The €50 billion publicity fund

Has there ever been a bigger publicity fund in the history of the world?  A billion euros spent on average every week in promoting the role and virtue of the European Union!  No wonder there are so many people out there who have been  duped, deluded, brainwashed and hypnotised into thinking the EU is the benefactor of all and the people’s defence against their own wicked, money-pinching governments.

Of course, the EU does not publicise the fact that it has such a huge publicity budget.  That would defeat its objective.  So they call this money the Structural Funds, and they spread it around the regions of every member state under the pretence of improving their economic lot.  Some of this money will certainly improve the lot of some people in the regions – those consultants and firms that get contracts to undertake some public function, and those publicly funded organisations that get an extra lease of life from an injection of funds.  But the amount of economic benefit that filters down to the general population is usually quite small, and certainly small in relation to the total expenditure.  But this does not matter, because the principle objective of these funds is to promote the EU.

How can I say this?  Well, it is not me that says it, it is there in the words of European Commission. Take Regulation 1828/2006 which sets out the provisions for the Structural Funds (which are actually five separate funds).  There are 55 Articles governing the use of the Funds, and Articles 2-10, right up front, govern the publicity requirements for any project funded by the EU.  Most of the rest of the Articles are about control systems on where and how the money is spent.  One would have thought that the most important aspect of any project would be to produce benefits for the target population. But to such benefits there is no reference.  It is just about expenditure, which for a Eurocrat (and indeed bureaucrats everywhere) is always a key objective.  And the publicity. 

Project beneficiaries, those that receive the money directly, are told:

Meeting the publicity requirements set by the Commission is part of the formal Funding Agreement, and failure to publicise the European Regional Development Fund support could result in projects having to repay grant. This has happened in the past, so meeting the publicity requirements should be taken very seriously.   

No such threat is ever made for a failed or inadequate project.

What is this publicity requirement?  Here is a sample in the Eurocrats’ own words:

Strict publicity requirements have been set by the European Commission which must be followed by anyone developing and delivering projects, or managing the Programme.

It is a condition of grant that any assistance received by a project from the European Union through the Structural Funds is clearly and appropriately acknowledged in all publicity material (including plaques and site signage), publications, public procurement documents, and events.

The European Union logo is the primary visual representation used for the European Regional Development Fund Programme and one of the most important communication tools. It is mandatory that it is used and applied correctly, prominently and consistently on all publicity materials and project documentation produced by a project supported by the Fund.

The logo consists of a number of key elements which must be used:

  • The standard European Union emblem (Twelve five-pointed gold stars in a circle on a blue background)
  • Reference to the European Union
  • Reference to the European Regional Development Fund
  • The statement ‘Investing in your future’

If any part of the material is produced in colour, then you must use a full colour version of the logo with the standard colours:

  • Pantone Reflex Blue – 100% process cyan and 80% process Magenta
  • Pantone Yellow – 100% process yellow

Are you still with it?   You can manage the colours?  There’s a lot more to come:

The logo works best in colour on a white background. However if it appears on a coloured background the black text of the logo may be hard to read. In those cases it is permitted to change the text to white to improve clarity. In addition a white border must be included around the rectangle of the flag emblem with the width of 1/25th of the height of the rectangle. The important thing to remember is that the background should be uncluttered and provides enough contrast to ensure clarity.

The logo should be placed in a prominent and suitable position, on all materials. If used alongside other funders logos as acknowledgements, then the ERDF logo has to be of an equivalent size and appropriate to the scale of the material and documents being used. As a minimum, the logo, including the emblem and the wording, should be used at 40mm width (landscape logo) and 25mm height (portrait logo).

To prevent any visual interference the logo must be positioned in its own clear space, standing  apart from other images, text and logos, and should not be placed immediately against a document edge

 Got that?  The EU logo is all important and must be placed so that no one can avoid seeing it.  And the all important slogan “Investing in your future”.  Well, it is the eurocrat’s future that is being bolstered here.  And the eurocrat likes to control everything:

 The ERDF logo must not be stretched, squashed or reproduced in colours other than those stated in these guidance. Nor should it be reproduced in a different typeface or be rotated. The standard typeface to be used is Arial. When resizing the logo you must ensure that it stays in proportion and does not become distorted.

