was based upon the fact that fear of the unknown was the biggest factor in the Remain camp's ability to obtain a 48% vote to stay tied to the EU (Lord Ashcroft analysis of voting in the EU Referendum) - which is the reason why they continue to push the fear with reports about the future that no-one can reliably predict - especially the so-called experts who are not respected when they present one sided arguments and dismiss alternative views and analyses.

The other main Remain tactic is to create instability in the financial markets by "doing Britain down" at every opportunity, in order to deter investment; installing a continuing climate of depression and negativity in order to undermine confidence; using, essentially, the same propaganda tactics practised by Britain's former enemies in NAZI Germany and Japan during WWII - including, in modern Britain, shamefully using UK publicly funded media outlets, which also receives funding from the EU to dismiss, decry and attempt to undermine the Democratic will of the British people and promote the EU at every opportunity. 

The second most common reason for wanting to Remain, though, was the misguided assumption was that Britain would not be dragged into greater integration within Europe because of its "Vetoes" - even though it is happening day by day - and as qualified majority voting becomes more widespread (next phase at the end of March, 2017), within an ever expanding EU (including those in the Barcelona Treaty (1995)) - Britain's "Vetoes" will count for very little, within a very short period of time. 

Clearly, by remaining and falling into the EU trap of accepting full integration, there will be an awful lot of Remain Camp voters who will suddenly realise the error of their ways - but it will be too late by then.

Comment on Theresa May's New Year Speech

There are increasingly alarming signals that our initial estimation of May's appointment could be true - We speculated that May was like the "...archetypal "sniper", left behind by the retreating Remain camp to hinder the progress of the Leave camp, whilst the Remain camp regrouped" - and it now looks more likely that we were correct - careful monitoring is now needed to avoid ending up with a delay in the invocation of Article 50 before the end of March, 2017.

If May really wants to take account of the concerns of the Remain camp she rightly follows the plans to seek International trade to allow Britain to move away from any economic dependence on the EU,  whilst maintaining and developing increased trade with the EU on a basis beneficial to the UK - this should help to allay the fears of those whose number one reason to remain in the EU was that of irrational fear of loss of trade and jobs.

To address the second most common reason for voting remain - the misguided notion that they can have "...the best of both worlds because of Britain's Vetoes" - this requires a government programme to spell out the consequences of remaining in the EU - even though that would directly conflict with the advice issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) - advice contained in FCO:30/1048 in 1971 - which expressly requires the government and all political parties to protect the EEC (EU) from scrutiny by the the British people.