More treachery

  • 0 Replies
  • 727 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4115
  • +75/-0
More treachery
« on: June 23, 2016, 07:41:38 PM »
As you will note this letter was written in 2008,it proves the lies and deceit surrounding the Eu involvement in Post Office closures. In particular read the last paragraph on what Mr Smalley has to say regarding the liar Cameron,and his promises like pie crust,made to be broken.If the Remainers win they will surely live to regret it

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Old Nurseries, Tel: -mail: [email protected]

Sunday, 06 April 2008

Mr Charles Hendry MP

Conservative Party's Shadow Business and Enterprise Minister for Energy, Industry

and Postal Affairs

House of Commons LONDON SWIA OAA

Copy to:

(Deleted)

Mr. Henry Bellingham MP

Mr David Cameron MP, Conservative Leader

Mr Peter Luff MP, Chairman of the Commons Business and Enterprise Committee Dear Mr Hendry,

The truth about Post Office closures.

My colleague sent a letter to his M.P. Mr. Henry Bellingham concerning Post Office closures. Mr Bellingham forwarded it to you as the Conservative Party's Shadow Business and Enterprise Minister for Energy, Industry and Postal Affairs. Several days ago Mr. Stott, who I believe is one of your aSsistants, 'phoned Col. Pares and told him

that Post Office closures were nothing to do with the EU. Col. Pares suggested to Mr

Stott that he contact me to find out the facts. Mr Stott agreed but has not contacted me. I therefore decided to write to you.

Perhaps I had better tell you something about myself. I served as a Conservative

District Councillor for 15 years during which I spent some time as the Leader of the Council and Chairman of various committees. I then moved on to the County Council where I served the Conservatives for 12 years. During my last period on the County,

whilst Chairman of the most important committee - Finance and Resources - I was expelled from the Conservative Group for refusing to lie about the European Union.

COMMENT

Paragraph. 24 of Foreign Office document dated 1971: FCO 30/1048 states: there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties

not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings ofthe Community. 1721s counsel ofperfection may be the more difficult to achieve because these same unpopular measures may sometimes be made more acceptable ifthey are put in a

Community context, and this technique may offer a way to avoid the more sterile forms of inter-governmental bargaining. But the difference between on the one hand explaining policy in terms ofgeneral and Community-wide interest and, on the other,

blaming membershipfor national problems is real and important.

This, then, explains that MPs and governmnet officials are requierd to lie about issues in order to prtect the EU from criticism.

Bryan Smalley's letter continues:

I was then summoned to the constituency Headquarters to appear before a disciplinary committee. I heard that a decision had already been made to expel me from the Party. Being aged 66 years at the time I decided that I was too old to play these childish games. Instead of attending the disciplinary hearing I resigned from the Party.

I am now not a member of any political party but regard myself as a 'Real Conservative'. Even though I hold no political office I keep up to date with the political situation, particularly regarding our relationship with the EU.

The story of post office closures is as follows.

N.B.

LEvery reference that I make regarding these events which includes an asterisk means that I can provide a copy of the document quoted.

2. I have highlighted in red some of the particular points which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the EU is involved with Post Office closures.

For decades, prior to the late 1990's, the Royal Mail was an efficient, profitable monopoly providing the finest postal service in the world as well as being an

important element in the structure of British life. A monopoly was important because

many parts of Britain are remote. It follows that if we are to charge the same postage

rates regardless of that part of the country to which mail is to be delivered, there will be some areas which are serviced at a loss whilst others are served at a profit. If postal rates are set wisely to balance out the differences then Royal Mail will make a profit.

It should be emphasised that Post Office Limited is a subsidiary of Royal Mail. One of the EU's key objectives is to impose competition throughout the whole of its territory regardless of whether or not a national monopoly is beneficial to the local

community.

Detailed rules, which affected the British PO}tal services, appeared in December, 1997 in an EU press dossier 'Notice from the Commission on the application of the competition rules to the postal sector and on the assessment of certain state measures

relating to postal services*'.

EU Directive 97/67/EC issued on 15 December 1997 'Privatisation of Postal Services*' began the introduction of an EU-wide postal service and immediately reduced the Royal Mail's monopoly to mail weighing less than 350 grams. The delivery of mail over that weight was privatised which meant that public sector companies, mainly the Dutch 'TNT' and the German 'Deutsche Post' (trading as DHL), were able to cherry pick the profitable areas of mail services in this country, leaving the unprofitable areas to the Royal Mail.

In addition, the private companies can require the Royal Mail to accept mail which they do not wish to deliver at a cost to them of up to 9 pence a package cheaper than 2nd class postal charges. Because of this arrangement in 2006/2007 the Royal Mail's operating profits fell by 86% to just E22 million. (22 Feb. 2007- Royal Mail Calls For Radical Review of Postal Market Regulation*). It follows that this state of affairs created by the EU forces the Government to subsidise our postal services.

A second Postal Services Directive 2002/39/EC* issued on 10th June 2002 further reduced the Royal Mail monopoly to 50 grams. An extract from Article 14 of the Directive reads: 'An appropriate period oftime is needed to enable Member States to adapt their regulatory systems to a more open environment. It is therefore

appropriate to provide for a step-by-step approach to further market-opening,

. In 2009 the dwindling Royal Mail monopoly will cease altogether as Article 14 goes on to disclose that '. .. a review and proposal confirming, if appropriate, the date of 2009 for the full accomplishment of the intemal market for postal services'.

It is obvious that there has been a great deal of negotiating behind closed doors between the British Government and the EU, particularly because few countries are

making any serious attempt to 'liberalise' their postal services.

At the end of February 2007, the European Commission announced that it had launched an in-depth inquiry into the British Government's funding of national postal services provider Royal Mail, totalling more than 2.5 billion euro. The investigation followed complaints from Royal Mail's competitors (particularly TNT and DHL -Deutsche Post) made between August and October 2006.

It should be noted that only the UK, Sweden and Finland have fully liberalised postal markets. It is therefore ironic that the Netherlands and Germany are benefiting from our liberalised service whilst not adopting it in their own country.

On 9th March 2007 the EU Competition Commissioner's newsletter Nr. 10/07* reported that she (Neelie Kroes) had given permission for the UK to provide 460

million euros to Post Office Limited (approx. {345 million at the time). It reads: The European Commission has authorised, under the EC Treaty 's rules on state aid, proposedfunding by the UK Government to allow Post Office Limited to continue to

provide public services through the network ofpost offices in the financial year beginning I April 2007'. The approval was separate from the investigation referred to in the previous paragraph and concerns only the aid granted to Post Office Limited.

A letter from Brussels to David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and

Commonwealth Affairs - Ref.. N388/2007 - dated 28 November 2007* discusses the relationship between our Postal Services and the EU. It leaves no doubt that the EU is in control. It discusses the 'transformation programme '. Para I I states: 'The

transformation programme will involve POL [Post Office Limited] reducing the size of its post office network by around 2,500 branches'

On 29 November 2007 the EU announced that it had granted the British Government permission to subsidise the Post Office.

It becomes very obvious that the EU was prepared to allow us to subsidise our Post Offices to the tune of 460 million euros in exchange for us closing down 2,500 Post

Offices.

An extract from Hansard dated 07 February 2008* reads:

'Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and

Regulatory Reform what obligations arising from (a) the UK's membership of the European Union and ( b) the UK's participation in single market legislation govern the provision of subsidy to the network of Post Office branches; and if he will make a

statement.

Mr. McFadden: All state support for undertakings, whether privately or publicly owned, are subject to the rules laid down in Article 87(1) of the EC treaty. Funding of

the Post Office network is therefore subject to the state aid rules and can only be given in compliance with these rules.

In November 2007 the Commission approved Government plans for support for Post

Office Limited. '

Instead of using the EU term of 'transformation programme', the demolition of the Post Office network is being managed under the title 'Network Change Programme' which, on its website, explains that the closures are necessary because 'The Government has recognised that fewer people are using Post Office branches [and] . that the shape and size of the overall network of Post Office branches needs to change'. It fails to state that fewer people are using the post offices because the Government has been slowly and deliberately withdrawing services which the Post Office traditional provided. There is also no mention at all on the website or in any material issued by the Network Change Programme of the involvement of the EU and

the real reason why our Post Offices are to close.

The above is a brief exposé of the situation. I have left out some details but have included sufficient to prove the EU's involvement. It follows that anyone who denies this is either totally incompetent or a liar. Recipients of this letter can judge for

themselves.

There are other situations where the Conservatives' integrity is called into question. Probably the most impressive moments of David Cameron's oration when seeking the leadership of the Party were: "Not within days, not within months, but within weeks of you electing me leader, I will take my MEPs out of the EPP/ED. " It was the only firm promise he made, but after his election he reneged on this promise.

As someone who was thrown out of the Party, I am naturally grateful that I have been spared the humiliation of associating with such charlatans, but this is outweighed by

my dejection that the Party has fallen to such depths of deceitfulness. I hope you will think deeply about this.

Bryan Smalley



 

« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 09:20:28 PM by the leveller »

 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk