I wonder if the millions of our people wounded and killed in the many wars this country has fought to maintain and secure its independence would feel that their sacrifice was worth it, for a future generation to meekly hand over that freedom to unelected EU bureaucrats in a foreign country. It is remarkable that in such a short period Great Britain has become so decadent, so thoughtless and so pathetic that its government would consider handing over sovereignty for a few badly negotiated and impotent so-called reforms, which in any case cannot be put into action until all the other 27 member states of the EU have voted in accordance. So let’s look at what these ‘reforms’ actually amount to.

In a letter from Mr Cameron to Donald Tusk, dated November 10th 2015, Mr Cameron sets out these reforms. What follows is a factual precis of the result, for those that have not read the letter or followed Cameron’s romp around Europe, and details where we stand  in regard to reforming the EU.

Economic Governance
This is not a reform. It is merely a reiteration of an existing agreement that the UK will not enter into the Euro-zone. There was some mention of the UK not contributing to supporting Euro banks that get into difficulties, but it is always possible that the EU will find some way to take advantage of the UK’s treasury should it be required. The EU Commission had already accepted that the UK would not dump the £ for the Euro. So there’s absolutely nothing new here. In fact it is quite disingenuous for the government to suggest that this is a reform.

Competitiveness
This is not a reform. It is simply a pat-on-the-back from Mr Cameron  for the EU, for claiming that it wanted to reduce regulations and rules in an attempt to increase competitiveness, and for negotiating trade deals with the USA, China, Japan and ASEAN. The UK cannot negotiate these deals itself because it gave up its seat on the World Trade Organization to the EU Commission. Unfortunately, for the UK, there has been an increase in petty rules and regulations from the EU, the reverse of what is claimed.

Sovereignty
This is not a reform. Mr Cameron has described in his letter to Mr Tusk the position of the UK regarding sovereignty. Again, this is just a re-stating of the accepted position. Mr Cameron writes:

“As you know, questions of sovereignty have been central to the debate about the European Union in Britain for many years.”

This seems to be another regurgitation of an already accepted position. However, what it does not state is that the UK is always going to be subservient to the EU Commission, its Parliament and courts. The UK MEPs have been outvoted on every matter that the UK has put forward in the entire period the UK has been a member of the EU. That is unlikely to change. In the event of an ‘IN’ vote, it is guaranteed that no UK veto or suggestion would ever be supported by other member states’ MEPs, given that our suggestions always conflict with the intentions of the EU Commission and the majority of the EU Parliament. They want the EU to be a centrally controlled federal state and the UK doesn’t. At least most UK citizens do not. However, there are some who are happy to be part of the EU federal state, in which case they are free to move to the European mainland!

Immigration
This is by far the most pathetic ‘reform’. It is the UK government telling the EU Commission that it accepts that the UK cannot control its borders and understands that immigration will continue. Mr Cameron points out that the UK welcomes immigration but that it is happening too fast. He certainly is the master of understatement if nothing else! He also mentions that he expects new countries to join the EU. Presumably he is referring to Turkey and the Ukraine. He would like to have a period of four years during which time the new migrants would not be able to milk our welfare system. He’s asking for this right and certainly not telling the EU Commission that the UK will implement a EU proposal anyway. He goes on to write that he understands how difficult this might be for the other member states and hopes to discuss this issue further. The outcome of all this is simply that the UK has to accept open-borders and cannot stop EU migrants claiming welfare benefits from the UK, unless all other 27 member states vote to agree on this ‘reform’.

How likely is that? Migrants who come here from the EU fall into two categories: employed and unemployable. They are different in that respect, but they both have two things in common. The UK cannot prevent them from coming here and enjoying all the rights and privileges that our taxes pay for. Secondly, both categories send money home to support the subsistence payments they receive in their own countries. This adds, indirectly, to the massive contribution the UK makes to the EU budget (the UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU budget) which together form a haemorrhage of money from the UK, money that would be better spent on our public services, defense, education, health and infrastructure.

A Chocolate Teapot
The outcome of all this, and Mr Cameron’s journeys around the capitals of the EU member states, was to extract an agreement from the EU Commission that the UK would be allowed to put these so-called reforms to the EU Parliament for a vote, as and when necessary.

That’s it, that’s what our prime Minister has achieved. Precisely nothing more than the UK has now, except that we know from history that none of the votes that might take place will confirm Mr Cameron’s reforms.

Eastern European member states are net recipients of EU grants and subsidies. Plus, they benefit from the money sent back home by their nationals, some working and some claiming benefits in the UK. This makes their vote unlikely: turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. The French and other southern EU member states will never vote for an Anglo-Saxon suggestion on principle, as it might upset their 35 hour working week and retirement at average 60 years of age regimes.

Mr Cameron, after all his efforts, was unable to introduce any reforms at all. The EU cannot be reformed. To do that would require that it change direction and move away for its trajectory to create a federal state. It isn’t going to do that and we have seen that it will sacrifice the people of the nation states of Europe to achieve that end. Witness the Euro crisis and Greece as an example of the EU Commission’s ruthlessness.

For Mr Cameron and the government to suggest that we, the people of the United Kingdom, are going to vote on a ‘Reformed EU’ is a fabrication that is easily disproved in Mr Cameron’s letter to Donald Tusk. The EU Commission has refused to accept any UK reforms of its relationship with the EU without those reforms first being put to a vote by the 27 other member states. For any UK reform to have a legal basis in the EU a treaty change would be required. No treaty change, no reforms.

Recent statements from senior EU Commission bureaucrats have made it crystal clear that they do not consider the UK reforms acceptable and that the agreements reached with Mr Cameron are not legally binding under EU law. This means that the so-called reforms would not even get to the EU parliament to obtain a vote. If they did they would be voted down. The fact that Mr Cameron has decided to lodge the document with the UN means absolutely nothing. The UN has no jurisdiction in the EU.

People of the United Kingdom must exercise their vote and in so doing express their choice of whether they wish to be governed from Brussels or from London.

They can’t have both.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email