Campaign for an Independent Britain

The EU has run into financial difficulties from which it is unlikely to recover. The states of the EU have different taxation and debt policies that are maintained under each individual state. The political structure of the EU doesn’t have the authority to tax individual states for their debt burden or even the right to tax the entire EU to assist one struggling state. Those burdens are left to the individual states themselves by selling bonds to the general market, which usually involves banks of other members of the EU.

For instance, let’s take a look at the favourite whipping boy of the EU right now: Greece. Historically, Greece has had a bit of a left-leaning, socialist populace. When the country reverted back to a democratic government in 1974, many social welfare-like government programs were enacted to appease its citizens. Greek citizens embraced and became accustomed to the idea of “Big Government,” where the government spends a lot of money in all aspects of daily life.
While a healthy dose of government spending sounds like a panacea that can help everyone, there is a certain amount of social morality and responsibility that has to go along with it. Namely, citizens who are receiving the great benefits of that government spending have to pay their taxes. Taxes in nations with high government participation are usually higher than those with small government spending. Unfortunately, a higher tax usually leads to people looking for ways to avoid them, and in Greek society, this has become a national pastime.

In 2011, former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou declared that Greece was losing approximately €30 billion in tax revenues due to tax evasion. That accounts for approximately 14.6% of Greece’s GDP!

Considering that the current revenues on taxes amount to around €82 billion, the Greek government is failing to receive a little more than a quarter of what they should be getting. Spending meanwhile, has not gone down accordingly. In fact, it has actually increased. So the Greek government started to borrow money to pay for their obligations. They sold bonds (IOUs) to anyone who wanted to purchase them, promising that the purchaser would get their money back, with interest, at the date printed on that note.

Overwhelmingly, banks are the purchasers of those bonds. What better way can a bank invest money safely than buying bonds of a sovereign nation? It seemed like a no-brainer investment. But just like the credit card abuser, the money runs out eventually, and the banks began to realise this. In turn, they were demanding to be paid more interest to buy those bonds.

How did it get to this point? When it comes down to it, politicians really like being politicians, and they will usually do whatever they can to keep that political post. No politician wants to rock the boat or be the “bad guy” and tell the populace that they need to reign in their spending. Besides, if people continue to loan them money, then they will continue to take it. Kicking the can down the road instead of picking it up and putting it in the trash is much easier and much more politically popular.

The tipping point came when Greece could no longer afford to pay back the money that it owed. This is the equivalent of defaulting on your home’s mortgage. Ideally, the bank would go in, take possession of the asset, sell it off, and write off their losses. However, banks that lent money to Greece couldn’t just send a letter of eviction to a sovereign nation and take all of their stuff. They would just have to take the losses, allow Greece to default, and deal with the consequences of their actions.

Letting Greece default, however, would be catastrophic for the EU because the majority of the banks that were purchasing those bonds are from either France or Germany. If Greece doesn’t pay their obligation to the banks, the banks won’t have money coming in. They could then decide that it’s better to not loan to anyone because they are losing money on their Greek deal. Or worse yet, the banks could just go bankrupt. Suddenly, businesses in export-driven France and Germany can’t borrow money from the banks to make the products that they are trying to export. As they can’t make those products, they begin to lay people off, unemployment goes up, the health of the economy goes down, and we fall in to another worldwide recession, if not depression.

This is why some have suggested that any bailout of Greece is actually a bailout for French and German banks in order to keep the European machine running. As the crisis has come to a head in recent months, many people, including FX360 analysts, have suggested that Europe must consider collectivising a portion of the debts of its member states by authorising the central bank to issue bonds backed by the credit of the EU as a whole.
But France and Germany have both ruled out such a step, for fear of putting their citizens on the hook for financial troubles of weaker member states.

If Greece were the only EU nation going through this issue, there wouldn’t be that much fanfare. In fact, Greece accounts for only about 2% of the total Eurozone economy. The recent bailout of Greece via the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) was supposed to fix all of the problems by forgiving some debt and implementing austerity measures (less government spending) to fill the gaps. Unfortunately, Greece is not alone; Portugal (1.5% of Eurozone economy), Ireland (1.3%), Italy (12.7%), and Spain (8.7%) are having the same type of issues.

Using the example of a home loan again, imagine that your neighbour defaults on his home’s mortgage. You might expect the bank to come in and tell him that he must vacate the home and the bank will take possession. But instead of kicking him out, let’s assume that they let him stay and that he doesn’t have to worry about paying back the old mortgage. The bank will give him a new mortgage at 50% of the old one and he can continue to live in the same house. What do you think you are going to do? Defaulting on your mortgage would seem like a great idea at that point. This is a classic exercise in game theory, where one’s success is based upon the choices of others. The rest of the PIIGS nations are looking at Greece and would logically want the same treatment. The EFSF was supposed to solve the problem, but it appears it may have just opened a gigantic can of worms.

CIB's President, George West has wriiten an open letter of reply to Westminster Abbey about the wholly unsatisfactory standard reply letter that opponents of the Heath memorial have received from Westminster Abbey. Here it is, set out in full:

Dear Sirs,

PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH & DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP MEMORIAL

I thank you for your letter in reply to mine of 4th April. Your letter is a copy of a circular posted to those who oppose a Heath memorial in Westminster Abbey, and makes no attempt to address the powerful reasons for opposition to this memorial.

May I request that you pay more attention to this, my letter, in that it provides in the closing paragraphs even more compelling evidence of Heath’s chicanery.

Upon hearing about the Heath memorial, my first thoughts were that is was a well-meaning and ill-judged decision by the Church of England just as certain Bishops naively allowed themselves to front the Constitutional Conventions that were the forerunners of the attempted break up of England into nine EU Regional Assemblies. However knowing that the Abbey whilst part of the Church of England, is independent of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, the Dean of Westminster therefore being responsible to Her Majesty carries responsibility for this perverse decision.

You have given as justification that after looking “rigorously”, it remains your “firm view” that it is fitting to provide a memorial to those “who dedicated their lives to the service of Britain”.

In looking rigorously at the life of Heath, even if you were unaware of deception beforehand, the letters you are receiving chronicle evidence that has come to light after the 30 years rule to add to what was already well known and proven during media interviews, the memories and records of Members of Parliament during the late 1960s and early 1970s and by Heath’s own admissions. It is unnecessary in this letter to go over in detail the same evidence already provided to you except to single out the admirable research conducted by ex-Magistrate Mrs Anne Palmer in her letter to you dated 30th April quoting from Hansard.

It would appear that you are prepared to turn a blind eye to the deceit practised by Heath in order to mislead the British people into and under the foreign jurisdiction of what the Schuman Declaration described as a common “Higher Authority” in defiance of our Constitution and his Oath of Allegiance to the Crown.