 There follows at this point three illustrations of the EU Logo with the commands emphasised

YOU MUST use Arial typeface

DO NOT distort the logo when resizing

DO NOT rotate the logo

EU logo 2

This is an example of an EU logo given which would not pass muster, and would make any project that used it liable to a clawback of funds.

So we get it.  The EU wants you to do EXACTLY what it tells you.  No ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’.  Now let’s get on to the real self-promotion:

Billboards must be erected on the sites of projects where infrastructure or construction projects are being financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the total public contribution to the project exceeds €500,000.  A billboard must be erected at the start of the works. Billboards should be sited to maximise the opportunities for it/them to be seen by the public and include a space reserved for the ERDF logo as acknowledgement.

 The ERDF logo should take up at least 25% of the total billboard size

When the project is completed, the billboard should be replaced by a permanent plaque within 6 months. 

Projects are required to put up a permanent plaque in an appropriate visible place and ideally accessible to the general public, no later than six months after completion of the project. This is applicable where the total public contribution to the project exceeds €500,000 and the project consists in the purchase of a physical object or in the financing of infrastructure or of construction projects.

 All this, of course, when the money for the project is but a small part of the money the UK has already handed over to Brussels.

 Plaques should be of a significant size and include a space reserved for the European Regional Development Fund logo as acknowledgement of the role played by the fund in part-financing the project.

 Plaques must include the following information:

  • Name of the project
  • Name of the Programme: ‘European Regional Development Fund’
  • Description of the activity supported by the project
  • Display the full ERDF logo

 The information above should take up at least 25% of the total plaque size.

 So no acknowledgement that it is the UK taxpayer that is really funding these projects (and in fact thousands of projects in central and eastern Europe whose people are lead to believe that everything is coming from good old uncle EU with the very deep pockets).

 All plaques must be produced and funded by the project

 Well, actually not just the plaques but all this publicity has to be paid for by the project – it is the first call on the funds.

 All printed documents and publications produced by projects supported by the Fund must acknowledge and reference the ERDF funding received by displaying the full European Regional Development Fund logo and ensuring it is visible in a prominent position. This extends to a variety of materials and documents including, but not restricted to:

  • General advertisements, job advertisements and notices
  • Leaflets, brochures, flyers and posters
  • Case studies
  • Exhibition banners and display panels
  • Invitations
  • Business cards
  • Promotional items
  • Newsletters
  • Stationery
  • Letterheads and compliment slips
  • Reports and papers
  • Project documentation
  • Procurement material
  • Job descriptions

 For small promotional items, such as business cards, the European flag emblem and words ‘European Union’ can just be used.

 OK, OK.  We understand that the only important thing in these projects is to promote the EU.

 All electronic materials produced by projects supported through the Fund must acknowledge and reference the ERDF funding received by displaying the full European Regional Development Fund logo. This extends to a variety of materials including, but not restricted to:

  • Websites
  • E-Newsletters
  • Presentation Slides
  • Email footers and signatures
  • Audio visual material including films, video, DVDs, CD Roms
  • Social media tools including Face book, Twitter and SMS Messages

 The logo is to appear on the homepage for all project specific websites and within the website of the project sponsoring organisation the logo is to appear on project related pages.

So if we splatter the EU logo everywhere, we get the money?  Correct!  But you must do more by organising promotional events:

 Conferences, seminars, exhibitions and events are an ideal way to promote a project supported by the European Regional Development Fund. All materials and documents produced for an event in advance, on the day and after the event must acknowledge and reference the funding received by displaying the full European Regional Development Fund logo.

 All press releases produced on projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund should include a text reference to the ERDF support and when initially launched should state the amount of funding awarded.

 And don’t neglect press releases throughout the project which will promote the EU on a more continuous basis:

 Press releases should be developed for the launch of the project, and additional releases announcing key milestones and achievements. Your local Programme Delivery Team in the Department for Communities and Local Government will be able to provide advice and guidance on press releases developed.

 The following wording should be included in the editor’s notes for all press releases concerning projects part financed by the European Regional Development Fund:

The [INSERT NAME] project is part financed by the [INSERT NAME OF PROGRAMME] European Regional Development Fund Programme 2007 to 2013.

 Please note that the European Regional Development Fund Funding Agreement for the project should be in place before any media or PR activities are completed. If projects are interviewed by the media (print or radio), with the aim to produce a news story about funded activity, or produces a radio or TV advertisement to promote the project, reference should be made to the European Regional Development Fund support provided.

Publicity must not be confined to informing the general public about how generous the EU is.  One must also ram home to anyone working with the project how much they owe to the EU:

 All projects must provide beneficiaries who are taking part in activities associated with the project, clear notice that the project has been funded under the European Regional Development Fund Programme. Projects must ensure that they have provisions in place to notify those taking part in the project activity that it benefits from the Fund. Ideas of how to achieve this include:

  • Mention during induction sessions as part of a training course
  • Note the support in any contracts or paperwork given to beneficiaries
  • State the support in internal newsletters and bulletins
  • Provide the beneficiary with a leaflet explaining European Regional Development Fund investment in your project
  • Plaques, posters and displays

 And to emphasise just how key an activity publicity is, the EU requires a PLAN on what and how it is be done.  And this Plan will be assessed and if it is not up to EU requirements then you’ll lose project funds.  Hardly surprising that project managers give publicity the priority over everything else.  Is there time for any of the real project activities aimed at generating benefits?  Not much!

 It is important that everyone involved in delivering a project, not just the project owner, understands and follows the European Regional Development Fund’s publicity requirements. Applicants should demonstrate how these will be delivered by the project as part of the application through a Communications Plan, Project Management Plan; or produce this separately. This may be called upon during assessment of the project. The plan should be proportionate to the scale, scope and nature of the project and contain as a minimum:

  • Aims of the project and target groups
  • Strategy and content of the information and publicity activities to be delivered by the project, aimed at potential beneficiaries, stakeholders and the general public
  • An indicative budget for delivering the plan
  • People and companies involved in delivering the plan and its activities
  • Details on evaluation of the activities

 During the lifetime of the project, regular monitoring activities and audits will take place where all projects will be required to evidence how they have met the publicity requirements. Therefore it is essential that you keep evidence of all project publicity materials. Typical types of evidence could include, but are not restricted to:

  • Press releases
  • Press cuttings indicating publication and date
  • Photos from events
  • Literature such as leaflets and brochures
  • Presentations and speaker notes
  • View the plaque and billboard or photographic evidence
  • Website materials
  • Project documentation and correspondence

 Audits can take place a long time after the project has been completed. Therefore ensure all evidence is kept until advised by the Managing Authority that it is safe to dispose of it.  If a project is unable to evidence adherence to the publicity requirements, it could result in the clawback of the funding.

When fulfilling the publicity requirements it is important to remember that any publicity materials produced and services used, must adhere to the European Commission procurement rules and regulations. Failure to provide appropriate evidence is identified as one of the most common audit failings and is subject to a high degree of attention from UK and European Commission verification and audit visits.

 So there you go.  The important thing is the publicity for Big Brother, not benefit-generating activity.  But get it right and you’ll be in line for another dollop of money the next time around.  The EU always rewards its own.

But wait!  I almost forgot.  That is not the end of it!  At any particularly auspicious event, like the opening of a centre of something or other, where there is something physical to see, the EU wants the project to invite an EU Commissioner (with a national Minister if necessary) to make an inaugural speech with the flag flying and no doubt the Ode to Joy playing in the background.  It’s all good publicity!  And it’s all paid for by you.

The Reasonable View: David Davis talks

After listening to this talk, you will wonder how the Conservatives ever preferred Cameron to Davis.   Davis has principles, ethics and a belief in liberty and democracy, all of which are lacking in the person who climbed the greasy pole to become the UK’s Prime Minister.

The talks lasts about 35 minutes and should be essential listening for anyone intending to vote on Thursday.  The sad part is that so few voters will be armed with the broader view that Davis discusses.

 

£350 million per week to spend? Really?

The airwaves have been fairly hot over the past few weeks with claim and counterclaim about the amount of money the UK would save by leaving the EU.  £350m say the Vote Leave campaign.  Rubbish say the Remainders.  And the UK Statistics Authority wades into the debate by calling it highly misleading.  Numerous commentators have pointed out that this is a gross figure and takes no account of what the UK gets back.  One website (IN Facts) claims  that the net cost is half a Mars Bar per person per day which does not sound much at all, but is actually close to the figure in my previous article of £13.60 per month per income taxpayer. One can always make something trivial if one reduces it to half a Mars Bar a day.

What none of the commentators seem to have done (and apologies if someone has and I have missed it) is to break down the flow of this money and look at who benefits and who pays and where the £350 m figure might have come from.

To understand the EU budget and why the UK alone out of every member state gets a rebate each year one needs to know the historical context.  When the UK joined the EEC in 1973, its international trade with the rest of the world was relatively much more important than it was for the founding EEC members which had built a highly protected economic community.  In addition, the UK’s agriculture sector was much smaller in the context of the economy (2 per cent of GDP) than the EEC agricultural sectors (10-15 per cent).  These differences were important because the EEC took for itself as revenues for its centralised operations 90 per cent of the customs duties and all agricultural levies on imported goods.  The UK had to adopt not only the much higher import tariffs and levies of the EEC, (which of course forced up prices and inflation) but it had to pay them over to the European Commission.  EEC revenues rocketed as a result of the UK joining.

Was there any compensation for this cost by way of money returning to the UK?  Well, no, not of any substance, and the answer lies in the size of the agricultural sector.  At the time of joining (accession it was called, as if it were somehow being raised to a higher rank and power), the EEC had only one common policy – the Common Agricultural Policy – and it absorbed 75 per cent of the entire budget.  It had been a French construct, demanded by de Gaulle, which pushed up the prices of all agricultural products, protected the sector from world competition through tariffs, and maintained prices by buying and stockpiling surpluses.  Some of you will recall the wine lakes, and butter and sugar mountains, and wheat stockpiles, some of which had to be subsidised to be sold on world markets, and some had to be denatured or destroyed.  De Gaulle believed that the British with their relatively smaller and more efficient agricultural sector could never accept such a policy which would see them subsidising smaller, less efficient continental farmers and this would effectively prevent them joining his club.  De Gaulle, however, did not anticipate the stupidity, pig-headedness and pusillanimity of Edward Heath who was determined to join whatever the cost.  Of course, he never asked us if we wanted to pay the price.

[The birth of the CAP gives an insight into the thinking and attitudes of the European “elite”.  The Agricultural ministers of the six member states were given a deadline (December 31st, 1961) to come up with a common agricultural policy.  By midnight that day they hadn’t, so being good Europeans and able to walk on water (or able to legislate that they could), they stopped the clock, continued their negotiations for over a week, and pretended it was still 1961 and that they had met their deadline.  The deadline was important for de Gaulle because the British began their negotiations to join the Common Market at the beginning of 1962, and he wanted the CAP in place before then.  As it was, the British applied for membership without even knowing what they were applying for.]

There was little mention of these costs during the 1975 Referendum, with all the emphasis on joining a rich man’s trading club.  It was not until Mrs Thatcher came to power that the subject got a proper airing – there we were, though one of the big three economies in the Common Market but one of the poorer in terms of income per head, paying the lions share in net terms of the EEC budget.  Hence Mrs Thatcher asked for, and got, a rebate equivalent to approximately of 66 per cent of the net contribution (defined as the difference between our gross contribution and what we got back in terms of subsidies and grants).  That rebate has continued ever since, though it is not enshrined in any treaty.  It has been amended and the basis altered, notably when the countries of central and eastern Europe joined, so that the UK paid, and is paying, its full share of those costs.  It is also periodically challenged by other member states, but the UK has been able to preserve it by its threat to use its veto.  This, of course, has political consequences and has lead to the isolation of the UK in EU decision-making, and is a contributory factor to our lack of influence.

When one talks of the UK’s contributions to and the rebate from the EU, it is usual to take the figures of a given year.  However, the figures for any one year reflect adjustments from the previous three years, as a country’s income estimate is refined (on which 60 per cent of the contribution is based).  So a more meaningful approach is to take a four year rolling average.  The latest 4 year data available shows that the rebate has averaged 38 per cent of the gap between contributions and “EU”money coming back to the UK.  The average 4 year figures are:

2010-2013 annual average

€m

Gross contribution

16858

“EU” money returned to UK

6639

Rebate

3823

Net contribution

6126

In sterling terms, using the official EU average exchange rate for each of these years, the average gross contribution was £13,047m and the net contribution after rebate was £5,173m.  On a weekly basis, which is what the Leave campaign has been using, this equates to a gross contribution of £250m and a net contribution of £100m.  So why has the Leave campaign overstated the case?

Simple answer.  I don’t know.  There are only two possible reasons that I can think of.  The first is that it is a basic unthinking counter to the deception and lies of the Remain campaign which has claimed a Treasury model predicts economic collapse. In fact, the model predicts no such thing, and anyway economic models are notoriously unreliable just a year ahead, let alone 15 years.  They are based entirely on assumptions, and if you start off with the assumption that everything will get worse then obviously the model will compound that assumption.  Perhaps the economic claims of Tweedledumb and Tweedledee instigated this tit for tat – or one lie for another.  The second possibility is that the Leave campaign have got confused between euros and pounds.   According to a paper by Alessandro D’Alfonso of the European Parliamentary Research Service published in February this year, the average UK gross contribution for  2013 and 2014 was 18,107 million € (which itself is higher than European Commission data published in 2015).  And the weekly average is 348 million €!  I think some researcher at Vote Leave extracted this data and somewhere along the line the conversion to sterling was forgotten, or the headline makers did not notice the € symbol.  Either way, it’s very sloppy work which detracts from the force of the Leave arguments  which are strong enough without this.

What should have been pointed out is that there are many deadweight costs associated with money returning to the UK – the costs of complying with all the EU conditions attached to the money so that only a portion is actually available for the end purpose, and that the end purpose may not necessarily be a UK priority (examples will be given in the next article).    It should also have been pointed out that while all taxpayers contribute to these funds, the beneficiaries are very small in number, and have a vested interest in making a lot of noise to ensure that this benefit continues.  The outcry of some academics is a case in point.  The more honest academics understand that EU funding encourages academic junkets around Europe, and the requirement to team up with other institutions in as many different EU countries as possible has nothing to do with academic excellence but plenty to do with the dream of a European state controlling finance and research directions from the centre.

Then there is the rebate.  It exists, and the UK can maintain it through its veto. But the use of the veto further marginalises the UK at the Council of Ministers.  The influence that Tweedledumb maintains is wielded by the UK “at the heart of Europe (sic)” – he means the EU – is actually very little and will become even less.  One can gain friends in the EU only by buying them, and that will mean at some stage giving up the rebate.   Tweedledumb thinks the British are somehow wanted in Europe for themselves.  He is deluded.  There is dislike and jealousy of the British amongst many foreign politicians and a great desire to pull Britain down.  But they also want our money, our resources, so naturally they want us to remain.

Given the £350 million per week is clearly wrong, it would be appropriate for the Leave campaign to hold up their hands and admit they had made a mistake.  They still have the arguments, and an admission of a mistake would give them the moral high ground because Tweedledumb and Tweedledee will never admit to their lies, distortions and errors.

So come on, LEAVE, and set the record straight!

 

 

How has the EU affected you?

That was the question which the BBC is asking of its listeners.  Send us your experiences, they ask.  What a fatuous question.  Even worse, what a biased question, designed to induce a series of responses about how the EU funded our local visitor centre, how it paid for the reinstatement of a coastal footpath, how it funded an arts centre, how it financed this and how it financed that.

How can most people have a negative experience of the EU when most have no contact with it, and have no idea what exactly it does.  And is there an item on our income tax form saying EU levy?  If there were, a taxpayer on £30k per year would see every month a deduction of around £20 alongside his tax payable to the UK government of around £310.  He knows what he is getting for his £310 (schools, NHS, roads, an army and navy and air force, etc) but what is he getting for his £20?  For most people it is less than zilch.

Of course, the Cambridge scientists referred to in a previous article will say they’ve got research funding.  Lucky them.  What they and other researchers got will account for about £1 of our taxpayer’s £20.  Where has the other £19 gone?  Well, our farmers got more than anybody (£3.60), but it is worth remembering that long before we entered the Common Market (which transmogrified itself into the EU without any vote of agreement by the people) we were committed to supporting our farmers, and it is inconceivable that this policy would change in the event of a Brexit.  So how  else does the money get back to the UK?

The third largest source of “EU” money coming back to the UK is the Structural Funds.  These funds are aimed at improving the competitiveness and sustainability of regions with well below economic performance.  And about 80 pence of our average taxpayer’s money is used for this purpose.  Adding in various minor activities, and the costs of administering these EU activities, about £7.40 of the taxpayer’s £20 actually comes back to various interest groups in the UK.  Without Mrs Thatcher battling for Britain in the 1980s and getting a rebate, this figure would have been as little as £4.

If the taxpayer had these figures pointed out to him or her, it is fairly certain he or she would not be happy.  But taxpayers are not told.  Instead, they are led to believe that the EU is a generous benefactor, funding many activities that the wicked UK Government would never consider.

In recent weeks, I have heard on radio and television (BBC, of course) numerous interviews of individuals lauding the EU for paying for this and that.  Most of the examples have been of expenditure under the Structural Funds, particularly helping a region or area to “converge” towards the average, and improving regional competitiveness and employment – basically all the same thing.  The respondents believe this expenditure would not have occurred without EU membership.   That is a moot point.  Regional policy did not begin in 1973 with membership of the EEC.  For a start the EEC had no regional policies.  But the UK had, and indeed had been providing differential assistance to economically depressed or disadvantaged areas since 1934.  And look at the post-war legislation:

1945  Distribution of Industry Act and the designation of  Development Areas with subsidies available

1950  Act to encourage firms via grants to establish themselves in the Development Areas

1960 Local Employment Act and the creation of Development Districts with subsidies for firms

1963  Extra incentives for firms establishing themselves in the Development Districts

1966 Industrial Development Act created Development Areas with special assistance (grants) for a range of activities

1967 Creation of Special Development Areas with enhanced incentives.

1970 Creation of Intermediate Development Areas with different grants and incentives

[No, this is not lifted from Wikipedia, but from my PhD on policies for employment and income in the remoter areas, completed in the 70s]

Regional policy was very much at the fore of economic thinking in the period before accession to the EEC.  In fact, the EEC only moved towards its own regional policy at the behest of the UK, which at the time was just subsidising continental agriculture and getting very little back.  The Structural Funds were seen as a way of getting something back.  This is not to say that UK regional policy was successful or even correct in its approach.  It was not.  But it was seen as a way of reducing regional inequalities which is also the aim of the structural funds.  So people who today see these subsidies and grants coming into their region are completely wrong in thinking they owe this to the EU.

As with everything associated with the EU, there is a price to pay.  Once the EU gets a little power, it wields it without concession to the needs of the country or the region.  The objective is really to spend the funds allocated to the activity, to have a large number of checks to make sure all expenditure is politically correct, and to ensure that as much publicity as possible is generated to promote the EU as the benefactor.  Whether the activity funded is useful or not is secondary.

Projects requiring  funding  must usually have a value of at least £250 000 – it is not worth a Eurocrat getting out of bed for less – and many run into millions of pounds.   The recipient of the money must either be a public body or a private company undertaking some public function, so it is an exercise in spreading the influence of the public sector and reducing the role of market forces in directing resources to the more efficient firms.  Instead, a whole host of different skills are needed to get hold of this money: ability to penetrate the bureaucratic world which makes the decisions on who is to get it, to have the patience to go through all the forms and leaflets (e.g. English Business Support State Aid Scheme, Full application form guidance,  MCIS assets screen, National eligibility rules,  Procurement law compliance guidance note, Procurement checklist, MCIS procurement screen, National publicity requirements, ERDF logos, National ERDF handbook), a knowledge of how to put forward a proposal in a way most pleasing to the bureaucratic masters, and knowing what buzzwords to scatter throughout one’s application (“sustainable” being a must on every page).

So specialised is the process of applying for these funds that consultants often have to be used to draw up the application. Of course, there is a 50 per cent grant for these consultancy services so a whole new industry has grown up of people who know how to satisfy the bureaucracy.  But of value added from their activity there is none.

There is also a neat little catch that the European Commission has in store, and this is perhaps the main objective of the funding.  Every project must adhere strictly to EU regulations regarding publicity and promotion of the EU.  Any project which fails to promote the EU in exactly the way prescribed by the Commission faces the loss of the entire grant.  You see, it is not the project that is important and whether it achieves anything, it is all about promoting the EU.  With our money.  So outrageous is this that I will devote a separate article to these regulations.

So getting back to our average taxpayer who is paying £20 a month to the EU, perhaps 99 per cent will see no tangible benefit from membership of the EU.  But they are not complaining because they don’t know they are paying.  But there is this very small minority who benefit directly from the grants from the structural or research funds and these are quite vocal because their  honey pot is threatened.  It is to these people that the BBC gives a voice, not the large majority.

Some quotations from the early days of the EEC/EU/USE

You’ve heard of the EEC (European Economic Community), the thing we voted on in 1973, you all know the EU (European Union) which until now we have never voted on, but what is this USE?  Get used to it, because it is the coming thing – the United States of Europe, with its capital in Brussels.

Ludwig Erhard (Chancellor of Germany 1963-66)

‘If I criticize the German constitution,’ he said, ‘no one tells me I’m a bad German. But if I criticize the Community of the Six in the name of a wider Europe, I’m immediately accused of being a bad European.’

Charles de Gaulle (President of France 1958-69)

 The British are not Europeans

John F Kennedy (President of the USA 1960-63)

 A Europe without Great Britain would create a situation in which the United States was bearing the enormous costs of Europe’s protection without any voice.

….plus ça change …  Now it is Obama who wants Britain in the EU to keep the American voice at the heart of decision-making

Jean Monnet (President of the European Coal & Steel High Authority 1952-55, Founder of the Action Party for the creation of the United States of Europe, often referred to as the Father of Europe)

The European Army is not an end in itself: it is the instrument of a patriotic foreign policy. But European patriotism can develop only in a federal Europe.

What is being achieved in our six countries for coal and steel must be continued until it culminates in the United States of Europe.

The reports from our experts left no room for doubt: nuclear energy could replace all other forms of energy by the end of the century and for centuries to come.

….well, we all know about experts’ forecasts, don’t we.

To achieve the objective of a United States of Europe, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions.  Mere co-operation between Governments will not suffice.  It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions.

Don’t forget the Action Committee for the United States of Europe. You’ll be hearing from us again.

Little by little the work of the Community will be felt, and the already distinguishable bonds of common interest will be strengthened.  Then the everyday realities themselves will make it possible to form the political union which is the goal of our Community, and to establish the United States of Europe.

I have always been convinced that the unification of Europe cannot be achieved by intergovernmental compromises: such supposedly time-honoured proceedings are never-ending and they never satisfy anyone.

… thus speaks the democrat.  Monnet, a very rich man’s son,  was never elected to any position in France or Europe but was appointed to positions of importance by virtue of his business background, his network of contacts and his passion for a countervailing European bloc to the USA and the USSR.

Of all the contributions that the British have made to civilization, two seem to me essential: respect for freedom, and the working of democratic institutions. Where would our society be without habeas corpus and without Parliaments to counterbalance executive power?

….. where indeed?  Habeas corpus hardly exists in many EU countries (one can languish in jail for months before going to a court) and the European Parliament does not have any power to propose legislation (which is reserved for the Commission, an executive-government institution all in one)

The British had not known the trauma of wartime occupation; they had not been conquered; their system seemed intact. In reality they suffered – paradoxically – from not having had their pride broken and their factories destroyed.

… so they must be brought down by peaceful methods, it seems

I have always believed that Europe would be built through crises.

…. presumably because Monnet knew his ambition for a federal Europe would never be accepted by the citizens of the nation states unless a crisis threatened.  Perhaps this is why Tweedledumb and Tweedledee, and others on the Remain side forecast war and economic recession if the British people dare to disagree and vote Leave.  Monnet’s logic is that one can expect further restrictions on national sovereignty after the Brexit “crisis”, whichever way the vote goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unscientific scientists at Cambridge

A group of  Cambridge academics wrote to the Daily Telegraph on or around June 1st, putting forward, as they thought, their case for remaining in the EU.  Actually, it was more than a group as there were well over 500 signatories, which included about 200 professors, a handful of doctors, and the rest without titles were presumably students since academics love to flaunt their handles.  As I thought the letter merely showed self-interest, ignorance and selective statistics (not what one expects from people presumably trained in the scientific method), I penned a reply to the DT.  Of course, my reply never got published so I give here the original Cambridge letter (without the hundreds of signatures) and my response.

It does seem these days that the only way a view contrary to the Establishment can be published is if one does it oneself via a blog such as this.  I have also been “moderated” off numerous forums because I have inconvenient arguments.  We have free speech, of course.  We keep telling ourselves this, but all I see are more and more views being proscribed.  Ah, Brave New Union!

Here is the Cambridge letter:

SIR – As senior members of Cambridge University, writing in our personal capacities, we wish to express our grave concern for the future of our universities and country if Britain votes to leave the EU. 

British universities are among the most successful centres of learning and research in the world. They are significantly helped in this by funding from the EU. In the sciences, we have 22 per cent of European Research Council grant-holders, with only 12 per cent of the EU’s total population. In the arts and humanities, around 30 per cent of major interdisciplinary projects at Cambridge would be at risk without EU backing. The Government would not be able to replace this scale of funding if we voted to leave. 

Our young people gain hugely from access to EU scholarships. The exchange of ideas and the stimulation of collaboration that comes from the free movement of academics within Europe are critical to research quality. Increasingly, research depends on collaborative access to larger networks and populations than Britain can provide.

The major issues of our time – in security, energy, environmental sustainability, health and the globalised economy – take no account of national borders. With the rise of academic centres in America and Asia, we will only maintain our foremost position in research and innovation if we combine our research resources within a reformed EU. Our future economic growth depends on it.

My response was:

Sir,

The letter from Cambridge academics, a motley collection of professors and students it appears, illustrates why political decisions should never be in the hands of self-styled intellectuals. They say that the Sciences  have received 22 per cent of the European Research Council funding despite the UK only having 12 per cent of the population. Well, some one in the UK is suffering because according to EU data, the UK received 12 per cent of research funding for 13 per cent of the EU population (2013 data).  More to the point would have been an indication of what proportion of their funding comes from the EU – quite small, I suspect.  I thought scientists were supposed to use data objectively, and not single out one comparison to support their preconceived opinion.

And is their research really at risk from the UK leaving the EU?  The amount of research funding that UK institutions receive from the EU is just 6 per cent of what the UK pays to the EU after the rebate.  Leaving the EU would allow these research constitutions to continue with the same level of funding (assuming that what they do is justified by the results). But perhaps that is the real issue.  It is not the level of funding, but the fact that relatively easy funding via the Brussels machine might be replaced by more discerning assessments of scientific and social value.

Their second point about international collaboration is a complete red herring.  Do these scientists not follow the scientific method?  International collaboration does not depend upon the existence or membership of the EU.  How on earth do American, Canadian, Australian, Japanese or any other non-EU academics collaborate?  Perhaps out of their EU oystershell these academics might develop a more rewarding world view.  Their present myopia is hardly suggestive of the academic excellence that one used to associate with their current institution

Yours etc

Now how can I get the brilliant minds at Cambridge to read this?