“ is thin gruel has been further watered down” – e mogg savages

BREXITIssue 10 February 2016

��)))��''�%��('�!�'

��#�� !��"��"��$ ��

�$�� #�� "��

SaveBritain’sCash.

Campaign Update

Major NewBooklet

PublishedDr Lee Rotherham

“is thingruel has

been furtherwatereddown” –

e Moggsavages

Cameron

Brexit: December 2015:

And ThEy’rE

OFF...”

So now we know. David Cameron has come back fromhis humiliating trour of European Union negotiatingchambers with a very poor deal indeed. We look at this

in more detail elsewhere - and at the magnificent attack onhim by Jason Rees-Mogg - what is important for now is thefact that we are almost certainly looking at a Referendumvote in June. The campaigns are no longer under starter’sorders - they’re off!

Inside this edition we carry pieces from all three of theother main campaigns, as well as news and updates on whatwe are doing. Next month we are running our “Save Britain’sCash” campaign (see page 4). This is a theme of widespreadappeal across the country. We are producing leaflets in boxesof 1,000. So if you want to help the campaign order a box ortwo and get out delivering. We have already begun, pleasecome and join us.

If you can help us campaign, either from your home or attending major events, or if you candonate a few pounds, please send an email to our Campaign Executive Lottie Fairbanks [email protected].

All the best

Rupert MatthewsEditor, Brexit Magazine.

PS This month’s photo of your Editor shows

him with Roger Helmer MEP (UKIP) inside

the main chamber of the European Union

Parliament in Strasbourg - the very belly of

the beast.

Letters to the Editor and other communicationsshould be sent to the Editor, Rupert Matthews, [email protected]

From theEditor

Social MediaBetter Off Out is very activeon Social Media. We have adirect presence as set outbelow, and encourage oursupporters to share our posts.

Better Off Out

@BetterOffOut

Better Off Out

Brexit magazine is published and distributed by Better Off Out of Richwood House, 1 Trinity School Lane, Cheltenham GL52 2JL.The printed version is printed by Hello Print of http://www.helloprint.co.uk/


Jacob rees-Mogg - Conservative MP for

northeast Somerset - spoke for millions of his

fellow Britons when he denounced david

Cameron’s renegotation package by saying

“this thin gruel has been further watered

down, Mr Speaker”, and went on: “My right

honourable friend has a fortnight to save his

reputation as a negotiator.”

The Prime Minister was clearly rattled by TheMogg’s attack - and with good reason. Theassault had been preceded by a number ofsupportive comments from Labour, theLibDems and Tory Europhiles. Then Cameronwas hit by one of The Mogg’s trademark softlyspoken, but wickedly barbed remarks.

And the blow was all the more wounding asCameron knew it to be true. The deal that he hasbrought back from Brussels is poor indeed.

It is well known that Cameron did not evenask for many reforms that are actually needed.He raised not a whisper about Britishsovereignty, about our ability to negotiate tradedeals, about the European Arrest Warrant, aboutthe rampant corruption and waste in Brusselsnor did he mention the Common FisheriesPolicy, the Common Agricultural Policy nor theEnergy Policy that is blighting our land withwind farms.

But even on his own terms, the PrimeMinister’s negotiation has been a farce.

On benefits for migrants, Cameron said thathe wanted to insist that migrants had a job offerbefore they could move to Britain, that theycould not send child benefit to their home

country and that none would get any benefits atall until they had been here four years. He gotnone of that. His “emergency brake” isundefined and in any case will be exerted by theEU Commission, not the UK Goverment.

On Parliamentary oversight of EU legislation,Cameron said he wanted a Red Card system,which he carefully did not define precisely.What he actually got was the laughablesuggestion that if 55% of EU member statesparliaments voted against a new law it would bewithdrawn for further discussion - not blockedyou notice, merely temporarily withdrawn.

And that is about it. No changes to the EUTreaties, no return of powers to Westminster, nocrack down on waste or corruption, no return ofdemocracy.

David Cameron’s negotiated deal is a joke -but a very bad one. There is only one thing todo now. Vote “Leave”.

Rupert Matthews

Editor

Brexit Magazine

“THIS THIN

GRUEL”

Cover Story

Right: Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

After years of backing the cause of British

Eurofanaticism, Goldman Sachs made the

leap in January into funding the BSE

(‘Britain Stronger In Europe’) campaign by

pledging the donation of a “substantial six-

figure sum”. UKIP’s nigel Farage described

the donation as “the unholy alliance of big

banks and big politics”.

In what must surely have been a coincidence,this news was leaked on the same day that itannounced a fall in profits for the final quarterof 2015, caused largely by having to pay $5billion for its role in the sub-prime mortgagemis-selling that led to the financial crisis.Known for its culture of bullying - in 2012,Greg Smith, a former executive director, calledthe environment “destructive and toxic” -Goldman is synonymous with the short-termistgreed that pervaded the fat cats of the bankingindustry before the crash. Why might it supportthe EU?