I have before me the order of “A Service for Europe Day to mark the 60th Anniversary of the Schuman Declaration” that took place in Westminster Abbey on Sunday 9th May 2010 at 6.30pm in which homage was paid to the European Union. Laurence Auer, Cultural Counsellor and Director of the French Institute representing the Ambassador of France read from the Great Pulpit an extract from the Schuman Declaration which, translated from the French, reads “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action must in the first place concern those two countries……..production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organisation open to participation of the other countries of Europe”. The High Authority was the precursor of the fraud ridden i.e.Santer, European Union Commission that even Lords Bishop now recognise as continuing to have a “democratic deficit”. When Edward Heath became Prime Minister, he did not have a mandate to do what he did. The British people were not asked whether or not they wished to join. The terms of entry were concealed to Parliament.

Later in the Europe Day service, in the Act of Commitment, Pascal Gregoire, First Secretary, representing the Ambassador of Belgium, asked all present to say, “Lord God our Father, we affirm our commitment to the European Union” following which the Anthem of the European Union was played, the European Union flag advertisement was returned to its escort and borne from the Abbey.

One wonders at any motive other than you say that memorials to Prime Ministers during the second half of the twentieth century have not been installed since the 1950s. Your letter to me dated 30th April in reply to my FOI enquiry signed by your Deputy Receiver General confirms that the Abbey has not received any funds or grants from the European Union but stops short of confirming that it has not applied in connection with your 2020 Vision. Nor does it comment on any connections currying favour with other EU institutions. Whatever the motive for the proposed memorial, it flies in the face of the conclusion that at the very least, the Heath government’s campaign to get Britain to join the EEC was unethical, and blatantly dishonest. Why should Christians condone such behaviour? Why bring the Abbey into disrepute? If entry into the EEC was best for Britain why was it not done with honesty rather than subterfuge?

The 1971 Foreign and Commonwealth report to Heath (FCO 30/1048) discussed the implications for Britain’s national sovereignty. It dismissed the concept of sovereignty as an irrelevant idea with no real meaning. The report spoke of the supremacy of the European Court over British courts and plans for economic and monetary union. It acknowledged that entry into the EEC would be unpopular with the British people. To deal with that unpopularity the report recommended and in the light of subsequent events, was accepted that “there would be a major responsibility on Her Majesty’s Government not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”. Heath did not have a mandate to do what he did and it is to his ever-lasting shame that he proceeded by concealing the truth.

Before it is too late, I ask you to reconsider your decision and I give you one more compelling reason. Since sitting in the Stranger’s Gallery during the evening of the second reading on 17th February 1972, worried about the future for my children and others, and suspecting the damage that would befall our country and industries that would follow, I have campaigned for a trading alliance with our European neighbours but not political integration and subjugation.

In my records, I have one of the most damning reasons why a memorial should not be allowed to sully Westminster Abbey and the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior memorialising the thousands of our people and our allies who were killed fighting to free Europe from dictatorship.

On Sunday 7th April 2002, the Sunday Telegraph published a report headed “Why the Heath Cabinet rejected Dachau pleas”. It was reported , “Edward Heath’s Government refused to support plans to preserve Dachau concentration camp as a Holocaust memorial because “it did not wish to do anything to offend German sensibilities”, fearing that Germany would block Britain’s entry into the Common Market. A Foreign Office memo from 1970 details how Mr. de Koster, the then Dutch foreign affairs minister and a former Resistance fighter attempted to secure the backing of Geoffrey Rippon the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who was also Heath’s chief European negotiator and one of his closest allies. The reply was, “the last thing we wanted was to antagonise the Germans in the present and delicate and difficult negotiations”. Her Majesty’s Government refused to speak out. The disclosure infuriated Holocaust campaigners. Zoe Polanska Palmer who was interned in Dachau when she was 13 years old said, “The attitude of the Heath government was an absolute disgrace. There is no excuse for burying history. Mr. Heath clearly did not understand that there are things more important than the Common Market”. Dachau, 10 miles south of Munich, occupied a special role in the concentration camp system. Established in 1933 it was the first to be under the direct supervision of Heinrich Himmler, the architect of Hitler’s Final Solution to the extermination of the Jewish people. More than 200,000 people were held at the camp, of whom 32,000 were murdered.

When approached by the Sunday Telegraph, Edward Heath declined to comment on the matter.

This is the man you intend to commemorate in Westminster Abbey. If the Abbey stands for another 1,400 years, your names will be remembered for allowing this memorial to be installed especially at a time of civil unrest, demonstrations and riots, growing signs of European disunity predicted by so many in the early 1970s. No wonder 301 Members of Parliament voted to stay out of the EEC on 17th February 1973 outvoted by a paltry majority of 8 MPs.

I ask you to reconsider and reply to the points I have raised and reply to my letter without recourse to another brief circular.

Yours sincerely,
George West
President
Campaign for an Independent Britain

 Indrek Teder argues that the provision of the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) which in exceptional cases allows decisions on the provision of stability support to a Member of the ESM to be adopted by means of the so-called emergency voting procedure is contrary to the Estonian Constitution. The core feature of the emergency voting procedure is that, instead of using a regular voting mechanism based on mutual agreement (i.e. unanimity), a decision is adopted if a qualified majority of 85% of the votes cast endorse the decision. In essence, the emergency voting procedure might create a situation where Estonia must financially contribute to the ESM, but cannot influence the granting of aid, nor the terms under which financial assistance is provided. According to Indrek Teder, such a decision-making scheme jeopardises the principle of parliamentary democracy, the principle of parliamentary prerogatives as well as the budget autonomy of the Parliament.

Today the Chancellor of Justice submitted an application to the Estonian Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the provision of the Treaty Establishing the ESM, according to which the making of decisions on the provision of financial assistance to the ESM’s Member States is possible on the basis of 85% qualified majority vote.
Indrek Teder stresses that he does not in principle object to the establishing of the ESM, which has been created for the purpose of safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area. Neither does he oppose Estonia’s accession to the ESM. The Chancellor of Justice agrees that establishing this international financial institution is a necessary step not only for the purpose of providing stability support to individual countries, but also to ensure the stability of the euro area as a whole as well as to limit the risk of financial contagion. Thus, becoming a Member of the ESM and taking part in the decision-making process thereof is also in the interests of Estonia.

The Estonian Constitution does not in principle preclude Estonia from acceding to the ESM. The Chancellor of Justice notes, though, that by ratifying the Treaty Establishing the ESM, Estonia will assume an extraordinarily large financial obligation: in the worst-case scenario Estonia will be liable to provide up to 1.302 billion euros to the ESM. This sum corresponds to approximately 8.5% of the Estonian GDP.

The possibility that such a scenario could materialise cannot be completely ruled out. Foreknowledge about the future state of the economy is limited, as has been evinced by the recent economic crisis. Not too long ago, only a few could foresee and adequately prepare for the situation that has become a reality today – that European countries have required rescuing by means of extensive financial assistance packages. The same is true today – nothing can guarantee that current economic forecasts will turn out to be accurate.

