An excellent piece from the Campaign for an Independant Britain

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
An excellent piece from the Campaign for an Independant Britain
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:45:49 AM »
Telephone:- 0845 519 7254 Email: [email protected]
Like most independence campaigners, for many years I thought our departure from the EU would be a single event. We would tell our European neighbours that we wanted to leave and would like to continue trading with them. Being reasonable folk and knowing their own credit balance of trade, they would agree and we would repeal the European Communities Act 1972. All done and dusted. Simple!
It was only in the last four years, as independence moved from the realm of pure imagination to that of political possibility that forward-looking campaigners began to realise that leaving would be a process rather than a one-off dramatic event. The complexities of unpicking more than forty years of “ever closer union” could not be accomplished in an instant.
David Cameron, in his arrogance, forbade the civil service from considering policy in the event of a “Leave” vote, so Theresa May’s government came in with absolutely no preparations made. Naturally they had to take some considerable time to weigh things carefully in the complexity of one of the larger economies of the world – albeit one which is over-indebted as we have not paid our way with exports for a generation. True, the economy has been more buoyant than the prophets of Project Fear projected – but that underlying weakness remains.
Because of this, it is vital that the changeover to our new relationship with the EU countries is conducted smoothly and seamlessly. Businesses have to pay bills and wages every week or go under, so shocks and periods of uncertainty or interruption of trade will have to be avoided or minimised. This requires negotiation. Once a business closes, it very rarely reopens – the plant is broken up and sold and the expertise of the people formerly employed is dispersed.
Joining the EEC was a generally smooth experience because the government knew what it was doing and gave very full, detailed information and advice in advance to affected companies. So, although the European Communities Act 1972 did not receive the Royal Assent until October, our family feed milling business* had been thoroughly prepared throughout that year and was ready for the changeover on January 1st 1973 . We did not like what had happened but we could get on with making our living. It is a sobering thought that this process of detailed advice to business would have to begin in March 2018, if a similar period of adjustment is to be provided before BREXIT day dawns in 2019. To do that, negotiations would have to be substantially complete by March next year. It is obvious that the Department for Exiting the EU will not achieve this, so they are proposing a “time-limited interim period” after Brexit “to avoid a cliff edge for businesses and individuals on both sides”.
 The paper “Future Customs Arrangements” was issued on August 15th. Frankly, it was not worth the wait. It demonstrates that the department does not understand the difference between a customs union (which is concerned with harmonising tariffs) and a customs agreement ( which concerns the facilitation of traffic through border posts and checks by customs and other officials). For the rest, it is an aspiration to “frictionless” trade with the EU, similar to that available through the European Economic Area but without membership of it. In short, “Having our cake and eating it”, as a sharp-eyed cameraman spotted on one of the Brexit department’s papers in Downing Street many months ago.
To the extent that it recognises how little progress the government has made and how long it will realistically take to achieve a settlement at this pace, it is a welcome acknowledgement of reality that extra time will be needed to avoid that “cliff edge”. The report also states that the vital new Customs computer for filing export declarations will be operational in time – although government assurances about major IT projects have not always been reliable in the past.
As the Department for Exiting the EU is asking for views from those affected, I believe it is one duty of the independence movement to seek advice from companies and organisations with interests and expertise in this field in different industries. The nuts and bolts of any proposed settlement will be just as important as any grand political principle. The Devil, as always, is in the detail.
Passing the European Communities Act 1972 took some three hundred hours of parliamentary debate and we can expect the passing of the much more complicated European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (originally called “The Great Repeal Bill”) to be similarly strenuous. Our Operations Manager, John Petley, is preparing a number of “tutorials” on this before it becomes a really hot topic when Parliament reassembles. On many matters, the mainstream media has not always been a reliable source of information. So we hope people will consult our website.
We continue to press for reassurance on those aspects of Brexit which are particularly sensitive constitutionally - Europol, the Euro Gendarmerie and the European Arrest warrant and the still continuing moves by the British government towards European Defence integration and dependency on European suppliers.
 * To follow the account of one business’s experience in joining the EEC in 1972, go to the CIB website and search on The Miller’s Tale  or else go directly  to  episodes 2 and 3 (It’s not at all salacious like Chaucer!) 
One of CIB’s major efforts of recent months has been in support of our colleagues in Fishing for Leave. John Ashworth wrote our most recent booklet “Seizing the Moment” which explains not only how to resume sovereignty over our territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone but the need to exclude all provisions of the EU Common Fisheries Policy from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and to replace it with an effective British policy to manage the fish stocks and the varied varied environments of our different fishing grounds sustainably and ecologically. We will be attending the Conservative and Labour party conferences in support of this policy.