In terms of lobbying Brussels, GoldmanSachs reported spending of more than €700,000in 2014 - though this is less than the €4 millionspent by Deutsche Bank, for example. Thiscompares favourably with the $3.4 million itsays it spent on such activities in Washington,but lobbying rules in Brussels are much looser,which casts doubt upon the size of the figure.Vicky Cann, a campaigner for Corporate EuropeObservatory, told the Financial Times:

“Goldman Sachs’ former lobby register entrymade it look like a bit[-part] player. In fact it hasbeen active in EU lobbying for years, withaccess to the Commission that other lobbyistscould only dream of.”

The bank has form in profiting from the EU’sprofligacy. For instance, it made complexfinancial deals with the Greek government in2001 that allowed Greece’s entry into the Euro,even though the country’s economy was clearlyunsuited to being part of the single currencyclub. The bank is reported to have made $500million from the advice, which disguised theextent of Greece’s debts. This led to calls to sue

the bank for its role in the Eurozone sovereigndebt crisis.

Why wouldn’t the EU go after Goldman?Might it have something to do with the fact thatMario Draghi, President of the EuropeanCentral Bank (ECB), worked for Goldmanbetween 2002 and 2005? The link between thebank and Eurocrats is alarming. As well ascounting our own Mark Carney as an ex-employee, Goldman alumni also include PetrosChristodoulou, who managed Greece’s debtmanagement quango; Mario Monti, thetechnocrat appointed as Italian prime ministerafter the EU deposed the democratically electedgovernment; Antonio Borges, the formerEuropean chief of the IMF; and Otmar Issing,former board member of the ECB.

In another of Goldman’s cosy relationships,in 2000 three former employees of the bankcombined to set up Ocado, the grocer for thosewho are too posh to shop at Waitrose. Who isthe chairman of Ocado? None other than StuartRose, head of the BSE campaign, whom DavidCameron ennobled in 2014 - as he did Rose’sBSE colleague, Karren Brady, in the samemonth.

Nor is Goldman’s dodgy governmental adviceconfined to the Continent. It also advised theUK government on its shambolic under-valuation of Royal Mail shares, whose sale at aknockdown price is estimated to have lost thetaxpayers £1 billion - while another arm of the

Brexit : January 2016:

Features

FAT CATS: A TALE OF

GOLDMAN SACHS

AND THE EU

bank made a tidy £12 million from trading someof the shares itself.

There is a reason that Rolling Stone magazinein 2010 described Goldman Sachs as “a greatvampire squid wrapped around the face ofhumanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnelinto anything that smells like money”. Muchlike the EU, it sticks its nose in where it is notwanted and uses its cosy relationships to takemoney from unsuspecting, gullible sources.

The positive news is that this donation is

likely to do more harm than good to the BSEcampaign. I suspect that Nigel Farage is right:the public will see this as the coming togetherof a greedy, self-interested elite that caresnothing for its voters and customers. We are onthe side of the people. To the fat cats, I say:bring it on.

Simon Richards

Chief Executive

The Freedom Association


Features

The terms of david Cameron’s “deal” with

donald Tusk, the President of the European

Council, have now been released – and have

faced an immediate backlash.

The Prime Minister seems to have managedto annoy almost everyone with this deal.Caroline Lucas, the Eurofanatic Green MP, hascalled the agreement “unfair and unlikely to beeffective”. Graham Brady, the head of theTories’ backbench 1922 Committee, said thatthe changes are “not on a scale that begins toaddress the concerns that I have”.

The strongest criticism, however, has comefrom Lord Stoddart, the Independent Labourpeer and Council member of The FreedomAssociation, who called the deal “humiliating”,adding: “If he expects the British people to voteto stay in the EU based on this watery brew,then he is taking the electorate for fools.

“It is quite obvious that in his haste for a rapidpublic relations victory, the Prime Minister hasallowed himself to be fobbed off with vacuouspromises that amount to little or no substantialchange and abandoned most of the key

commitments he has previously made.”Lord Stoddart: “If this deal is a victory for

Britain, I would hate to see a defeat”Mr. Cameron tried his best to shed the

renegotiation in a positive light by dodgingparliamentary scrutiny – to the fury of JeremyCorbyn, the Labour leader, and ToryEurosceptics alike – in favour of making aspeech in Wiltshire. The Chancellor andputative Cameron heir, George Osborne, wasnowhere to be seen.

Yet Mr. Cameron asked for virtually nothingand has got even less.

The battle lines in this referendum are nowdrawn. The Prime Minister wants to keep hisCabinet gagged until a formal ratification of theagreement at the next EU summit, on 18February – but will he succeed? Toby Young,for one, has reacted by calling for “the lily-livered Eurosceptics in the Cabinet to rediscovertheir manhood and let the country know whatthey really think of these ‘reforms’.

“If they don’t – if they pretend the PrimeMinister has secured such an earth-shatteringpackage of concessions that they’ve changedtheir minds – they will have difficulty beingtaken seriously again.”

Quite right.

Tom Bayley

Researcher


PM’S EU DEAL

“HUMILIATING”


Activities

Campaign Update

This month we are running our “Save Britain’s Cash” Campaign thathighlights the massive financial cash cost to the UK and to Britishcitizens of our membership of the European Union. Those of us who have

been campaigning against the European Union for years are well aware of the massive cost to thepeople of Britain of our membership of the EU. Now is the time to show our fellow Britons justhow much they are paying to Brussels today, tomorrow and every day.

We have already had a positive reaction to this campaign from other campaign groups ofBrexiteers. Even if you are working with Grassroots Out, Vote Leave or Leave.EU you can stillorder our campaign materials to help boost your activity.

There is still time to join in the on-line activity that will be running over the next four weeks.Send an email to Lottie on [email protected] to be sent graphics for your socialmedia pages, ideas for on-line activity and much more.

We look forward to working with you on this important and groundbreaking campaign initiative.

Rupert MatthewsNational Campaign Manager

PS Our printer has just told me that there is

still time to order campaign materials for this

campaign. The standard campaign pack contains

2,000 leaflets plus posters, beermats and stickers.

To get yours, email me today on [email protected],

just title your email “Save Britain’s Cash

Campaign” and include your name, address and

phone number. But act fast or you might miss

out.

NO to the European Union

YES to the Wider World

You are paying

too much for

your weekly shop

Your household could be

£933 per year better off if the UK left the European Union

Free Trade – YES!Political Union – NO!

Spend Britain’s Cashin Britain!

Vote TO LEAVE the European Union

Promoted by and for Better Off Out of Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street, Trafalgar Square,

London, WC2N 4JF. Printed by DKB Creative of 3 Cornwall Road, Salisbury, Wilts SP1 3NH.

“Britain pays a gross contribution to the European Union of nearly £20 billion per year – around £55 million

every day. We could spend that money here in the UK on the NHS, police, defence or social care.”

Promoted by and for Better Off Out of Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon

Street, Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 4JF. Printed by Thirstys.co.uk Limited,

Unit 11, William Street, Mounts Business Park, Northampton, NN1 3EW.

“Britain pays a gross contribution to the European Union of nearly

£20 billion per year – around £55 million every day. We could spend

that money here in the UK on the NHS, police, defence or social care.”

www.BetterOffOut.net

www.BetterO�Out.n

et

Vote TO LEAVE the EU

8 Dun

cann

on S

tree

t, T

rafa

lgar

Sq

uar

e, L

ondo

n, W

C2N 4

JF.

Prom

oted

by

and

for B

ette

r O�

Out

of G

olde

n Cr

oss H

ouse,

3 Cornwall Road, Salisbury, W

ilts SP1 3NH.

Printed by DKB Creative of

The debate over the EU is hotting up, but it

is also changing. With increased immigration

numbers, the Paris attacks and other events

in Cologne, denmark and Sweden, the

debate is increasingly being focused on the

security of our country in or outside the EU.

In the early stages of the campaign, the grouplooking to persuade the British people to remainin the EU, Britain Stronger In Europe (BSE)campaign, seems to fancy their chances. Theysay in debates that the police force, the securityservices and our EU partners all want us toremain in the EU, so why would we want toleave? They try to make out that the UK wouldbe unable to cooperate and inform decisions ifit were outside the EU.

In reality, it is quite the opposite. The UK ispart of a number of international organisationsthat facilitate data and information sharing, withthe "Five Eyes" Alliance with America,Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UKbeing a notable example. The security threatsthat the UK faces - along with other EU memberstates - are also international and could best betackled with both a local and a global responserather than the "regional approach" that the EUoffers.

The fact is that talking about internationalcooperation doesn't sit well with those thatsupport the EU; they can't see past the EU.

Tending to see the world in EU terms, they have"EU vision". As a result, they argue that the UK,as part of Europol, is making decisions onsecurity at the "top table". Much like the liesthat the EU is the top table for global trade,speakers for the remain side seem to be relyingon the idea that the EU is the "be all and end all"to persuade people of the EU's importance. It isnot. Europol is just one institution out of manythat tries to help with security and policingmatters, including those that already exist in theUK. It seems that Europhiles cannot bringthemselves to discuss agencies such as Interpol,which is one of many supranational security andpolicing agencies. This euro-centric argument isa lazy approach to the security argument thatneeds to be exposed and shown to be false.

This is especially as Europol is failing to doits job - and its Director, Rob Wainwright, haseven admitted it.

Last year in a Home Affairs Select Committeehearing, Wainwright admitted that the agency


Feature

SECURITY &THE EU

Right: The Bataclan Theatre in Paris,

where 89 people were killed during the

November 2015 terrorist attacks .

estimated that many thousands of potentialterrorists would be in "Europe", many of whichwere unknown to the agency. This isunacceptable, but shows the failings of the EUand that the powers and influence that the UKhas within it, constantly said to be "pivotal" bythe remain camp, is falling short of what thoseliving within the UK should demand. We havegiven these agencies powers that they haveexerted poorly - and we need to reclaim thecompetences to protect those within the UK.

Unfortunately, it seems that the debateconcentrates on what is "easy" rather than whatis right. Europhile speakers will effectively sayease trumps effectiveness. This is exactly whathappened in the European Arrest Warrant debatein 2013 and will continue during thisreferendum campaign. We need to press thespeakers on this; we need to show that doing theeasy thing isn't always the right thing.

What also needs to be exposed is the lie thatother countries, outside the EU, don't cooperatewith the EU and its security agencies. As

evidenced by Switzerland, there is thepossibility for data sharing between independentstates and the EU and, like every otherindependent state, the UK on leaving would alsoretake, retain and bolster competences andabilities in securing its people.

A key reason why security could be enhancedin the UK, of course, is partly due to the factthat, outside the EU, the UK would be able to(finally) control its borders. Former USPresident Ronald Reagan once said that a nationthat cannot control its borders is not a nation. Icompletely agree with this. However, theremain side says that the UK has the "best ofboth worlds" - outside Schengen but within theEU. I find it both disingenuous and, of course,narrow-sighted. At the time of writing,Schengen is now on the verge of breaking upand may well be reformed into something newand more euro-centric. Further, even withoutSchengen, the UK is obliged to acceptimmigrants from other EU nations - irrespectiveof what they can contribute to the UK - justbecause they have an EU passport. This rendersthe remain side's argument mute at best, for itensures that irrespective of the qualities that anindividual possesses, just because they have theright coloured passport, they are permittedentry.

Outside the EU we can control our borders,cooperate with the EU, strengthen our positionboth at home and on the global stage and, addedto this, ensure against future measures taken bythe EU that could undermine the UK's security.We are truly Better Off Out - and we need to sayit.

- Rory Broomfield

Director


www.tfa.net


Feature

how’s this for a painless spending cut?

Britain has paid the EU around £3000 in the

time it has taken you to read this far.

Our annual tribute to Brussels now stands at £19billion a year. If we kept that money at home,we could give the entire country a two thirds cutin council tax. Or we could build and equip 200state-of-the-art hospitals. To put it another way, during the lastParliament, we saved £36 billion through theentire domestic cuts programme; yet, over thesame period, we gave Brussels £85 billion. TheEU, in other words, wiped out our austeritysavings twice over.It’s true that some of the £19 billion is spent inBritain. Around half of what we hand overdribbles back to us. But a chunk of that goes onadvertising the EU, or on hiring pro-Brusselsconsultants and contractors. Some goes toprofessional associations, charities and NGOsin the hope that it’ll make them more pro-EU.Oxfam, for example, got more than £35 millionlast year.And what does Britain get for its £19 billion?Amazingly, that vast sum buys us membershipof the world’s only stagnant trade bloc. NorthAmerica grew by 3 per cent this year, Africa by4.5 per cent, Asia by 5 per cent. But theEurozone, after six years of flat-lining, grew byless than one per cent: its economy today is nobigger than it was in 2008.As long as we’re in the EU, we can’t signindependent trade deals with booming countrieslike India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand,

which are among our oldest friends.Back in 1973, when we joined, Europe lookedlike the future. Since then, the EU has shrunkfrom 36 per cent of the world economy to 17per cent. No one is suggesting that we give up on ourtrade with Europe; only that we also lift our eyesto more distant horizons. You don’t have to bein the EU to be part of the common market. TheEuropean free trade area stretches right acrossthe continent, from non-EU Iceland to non-EUTurkey. No one – no one I’ve ever met, at anyrate – is suggesting that we will leave thatcommon market when we leave the EU.We will, though, regain our voice at the WTOand our right to sign trade deals with non-EUstates. Iceland and Switzerland, for example,while retaining full access to the Europeanmarket, have signed free trade agreements withChina. We can’t do that: we lost control of ourtrade policy when we joined.That wasn’t all we lost. We lost our fishinggrounds, which should be a great renewable


Fea

THE COST OF

THE EUROPEAN

UNION

With only one month of 2016 gone it seems

the collapse of the Schengen Zone is

imminent. Border controls across Europe are

being reinstated as nations finally realise they

need to think independently. They are

realising this is the only way they can truly

protect their citizens. however, those at the

top table in Brussels still refuse to accept this

as they fear this will lead to the break-up of

the EU.

Constantly rising migrant figures have littlechance of slowing down any time soon. It willonly be a matter of months until the goodweather returns in Europe, and the BritishGovernment will be silently dreading themigrant numbers increasing even more.

David Cameron and his Government arepanicking. They know the migrant issue will beone of the top priorities for men and women onthe doorsteps in Britain come the time of the EUReferendum – whenever that may be.

It makes absolute sense for us to leave the EUand protect ourselves from such vast numbers


Features

THE EU'SOPEN

BORDERS’ExPERIMENT IS

COLLAPSING

resource. We lost our farming policy, and arenow paying more into the CAP, and getting lessout of it, than any other EU state.We lost our special relationship with otherEnglish-speaking peoples. Many Brits fromCommonwealth backgrounds find that theycan’t bring Auntie over for a wedding becausewe’ve had to crack down on non-EU visas so asto free up unlimited space for EU nationals withno connection to Britain.Worse, we’ve opened our borders to the EU justas the EU has opened its borders to the entireworld. That was never the deal.Saddest of all, we’ve lost a measure of ourdemocracy. On issues from benefits to prisonervoting, we find that we have ceded control toBrussels. As Jean-Claude Juncker, the Presidentof the European Commission, recently put it:“There can be no democratic choice against theEuropean Treaties”.He means it. The EU already has a president anda foreign office, a parliament and a civil service,

a currency and a supreme court, a passport anda driving licence, a national anthem and a flag.Where does that leave Britain? As a province ofEurope, a rate-capped local authority?Aren’t we something more? We’re the fifthlargest economy in the world, the fourth militarypower and one of five permanent seat-holdersat the UN Security Council. Can’t we run ourown affairs, trading with our European allies butgoverning ourselves?It has become clear that the EU is losing control.Losing control of the economic crisis. Losingcontrol of its borders. Losing control of itssecurity. It’s time for Britain to take back control: tostrike a new deal with the EU based on trade andco-operation, not political union. That’s why weshould vote to leave. It’s the safer choice.

- Dan Hannan MEP

of unmonitored people. The Schengen Agreement eliminated all

border checks among its members and allowedforeign visitors to travel throughout the areausing only one visa. With its downfall, borderchecks are beginning to reappear in an attemptto ensure the safety of the general public.

Since the escalation of the migrant crisis lastyear, hundreds of thousands of migrants havemade the treacherous journey across theMediterranean to begin their trail across Europe.With no borders, nothing has been able to stopthem. Most want to head to the more affluentnorthern nations – chiefly Germany and Sweden– and now their infrastructures are close tocollapsing.

The EU - the same Union which was foundedto prevent conflict amongst its Member States -has seen Hungary sending armoured vehicles toits border with Croatia, Slovenian police sealingseveral crossings to Croatia and Sweden hasrestored its borders with Denmark. Sweden hasalso announced it has plans to expel 80,000failed asylum seekers. Meanwhile, genuinerefugees and migrants alike are being pepper-sprayed as they attempt to reach northernEurope.

Is this Europe of open borders and peaceworking? We think not.

It is time the rest of Europe accepted the

Schengen Agreement is on its last legs.The already declining popularity of the EU is

plunging even further, with more peopleintending to vote to Leave the EU than everbefore.

If we get out of the EU, we will be incomplete control over our own immigrationsystem and can vet anyone wanting to come andlive in Britain. We will be able to create a fairerand more equal immigration system. We won'tpick someone from Germany or France oversomeone from China or Africa just because thelatter "aren't European enough".

Britain needs to make a stand now. It is timeto accept it is not possible to have porous openborders throughout Europe — our security is atstake.

David Cameron had a fantastic chance toforce this idea through as part of his re-negotiation process — but he has failed even totouch on the subject. The only way to stop thismadness is to Get Britain Out of the EU.

Sign up to receive our fortnightly e-Bulletin,and read more articles from Get Britain Out atwww.getbritainout.org

- Jayne Adye, Campaign Director

Get Britain Out


Features

As the referendum draws nearer, one of the

more interesting developments is to observe

how “leavers” from both left and right are

seeking to work together to secure the all-

important vote to withdraw and are making

significant attempts to bridge the sometimes

substantial divide that separates them in

many other policy areas.

It is one of the peculiarities of the UK thatopposition to the EU can be encountered acrosssuch a broad political spectrum. Until recently,in the other member states, support forwithdrawal has been confined either to theextreme left or the extreme right of the politicalspectrum. By contrast, in our country, many onthe Thatcherite centre-right and some fairlymainstream Labour politicians like AustinMitchell have been keen supporters ofwithdrawal.

This does, however, pose a problem.Potentially, left and right may have verydifferent, even conflicting, reasons for wantingto withdraw. For instance, while the proveninability last year of the democratically-electedSyriza government in Greece to pursue a radicalsocialist mandate because of the EU has led toa revival of anti-EU sentiment on the left in theUK, those on the centre-right would beextremely reluctant to campaign for withdrawalfrom the EU on the grounds that it would enableus to re-nationalise our rail network!

One possible solution I have heard is to runtwo parallel campaigns, using differentliterature with different arguments in differentareas. This, however, is fraught with problems.An issue which may encourage a Conservative-leaning voter to support withdrawal, such asscrapping some employment protectionlegislation, may alienate working-class Labourvoters and result in their voting to remain. You

couldn’t easily keep two parallel campaignswatertight and distinct. Left and Right wingvoters do not live in separate, hermetically-sealed parallel universes.

The best way of building a commandingmajority is to focus on areas of commonconcern across the political spectrum and this isnot as impossible as one might think. Top of thelist must surely be Parliamentary accountability.On the CIB websitewww.campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk,we have recently been running a series on theCommon Fisheries Policy by John Ashworth ofRestore Britain’s Fish, which has exposed in nouncertain terms the duplicitous behaviour ofministers and Civil Servants, being willing tobetray the livelihoods of thousands of UKfishermen, using all manner of deceit andmisinformation. Whether one wants aminimalist government, the state to run ourindustry or something in between, surely we areall agreed that however big we wish thegovernment to be, it should be honest andaccountable.

Likewise, the idea of us being a democratic,


Features

SOME

INTERESTING

ALLIANCES

sovereign state is not a left versus right issue. Inthe 1970s, the late Tony Benn was the bête noireof centre-right organisations such as the newly-formed Freedom Association (then known asthe National Association For Freedom).However, many who might be uncomfortablewith most of his political leanings would agreewith him 100% when he said “I loathe theCommon Market. It’s bureaucratic andcentralised, there’s no political discussion.Officials control ministers and it just has ahorrible flavour about it.” To his dying day, heremained an outspoken critic of the EU becauseof its lack of democracy.

On the subject of openness and democracy,one particularly hot potato at themoment is TTIP – the proposedUS-EU trade agreement. Onthe face of it, a free tradeagreement could be adivisive issue withcentre-right free tradewithdrawalist reluctantto criticise it and keenfor us to piggy-backonto it if we withdrawfrom the EU, leaving thel e f t - o f - c e n t r ewithdrawalists out on a limbas they express concern about thepossible back-door privatisation of theNHS.

Dig a bit deeper, however, and TTIP containssome sinister features. Why is there a thirty-yearmoratorium on the final documents beingreleased? Why is an ardent socialist like theEuropean Parliament’s President Martin Schulzso keen to railroad it through, in spite of an anti-TTIP petition garnering over three millionsignatures? Built into TTIP is the ISDS - theInvestor-State Dispute Settlement, which allowsinvestors in one country to sue the governmentof another. In other words, the European Union,with the tacit support of our own government,is surrendering significant power to largecorporations – or is it? Conflicting statementfrom the European Commission make it unclear

whether the ISDS clause is to be in the finaldocument or not.

All very opaque and worrying. Trying to readbetween the lines, it seems like the biggestbeneficiaries of TTIP will not be the thousandsof people who will find jobs as a result, but bigbusiness – the same companies who alreadyspend substantial amounts in lobbying the EU.Is this really developing the free market belovedof the Thatcherite right? Inasmuch as we can“read the runes”, it looks horribly like cronycapitalism – unquestionably dressed in moresubtle colours than the massive sell-offs of stateindustries at knock-down prices to their matesin the 1990s by the leaders of some former

Soviet republics – but still a millionmiles from the free, open society

to which right-of-centrewithdrawalists aspire.

In summary, thecampaign to leave theEU is creating someunlikely bedfellows,but amazingly, in spiteof real political

differences, theleft/right divides ARE

being put to one side ascommon areas of concern are

identified, such as those listedabove. Speakers form left and right

ARE sharing common platforms withoutcoming to blows. This isn’t to underestimate thechallenge of maintaining an united frontbetween men and women who are at time prettystrongly opposed to each other in many otheraspects of policy, but both sides recognise thecommitment to openness, honesty anddemocracy among their fellow-withdrawalists.This has to be a good thing. Framing the debatein terms of honesty and accountability mayprovide us with our best hope of victory, for itis all too apparent that our opponents don’t havemuch to offer in these areas.

- John PetleyCampaign for an Independent Britain


Features

IN

SUMMARY, THE

CAMPAIGN TO LEAVE

THE EU IS CREATING

SOME UNLIKELY

BEDFELLOWS,


Other Groups

If you want the United Kingdom to leave the European Union – you can give muchmore than your vote. Please volunteer to actively support the campaigning e� ortsof GO in your local constituency.

GO is the national, cross-party, grassroots campaign to leave the European Union. Every vote will count in this close race, so please show your support by actively joining our structured campaigning e� orts in your own local constituency.

If you would like to volunteer, please email us your name, address, telephone number and how you would like to assist in your local constituency - [email protected]

Thank you – together we can win this.

WHAT IS GO?

Promoted by Richard Murphy, on behalf of Grassroots Out Ltd, both of Venture Court, 2 Debdale Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 5AA

To fi nd out more visit us online at www.grassrootsout.co.uk facebook.com/GrassrootsOut/ twitter.com/grassroots_out

If you are able to help with any of the following, in order to help the UK leave the EU, please email us TODAY!

Delivering some ‘Leave’ campaign leafl ets locally

Putting up a poster during the referendum

Providing a lift to the polls for elderly or disabled supporters

Doing some door to door surveying of voters

Telephoning a few voters to ask their opinions

Helping organise a small fundraising event locally

Making a donation, large or small, to help the ‘Leave’ cause

WE WANT TOLEAVE THEEUROPEAN UNION.

DO YOU?


Feature

The United Kingdom will, at a point in the

near future, be invited to vote on whether to

remain within the European Union.

Supporters of ‘remain’ are already

presenting the decision as providing a very

narrow range of options. One narrative

suggests that there is a binary, Manichean,

choice. Either the UK stays inside the EU

(and accepts any pitiful amendments to the

treaty as the best of a bad lot), or it leaves and

strides out into a landscape sketched out by

hieronymus Bosch.

This is clearly a false dichotomy, and someprominent Remain supporters (including thecampaign leader) have already admitted asmuch.

Another ‘Remain’ narrative suggests that acouple of other options are on the table, but they

amount to self-harm. The ‘Norwegian model’ inparticular has been placed on a particularly loftypedestal by Remain, purely in order to batter itand cast it down. This has been done in adeceitful manner, ill-befitting either the CabinetOffice or Downing Street.

The reality is that the nature of the EuropeanUnion’s trade associations with third parties isfar more complex. It is possible to distinguish42 different types of trade agreements the EUhas agreed with other states and regions. That isjust using the Commission’s own definitionsand terminology. Indeed, a legitimate argumentcan be made that the true figure is actually 47;and in any event the process is set to generate ahalf dozen new variants thanks to theCommission adapting to WTO rules.[Depending on how you count the Cyprus SBAs,

��)))��''�%��('�!�'

��#�� !��"��"��$ ��

�$�� #�� "��

This timely paper reveals the broad rangeof trade deals which is currently possiblewith the European Union. It exposes as

histrionic the suggestion that we must chooseeither EU membership or isolation which is sooften used by advocates of political union for thenations of Europe. For the EU to refuse the UKone of these deals, or some variant from itsuitable to our country’s unique position, wouldbe not merely an act of spite but a departurefrom established practice.

We advocates of the United Kingdom as ademocratic self-governing nation trading freelywith the world are right to be optimistic aboutour prospects outside what will be afundamentally unreformed EU. This paper is aclarion call for unity, optimism and hope as wework towards a public decision to make ourParliament responsible for our laws,transparently accountable to the British peopleand in open relationship with the world.

Steve Baker MP

Gibraltar, the EBA model, and the PLA IAA.

Furthermore, the Commission’s own

categorisation of the ‘Anything But Arms’ model

also varies.]

So much for the either-or narrative andpicking the lesser of two evils.

Of course, not all those 42 (or 47, or future53) options are applicable to the conditions ofthe United Kingdom. But the very fact of thevariety, and their transition indeed over time,demonstrates that the EU’s trade agreements arefar more flexible than supporters of the Remainside are prepared to give credit for.

With Brexit, the EU would on past formrecognise that existing trade patterns requireputting on a secure footing. From the UK’scurrent starting point of compliance, it alreadyticks most of the difficult negotiation boxes;most of the issues around trading arrangementswould be about confirming that current rulesand standards would continue to apply. The UK,with a generally trusted civil service, respectedprofessional organisations, and (oftenoverlooked in this equation) a very low level ofcorruption, already meets the quality controlrequirements that would allow current levels oftrade to continue against the possible impositionof Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), and certainlywithin a two year transitional timeframe.

That leaves just the tariffs themselves. Asresearch by Business for Britain shows, shiftingto the worst case scenario of WTO rules withoutany replacement tariff still leaves the UK £4bnbetter off after matching any new tariffs byforms of support for tariff-hit industries.

In a separate paper we explore elsewhere theconcept of the UK’s national interest, and howeach European state has different interests anddrives that will affect very differently whetherit is a good fit for EU membership (the UK isone which does not). In this paper, we

thematically explore a little more about theoptions already demonstrably on offer.

Several fall within the ideal ‘Goldilocks Zone’in which the UK can orbit around theCommission, sitting a lot further away in treatyterms than as an EU member.

To get there means quitting the EU first.

The booklet “42, the Answer to Life, the

Universe and Everything (EU)” has been

published joingly by Better Off Out and

Skeptica.

To read it on line for free go to

www.BetterOffOut.net and click on the

Publications page under the Campaigning

menu.

Feature


Right: Dr Lee Rotherham

radio Free UK is up and running - delivering

weekly updates on the EU referendum

campaigns, the top news items you may have

missed, regular features by well know and

new talent and in depth articles on issues of

current interest and for reference, and now

including the new Better Off Out podcast.

Regular contributors include Godfrey Bloom,James ‘Jake the Writer’ Clark, Alan TaylorShearer, Scottie K and now Better Off Out, (andmyself, Paul Perrin). And ad-hoc we includeanything we think is interesting or entertaining.

Fed up with not getting a fair deal from themain stream media? Especially the BBC? Youcan be part of the start of a revolution inbroadcasting in the UK.

Every Friday by 5 o'clock Radio Free UKpublishes 4-5 hours of new material - to keepyou informed and entertained. You can listenright away, or later in the week, listen start tofinish, or jump around the schedule (and evenskip anything that doesn't suit!).

Radio Free UK is the first of what will bemany new channels - delivered over the internetand produced by and for like minded groups -using content from anyone who cares to provide

it (it only takes a voice recorder on a smartphone to create an item) and avoiding thecentral, controlling influences of our existingmain stream media - in future, what will theBBC be needed for at all?

Radio Free UK - Content by the People,forthe People - Liberating the Media.

I should also mention that the Better Off Outweekly podcast is put out through Radio FreeUK. You can find links to this podcast off theBetter Off Out social media feeds, but also fromthe Radio Free UK.

This month the Better Off Out podcasts areconcentrating on their “Save Britain’s Fish”campaign, but i anticipate that in future monthsthey will be covering a wide range of topics ofinterest to all Brexiteers.

Subscribe however suits you best:Web: http://www.radiofreeuk.orgiTunes: http://www.radiofreeuk.org/itunesyouTube:

http://www.radiofreeuk.org/youtuberSS (and email):

http://www.radiofreeuk.org/feedFacebook:

http://www.radiofreeuk.org/facebookTwitter

(@rfreeuk): https://twitter.com/rfreeuk

Paul Perrin

Radio Free UK


Other Groups

Radio Free UK


Other Groups

JOIN BRITAIN’S FASTEST GROWING GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTLeave.EU has more than 300 active volunteer Groups spread right across the country.

Joining a Leave.EU Group is the best way to meet like-minded people, attend events, and help spread the word in your local area.

Sign up to join your local Group today.

Telephone us: 0800 999 4210 Email us: [email protected]

WWW.LEAVE.EUPromoted by Liz Bilney, on behalf of Leave.EU, 2nd Floor, Lysander House, Catbrain Lane, Bristol BS10 7TQ


Europhiles aren’t known for their detailed arguments - and nor are they known for a strictcommitment to the truth, either. There are some particular myths that they love to spout, andit’s important to have a reply to hand. Let’s look at 10 of the most common claims they make,with the headline version of our own (factual) counter-arguments.

• ‘Three million jobs would be lost if we left the EU’ We don’t have to be in political union to trade withEurope. You wouldn’t suddenly find yourself unable to buy an Audi, and the Swedes wouldn’t suddenlystop buying Scotch.

• ‘The EU wouldn’t give us a trade deal if we left - it would punish us’ Never mind this extraordinarilypessimistic view of the morals of the organisation that Europhiles support, the EU sells us much morethan we sell it - by a whopping £62 billion a year.

• ‘You can’t have free trade with the EU without accepting the free movement of people’ The EU has freetrade agreements with dozens of countries around the world, including Norway, Iceland, Papua NewGuinea, and Peru.

• ‘The average household benefits by £3,000 from EU membership’ Channel 4’s Fact Check derided thisclaim, which stems from a 2013 report made by the Eurofanatic CBI, saying: “This very precise numberis not based on any real evidence.”

• ‘The EU makes us more secure’ NATO and membership of the ‘Five Eyes’ cybersecurity networkguarantee our security, not the EU. Indeed, the EU’s flirting with Ukraine is what pushed Russia toinvade, leading to a split in the country that still hasn’t been resolved.

• ‘Leaving the EU would mean that border controls with France would move from Calais to Dover’ Thisdeal on migration was struck solely by Britain and France in the 2003 ‘Le Touquet’ agreements, and isindependent of the EU.

• ‘We’re too small to make it on our own’ Of 193 UN countries, 165 are not part of the EU. We have theworld’s fifth biggest economy and fifth strongest military, have one of five permanent seats on the UNSecurity Council, and were ranked top in terms of ‘soft power’ by a Portland study in July 2015.

• ‘Businesses will leave the UK if we leave the EU’ The same businesses making threats now made similarthreats before we decided not to join the Euro, since when our economy has grown while the Eurozone’shas stagnated.

• ‘We get most of our money back from the EU’ In 2014, we handed over £19.2 billion gross to the EU,with about £9.4 billion dribbling back to us in various forms - but since when has tax been measuredas a net figure? Do you say “Well, I pay 45% income tax gross, but really I get most of that backsomehow, so the true figure is about 5%”?

• ‘We would stop taking part in European arrangements like Eurovision and the Erasmus scheme’ Isnon-EU Switzerland excluded from these? One does not have to be the vassal of a foreign superstateto be friendly with its neighbours.

We have to be prepared for Project Fear - everything will be thrown at us. Now you have the ammunition tofight back.

Tom Bayley

Researcher, The Freedom Association

LIES OF A EUROPHILE: 10 CLAIMS AND HOW TO BEAT THEM

Feature


Out and About with Better Off Out

Chesterfield

Nottingham

Ramsgate



Campaigning for Brexit costs a lot

of money. To help us pay the costs

of the work to take Britain out of

the European Union please send a

cheque payable to “Better Off Out”

to us at:

Better Off Out

Richwood House

1 Trinity School Lane

Cheltenham

Gloucestershire

GL52 2JL

“ is thin gruel has been further watered down” – e mogg savages

Documents