Taking into account the size of the potential financial obligations arising from the accession to the ESM, the Estonian Constitution requires that the Parliament of Estonia (Riigikogu) must be involved when decisions about granting financial aid from the ESM are being made. This means that the Riigikogu should have an actual possibility to influence the decisions on whether or not, and under which conditions, financial assistance may be granted to a Member of the ESM which has requested support. On the one hand, the Riigikogu must have a say in the process of making decisions, which – due to the significant amount of the potential financial obligations to be assumed by Estonia as a result of participating in the ESM – may influence the Parliament’s ability to make independent political choices in the future. On the other hand, however, it must be stressed that securing the Riigikogu’s participation in the ESM’s decision-making process is not an aim in itself: the possibility for the Parliament to have a say in such decisions, as well as open parliamentary debate, serves the wider aim of involving the public and thus securing the transparency of the decisions taken.

Indrek Teder points out: “Estonian taxpayers are required to pay approximately 150 million euros into the ESM upon accession, while an amount of over one billion euros may be requested by the ESM at a later stage. This is a remarkable sum of money, which exceeds Estonia’s liabilities undertaken due to Estonia’s participation in any other international organisation so far. Hence, the Estonian public has justified expectations that they should be able to control how the ESM uses the financial resources entrusted to it. Failure to include the Riigikogu in the decision-making process regarding the granting of financial assistance and shaping the terms of such financial assistance may challenge the legitimacy of Estonia’s participation in the ESM.”

In Indrek Teder’s opinion, the singular act of ratification of the Treaty Establishing the ESM by the Riigikogu is not sufficient to ensure the observance of constitutional principles. The reason is that the Treaty Establishing the ESM does not itself stipulate the details and conditions of the financial support to be granted by the ESM to its Member States. Such detailed terms are subject to specification on a case-by-case basis.Therefore, the Riigikogu should have the opportunity to form its opinion in every instance where the ESM is contemplating providing financial aid to one of its Members, and subsequently influence the ESM’s decision-making process via the Estonian Government.

The mandatory prerequisite for ensuring that the Estonian Parliament has an actual influence in the above-mentioned questions is that all the decisions of the ESM on providing financial assistance are adopted by mutual agreement, i.e. unanimity of the states participating in the voting. However, the current version of the Treaty Establishing the ESM includes a provision, according to which, should the European Commission and the European Central Bank deem it necessary, a decision to grant financial assistance may be adopted if a qualified majority of 85% of the votes cast endorse such a decision. As Estonia’s contribution to the ESM’s authorised capital stock is equal to 0.186%, the weight of Estonia’s vote does not enable Estonia’s representative to influence (incl. to impede) the provision of financial assistance by the ESM. Thus, even if the Riigikogu issues an opinion with respect to an individual financial assistance decision, this opinion may not have any significance or effect in terms of the final outcome of the vote with the ESM.
It is true that in absolute numbers the capital contribution to the ESM by some larger euro area Member States is bigger than Estonia’s contribution. However, it must be stressed that the ratio of Estonia’s capital contribution to its GDP (8.52%) is comparable to that of the other euro area Member States (e.g. Germany: 7.45%, France: 7.32%; Italy: 8.05%). Therefore, the potential obligations arising out of the ESM would affect Estonia in a manner comparable to that of those states whose contributions to the ESM are bigger in absolute terms.

Indrek Teder: “I repeat that the Estonian Constitution does not rule out Estonia’s accession to the ESM. However, before Estonia assumes such a liability, the observance of constitutional principles must be secured”.

In addition, the Chancellor of Justice explains that his application to the Supreme Court does not in any way influence Estonia’s approval of the second rescue package for Greece granted on the 23rd of February 2012 by the Riigikogu.

Jaana Padrik
Adviser on Public Relations
The Office of the Chancellor of Justice

When David Cameron vetoed the latest EU Treaty on the latest ESM fiscal pact, it had three main effects:

1, it went ahead anyway but with the main difference that it would not have a convenient name of a town attached (like Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon, etc) so people would get confused when trying to write about it. You have to be a lawyer just to know what the damned thing is called.
2, the British taxpayer would not be able to support the bailout of the Euro project directly but would have to launder the money throughout the IMF.
3, most importantly, the attention of the British voters and taxpayers would be distracted.

Here in Estonia, the second and third factors do not apply so much. So how has Eurosceptic opinion been stimulated by the latest agreement by the government to open our pockets to Europe?

"Independence Forever"

The Estonian Chancellor of Justice (an Ombudsman), Indrek Teder referred the Treaty to the Estonian Supreme Court because it beaches the Estonian Constitution. His Communique of 12th March is reproduced below. You will see that, although the treaty is contrary to the national Constitution, that is not necessarily a reason why it cannot go ahead - so long as it does not go ahead without being formalised by Parliament. Besides, we know that this is the EU and the discovery that an arrangement in Brussels is contrary to the Constitution is in fact a notification to make the required changes to the Constitution.

Within legal circles, that is to say amongst lawyers not employed by the State, there is a consensus that not only has Estonia been thrown into a judicial crisis but so, effectively, has the EU as such.

To evaluate the effectiveness of eurosceptic opinion we might consider two factors: one is the balance of eurosceptic realisation within the establishment and the parliamentary parties and the vibrancy of the eurosceptic movement within civil society.

Of course there are those who remain faithful to ideology of the Union, as they always are obedient to the Unions to which we belong. Taavi Rõivas, a member of Parliament for the Governing Reform Party, has said that no harm has ever come from the IMF and none will come from the ESM. It is one of the reasons Estonians accept government from Brussels is that it seems closer to home than whatever planet these parliamentarians arrive from.

But outside these inner circles there is no small amount of anxiety. The opposition Center Party has, as one might expect, suggested a more vigourous popular scrutiny of Estonias growing financial obligations to Euroland. Centre Party represents the urban pensioners (as well as the minority and others) and such people who really bear the brunt of austerity and the bleeding of our nation to support the Euro. A group of parliamentarians which has splintered from the Centre Party, led by Rainer Vakra, has objected to to how the six big ESM states will dictate all decisions effecting all 17 nations. How can there any longer be any pretence of sovereignty under such conditions?

Sometimes it seems as if the Estonian media would like to draw some kind of curtain around the country so that we do not know what is happening in Greece, Ireland, Britain, but since we all have the internet and speak English, there is a good general understanding in Estonia of this crisis. There is a joke that the only people not connected to international internet news are the government. But our government, like the Swedish, at least saved rather than borrowed in good times and our public finances are the most sound. We have also had some benefit recently by proximity to Sweden and the economy shows some growth but then, largely due to wages sent home by Estonians working in Finland, Sweden, etc.

The groups who were active in the Accession Referendum campaign have been proven right in the public eye. More than that, I would say, because what has actually happened is far worse than any claim our side dreamt of making in the campaign. If the EU had only been as bad as we claimed then it would be more popular now!

Estonian people endure. We have practice at that. Besides, people are confused by the staggering amounts of money we are in for. When Estonia first joined the Euro, which was not so long ago, we formulated this as a second hand car, say a six year old VW Passat, for every adult male. Today it would be more equivalent to a new small car. But all those naughts confuse us. It reminds me of the old joke about George W Bush when told his wife wants a Brazilian. "Remind me, how is a brazilian?" he asks.

But we will see. Our future will be determined by the Irish. We hope they reject the treaty in their referendum.
It still must be said that people voted to join the EU because of Russia. No one would say they would like to leave the EU and go to be governed by Moscow - but all Europe must see that there has to be a better way forward than this.

