Traditional Britain Group

Whats the holdup now, Andrew?

The Church, via their lawyer, referred the law, as signed by the President, to the Supreme Court, arguing that it is unconstitutional. The Court imposed a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order - effectively an injunction - much used in Philippines law) stopping the law from being implemented until they had heard the case - they have heard from the "antis" and and now hearing from the "pros". My guess is that it will be very very close - quite possibly 7-6 one way or the other.

Here is Senator Pilar Cayetano's speech to the Court today:

http://senatorpiacayetano.com/?p=1881

Yes. Its fair enough.

A complete refit.

But still targeting unlicensed Black & White, and Coloured.

Well that's hardly fair, is it? I asked you to list the benefits of Britain's membership of the EU and you reply by telling me to Google them! And at the same time, you want me to spend time preparing a balance sheet!

Pro-European politicians and commentators are very keen to tell us that we benefit from our membership of the EU but are very reticent to explain why. When pressed they tend to waffle about "complex issues which it would be difficult for the public to understand". However they do cite the following 3 or 4 reasons time after time after time:

Withdrawal from the EU would adversely affect our trade and commerce. Britain's trade with the EU represents 40% of our total trade with the world and it would not disappear should Britain leave the EU because there are other binding treaties that protect our trading relationships - including the EEA and EFTA. It is certainly true that manufacturers would be required to continue adhering to EU standards laws both present and future - but they have to in any event, no change there. However industry and commerce would be freed from much of the costly red-tape that binds them hand and foot thus enabling them to become more competitive and grow. And that's good for the nation's economic health: more jobs resulting in a higher tax take.

The European Union has guaranteed peace in Europe since its inception. That was certainly one of the main founding principles behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the Common Market and EU. But I suggest that Europe's peace and security is actually guaranteed by the United States and NATO. It wasn't the EU that interceded in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s - Brussels distanced itself - it was NATO led by Britain and the US.

Guaranteed prices for crops ensures Britain's farming industry. Europe's Common Agricultural Policy does not benefit either Britain's farmers nor Britain's consumers but it hugely benefits those more agricultural-based economies such as France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. The CAP has led to massive and expensive intervention stores throughout the EU with grain and butter mountains and wine, milk and oil lakes whilst keeping food prices at an artificially high level. Removing the CAP's shackles could - and should - result in Britain's farmers producing more for both the home market and export (but probably not to Europe) thus food prices should be lower. [As an aside, newer entrants such as Poland do not benefit to the same extent from the CAP as older ones. Parisians can quite legally claim CAP-funded subsidies for small plots of land outside the city used for growing vegetables for their own private consumption.] As for the Common Fisheries Policy, well that's just an affront to common sense. Agreed that fish stocks have to be preserved but British coastal waters being fished by Spain whilst British boats lay idle is madness.

Brussels gave us the Human Rights Act and that's a Good Thing! Yes it is but what promoters of that statement overlook is that Britain has been in front of the curve as far as Human Rights is concerned for many a long year. Britain is one of the co-authors of the UN Convention on Human Rights and throughout the twentieth century has been the haven for those seeking asylum, most notably the large numbers of European Jews who fled here in the late 1930s. The Common Law based legal system, dating back to Magna Carta, with its presumption of innocence, an independent Judiciary and jury trials are the envy of the world and a model adopted by a number of other countries, most notably the United States. The freedoms of speech and expression have long been preserved in Britain. The Human Rights Act gives Britain nothing she didn't already have.

By being united, the rich helping the poor, Europe becomes stronger. That's exactly what the architects of Russian communism thought. The problem being, of course, that some will always be more equal than others (read "Animal Farm", a parody about Communism for reasons why that should be so) and that's not only true of the Soviet Union but also of modern day China and North Korea. And of course, Russian communism collapsed - not defeated economically or militarily by the West, but by force of its own peoples. Would the United States of Europe suffer a similar fate? It's possible. "No taxation without representation" was the founding principle of the United States and that tenet is preserved in that country's constitution. With now 28 members, Britain's voice and influence is very much reduced compared to when it joined. The European Parliament is set at 750 elected members and citizens of countries like Luxembourg and Malta have ten times the influence and voting powers of Germans and Britons - a German MEP represents 859,000 citizens whilst a Maltese MEP's constituency is a mere 67,000 voters. Britain has 78 MEPs, one for every 612,165 electors, by comparison each Westminster MP represents an average of 71,314 voters. Further planned expansion will reduce the numbers of MEPs for existing members resulting in larger Euro-Constituencies and thereby less voice per citizen. All major EU planning, including expansion, is in any event dictated by the "Inner Six", the original members of the ECSC and controlled by the "Triumvirate" of France, Germany and Italy.

Britons can work in Europe. According to Eurostat, there are 748,010 Britons employed in Europe but there are over one million more Europeans working in Britain (1,790,000 in 2009) according to ONS figures and that excludes those who have moved to the UK and not sought employment. Withdrawal from the EU would mean a loss of jobs to Britons but that's likely to affect those employed by the EU itself, in Brussels and Strasbourg principally which accounts for considerably less than half of the total. The playing fields are not equal: an Englishman working in a Parisian office does not enjoy the same state-funded welfare benefits of his French counterpart whilst a Parisian working in an office in London is treated equally.

I said I'd give you the three of four benefits pro-Marketeers always point-out, I've added two more. But are they "benefits" only available by virtue of our membership? I argue they are not.

So, you dont see any benefits from remaining in the EU at all?

I've given you the four main reasons often cited by politicians and other pro-Marketeers as well as two more that my daughter got from her Politics lecturer. As I've demonstrated, none of them have arisen solely as a result of our membership of the EU. If you can find other benefits we receive which we would not otherwise gain, then I'd love to know them!

Well, you had best get down to no 10, tap David on the shoulder and have a word with him. He obviously must be grossly misinformed.

If you say so, then he must be!

It would appear that you are unable to provide examples of any benefits that the UK enjoys solely by virtue of it membership of the EU. Or maybe those that you would have proffered are the very same as those I debunked earlier today?

My preference is for renegotiation with our position within the EU. Better men than you say the same, so sorry, if you tell me it can't be done I don't believe you.

Heh, look. I hold a full time job and have a young baby. EU stay or go is complex. I dont beleive that there are zero benefits to staying in like you state. When I get a chance I might come back with a response but I don't have the time to give it the thought that it needs.

Unfortunately I have become accustomed to you making a case for something simply to suit your argument at that moment. On that basis I don't trust you to give an impartial appraisal on such a topic.

Of course I didn't say Cameron must be ill informed. How daft. I implied that he must be if you are so sure that EU withdrawal is a must and that there are no benefits to staying in. Much wiser men than you or I are unable to agree on Britain's position regarding the EU. So can you kindly zip it. Thanks. If you want to address anyone on that topic then don't involve me.
Thankyou again.

If you don't believe what I say, will you believe what Francois Hollande said a few months ago:

And this published the Guardian:

The UK should never have got into this mess with the EU in the first place.

Once you sell your soul to the devil, negotiation becomes considerably more difficult.