Opening up a pro-eu(er)

Or, perhaps, reading the 'phile' of a pro-eu(er) - in one particular case. My attention is drawn to two articles that have appeared today; one in the Times (£), the other on the website of Public Service Europe, both of which contain 'irregularities'.


In the first, entry of which I have not due to the paywall, it is understood that Roland Rudd who is chairman of Business for New Europe - and who in the past was one of those who believed that this country should have joined the euro at its inception - argues that should Britain leave the EU and then forge a membership similar to that of Norway it too would be the subject of 'fax-machine diplomacy. Perhaps Rudd should be directed to posts by Richard North, here and here.  


Digressing slightly it seems that the likes of Hannan and Farage, amongst others, are 'fixated' with the idea that the only alternative available, should Britain exit the European Union, is membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). As an alternative, however, might not an arrangement such as the Swiss have - of bilateral agreements -not be better? Even though such negotiations may take time to complete, Britain's position as a market, an economy and bearing in mind the potential to the EU of any subsequently agreed 'contributions' must carry a great deal of weight.


Whilst on the subject of Norway I believe it correct to say that only just over 3.5% of Norwegians are unemployed, inflation is circa 2.5% cent and debt /deficit levels are almost the only ones in Europe that come anywhere near the Maastricht criteria, coupled with the facts that Norway export more per capita to the EU from outside that organisation than Britain does from inside, whist their trade with the EU is in surplus, whereas ours is in deficit.


Time dictates that I move on to "Nucleus" (building influence through Europe) and the article written by a Director, one Matthew Lewis, linked to above. Where to start? In fact there are so many 'irregularities' in this piece, one written by someone who appears to belong in a kindergarten, that I can't be bothered to even start - go read it for yourselves! Suffice to say, I will pick-up on one statement he makes, namely "We cannot operate as a Switzerland or a Norway, it is not in our nature" as it immediately begs the questions of why and why not? Bearing in mind the statistics quoted above, if it is not in our nature, following his 'reasoning'(?) then perhaps it would be to our own good as a nation that we changed our nature. That we have been for ages a 'trading nation' and have survived as such seems to have escaped him, something he would know had his education been better than it obviously was. Lewis' statement that "we cannot operate as a Switzerland...." illustrates that this is yet another 'robot' imprisoned in the 'current political bubble' because it is obvious that in making that statement it has not crossed his mind to think about our system of democracy. That Lewis writes in the vein he does is not surprising as he is a committed 'euro-realist'. Digressing slightly again, as their 'About' section is woefully short of information I have emailed them to ask how long they have been in existence, whether it is long enough that they have annual accounts and reports - and if so why they are not readily available on their website; if not and they have only recently been formed, from whence and from whom came their funding for start-up.


As I have said previously, if, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned - and the same exhortation applies to anyone else who wishes to influence public opinion!




Afterthought for Master Lewis: An alternative viewpoint from a 'business leader'.

We see what we see - and believe it (unfortunately)

Readers will know that I recently posted on Norway, UNECE and Farage, here. That we in the UK are not the only ones suffering from an MSM which is in the pocket of politicians would appear to be confirmed by this post from Richard North, EU Referendum (and do follow all the links!)

As bandwagons appear to be 'all the rage' - forgive me if I remount mine! When we have introduced a participatory form of democracy in this nation, one which cements the democratic basis that we the people are 'king; that we can control our own destiny and that mechanisms are in place to do just that; people will become more involved in politics (human nature?). As I posted recently, I doubt people even know that another form of democracy even exists - and when it is known, I can almost guarantee they will grasp it with both hands It is through this widening of democratic awareness that people will make use of the internet in order to seek the truth, thus forcing the MSM to start reporting the bare facts - and thus the truth - if they wish to remain in business, rather than the 'mis-information' that is presented to us as the truth.

A recent commenter on this post accused Richard North, amongst other things, of being an 'egotist' - but hey, are not all those blogging 'egotists'? Is not anyone who will not accept the 'status quo', for whatever reason, an 'egotist'? Are not those, who fought to preserve a way of life in which they believed, each and every one an 'egotist'? That commenter should remember that were it not for the 'egotists' throughout our history, he amongst many others - who mock 'egotists' - would not be enjoying what freedoms they still have.

This bodes well (not) for any referendum debate

Yesterday I posted a video featuring Nigel Farage rebutting Cameron's Lord Mayor's Banquet speech - and did so deliberately refraining from adding any personal opinion on what Farage said.

As Richard North pointed out in the comment section to that post much of the EEA legislation is agreed initially by bodies such as UNECE, linking to this post in which he made exactly that point. Norway, as a member of the UNECE, therefore does have a voice in the drafting of EU legislation. Cameron was likewise disingenuous when in his speech he said: "Leaving the EU is not in our national interest. Outside, we would end up like Norway, subject to every rule for the Single Market made in Brussels but unable to shape those rules", something which I failed to pick up when I posted on that speech.

For some time it has been obvious that politicians are adept at twisting, or omitting, facts to suit their own argument. That Farage omitted to mention the UNECE factor may have been due to time constraints, however it is such an important matter surely its inclusion should have been mandatory. That Cameron failed to tell the whole truth is, unfortunately, to be expected.

If, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned.

Just saying............