There must be.

By now you will know the result of the French Presidential election – and it could be momentous. We are at a watershed moment – not only in France but across the whole of Europe. The post-war political model is breaking down. And about time. For the political elites have failed the people they are supposed to represent.

People are worried sick about the economy. At the moment, anxiety centres on the problems of the euro. That is understandable. It is the great issue of our day. But it is not sui generis. It is the latest in a long line of European failures. Put the word euro or European in front of the name of almost any policy issue or area – Agriculture, Fisheries, Immigration, Defence – and you will immediately conjure up a catalogue of failure. The common European money – the euro – is just the most important addition to the list. It wasn’t willed by the people but was rather thrust upon them by their leaders, without sufficient thought or preparation. They have created a monster which threatens to destroy the European economy – and with it, to threaten the world.

The euro is not the sum total of Europe’s ills. Things were going wrong before it was created. European leaders have been focused on utterly the wrong things. Their dreams have been about building unity when they should have been about creating excellence – even if that means diversity, which it has throughout most of our European history.
Knowing little or nothing of economics, these European elites have acted almost precisely against the interests of Europe – obsessed with treaties, agreements and restrictions – in pursuit of commonality. They little understand that the prosperity of nations is built in the seemingly humdrum actions of ordinary people in the small workshops, or service businesses – if only they are able to pursue their business interests.

Of course Europe has had its economic successes in the post-war period, and it is still prosperous. So it should be, given the recovery from wartime devastation, the opening up of trade and its enormous reserves of institutional and intellectual capital. But compare its achievements with those of the emerging markets! No longer can this be excused because they are starting from a much lower base. Look at Singapore, now with a GDP per head higher than the UK’s – and still not stopping.

Europe has become complacent. Over recent years, its performance has been abysmal. Since the eurozone was formed in 1999, the average GDP growth rate of its members has not only been lower than America’s but it has even been lower than Britain’s.

Nor can this be put down to the sclerotic peripheral countries. On the contrary, over the period as a whole, Spain and Ireland have been the region’s strongest performers. Italy has done extremely badly, registering hardly any growth, but some of the region’s core countries have also performed pretty badly.

The fault lies primarily with Europe’s governments, which have been pursuing a chimera. They are big, but that does not make them effective. On the contrary, they are hopelessly ineffective at doing what governments have traditionally been there to do – defend citizens against internal and external danger. Whether it is a crime, immigration or defence, the modern European state is a pathetic failure. Big, dithery, expensive – but incompetent. That is the critique from the right. From the left now comes the complaint that the state is failing in its role as provider of “social security”, under the onslaught of globalisation and market pressures.

The decline of Europe is the result of interaction of economics and politics. Economic prosperity has allowed indulgence in self-destructive habits: degenerative politics have perpetuated the sources of decline, as politicians have dished out various opiates to the people.

In the weaker members of the EU, opposition to the policies of the European elites is tempered by knowledge of the weakness of their own institutions and dodgy recent history, but this may be changing. They have tolerated for too long the arrogance, incompetence and corruption that wafts out of Brussels.

Across Europe the people are stirring. Will the elites respond? If not, we are going to be faced with something very ugly. The combination of economic collapse, lack of faith in political institutions, xenophobia and racism could be deadly.
This is not a rant against the failures and foibles of the euro. In this country, our governing elite is not much better. The current government cannot even sort out an airport. The next test may well involve a brewery.

Roger Bootle – Managing Director of Capital Economics
Reproduced with the kind permission of the Daily Telegraph

Anne Palmer has written a well researched eloquent letter to the Dean of Westminster opposing the proposed memorial to the late former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath. Here it is reproduced in full:

Sir,

I understand that you propose to install a memorial to Sir Edward Heath within Westminster Abbey. A politician of this Country that did not even ask the people through a referendum if they wanted to join what he and others in the House of Commons knew would eventually become and indeed will become if we remain in the now European Union, a State of European Union.

Although we did not have access to Internet in those days, we now realise the true extent of the treachery that took place for all is recorded in Hansard. These paragraph’s below are what Mr Heath knew all about and took part in too. I would add also, that these paragraphs are from my own research on the matter.

Mr E Shinwell 3.8.1961 Column 1727: In the course of the Lord Privy Seal’s speech, I ventured to ask him a simple question, quite recent to his speech. It was whether he would state precisely the conditions upon which negotiations were to proceed. His reply was astonishing. He said that it was not in the public’s interest to disclose the Government’s intentions. What does that mean? It means that either the government have no clear idea of what they intend to propose in the course of consultations or negotiations with the representatives of the common Market, or they are asking the House for a blank cheque………… ….The electors are not to be allowed to express an opinion about whether the government’s policy is right and desirable in their interests. There is no question, even when the negotiations are concluded, whether satisfactorily or not, of asking the electors to state whether they accept the government’s decision”.

Sir R Grimston 3.8.1961 Col 1748: During this debate, we have heard a good deal about sovereignty. I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak, but I must remind the house of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said about this in 1959. He said,
…”we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal, political federation in Europe, including ourselves”. [Official Report. 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c, 1382.] End of quotes. (So soon after the Second World War too!)

None of this was told to the people. In fact the very opposite. Remember Heath’s “There will be no loss of essential Sovereignty?” This taken from Hansard 2nd and 3rd August 1961 Debates on the EEC. The Lord Privi Seal (Mr Edward Heath) Column 1671-parts only-“ Col 1764: “The third political aspect is the long term future as to whether these economic and consultational aspects—I apologise to hon. Members; I shuddered myself at the word—of the economics and consultation between the Communities are to lead to a further constitutional development along the lines of federalism or confederalism, or in some other sphere. Here again, sovereignty could be involved”.
Mr George Brown (Belper) Column 1757, quoted also, “The whole idea of the Six, the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.] That is a fine aspiration, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal political federation in Europe, including ourselves”. End of quotes.

Nothing could be plainer for Edward Heath contributed to that meeting. He knew exactly the problems that we are experiencing even now, yet he told the people exactly the opposite. His solemn, faithful and true Oath of Allegiance was to his Monarch and through the Monarch all the people of this country, a solemn Oath he had to make before he took up his seat in that Parliament even though people had freely voted for him, and yes, the people that had placed their trust in him. He did not tell the people the full extent of what signing and ratifying that Treaty would mean to the people of this Country and to the Governing of this his own Country. He never even gave the people a “say” even when he was in a position to do so.

Even to this day, Governments of this Country dare not admit the legislation they are putting through started its journey in the European Union. HS2, part of the EU’s TEN-T Policy, and sadly the dividing of ENGLAND itself into EU Regions through the Localism Act that was so recently put through by our present Prime Minister, yet the latter is even recorded in the Council of Europe. The intention is for the Regions to be Governed through the EU’s Committee of the Regions.
Edward Heath admitted at last on Television in 1991 when he was asked “The Single Currency, the United States of Europe, was that on your mind when you took Britain in? To which Heath replied “Of course, Yes”.

But now I question, as this move was such a vast constitutional change to the Governing of our Country, the vast changes to our way of life and most of all, the over-riding of our 600 year old Common Law Constitution and all done without even the truth, the facts and the changes explained to the people, and without one referendum for the people to have their say before any acceptance or signing of any Treaty, that I question whether the signing and ratification of the Treaty of Rome is valid or/and was a violation of British law. I question also whether ALL the requirements were met as required in the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties?

Sadly, you sir, would like to put up a memorial to this man so many people of this Country feel utter contempt for, and for all they are suffering “today”. This man let down-he betrayed- the people that elected him into what once was a much respected Office. We proudly look upon others before him that saved this Country from occupation by one Adolph Hitler, and yes, I am old enough to have gone through that war and the terrible bombing, and instead of having the peace we all wanted, we have a once untied United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland torn apart once again by legislation from those in foreign fields, by the very Organisation set up by the man you want to “Honour”. Save that memorial space I beg you, for the one that is yet to come that is to set this Country free once more from foreign rule and this time, forever.

Yours sincerely,
Anne Palmer.

BRITAIN was ordered by EU chiefs last night to give millions of foreigners full access to NHS healthcare.

In a move that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds, the Brussels-based European Commission insisted that immigrants from within the EU are entitled to stay and use the service indefinitely even if they do not pay UK taxes.

The Eurocrats ordered the British Government to scrap current rules stating that jobless EU citizens cannot stay in the country for more than three months unless they have their own health insurance.

“This breaches EU law,” said a statement from the commission. It insisted that “entitlement to treatment by the UK public healthcare scheme” was sufficient to allow migrants without health insurance to stay indefinitely.

The Government was given just two months to comply or face being dragged to the EU’s European Court of Justice and hit with a swingeing fine. Furious critics of the EU last night urged David Cameron to stand up and flout the latest diktat coming out of Brussels.

Tory MP Peter Bone said: “We cannot allow the EU to force us to allow health tourists to come and sponge off our NHS. I hope the Government will do all it can to resist this directive.”

Fellow Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: “Another week, another outrage from Brussels.I thought we elected a government to run Britain but it seems we are governed by Europe. “Our grandparents’ generation created a national welfare system but Brussels is trying to turn it into a welfare system for every European.We have to get out of the EU.”

Euro MP Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: “These demands with menaces from Brussels destroy any ability of the UK to set conditions on EU nationals from entering the UK and once here taking
advantage of our welfare state. The EU is undermining British interests. I would like to remind the Eurocracy that the NHS is the National, not the International Health Service.”

The latest onslaught from Brussels follows demands for Britain to give EU migrants rights to claim a string of welfare benefits.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling has vowed that the Government will fight that decision – which could cost taxpayers around £1billion a year. The Commission also demanded that Britain allows non-EU relatives of EU citizens to travel to or apply for residency in the UK.

“The UK laws do not grant this important right which lies at the heart of free movement", the European Commission said. And it also wants the UK to scrap rules which prevent workers from Bulgaria and Romania having full rights to live in Britain.

A European Commission spokeswoman confirmed failure to comply could mean a fine.

Carrying the torch for a British Secret Service Agent, Theologian and Knight of the Realm, plus a challenge to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, to defend the EU at Wembley Sports Stadium as the author throws down the gauntlet.

In this enthralling book, the author takes us on a journey which spans 606 B.C. to the present day and beyond to the serious implications of our continued participation in the European Super State (or as many call it, the 4th Reich). We are drawn into an intricate web which weaves together many strands as we explore biblical prophecy, historical, social and political history, culminating in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

A gentleman born in 1841 is pivotal to the theme of the book. 90 pages of this work are devoted to him. He was educated in Boulogne and Paris and then at Trinity College Dublin, where he qualified as a lawyer with distinction and was called to the Irish Bar. He became a respected member of the Irish Home Office and an expert on criminal investigation. In 1888 he was summoned to Scotland Yard to serve as Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department where crime fell dramatically during his period in office.

Perhaps better known as the Metropolitan Police Officer who investigated the Jack the Ripper murders, there was far more to this ‘Prince of Detective’s’ than a mere investigating officer. He was involved with Secret Service work. His responsibilities included oversight of the Special Branch. Long before he assumed that post, he had become the foremost spymaster in the British Isles – though almost the only one, in a time and place where espionage was widely looked on as a dishonourable activity.

He mixed and debated with many of the great contemporaries of his time, A. J Balfour, William Gladstone, Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, Lord Wolesley, Leslie Stephen, Herbert Spencer and Professor S R Driver of Oxford plus others too numerous to mention here. In the book, you will meet with many of these characters as the author reveals many exciting facts. In 1896 Queen Victoria made him Companionship of the Order of Bath, and in July of that year the Queen invited both he and his wife Lady Agnes to an afternoon party at Buckingham Palace. In 1901 King Edward VII made him Knight Commander (of the Order) of Bath, and so the Assistant Commissioner of Police became a Knight of the Realm KBC, LLB. A prolific writer, he defended the prophecies of Daniel and predicted the European Union long before Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman were born. He warned of the dangers a union of European countries would bring, which of course as we now see has come to pass. In this book, the author deals specifically with the dangers this Irish Seer foresaw. Others following in his footsteps have also warned of Great Britain becoming a mere appendage to the European Continent. Prominent among them was Herbert W Armstrong (1892-1986) 

According to the “Prince of Detectives” a confederation of European nations would develop through a great European crisis. And this European confederacy would be the next major political feature in history after the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. The nation of Israel was born in May 1948. The European Union was born in May 1950 exactly as the “Prince” had predicted. The Secret Service Agent recorded: “There would be a time when it (the European Union) is no longer a confederacy of nations bound together by treaty, with a Napoleon rising up in the midst of them and struggling for supremacy; but a confederacy of kings who are the lieutenants of one great Kaiser.” This was the picture of EU and its coming powerful leader which the “Prince” painted in the 19th century.

Thankfully, the torch of truth as carried by this Police Officer did not flicker and die on his death, but was fanned again into flame and is now faithfully carried by his “adopted son” and British Patriot, Francis Codjoe. Moving on into the 21st century another former Metropolitan police officer, Albert Burgess, is carrying on a tireless campaign to regain our sovereignty and to prove that treason has been committed by our politicians. According to Burgess, papers he was handed in 2006 contained advice to the government from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a Major Office of State. “This advice was that sovereignty was an outmoded idea with no importance in a modern world, and that we should dump our sovereignty and our constitution in order that our politicians could obtain power in a greater Europe. In these papers which all have Central Registry and Public Records Office Stamps, they set a deadline for the total loss of our Ancient Constitution and of our Sovereignty depending on which paper we look at as within 3 decades or the end of the century.”

In this explosive book, the author pulls no punches as he sets about the major political and religious figures of our time: from Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor and their Roman Catholic Church to Cardinal Newman, from Baron Peter Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy to President Jose Manuel Barroso; from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the theologian Dr Rowan Williams and his ‘Church of Europe’; from Gordon Brown and the “bigoted woman” to Tony Blair and his deceitful government.

The author, incandescent with rage at hearing of the canonisation of Cardinal Henry Newman, argues that the Protestant Secret Service Theologian “dismissed Cardinal Newman’s defence of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation, and refuted Newman’s claim that the Catholic Church is the “Oracle of God” – the true home for atheists and agnostics”.
Not one of them escapes his scathing pen regardless of their status. He picks them off one by one, without fear or favour, Leon Brittan, Chris Patten, David Miliband, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, David Laws, Denis MacShane, William Hague, Kenneth Clarke, Professor Ulrich Beck, Dr Henry Kissinger, Joe Biden and The ‘Progressive Washington Trinity’, David Attenborough, Andrew Marr and Dr. Richard Dawkins. All are found wanting as in the epilogue the writer flings down the gauntlet and issues the challenge to beat all challenges. Will Jose Manuel Barroso dare to accept a confrontation at Wembley Stadium – the debate of all debates on our wish to withdraw from the European Union?
The writer is certainly not shy of tackling the most controversial of subjects as he plunges into two of the hottest topics currently being fiercely contested, immigration and climate change.

On immigration he declares: “It is neither nastiness, xenophobic nor racism, nor bigotry, nor a manifestation of confusion to question the questionable mass immigration policy of governments – the influx of immigrants from Europe, Africa and Asia flooding into the Little Island. For mass immigration is creating confusion among the owners of the ‘Little Pond’. Who, in his right mind, would pour 6 gallons of petrol into a 5-gallon petrol can? Is it not stupidity to attempt to undertake such a venture?”

Of the scientists propounding their global warming/climate change theories he scornfully states, “I defy the “Scare-Mongering Scientists” (SMS) who have predicted a worldwide calamity of famine, poverty, diseases, rising sea levels, rising temperatures and floods if we do not cease emissions of Carbon Dioxide. Why couldn’t the sophisticated scientists predict the Global Financial Crisis of 2007- 2008 which resulted in the collapse and nationalisation of financial institutions in America and Britain? The answer is simple. Scientists have no ‘eyes’ to see future events.”
In this meticulously drafted book, the writer has scoured every nook and cranny, left no stone unturned, in a brave and heroic effort to seek the removal of Great Britain from the crumbling EU monstrosity ruled by an unelected, unaccountable cabal of faceless bureaucrats.

Many others have warned of the dangers of a union of European Countries. Sir Winston Churchill said: “Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea.” (Winston S. Churchill, the great British Prime Minister. Comments to de Gaulle before Normandy Landing on 06.06.1944.) He also said, “Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests … but we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European Statesmen address us in the words which were used of old – ‘Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Lord of the Host?’ – we should reply with the words of the Shumanite woman: ‘Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people …’

Jaques Delors understood that Churchill envisaged European integration only for the countries of the European continent, not for Britain (as Delors noted in Le Monde, 3 May 2000).

Lady Margaret Thatcher herself also issued a warning: “Europe is a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage is in doubt.”

In 2002, Eric Deakins, former Labour MP and Government Minister, delivered a speech at Trinity College Dublin. The title of the motion was “This house believes that the European Union is a threat to democracy”. In his address Deakins declared: “The Treaty of Rome was the result of a subversion of democracy. The process was not transparent; peoples of the member states had no real choice; they were deceived about long-term aims.” He continued, “There is a fundamental contradiction between common law culture, where rights and power flow up from citizens to state, and Roman Law culture, where rights and power flow down from state to citizen. In making this comparison, I am mindful of Roman Emperor Justinian’s comment: quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem (what the Emperor is pleased to command has the force of law); this could be a good motto for the Commission.

He then concluded: “The EU is not and never will be subject to the will of its peoples. They cannot vote to accept or reject policies coming from Brussels. The democratic deficit is an inevitable result of the way the EU has been and is being constructed. The EU will continue to be a threat to democracy at national and supranational levels. Democrats must fight harder against this threat. They must not retire to cultivate their gardens, leaving the field clear for the triumph of elitism and bureaucracy in the EU.”

The following editorial puts it in a nutshell: “A New Superstate”:

“Much has already been written in many places about the Convention on the Future of the European Union. Without doubt, this convention would, if its conclusions were ratified, be an enormous and significant step. Effectively, it would turn the European Union into a superstate in its own right, with the present member nations reduced to mere provinces. Although a supranational body from the beginning, the European Economic Community and its successors have at least operated according to treaties entered into by national governments; the Convention aims to go a vital stage further by establishing its own Constitution. The EU would, through this constitution, become the supreme source of legal authority over its entire territory, supplanting the member states and their own constitutions. This would be the final act in putting the United Kingdom under the control of a superstate. Whether the new state is to be called the European Union or the United States of Europe is immaterial; if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, whatever you choose to call it!”

We hear so much that is pro European but rarely are the Euro-sceptics given a voice. No matter how loud we shout our cries go unheard. We are the invisible majority air brushed from the media as indeed the “Prince of Detectives” has been airbrushed from history.

Several Freedom of Information requests have been placed regarding papers written by the Secret Service Agent by writers more interested in his case work on the Jack-the- Ripper murders than his prolific Christian writings and prophecies on the Union of Europe. However, it is worthy of note because these writers apparently know of the existence of papers which cannot be released even now, 122 years later. One must ask why and what a riddle, further research is needed now that the author has brought the Knight Commander and the “Seer of Dublin” back to life and full square in the public eye. He has told me that eventually he hopes to open a museum to celebrate the life and memory of this great theologian and detective, whose prophecies about Europe we would do well to heed. Otherwise, as Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor (1982-1988) said: “The future will belong to the Germans… when we build the House of Europe. In the next two years, we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle but it is worth the fight”(2002). Well, it most certainly is not irreversible as you will find as you wend your way through this book.
A truly gripping read from start to finish and a must for those who have never really understood the machinations of the European Union. A thoroughly researched and factual book which has taken the author almost 10 years of painstaking research and writing to complete. Ignore his words at your peril and your children and your children’s children will reap the whirlwind. Codjoe has presented a massive case for our withdrawal from the European Union, like some barrister presenting a case against the European juggernaut. It is left to you the reader to decide on the evidence presented. “Is the future of the EU bright or dark?” Be warned and heed the following before making a decision, for indeed successive governments have been and are the enemy within.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague” (Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC – 56BC).

I am honoured to have been invited to write the foreword for this monumental book. I believe because of its historical, political, social and biblical significance, it could be incorporated into the college and university curriculum. Francis Codjoe is firm in his belief that there is a growing movement to push Christianity and our nation aside, I cannot disagree. In his defence of Britain, Christianity and the Christian way of life he stands firm and resolute. His hero, The Knight Commander (of the Order of Bath), would be proud of him as he carries the torch aloft and therefore I leave the closing words to him: “The Christian is consistent in his faith and the rationalist in his unbelief. Both are entitled to respect, for their position is intellectually unassailable. But what shall be said of men who cling to an edifice the foundations of which they have themselves destroyed.”

Annette Smith
Hartlepool
England
July 2010

“Religion is a fair ground for compromise; but Christianity is not a religion but a faith; and faith, like morality admits no compromise.”

“The dethronement of the Bible eliminates the most important factor in the formation of our national character, and it is not easy to estimate the effect which this will have on the life of the people of this country.”

(The Prince of Scotland Yard)

About the Author

Francis S E Codjoe was born in Ghana. He was educated by Irish Priests at St Augustine’s College in Cape Coast. He worked for Her Majesty Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in London.

Francis is not a politician or a political activist. He is neither a businessman nor a pastor. Through unusual circumstances he found himself researching the significance of European integration. He shares with you his 10-year labour.

They know him in the US as the new Andreas Papandreou for his charisma. He has been called an agent, a spy, illuminati, and he remains the best kept secret of current Greek politics. Banned by media exposure, feared amongst political cycles, implicated by EU policy makers. In the years of austerity, a progressive economist, known amongst the circles of macroeconomists worldwide, as visionary has emerged through the grassroot movement of Syntagma square to preach the truth.

He is the man who ‘woke up’ the Greek people about their economic situation. Touring all over the country, he explains to them the truth and meaning behind the macroeconomic numbers and financial indices presented by media and politicians. He speaks of the riches of their country and their immense capabilities. He educates them about their history and history itself. And he, in sheer contrast from all others, invites them to believe in themselves, as the one and only authority of their lives and their future.

Preaching direct democracy and justice in every village and every town and every neighbourhood, eating and drinking with young and old, defying the status quo and speaking of a better world where they will be emancipated is difficult not to see the similarities with revolutionaries and thought leaders like Christ and Che.

His thinking neither right nor left is somewhat confusing to a populous for years sunk in polarised politics, in a country that one’s future was so determined by political loyalties. But the movement is growing. Greek people caught between a rock and a hard place, betrayed by the very politicians and ideologies they have been loyal in all their lives, start believing that maybe they know best. They are believing that they can do a better job at “steering the boat” and more importantly they start believing in each other.

The movement has recently become a political party, un-announced, away from media attention and non-existent in pre-election polls. Facing the birthing pains of any new beginning, yet born!, is now toying with the possibility of getting a seat in the parliament to voice its views within the legality of political frameworks, fair and square.

Open to collaborate with any movement, any party, anyone who is ready to fight for 6 key things:
1. Repudiation of the debt according to the international law.
2. Dismantling of the treaties signed since the time of the first Memorandum back in 2010 and restoration of our national sovereignty from the IMF, the EU and the European Central Bank.
3. Restructuring Greece’s relations with the EU, starting with the exit from the Eurozone and adoption of a national currency, which is rather a starting point.
4. Nationalization of the major banks, starting with the Bank of Greece, for a better control of the economy, re-orienting credit policy, striking at financial quackery and regulating capital.
5. The perpetrators for public money and property dissipation be taken to the Court.
6. Real Democracy Now through the election of a Constituent Assembly.

And he has kept his promise, much like every other he has made to the Greek people. The movement has joined forces with two other parties and movements ready to give a common fight, irrespective of the ideological differences amongst them, to compete for the power of voice in Greece’s National Election on the 6th May. A unified front against parochial partisan loyalties, with one and only goal to save Greek people from the imminent despair of European policy and restore democracy. A message for all the PIGS on the verge of becoming a broken piggy bank: “Retaking control also implies the claim of true Democracy.”

1. Release from the restrains of the Euro and the European Monetary Union as soon as possible and subsequent return to national currency. For as long as the country resides within the Eurozone, Greece is forcibly exposed to the pressures, blackmails and raids of International speculators. The country is utterly helpless before the most ravenous forces of the markets and acts as an expendable lab rat for Eurozone’s directives that act only in the interest of supporting the fiscal interests of the powerful ones.
2. Brake the debt’s vicious cycle. Today’s overwhelming debts are the result of a parasitical state bureaucracy, a fief of political and economic interests. But it also constitutes a privileged field of economical dependency and selling of the state as a whole that benefits the most malicious speculators out there. Economy and society must not be crushed under the weight of serving the debts. The mere workers have no obligation to keep paying products of usury and speculation.
3. Transform the state into an essential driving force of economic growth and of society’s support. The ‘private enterprise’ dogma, with the excuse of which governments had always been covering up the ruthlessness of great private monopolies, has soundly collapsed. the longer Economy and Society keep serving this bankrupt dogma the tinier domestic consumption will be, the more production will worsen, the more mass unemployment we will see, the lower the status of the workers will be, the more the numbers of businesses that close will multiply.

And while this sounds grant, it comes with 100-day plan; much in the tradition of CEOs taking over a new post. Because this “visionary” comes with a plan, ambitious and daring, yet legitimate and feasible. Also a proposal for masterminding a grand plan of solidarity with any country faced with similar economic adversity within the European Union, and even beyond.

The 25 measures that must be implemented immediately
1. Laying down and executing of a plan for the fast paced reconstruction of production where the basic pillar will be the public sector. An enhanced program of public investments where the priority orientations will be: the growth of production, the growth of productive added value and stable employment. This program will have to be free from the restricting burdens of the great projects the European Union dictates and the state-sponsored business interests.

2. Concrete increases in all salaries, pensions and incomes, so that the great losses from long term austerity are mended and so that the internal market is efficiently revitalized. Economy is not suffering from the absence of loans but it dies because of the population’s diminishing purchasing power.

3. Legislative consolidation of minimum wages that will cover the annual realistic basic needs of an employee’s family and the minimum pensions set at 80% of those wages.

4. Establishing by law a genuine automated wages revaluation based on a factual price index, which will be measuring the true cost of living for an employees’ household.

5. Abolition of all sorts of “flexible”, “temporary” and “part time” employment, both in the public and the private sectors and legalization of the non-negotiability of stable and permanent employment.

6. Securing equal rights in employment and social security for all employees without any kind of prerequisites, separations and exclusions.

7. The transformation of the Greek Manpower Employment Organization (OAED) into an insurance fund against unemployment with the reorientation of all its assets and incomes into truthful support for the unemployed: with unemployment allowance at 80% of minimum salary for the duration of an individual’s unemployment and the complete legalization of social security rights of the unemployed.

8. Revoking of all laws, rules and regulations that damage social security, payment of all public and private debts into the social security system, complete detachment from the government of the social security system, legally securing the redistributive character of it with substantial increase of employer and state contributions.

9. Securing a truly public health and social welfare system that will be neither a stepping stone for private health provision, nor a field of exploitation of private suppliers and multinational pharmaceutical companies.

10. Safeguarding a publicly provided education system on the base of the compulsory public 12 years elementary and middle school and of the public higher education based on the modern day requirements for education, research academic and social life.

11. Removal of all tax exemptions that benefit large companies and cumulative imposition of taxation on corporate profits, fiscal transactions of all kinds and on large movable and immovable property values, not just those owned by physical persons but also those of legal ones.

12. Drastic reduction by half of direct taxation on very small businesses and using of all developmental, investment and other state subsidies for the immediate support of small and medium sized businesses as a part of the productive reconstruction of the economy.

13. Complete reformation of the taxation system with the reversal of the direct-indirect taxes relation so that taxation will no longer be a mechanism that drains the income of the worker, the small business and the small farmer.

14. Utter reformation of all state-running expenses spearheaded by drastic cuts of all open or covert expenses that are tied to the government, to ministers, advisors, deputies and parties, the elimination of deliberate administrative posts without tasks, subcontractors and concessions, retroactive claiming of the entire public property (movable and immovable) that was sold out or broken occasionally by governments, the abolition of secret funds and all "special accounts", the immediate termination of all “lion’s share” like, gratuitous contracts and colonial-like agreements that were made between the state and dubious business interests, the elimination of funding for NGOs and other “voluntary” or private organizations, a thorough review of all military spending on the basis our national defence’s real needs.

15. Renationalization of all public organizations previously owned by the state (“Public organizations for the common good” as we call them in Greece) so that they seize to be subject to the private interests that use them in order to re-establish their role and their relation towards both the government as well as the market, their reconstruction in the benefit of the society, the establishment of employment and social regulation, the providing of services for the common good that will not be a terrible burden for the people’s households as well as the protection of basic social and public goods from speculators and private monopolies.

16. Nationalization of the Bank of Greece, as well as all the largest banks so that the debit burdens on the economy are reduced, redirection of the banking system away from usury and speculation with “toxic” or not banking products and into the credit support of the productive reconstruction of the economy in combination with the abolishment of the discretion clauses from the banking system, also the consolidation of absolute transparency in banking activities.

17. Dealing with the overwhelming debts of households and small businesses by the omission of all private debts of those households and small-medium sized businesses that cannot continue paying, the immediate establishment of developmental and social criteria for bank financing, the elimination of all extra charges attached to the loans and the imposition of higher levels of interest rates which would be determined by the rates on the interbank market and the strengths of the national economy.

18. Striking all monopolies, oligopolies and cartels present in the market, through the dynamic growth of the productive role of the state, the banning of offshore companies, the elimination of secretive and discretion rules that cover trade agreements, the registration of shareholders, enforcement of labour and social control on very large enterprises – particularly multinationals, preferential support to cooperative initiatives, small and medium sized businesses as well as direct producers.

19. Immediate support of agricultural income combined with the strengthening of the farmers’ production that entails the implementation of competitive protective measures based on quality and productivity criteria, immediate omission of all debts for the farmers that are heavily in debt, striking at the dictatorial attitudes of wholesalers and middlemen of all sorts so that the farmer can secure satisfactory prizes for his produce while the consumer enjoys low retail prices.

20. Making good use of all the possibilities of world economy and international relations with all peoples and all states on the bases of complete freedom of transactions and mutual profits, against the monopolising of technology and market from the multinationals, against the constrains and limits that are forced by international organizations and the “fiscal integrations” of the powerful and the markets.

21. Establishing the proportional electoral system as fixed for both general and local elections with the abolition of every antidemocratic law, amendment and measure that harms the authentic and equal participation and representation of the people.

22. Improving the parliament by abolishing the existing antidemocratic regulation and the sponsoring of the parties, the institutionalization of equal treatment of representatives and parties, the assuring of concrete accountability of the government, the elimination of all secretive discretion rules, inclusion of public administration, the police and the armed forces under direct parliament control.

23. Publication and public repudiation of all secret or other agreements, commitments and treaties that the Greek governments have accepted in past years, both those made within NATO and those contacted bilaterally with the USA and other countries. We mean those treaties that damage the immediate interests of the people and the nation, damage its national sovereignty and endanger its national integrity and territory.

24. Immediate homecoming of all military units that have been sent abroad and endorsement of all necessary measures that will not allow and foreign power to use the nation’s territory for its own political and military ends.

25. Eventually announcement of general elections for the creation of a Constituent Assembly with broad representation of the people themselves with the sole purpose of drafting and adopting a new Democratic Constitution.

Even if one disagrees, the discourse of Dimitris Kazakis and the vision of the Popular Unified Front (E.ΠA.M) is compelling to be listened to and ponder.

Legal proceedings have been initiated by Thomas Pringle T.D., Independent Irish Member of Parliament for Donegal South-West, challenging the Irish Government on fundamental aspects of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)
Treaty and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaty

Pringle stated that he is "of the opinion that both treaties raise serious legal difficulties both at the level of EU treaty law and Irish Constitutional law.”

Stating “my primary democratic concern as both a citizen and as an elected public representative is the integrity of the Irish Constitution and the EU treaties which now form such an important part of our constitutional framework. I believe that the matters that I seek the clarification and assistance of the Court on are of crucial importance not only for the citizens of this country but for the future of the EU.”

Of special concern to him are the implications under the terms of the ESM Treaty of a new permanent €700 billion bailout fund called the European Stability Mechanism to be set up with power to call on Ireland (at a time of that institution’s choosing) to make capital contributions of up to €11,145,400,00 in various forms of capital.

"In this country’s case, this is the equivalent to approximately one-third of Government Tax Revenue for 2011. This figure can be increased at the sole behest of the ESM at any time in the future and with no limit set in the treaty as to what may be sought from Member States in the future.

"In effect this Stability Mechanism can direct the State to raise sovereign debt, give the money so raised to it and can then decide, where, when, whether and how it is to be spent. Therefore Ireland will not have power to control decisions regarding the use of funds raised by it."

Implications - What if a majority of voters in the May referendum on the Fiscal Compact Treaty vote in favour of imposing permanent austerity rules on the country in order to get access to a proposed permanent Eurozone loan fund only to discover that the treaty to establish that fund is illegal under EU law and unconstitutional in Ireland and may never in fact come into force?

Pringle said "On the 9th March last I wrote to Irish Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs detailing some of these very serious concerns. To date I have received no reply to this correspondence beyond the usual standard acknowledgement of receipt of the communication. I have now been left with no other option but to take this course of action.”

Summary of the Case

"I am asking the Court to examine the legality of the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) before any further action is taken by Government to approve that amendment. That amendment is being adopted under a so-called 'simplified revision procedure' of the EU treaties which I believe is legally wrong. The changes being proposed are so fundamental that they should go through the 'ordinary treaty revision procedure' to ensure proper democratic scrutiny. They also require the approval of the Irish people.

"I am also asking the Court to consider whether the ESM Treaty is in breach of existing EU treaty principles which have been approved by the Irish people in previous referendums and which are now therefore part of our law.

"In addition I am asking the Court to decide whether the State can ratify the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism without first having the approval of the people in a referendum.

"The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and
Monetary Union signed on 2nd March 2012 is intertwined with the ESM Treaty. They each depend on the other.

"If I am right in my belief that the ESM Treaty is unlawful, then there is in my opinion a question over the validity of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union."

Timing & Positioning Q & A

Pringle states that he "appreciates and welcomes the Irish Government’s
decision to submit the issue of the Fiscal Treaty to the people by way of
referendum", but he "has concerns that due to the intense pressures on
Government at this time, the need to put the amendment to the EU treaties and the ESM Treaty to a referendum may not yet have been fully scrutinised. In order to assist in that scrutiny, he is seeking particular judicial review in these proceedings.”