Friday, September 18, 2009

Memo No. 5,673

To: The Taxpayers' Alliance

From: Your Freedom and Ours & EUReferendum

Subject: European Union, expenses and Britain's relationship

Text: Arguing that we should not discuss anything but the expense of our membership of the European Union is old hat. This has been done for many years with a number of people saying exactly what you are saying: it is only the expense that matters.

Unfortunately, though the figures have been available for a long time and the corruption and expense well known and accepted by many people, this has resulted in no action. Nor has it taken the discussion any further.

We have reached a stage when we could move on, discuss other aspects like those despised political and constitutional ones and to start a discussion of what we might be able to do about this. Unfortunately, your contributions, useful though those figures are, reverse the process and take us back to the endless churning of the same points: it is expensive and it is corrupt.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand what you mean about being concerned about our relationship with the EU. We do not have a relationship with it, we are part of it. It legislates for us and the decision of how much money we hand over is not made here but in Brussels.

Changing that relationship can be done only by radical changes to the Consolidated Treaties, which will remain in power even if the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is rejected by the Irish electorate for the second time, thus getting the Conservative Party off the hook.

Treaties can be changed only by unanimous agreement at an IGC with a subsequent implementation in all the member states? Are you suggesting that we go down that path? If yes, what do you think we should offer the other states in order to get their agreement to our ideas? If not, what alternatives do you have?


  1. In much the same way that the UK government cannot legislate in certain areas because they are the EU's "occupied fields", so the TPA cannot pronounce on certain things (eg UK withdrawal from the EU) because its master - the Conservative Party - does not allow it. The two relationships (UK and EU; TPA and Tories) are similar.

  2. May I suggest that TPA, EU Referendum, YFO work together on this rather than fighting each other. You both want the same thing but approach it from differing angles. TPA is better placed to attack from the finacial side whilst EUR and YFO are best at the political side. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, as in any relationship, but surely it is the result that counts?

    TPA, EUR and YFO do excellent work, no matter where the backing comes from. The bickering an unnecessary and wasted resource that could be better spent. Please work together and make us proud!

  3. This is where you keep making your mistake, whoever you are Guest. We do not want the same thing. EURef and YFO are definitely withdrawalists. TPA keeps bleating about creating new relations. That, as I keep explaining, holds us back. Which is why we cannot work together. The financial side has been explained lots of times and people have long ago grasped it. The political and constitutional side, however remains in darkness because the Conservative Party and their front organizations do not want to move the debate to it. It would show them up for what they are: at best perestroika europhiliacs.

    This cannot be so difficult to understand. We are not in business of making anybody proud but in unravelling the truth and trying to shift the debate on. That is not what TPA or Open Europe appear to want.

    Any reason why you can't sign your post? After all, I don't hide behind anonymity.

  4. Seems clear to me the difference, and the point that the TPA should perhaps focus on the fact that the corruption and waste has been known about for a long time and has not been dealt with, if they were sensible they should suggest that this raises even more fundemental questions and leave it at that rather than talk about alliances. That would be a nice start on their part

  5. I think Helen and Richard (North) fulfil a useful role in whipping into line those who have taken some steps in the right direction of euro-skepticism, and yet have failed to reach the inevitable conclusion. Any discussion I have ever witnessed and any serious attempt I have made to be open-minded about what the EU has led to the conclusion that as long as you're a part of it, there's no hope of redirecting or diluting the EU project. The project is explicitly and consciously in favour of "ever closer union". And the inevitable consquence of this is political rule from Brussels along with the abolition of the nation states of Ireland, Britain, France etc.

    The danger posed by those who seek to dilute or change the direction of the EU is that they encourage the view that the EU is a collaborative exercise in which we participate. The truth is that votes in favour of integration are permissible but votes against are not. Does anyone believe that there will be a third referendum, in the event that the Irish vote Yes to Lisbon ?