BREXIT: what the BBC didn’t say


BREXITImage: courtesy of Tim Montgomerie and the Wall Street Journal. Read his article.

A referendum will be held on June 23rd in the UK to decide on “BREXIT” (Britain Exit), i.e. whether to leave or remain in the European Union. The BBC has outlined the pros and cons, but the list would not be complete without a few reflexions on the dismal failures of EU policies.

Foreign policy

The actions of some NATO countries have brought lasting, dangerous chaos to Irak, Afghanistan and Libya. So, why on earth did the EU help destabilize yet another muslim country by encouraging a rebellion in Syria? The result is a catastrophe of major proportions, which has backfired against Europeans through massive, often hostile immigration –  Video: The forced collective Suicide of European Nations – and primarily against the refugees themselves, some of which have drowned at sea, including many children.

Another misguided policy of the European Commission has been to systematically humiliate Moscow. First, they attracted former USSR satellite countries into the EU and NATO, regardless of the cost – political, social and financial. Then they helped dismember Yugoslavia, another country with special ties to Russia. This, by the way, fanned independence movements within EU countries, destroying their social fabric. It’s nowhere more evident than in Spain, which is slowly desintegrating into pieces.

Russia took the punches, and kept its cool. But then Brussels got greedy, and pushed its luck one bridge too far: it courted Ukraine. This led to a protracted coup d’état in Kiev, forcing the democratically elected pro-Russian president to resign.

It took naïve EU politicians to think that Russia would let a NATO power take control of Sebastopol, which harbors its main fleet since immemorial times. Ignorant ones too, because it doesn’t take a historian to know that Khrushchev had taken Crimea and the Donetz away from Russia, by ukase, to give them to Ukraine. Being a Ukrainian himself, he had no qualms about putting under Kiev’s orders the essentially Russian population of these two provinces. This wasn’t too serious an offense as long as Ukraine was part of the USSR; but when that country became independent, the sore thumb became a casus belli.

Whatever the real motive behind this folly, the EU bull had entered the china shop. The rest is still fresh in our memories: Ukraine’s Russian populations asked Moscow for help in view of the hostile coup in Kiev. Russia obliged, sending troops into Crimea and securing its fleet in Sebastopol. The Crimeans greeted their fellow-countrymen with joy, organized a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian homeland. This happened so fast it became a fait-accompli.

Seeing this, the population of the Donetz organized their own referendum to reunite with mother Russia. But the EU scorned that democratic vote, oblivious to the Yugoslavia precedent. Instead, it helped quash the rebellion by sending weapons and money. In turn, Russia assisted the Donetz resistance, accusing the EU of double standards. Thousands died, and NATO came close to an open war with Russia, which might have led to the use of nuclear weapons.

The mess created in Ukraine by Brussels’ incompetent government is still unresolved, and the war-devastated population of the Donetz will be waiting years for an impossible solution to this stand-off between nuclear powers. One way or another, EU taxpayers will have to shore up Ukraine, a corrupt and bankrupt country, and subsidize EU farmers who can no longer export their products to Russia, an important market that has been lost in the process. As for business in general with Russia, it’s another huge loss for the EU economy. An independent Britain could benefit from that if it seized the opportunity.

Turkey is another blunder of epic proportions. For years the, er, let’s call them EU nullocrats, have been negotiating with Ankara the hypothetical admission of their country of 80 million muslims into the EU (one wonders on whose mandate, since the sovereign people of the EU were never consulted on this vital issue). This gave hope to the Turks, of course. But then European public opinion, upon finding out, reacted against this nonsense, and the negotiations were put on the back burner, humiliating the Turks in the process.

This year, following the disastrous exodus of millions of Syrians, Afghans, Irakis and Africans through Turkey and into the EU, the nullocrats offered a stupid deal to Turkey in exchange for a reduction in the flux of refugees: 6 billion euros, and the right for Turkish citizens to fly, drive or walk into the EU… without a visa! Ankara first agreed, then demanded more favourable terms still, e.g. €6 billion, yes, but every year!

We owe this mind-boggling piece of diplomacy to Angela Merkel, who brokered the deal. A final decision will be made this month on the new Turkish demands. By the way, there are really 140 million Turks, if one includes those living in central Asia.

The EU, it must be said, has no democratic authority to carry out these idiotic policies, which put Europe at considerable risk. Only two countries, Spain and Luxembourg, ratified by referendum the 2004-modified European Constitution. The French and Dutch people rejected it in 2005. The other member countries ratified it without calling a referendum. So, what happened next? – the nullocrats went around the negative referendum results by proposing a treaty to all member countries, which they signed the following year. This “Treaty of Lisbon” essentially put in force the Constitution that was rejected by the people.

In view of this, who can say that the EU is a democracy? Nullocracy, yes! Corruptocracy, certainly! (lobbyists are swarming in Brussels) But democracy? – absolutely not! Its constitution was imposed by a trick, and its government of Commissioners is not elected. All Europeans can do is watch in dismay, and brace themselves for a rough landing.

The environment

After spending millions to create a network of natural reserves throughout Europe (Natura 2000 areas), and enacting laws (“directives”) to protect biodiversity, the Commission proceeded to destroy both. Thousands of wind turbines sprouted throughout Europe, following Brussels’ diktat imposing the “energy transition”. It didn’t matter to these arrogant politicians and bureaucrats that the turbines would be killing millions of birds and bats, many of them endangered species that are controlling the proliferation of pests. They went as far as producing a Guidance document to make sure Natura 2000 areas could also have their bird choppers. Migration routes, even those of rare birds, were not spared either. Many species are on the decline as a result.

These huge machines desecrated landscapes from Finland to Portugal, destroying natural habitats, bringing rare species closer to extinction, and emitting dangerous infrasound affecting farm animals, wildlife, and people. Electricity prices have skyrocketed, but CO2 emissions keep rising: politicians had not figured out that wind is intermittent. So, we must have fossil fuels plants to back up the wind farms, and both must be subsidized. You couldn’t make this up!

The economy, and its social consequences

The euro crisis is a result of Brussels’ irresponsible foreign policy of expansion at all costs, compounded by a lack of control that allowed even the most profligate member countries, such as Greece, to borrow money as if there were no tomorrow. The EU economy, and its bankrupt financial system, are now being artificially maintained by the European Central Bank which, like the FED in the US, is creating money out of thin air, pumping it into the banking system. This has sunk interest rates to their lowest possible level (negative in some cases), so that over-extended sovereign debts are easier to service. But that’s highly unorthodox, and has caused the European currency to lose much of its value. The euro used to be as strong as the deutsche mark, it is now weaker than the dollar. Yet Greece, Spain and some other countries may still have to breakaway from the euro in the not too distant future.

There are many other failures to mention, such as the common agricultural policy, the fisheries policy, or the biggest fiasco of them all, the energiewende (transition to renewable energy). See for yourselves:
Biofuels cause food crises: article in The Guardian

Biofuels emit more CO2 than petroleum: REUTERS: Biofuels cause more carbon emissions than fossil fuels
Biofuels destroy crucial natural habitats all over the world, for example that of the tiger, rhinoceros and orang utan in Sumatra (to make room for palm oil plantations) – see: The Cost of the Biofuel Boom
Biomass causes entire forests to be felled, for example in the US, whose wood is being shipped to be burned at the Drax plant in the UK, causing CO2 emissions which will take many years to compensate (in part) by growing new trees. (that’s if these trees are not felled when grown – a big “IF”).  See: the biomass delusion

Solar energy is expensive and intermittent. Countries in finantial difficulties, such as Spain, have had to cut off subsidies to solar plants which were 12 (twelve) times higher than the market price.  Even Germany is now phasing them out
Wind energy is also intermittent and unaffordable. Like solar energy, it must be backed up by flexible fossil fuel power plants, which produce more CO2 per kWh than combined cycle gas turbines, and more still when following the variations of the wind. At the end of the day, there are no savings on carbon emissions. And the back-up plants must be subsidized too! This whole charade has proven to be a humongous waste of money, while being harmful to people’s health, to their savings (home values), to the economy, jobs, farm animals, wildlife, natural habitats, landscapes, tourism, residential and other investments, water quality, etc.

EnBW To Launch Offshore Windpark In Baltic Sea
Are European leaders daydreaming?

One government after another have found that they could not afford the high cost of wind and solar energy. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and more recently Quebec, have cut off subsidies that support these intermittent, non-performing industries. Others, like Denmark, Poland and the Netherlands, are applying the brakes. Bavaria, to save its idyllic countryside, has imposed a setback from habitations of 10 times the height of wind turbines, leaving only 1% of the territory for wind development. Investors in the wind industry are worried, but windfarm victims worldwide are welcoming this ray of hope.

Even a large, successful economy like Germany can’t afford to pay forever annual subsidies of €25 billion just to maintain the fiction that it can run on intermittent energy. With electricity prices now three times as high as in the United States, fuel poverty is affecting millions of Germans, and energy-intensive industries must be subsidized to stay in business.

In the UK, the two largest aluminum smelters had to close down, and more energy-intensive industries are in jeopardy. Countries that don’t penalize fossil fuels, such as China or India, attract these industries, providing them with cheap, dirty energy. Globally, CO2 emissions actually increase as a result of these delocalizations; but the nullocrats don’t care: they have their secret agendas.

Renewable energy is not the only dead horse the EU has been flogging. The other is Global Warming, a buzz word that was soon replaced by Climate Change in case the predicted warming would turn to cooling. Forecasting one thing and its opposite is a sure way to be right no matter what, rain or shine. It’s a con game by any standard, but one that has been taught in schools along with other politically correct nonsense. Children have fallen for it, and many adults too. Endless repetition by the media is an efficient form of brainwashing – especially by television.

Global temperatures are now coming down, after an exceptionally powerful El Niño event, one which lasted till March. They will continue to decline due to lower solar radiation, evidenced by solar cycle 24, the weakest in 100 years. It was all predicted here on November 9th: See: Democracy to die next month at COP21? Many climate scientists think that the resulting cooling period will last at least a couple of decades. This is the result of natural factors, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. In fact, anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, politically motivated and abundantly financed by public money.

Don’t expect politicians, or scientists paid by them to “prove” the warming, to admit they have a hidden agenda (except Christiana Figueres). There is money in Global Warming – er, Climate Change – money to be raised through carbon taxes and other extortion methods. These may stifle the economy, but who cares? – certainly not the alliance between utopists and corruptocrats.

There is also plenty of illicit money to be made with the other super scam, renewable energy: Newsweek: green graft

The bigger picture

As evidenced by Christiana Figueres, it is not just about corruption. Politically incorrect media tell us that Brussels is an essential part of the UN plan for global governance, which has the support of the political establishment in the US. A plan that imposes multiculturalism (to eliminate national identities), curbs freedom of speech (zero-tolerance political correctness), and redistributes wealth from the middle classes of rich countries to the ruling classes of the Third World. We are to be turned into obedient sheep, easy to fleece, ruled by clueless bureaucrats such as Ms Figueres.

How would the world be governed under that plan? Well, pretty much like the EU: unelected officials eating in the hand of powerful lobbies, with the help of a vast, incompetent and unaccountable bureaucracy. Results: ever-increasing taxes, skyrocketing electricity prices, and cultural suicide.

In a recent speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban warned Europeans about the loss of identity: “hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old, and national” –   Destroying Europe forever.  He may also have been referring to the video mentioned earlier (second parag. above) when he concluded: Shall we be slaves – or men set free?

R. Reagan Freedom is...


On June 23rd, Britons will have a chance that is unlikely to present itself ever again: that of voting themselves out of the incompetent, undemocratic super-state that is ruining its members and welcoming Islam as its fastest growing religion. A positive vote to leave the Union would not only save Great Britain, but other European countries which are thinking about leaving as well. So don’t be shy, have no fear, take pride in your country, and vote to LEAVE the EU. Free men and women around the world will cheer you for it.

Europe’s economic suicide

Is bureaucracy killing the European Union?

From Roger Helmer’s blog

EU Energy Policy is Industrial Suicide

Posted on January 21, 2015

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) was introduced in 2005 as a “Cap & Trade” scheme to reduce emissions. The theory was that the right to emit CO2 would be traded, and therefore permits would go where they were most economically useful. The price of the units would send a “signal” to the market, which would promote energy conservation and new low-carbon technologies.

It was anticipated that the price would start out around €25 a ton (a level at which very “dirty” fossil fuels like lignite would start to be squeezed out), and progress over the years to €75, which would virtually exclude all fossil fuels.

The ETS was hailed as “a market system” that would allocate a scarce resource – the right to emit CO2 — in an efficient way. In fact, for almost all of that time the price has languished below €10. It has failed to give the market signals intended. But it has created a huge administrative burden on industry, and spawned a new (and totally non-productive) business in “carbon trading”, in which many people have made a lot of money without benefitting the economy in any way.

Recognising the effective failure of the grand scheme, the EU introduced a sticking-plaster response – “back-loading”. This removed some 900 million “allowances” from the current auction round for permits, but the effect on pricing was negligible. Some member-states became so frustrated with this failure that they introduced country-specific measures (undercutting the pretence of a Single Market). One such measure was George Osborne’s “Carbon Floor Price”, introduced in April 2013, a measure which directly impacted the competitive position of UK industry against continental competitors.

Recognising the on-going failure of the ETS programme, the EU institutions are now debating yet another sticking-plaster solution: the “Market Stability Reserve”, or MSR. Under the Commission’s proposal, starting from 2021, with the fourth ETS trading period, 12% of the allowances in circulation would be placed in a reserve if the number of allowances in circulation two years earlier exceeds 833 million.

No one seems to recognise the irony of a “market mechanism” which requires constant regulatory intervention to achieve the price levels originally envisaged. Markets set their own prices autonomously – that’s what a market is. We now have the worst of all possible worlds – the cost of operating a market, but a price being set by repeated regulatory intervention. It’s not a real market at all. It’s simply the most expensive and cumbersome method yet invented to impose a tax.

The MSR has been the subject of heated debate in the parliament, and the battle lines are drawn. The left and the greens are keen to impose the MSR as soon as possible, and want to bring it forward to 2017. Those who understand Europe’s competitive position in the world (and that includes UKIP) don’t want it at all.

On the industry side, a similar split is emerging. Energy suppliers want the MSR, as the only mechanism available to enable them to achieve the emissions targets the EU has set out. And they are confident that they can pass on the higher costs – forgetting that many of their most energy-intensive customers will move – indeed are already moving – out of the EU altogether to escape the suicidal energy policies which Brussels is imposing.

Intensive energy users, on the other hand, are in despair. Already clinging on by their finger-tips in the face of global competition, they fear that this is the coup-de-grace. In the past week I have met with the aluminium, steel and petroleum refining industries. They all tell the same story: EU production in decline, plants closing, jobs lost, imports rising. We are exporting production and jobs and investment, outside the EU altogether. And emissions. Often this activity goes to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, leading to higher emissions. In steel, imports can represent twice the emissions per ton compared to EU production. In petroleum refining, it’s plus 35%.

Aluminium has lost 42,000 jobs since 2007 (while imports rise). Steel 80,000. Petroleum refining 10,000 direct jobs, and an estimated 40,000 indirect. Chemicals, glass and cement can tell similar stories. This is what former Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani called “an industrial massacre in Europe”.

Yesterday I attended another debate on MSR (and intervened robustly). I told them that if their MSR project failed, as previous sticking plaster solutions have done, then we should be back in the same debate again in five years’ time But if it “succeeded”, that meant higher energy prices in Europe (the steel industry reckons energy prices up 40% by 2020). More job losses. More plant closures. More industry and investment moving out of the EU. The deindustrialisation of Europe. And quite possibly, higher emissions. That’s a very strange kind of “success”.

The word “mad” is hardly strong enough. This is economic and industrial suicide. And the EU institutions are determined to press ahead with it.

Roger Helmer, MEP


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.