The recent appointment of Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs started off on a good note. On 3rd July, less than a month after the General Election, notice was served that we will be withdrawing from the 1964 London Fisheries Convention. The notice period is two years, which takes us past Independence Day, but for our fishermen, this was still a very welcome development.
Unlike the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which was well known to have devastated our fishing industry, no one ever mentioned this piece of legislation which pre-dated our membership of the EU during the referendum campaign. It only came to light during the course of researching all the steps needed to replace the CFP with something better. The Convention granted historic rights to several Western European nations, allowing them fish in certain areas within a zone between 6 and 12 nautical miles from the UK coastline (our territorial waters). As the EU treaties cease to apply when we leave the EU, any legislation which pre-dates our accession will regain its force, including the 1964 Convention, which has been subsumed into CFP legislation and therefore almost forgotten – until now.
There is one slight ambiguity, however. The 1964 Convention is vessel-specific and given the advances in technology in the last half century, it is highly unlikely that any of the boats it named are still in commercial use now. However, there is no doubt that a skipper from one of the countries granted historic rights would have tested it out. This happened once before when a delay in signing off new CFP legislation created a 26 day gap in our derogation preserving exclusive rights for UK fishermen within the first six nautical miles from the shore and partial rights between six and twelve nautical miles. A Danish fisherman, Kent Kirk, deliberately fished in this zone to test the law. He was arrested and fined, but the verdict was overturned in a European court eighteen months later.
So things are looking promising as far as our territorial waters are concerned. The fishing industry has always been concerned, however, that the Government will only allow British vessels the exclusive use of this area. This is what a recent DEFRA statement has indicated and the recent the Conservative manifesto said the same thing. Taking the DEFRA statement at face value, it would appear that arrangements regarding our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covering the area from 12 nautical miles up to 200 nautical miles/median line will continue as at present. This means that EU vessels will continue to take around 59% of the British people’s resource and the failed quota system will continue. No one is saying that we should throw all EU vessels out on 30th March 2019, but no permanent rights must be given, only temporary transitional rights on a declining annual basis.
What is vital, therefore, is that we need to know whether DEFRA is making the common mistake of using the term “territorial waters” when it actually means EEZ or whether it really does mean that we will only control the 12 nautical mile limit.
If so, it would be a shameful betrayal of our fishermen on a par with Fisheries Minister Peter Walker, who told Parliament in January 1983 - “the reality is that if the UK, instead of demanding anything like the historic proportions of Europe’s fish that it had caught, demanded a 200 mile limit and 50% or 60 % of Europe’s fish, that would mean the destruction of the fishing industries of most of our friends and partners in western Europe”.
Unfortunately the attitude that fishermen in other countries come before our own still prevails in some quarters. Thankfully, in Michael Gove, we have a person who has hit the deck
running and is prepared to listen and learn. He has already shown in denouncing the London Convention that he is prepared to take action. We must have full control right out to the 200 mile limit and replace quotas with a “days at sea” policy, like the Faeroe Islands. Thankfully, while civil servants may still talk of quotas and territorial limits, it is their job to implement, not decide policy. We can but hope that when Mr Gove really has his feet under the table, there will be a change of tone from DEFRA.
His recent visit to Denmark was widely – and not very favourably - reported in the press, particularly claims that he said that Danish fishermen will still be able to catch “large amounts of fish” in British waters, even if the British leave the EU. Hopefully the negative press will underline the importance of issuing clear, unambiguous statements, leaving no room for confusion over a very delicate subject.
Jeremy Hoskin, a fisherman from Newlyn in Cornwall attacked the use of British “flags of convenience” by foreign fishermen who register their boats in Britain in order to gain British quota entitlement. To do this they visit Britain perhaps twice a year and sell a small part of their catch here to keep the British registration. This is a long-standing grievance, called “quota hopping”. It is authorised by EU rules governing free movement of capital...
And yet, Iceland, within the EEA (European Economic Area) uses Article 112 of the EEA Agreement to ensure that fishing in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is reserved solely for Icelandic nationals and only Icelandic registered vessels may be used. For joint stock companies engaged in fishing, at least half the capital has to be owned by Icelanders, the company must be domiciled in Iceland, the directors must be Icelanders and at least half of them must live in Iceland. Similarly in Norway, vessels must be owned by Norwegians or companies established in Norway. All members of the boards must be shareholders and Norwegian nationals, living in Norway and at least 60% of the capital must be owned by Norwegians. Many people have criticised the EEA for being “half in/half out “of the EU. It will be interesting to know what extra advantage and protection British fishermen will gain from the government’s determination to be outside the EEA.
