EXTRACT
NOT long after
starting work in Downing street, I
found myself on a Eurostar train
heading for Brussels. It was an
eye-0opening trip. BUT its origin
lay in a truly shocking discovery
some weeks earlier.
Before the 2010
general election, Francis Maud and
Oliver Letwin, two of the
Conservative Party's key
policymakers, and I had worked with
each Tory shadow minister on
detailed plans for the
implementation of our
policies-including work to
understand how the EU would affect
what we wanted to do.
We thought we had
a pretty good idea how to handle- or
ideally, circum-navigate-the
constraints imposed by European
rules, regulations and bureaucracy.
However, we were little prepared for
the
SHEER SCALE OF IT AL.
After just a few
weeks in government, I was struck by
how many things the Government was
doing that the Prime Minister and
his team didn't just not know about
BUT ACTIVELY
DISAGREED WITH.
I investigated. It
turned out that every few days, a
pile of paperwork about a foot high
was circulated in WHITEHALL. The
paperwork gave the go-ahead for
Government action and was supposedly
based non written approval from the
relevant ministers.
BUT HERE'S THE CATCH:
ministers were
given 2 DAYS to respond to any
proposal. If no response came, then
this was taken as a 'YES'.
THERE IS NO WAY
ANY MINISTER COULD POSSIBLY READ ALL
THE PROPOSALS BY THE DEADLINE.
*
Even our man in
Brussels didn't understand how the
EU really works.
*
Furthermore, there
was an unspoken rule that one
department wouldn't interfere in
proposals coming from another. In
fact, as I recall, there was only
one minister who regularly did so
(much to the consternation of the
others), and that was Michael Gove.
From my vantage
point at No 10, though, I wanted to
know where it all came from. What
were these requests for policy
clearance', as they are known? How
many were really necessary for the
delivery of our promises?
I ASKED FOR A DETAILED AUDIT
It turned out that some
30 per cent of government action was
relevant to what we were supposed to
be doing. The rest-you guessed
it-was generated from with the
CIVIL
SERVICE MACHINE
the majority
coming from the
EU.
That's why I found myself on that
Eurostar to Brussels. I wanted to
know: how exactly do we end up with
all these policies
WE DON'T WANT,
which
NO ONE IN BRITAIN VOTED FOR,
and which
WASTE SO MUCH TIME-ENERGY AND MONEY?
With us on the
journey was Sir Kim Darroch, then
Britain's Permanent Representative
to the European Union-our top EU
diplomat.
He briefed us on
Brussels procedures, and how we
might stop-or at least reduce-the
flow of
UNWANTED BUREACRACY.
It was a
fascinating and enlightened
conversation. The only problem was:
almost everything he told us
TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG.
We spent the
following day meeting various
players in the Brussels set-up, in
the European Commission, Parliament
and Council, who explained how
things really got done. And it
slowly dawned on us that the man
tasked with representing Britain in
the EU literally
DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKED.
Now, before anyone
jumps down my throat, saying 'there
he goes again, attacking the civil
service',
I WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR THAT I HAVE THE HIGHEST
RESPECT FOR SIR KIM, WHO IS A MODEL
PUBLIC SERVANT, AND NOW OUR
AMBASSADOR IN WASHINGTON.
It's not his fault: it's the system
that's to blame.
It's
become so complicated, so secretive,
so impenetrable that its's way
beyond the ability of any British
government to make it work to our
advantage-even though I have no
doubt that things have improved
since tthe Coalition Government's
early days.
In this debate on the
EU referendum, it's easy to throw
around terms like 'SOVEREIGNTY' and
'DEMOCRACY':: FREEDOM' and
BUREAUCRACY. But in the end we're
debating not the some abstract
concept, but a very specific
question about
HOW
OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE RUN.
And my view, based on
a pragmatic, non idealogical
assessment of how the EU operates,
is that as long as we are members,
our country cannot be 'run'.
Membership of the EU makes Britain
literally.
UN-GOVERNABLE
in a
sense that
NO
ADMINISTRATION ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE
CAN GOVERN THE COUNTRY.
A democracy is based
on the notion that the people-or
their directly-elected
representatives-are able to decide
issues for
THEMSELVES.
And yet membership of
the EU brings with it constraints on
EVERYTHING
from
EMPLOYMENT LAW
to FAMILY POLICY
all determined
through distant, centralised
processes we hardly understand,
LET
ALONE CONTROL.
You may say: Well,
that's government for you-it always
involves
COMPROMISE.
Indeed it does, but
at least in a democracy, the
compromises are clear and
transparent and can be argued over
and influenced by the people who are
affected by them. Yet no such
possibility exists in the
grotesquely
UNACCOUNTABLE EU.
As I say to my
American friends who don't really
get
WHAT
THE EU IS
'All
you need to know is that it has
three presidents, none of whom
elected.'
The
European Union was born out of lofty
ideals. And for many years, it
served a valuable purpose. As an
expression of the liberal values of
democracy and freedom, it was a
beacon to the subjugated peoples of
Europe-including in Communist
Hungary , from where my parents
fled.
[We need to interject
here: We would not disagree with the
points outlined above except to say
that from the beginning the EU was
the birth child of and the
inspiration of
Nazism during
World War
2 and - that it was because of
the very notions mentioned above
that they knew they could over time
by the technique of 'Gradualism'
change the nature of the EU to fit
their intended model of a
COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-UNACCOUNTABLE-UNDEMOCRATIC-ELITIST
EUROPEAN UNION which Mr Steve Hilton
has so accurately and painstakingly
uncovered.
What we find so
difficult to understand is why after
the uncovering in 2001 under the
30
year rule at the Records Office
at Kew of foreign office documents
since 1970 clearly showing the
efforts to hide the truth of the
real intention of the
EU
PROJECT that the public were not
more pro-active as some notable
authors such as
Christopher Booker who exposed
the
TRUTH but were unable to get the
British public to question where
everything was leading. We ourselves
since 2003 have shown many such
documents
on our website exposing the
Conspiracy because that is what
it is otherwise how can one explain
how so little was done by the FREE
PRESS to expose the TRUTH until only
recent times? It has taken an
important insider such as Steve
Hilton the close confident at No 10
of David Cameron to put some
credence to the known facts which
have been common knowledge for
decades. We thank Mr Hilton for his
brave and timely exposure of the
BEAST of
BRUSSELS and for giving the
PEOPLE the means to escape from the
even closer encirclement planned for
them which they can prevent by
voting to
LEAVE
THE EU
ON
JUNE 23-2016]
*
ARTICLE CONTINUED
But , today, the
EU has become the institutional
manifestation of almost everything I
argue against in my book,
More Human
There, I set out
my view that the systems and the
structures we have designed to run
the modern world have become
TOO BIG
BUREAUCRATIC
and
DISTANT
from the
HUMAN SCALE.
And I make my case
for what is in many ways a classical
liberal reform agenda: I am a
pro-market, pro-enterprise,
pro-trade, pro-putting power in
PEOPLE'S HANDS.
THE EU DOES THE OPPOSITE
It is anti-market,
stifling innovation and competition
with its
STATISM
CORPORATISM
BUREAUCRACY
It is
anti-enterprise, acting
IN THE INTERESTS OF BIG BUSINESSES
that have
corruptly captured the
THE LEVERS OF
POWER
IN
BRUSSELS
through their
SHAMELESS LOBBYING
and
INSIDER
DEAL-MAKING,
enabling a gradual
takeover of
OUR COUNTRY.
The European Union
is anti-trade
locking developing
countries out of world markets with
its evil
COMMON
AGRICULTURAL POLICY
that featherbeds,
French farmers while keeping African
farmers trapped in
POVERTY and DESPAIR
And I don't think
the EU's most fervent supporters
would ever claim that it
'PUTS POWER IN
PEOPLE'S HANDS'
The whole point of
the EU is to take power
OUT
of people's hands'
in pursuit of a greater good.
THE TROUBLE IS,
ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
*
They are so arrogant and dismissive
of our modest demands
*
These are issues that a reformed EU
might address. I could certainly
live with an imperfect EU that
nevertheless showed some
willing-ness towards dispersing,
rather than centralising power.
But it is perfectly obvious to
everyone, including Mr
Cameron, that no such reorientation
WILL EVER BE COUNTENANCED.
The
arrogant and dismissive treatment of
Britain's relatively modest demands
in the 2015/2016 negotiations shows
that the EU is just NOT INTERESTED
in anything OTHER THAN SUPERFICIAL
CHANGE.
You might as well hope for Vladimir
Putin to embrace liberal democracy.
Of course, the EU is perfectly
entitled to such a disposition.
BUT IT IS WELL TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IT>
And so one way of thinking about
this
REFERENDUM
is that the choice is actually not
between
STAYING and LEAVING- BUT between
LEAVING and JOINING a NEW EU.
Because the EU after a BRITISH VOTE
to STAY would be a different
creature from the one we have today.
It would be the EU unleashed,
freed from the constraints of having
to placate the pesky BRITISH
with its endless complaining and
THREATS to LEAVE.
Once they know we will never leave,
all our leverage
WILL BE GONE. Look how they treated
a British Prime Minister armed with
the threat of BREXIT. Can you imagine
how they would treat a future PM
WITHOUT SUCH A POWERFUL CARD TO
PLAY?
And remember that this is for the
LONG TERM. Even if you think
Cameron's deal will protect us from
the worst excesses of the EU, the
fact is that he will be in office
for ONLY FOUR YEARS AT MOST.
[OR BE OUSTED IN WEEKS OR
MONTHS FOR THE DISSEMBLER AND
OPPORTUNIST HE IS, AFTER THE RESULT
OF THE REFERENDUM, ON JUNE 23-2016.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN 14 YEARS' TIME
OR 24?
Who knows what kind of a Prime
Minister we will have, and whether
he or she will GIVE UP EVERYTHING .
David Cameron negotiated-just like
Tony Blair gave up the OPT-OUT from
the SOCIAL CHARTER negotiated by
John Major (a capitulation which
meant that, under the system of QMV-qualified
majority voting, Britain could
subsequently be overturned ruled by
other European countries on issues
such as
WORKING CONDITIONS
and
HEALTH and SAFETY.)
The one thing we can be certain of-
because it's based not on
speculation or scaremongering but on
what has happened in the past-is
that the EU will only ever move in
one direction:
MORE CENTRALISATION
MORE BUREAUCRACY
MORE POWER SHIFTING FURTHER FROM
PEOPLE'S HANDS.
From that clarity should come an
informed decision
TO LEAVE.
To regain control over our
country's destiny so that a
democratically elected government in
Britain is FREE to carry out its
MANDATE, whether that's
LEFT, RIGHT or CENTRE.
For me, it would mean economic
and employment policy that makes
Britain the best place in the world
to start and grow a business, ;
family policy that makes Britain the
best place in the world to bring up
children; competition, planning and
government reform that finally
allows us to prioritise the small,
the local, the inefficient', the
beautiful, THE HUMAN.
Others would have a different
agenda. But don't you see, if a
political party wins the votes then
that partyshould be allowed to make
it happen.
That's what it's all about. That's
why I think
WE SHOULD LEAVE.
People ask: what about the
economy, and access to Europe's
Single Market? Would we end up like
NORWAY? Or SWITZERLAND.?
NO
We're bigger than that; better
Our independent relationship with
the EU, but the last time I
checked. General Motors had no
problem selling cars there. Or
Heinz, ketchup. Or Starbucks,
coffee.
It's a particular vanity of
politicians to believe that all good
things in the world come from their
actions. The economic reality is
that our success in trade depends
far more on fundamental factors such
as comparative advantage-whether we
are designing and making things
others want to buy-than on
politicians' BUREAUCRATIC SCHEMES.
But the bottom line on the
economic argument is that no
one really knows. It's clearly
ridiculous to claim that that
it's settled in either direction;
there are risks
WHATEVER WE DO.
The real choice is not economic
security or economic risk, but what
kind of government will equip us
best to cope with a risky
fast-changing world.?
I think, on balance, that the
answer to that question is a
government THAT WE CONTROL
That can move at a pace we set,
rather than the inevitably sclerotic
speed a
A COMMITTEE OF 28 COUNTRIES, WITH
A VASTLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
Then we're told that the EU is
VITAL FOR OUR SECURITY
They claim that the EU is vital
for our security is just
astonishing.
Really? I was pretty amazed
when I first heard this point being
made. The idea that a British Prime
Minister can't protect Britain
properly without the EU is frankly
astonishing, and , if true, rather alarming.
BUT ,OF COURSE, IT'S NOT TRUE.
YES, in a complex world of global
threats, we need security
co-operation with other
countries-like what happens in NATO.
Forgive me if I've missed something,
but I wasn't aware that
THIS REFERENDUM IS ABOUT LEAVING
NATO.
And our
closest security partner is the U.S.
We manage to stand shoulder to
shoulder with them in fighting
terrorism and other threats without
being locked in a supra-national
institutional embrace. We co-operate
as TWO COUNTRIES.
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO IF WE
LEFT THE EU.
But perhaps the most important
argument for leaving the EU
is to look at the people
who are wheeled out to persuade us
to STAY; figures like the
International Monetary Fund boss
Christine Lagarde,
Bank of England Governor Mark
Carney,
advertising giant Sir Martin
Sorrell,
as well as the
CBI -Confederation of
British Industry. and all the other
ESTABLISHMENT STOOGES.
THEY WANT US TO STAY IN THE EU
BECAUSE THEIR
WHOLE WORLD
DEPENDS
ON IT.
Their
lifestyle of summit meetings and
first-class flights and five star
hotels; their flitting and floating
from New York to Brussels to
Beijing, serving the of the
technocratic elite-
THE BANKERS
BUREAUCRATS
AND
ACCOUNTANTS
who run the modern world and who,
regardless of which government in
power in which country, push the
same dogma of
GLOBALISATION
PRIVATISATION
AND
CENTRALISATION.
DON'T GET ME WRONG:
I'm a fan of GLOBAL TRADE and a
champion of the PRIVATE SECTOR.
BUT
when those good things are
accompanied by
CENTRALISATION
the result is an unhealthy
concentration of
ECONOMIC and POLITICAL POWER
that is fundamentally hostile to
my belief in
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
AND
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
and my confidence in human nature
and the good that will come when
INDIVIDUALS-FAMILIES and
NEIGHBOURHOODS
WORK TOGETHER.
without a far-away
administrator's
MASTER PLAN.
A decision to leave the EU is not
without risk, but I believe it is
the ideal and idealistic choice for
our times.
TAKING BACK POWER
FROM
ARROGANT,
UNACCOUNTABLE, HUBRISTIC ELITES
PUTTING IT WERE IT BELONGS
IN
PEOPLE'S HANDS.
THIS is an adopted extract from a
new revised paperback edition of
More Human: Designing A World
Where People Come First, by Steve
Hilton, to be published on Thursday
by WH Allen, £8.99 Steve
Hilton 2016.
Full
article
[This is one of the most important
expose on the EU we have ever
encountered since we entered the
political arena in 1997 in order to
divulge the criminal and treasonable behaviour of politicians and others
who belied the truth of the purpose
and intention of the EU. ]
DAILY MAIL
COMMENT
Monday, May 23,2016
CASE FOR BREXIT BY A MAN
WHO REALLY KNOWS
Since the start of the
referendum campaign, Remain supporters-led by
the Prime Minister- have tried to portray those
who want to leave the EU as dishonest, deluded,
or downright mad.
Last week for example,
Chancellor George Osborne sneeringly described
Brexit supporters as a bunch of conspiracy
theorists who believe he and Mr Cameron are part
of a global stitch-up' aimed art terrifying
British voters into sticking with Brussels.
'The next thing you know they
will be accusing us of faking the moon landings,
kidnapping Shergar , and covering up the
existence of the Loch Ness Monster,' he said.
All highly amusing of course, but will they use
the same language about the latest recruit to
the
LEAVE CAMP?
Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron's
closest friend in politics, godfather to one of
his children, his former strategy chief and man
who persuaded him to stand as party leader
declares in today's Mail the the EU has been
and that Britain can 'corruptly captured' by a
self-serving ELITE! and that BRITAIN can ONLY
THRIVE by being
OUTSIDE
IT.
In a shattering blow to his
former boss, Mr Hilton says the
UK is 'UNGOVERNABLE'
as a
DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY
inside the
EU'
which
has become 'so complicated ,so secretive, so
impenetrable that it's way beyond the ability of
any British Government to make it work to our
advantage'.
Unlike some of the
superannuated former Tory advisers wheeled out
by Remain, Mr Hilton was until recently at
THE VERY HEART OF
GOVERNMENT.
Known as Mr Cameron's
guru', he is the ultimate
DOWNING
STREET INSIDER.
So he has seen with his own
eyes how Brussels stifles
ENTERPRISE-
TRADE
COMPETITION
He
describes how it works for big business and
against
DEMOCRACY
and
concludes
IT WILL NEVER REFORM.
Doesn't this searingly honest analysis put the
scaremongering of the Remain camp to shame? For
all their apocalypic warnings of economic
meltdown and mass unemployment, they have still
not put forward a positive case for staying in
the EU
By contrast, here is Mr
Hilton's positive case for
GETTING OUT
'I believe it is [about]
taking back power from
ARROGANT
UNACCOUNTABLE,
HUBRISTIC ELITES
and putting it where it
belongs-
IN PEOPLES HANDS.'
Does that sound deluded, or
just
DEMOCRATIC.
*
Full
article.
*
*News for DAILY MAIL-HOW THE EU MAKES BRITAIN
IMPOSSIBLE TO GOVERN
*
Why we
MUST quit the EU, by David Cameron's guru Steve
Hilton
*
H.F.790 |
|
|
MAY 25-2016
|