By Rev Philip Foster MA (Nat.Sci. & Theol) – Deputy Chairman
The UK is currently committed to 80% ‘decarbonisation’ by 2040. All coal fired power stations (representing at least 30% of our current supply) will be closed by 2025 - by EU directive - and the generating sets sold to Germany under an agreement already signed (I wonder why they want them). This will leave the UK dependent on gas and nuclear; wind and solar being expensive, dangerous and unreliable wild cards in the grid mix. Further, as our nuclear plants are ageing but only likely to be replaced in 2035, if at all, our power generation will rely on gas and the French interconnector (using power from French nuclear generation).
This is the dangerous situation that the folly of the EU and our slavishly obsequious governments have brought upon us, believing, as it seems they do, in the fairy-tale of ‘man made global warming/climate change’.
If that were not enough they have gone even further. Our government has declared that all domestic heating must be electric and not gas and that all cars must be purely electric by 2040 (hybrids to be phased out also).
I am running out of synonyms for stupidity, but to turn most of the electricity we generate back into heat (from which is was created in the first place) is beyond stupidity.
It seems no civil servant or politician is capable of doing simple sums.
Let’s do some ourselves.
· The UK’s requirement at peak is around 80GW (Giga Watt = 1,000,000 kilo Watt) that’s 80 million kW.*
· Drax power station generates 4GW - half of this is coal the other half is ‘biomass’ - dried wood chips imported from the USA.
· A household which uses gas for heating requires around 15kW of electrical power at peak use (ie electric cooker plus electric shower).
· The kW equivalent for a gas boiler is about 30kW. This will need to be replaced with equivalent electric heating.
· Add to this the power required overnight for charging your electric vehicle = 10kW (this charge would take 8-12 hours to allow the car a travelling distance of 200 miles in summer and just 100 miles in winter).
· So each household - some 20 million of them reliant on gas - will require an extra 40kW of electric power.
· So for 20 million households the total extra power required: 20,000,000 x 40 kW = 800,000,000kW = 800GW.
This is ten times the maximum power currently available and will all be required at peak periods. You return home, turn on your heating, plug in your car, turn on the oven and take a shower.
Just where will this come from? The French interconnector cannot supply it, not least because the French are facing similar follies and will need far more power than they have now. Were we to generate this from biomass (wood chips) we would consume the entire timber harvest of the USA every year.
Wind could only produce this power if the whole of the United Kingdom were covered in windfarms (12 units per square kilometre) and the wind was actually blowing. When it is very cold in winter the wind does not blow at all, so when heating is needed most, wind power is not available at all. Solar power in winter is non-event!
Lastly let us look at the absurd idea of electric vehicles.
Let me instance the Tesla, trumpeted as the best on the market.
· Range: 200 miles in summer, 100 miles in winter with little or no heating.
· Battery: 70kWh requiring around 150kWh for fast recharge (75 minutes). Half the energy is wasted as heat. This charger requires industrial, three-phase, 450v supply drawing 300 amp which is unavailable in most streets of the UK. ‘Domestic’ charger takes 8-12 hours to recharge.
· Coal required to provide this charge? 43kg - nearly a cwt.
· Petrol required for a 200 mile journey weighs 20kg.
· So the electric car is producing more than twice the CO2 of a petrol vehicle.
· Cost of charging @15p per kWh = £22.50; cost of petrol for same 200 mile journey, £28 (60% of which is tax). In winter, for 100 miles, cost of petrol is about £15.
· Weight of the battery is 800kg = ten passengers on board before you get in!
Risks: 1. Fire, electrocution and explosion in any accident. See, for instance, here
2. Death from exposure. In winter, travelling, say, over the Yorkshire moors in a blizzard at night, you are likely to die. The car ‘dies’, as battery power drops due to the cold. There is no heating. You freeze inside, you freeze outside trying to find help. Petrol cars do not have this problem.
The BBC tried to take an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took more than three days, slower than a stagecoach.
In case anyone thinks that there is a miracle battery just over the horizon, I can absolutely assure him or her that there is not. Battery technology is mature, and, to quote Mr David Hume, “Miracles do not happen.” (at least not in technology). Incidentally Lithium is a rare element, expensive to extract, requiring huge amounts of electricity to do so. To supply the current one billion cars in the world would require 60,000,000 tons of lithium.
*All figures used are approximate, rounded up or down to make the sums easier to follow - so you should allow a 10% margin of error.
So much has happened since 14th May 2016 when we staged our last rally. On that occasion, our Chairman, Edward Spalton, pointed out that it could be the last rally before we gained our freedom. Forty days later came that historic vote, but there is much to do before we will be totally free of the EU’s clutches. Even so, looking back on last year’s event, it is hard to believe that we are finally on the way out, with a new Prime Minister who has pledged herself to honour the Brexit vote and has already triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, thus formally beginning the withdrawal process.
 Our first speaker, Patrick O’Flynn MEP, will be one of those who will lose his job when we finally withdraw, but he didn’t seem too perturbed about it. He said that UKIP will be putting country before party and does not intend to field a full slate of candidates in the forthcoming general Election. A distinction will be made between long-standing consistent Brexit supporters, especially if they only held their seats with small majorities, and those he called “five-minute-to-midnight” converts to the Brexit cause. His concluding remarks were particularly well received:- Remainiacs were welcome to campaign to reverse the result, he said, but it would take forty years by which time the EU would no longer be in existence.
 The next speaker was retired ambassador Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, who described in graphic detail the ongoing problems faced by Greece as a result of the EU-imposed austerity package. The Greek sovereign debt crisis began as far back as 2009 and the enforced belt-tightening has ruined the country, with the death rate having increased dramatically. Furthermore, in spite of massive spending cuts, the country’s debt to GDP ratio has got worse. It was 146.2% in 2010 but by 2016, it had risen to 179%. Ambassador
Chrysanthopoulos is a member of EPAM, a Greek anti-EU campaign group with whom CIB has had links that go back a number of years.
Based on his own country’s unhappy dealings with the EU in recent years, he advised the UK to walk away from the negotiations  if the EU presents insurmountable obstacles. The timing of his words is remarkable as his compatriot Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister, had been extensively quoted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph only the previous day warning of the difficulties of negotiating with the EU.
 Philip Benwell from the Australian Monarchist League made us all feel very ashamed as he described the sense of betrayal felt in his country when we abandoned our Commonwealth friends to join what was then the European Economic Community. Some of us had not previously realised the economic impact on the agricultural sector in Australia and New Zealand by Edward Heath’s wicked deceit, nor that it was a factor in the rise of republicanism in Australia. Of course, that sector has now recovered but, as Mr Benwell reminded us, the result of our flirtation with Brussels is that Asia and China in particular has replaced the UK as the main trading partner.
There is nonetheless considerable enthusiasm within the Australian government to open trade talks with the UK, but Mr Benwell was looking for one particular gesture of goodwill from the UK government in return. Immigration controls in a post-Brexit UK should no longer group other subjects of Her Majesty as aliens and that we should all share a common immigration channel. His organisation, which has 40,000 members including plenty of young people, has campaigned against this discrimination for some years but has thus far been snubbed by pro-EU civil servants.
 After a short break, Luise Hemmer Pihl from the Danish People’s Movement against the EU (Folkebevægelsen mod EU) reminded us that we are not the only country with a long-standing history of opposition to the EU’s encroachment upon the nation state. She mentioned the various referendums in which the Danish people had consistently rejected further integration, including a recent vote to pull out of Europol. Like all our like-minded friends across the water, her organisation was greatly encouraged by the Brexit vote.
 The last speaker, John Ashworth from Fishing for Leave, will need no introduction to regular readers of this website. His most recent book, Seizing the Moment, has been published by the Campaign for an Independent Britain. Continuing the theme of how awkward the EU can be as a negotiating partner, he told us how obstructive it was when Greenland voted to leave and only the threat to close its waters to (what were then) EEC vessels forced Brussels to agree a deal.
 The film Witness to History concluded the afternoon’s programme. Lasting 35 minutes, it features a fascinating interview with Lord Walsingham, who worked in the Foreign Office when plans for the European Iron and Steel Community were being discussed in 1950. His concerns about the UK signing up to a project which was ultimately designed to weaken our heavy industry through the establishment of the European Coal & Steel Community, along with his opposition to the denazification policy being pursued by the Americans led him to resign and fight in the Korean War instead.
Before the speakers gave their presentations, one man who has been a consistent opponent of our EU membership ever since being present in the House of Commons in the evening of that
fateful vote on the Accession Treaty in 1972 was presented with a silver salver by our Chairman, Edward Spalton. George West, who has been President of the Campaign for an Independent Britain since taking over from Lord Stoddart on his retirement, has decided to stand down.  Readers will, I am sure, wish Mr West all the best for the future and thank him for his contribution to the cause of independence.
Anthony Scholefield, one of our Vice Chairmen, was the first Party Secretary of UKIP and is now Director of the FUTURUS Think Tank. He forecast the result of the referendum remarkably accurately and now makes another prediction in 
He believes that David Davis should never have accepted the EU’s sequencing of talks which, he believes, was also contrary to the provisions of Article 50. The address of Futurus website  is 
 You can join on line here or else send the form below to the address at the top of this newsletter. You can also make a donation to CIB here. 

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk