In dramatic U-turn, Cameron's senior policy advisor backs calls to pull out of Europe

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005401/David-Camerons-disillusioned-senior-policy-adviser-backs-calls-pull-Europe.html

Now Cameron's disillusioned senior policy adviser backs calls to pull out of Europe


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/19/article-2005401-07C0C169000005DC-567_468x379.jpg
Cameron with Steve Hilton in 2006.



Tory calls for Britain to pull out of the European Union received a major boost last night after claims that they are backed by David Cameron’s most senior policy adviser. Downing Street director of strategy Steve Hilton is said to have swung behind moves for the UK to go it alone after being shocked to discover how much sovereignty has switched from Westminster to Brussels. He also believes Britain should pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because it gives too much power to judges – and too little to Ministers and MPs.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/18/article-2004962-0C94198600000578-834_468x322.jpg
Scenes in Athens, Greece as the Eurozone crumbles



Mr Hilton’s growing frustration with the EU is one of the reasons he has been involved in heated exchanges in No 10 which have fuelled reports that he may walk out in protest at the Government’s failure to press ahead with radical reforms to the NHS, White¬hall and other institutions. His stance is strongly opposed by Mr Cameron’s pro-EU chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, who worked for former Tory EU Commissioner Chris Patten and passionate pro-European Liberal Democrat Paddy Ashdown. Coalition insiders dismissed reports of a bitter rift between volatile Euro- sceptic Mr Hilton and mild-mannered Europhile mandarin Mr Llewellyn.

But they did not dispute Mr Hilton’s dramatic change of heart on the EU. ‘Steve is impatient to get things done but time and again he is told that he can’t because of this or that European legislation,’ said a source. ‘He feels there is strong case for Britain pulling out of the EU and getting rid of the ECHR. The person who usually tells him it can’t be done is Ed Llewellyn.

Do you all see now just the extent of how this project has affected us? our elected government is being told what legislation it can or cannot pass by essentially a group of failed foreign politicians from the Low Countries. Our courts are being overruled by the ECHR and the ECJ which have a continental style of justice which does not include innocent until proven guilty, one of the most precious things about this country.

Here you have a man who didn't look into the issue properly and simply thought the status quo was the best way, yet now he has actually been in government the extent of the EU and EU insitutions are clear to him of who really runs this country that he is backing calls to pull out of the EU/ECHR/ECJ and return to self-rule. With the Euro going belly up (and its getting worse, Greek bonds are now the lowest in the world while Herman Van Rompuy and Angela Merkel are calling on the markets to support the EU and the Euro - the markets know its game over when politicians resort to that!) its time for Britain to make her own laws and have a friendly relationship with Europe while we would be free to trade with the rest of the world and the emerging markets of the Commonwealth.

Thoughout the last decade, the mainstream politicians dismissed this and told you what a success the Euro was and would be along with telling you that our sovereignty was not being taken away by the EU - everything they have said has turned out to be false and now we are seeing the consquences in Greece with riots on the streets, soon likely to come to Portugal, Spain and Ireland.

Should Britain regain sovereingty and leave the EU, ECJ and ECHR?

[Wig44.]

YES! Now close this thread - EU-style - so no one can disagree with us please!

[Fez]

I don't believe a word of this because it's too good to be true.

[Shar]

EU - yes
EJ - yes

Don't see this happening though

[Mathew]

It's a step in the right direction I suppose; although it will probably be the end of the Conservative's term before anything is finalised and Labour will be back in... :rolleyes:

[Ajthedragon]

It's a step in the right direction I suppose; although it will probably be the end of the Conservative's term before anything is finalised and Labour will be back in... :rolleyes:

Too right! Then Labour will mess things up again! :P

The Euro was a time bomb from the start.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are you both so worried about the prospect of Labour getting back in? (directed to Ayd and Matthew)

[Mathew]

Why are you both so worried about the prospect of Labour getting back in? (directed to Ayd and Matthew)
Labour are obviously pro-EU as they have failed to do anything about the matter in their 13 year term. It's quite nice for a high member of the current Government to be in the minority [of those which will do anything about it]! I know your feelings on Conservative and Labour being exactly the same so don't go there again.. ;)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour are obviously pro-EU as they have failed to do anything about the matter in their 13 year term. It's quite nice for a high member of the current Government to be in the minority [of those which will do anything about it]! I know your feelings on Conservative and Labour being exactly the same so don't go there again.. ;)

But the Tories are doing exactly what Labour would have done in this matter concerning the demise or partial breakup of the failed Euro currency, so far we've given over £20bn in bailouts to Greece which is money we will not see again as Greece will have no option but to default to save a currency which if it were the other way around the Sterling would not be helped.

Don't take my word for it, Roger Helmer (MEP, Conservative) has said this government has been giving away powers at an even faster rate than Labour were during their term in office. The Conservative Party is, after all, the party which took us into the EEC, signed the Single European Act, signed the Maastricht Treaty and refuses to repeal any part of the Lisbon Treaty.

One final question to you then, if Labour are Pro-EU (which they are), what does this make the Conservative Party given its actions in the past & now?

[Mathew]

But the Tories are doing exactly what Labour would have done in this matter concerning the demise or partial breakup of the failed Euro currency, so far we've given over £20bn in bailouts to Greece which is money we will not see again as Greece will have no option but to default to save a currency which if it were the other way around the Sterling would not be helped.
You have no idea what Labour would have done right now and you never will. Personally, I think Labour would stick with the EU; the Euro has been deteriorating for years (heck, the financial crisis in 2008 was under the Labour Government) and they failed to show any indication to their activity in the EU. I agree with you on bailing out Greece, it's a load of rubbish and it's time we sorted our own problems out before helping others.


One final question to you then, if Labour are Pro-EU (which they are), what does this make the Conservative Party given its actions in the past & now?
Of course the Conservatives have been pro-EU in the past and they probably still are, I haven't said anywhere that they aren't. All I have said is that it's "nice for a high member of the current Government to be in the minority" and it's therefore a step in the right direction.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You have no idea what Labour would have done right now and you never will. Personally, I think Labour would stick with the EU; the Euro has been deteriorating for years (heck, the financial crisis in 2008 was under the Labour Government) and they failed to show any indication to their activity in the EU. I agree with you on bailing out Greece, it's a load of rubbish and it's time we sorted our own problems out before helping others.

I do, because Labour signed up to the bailout mechanism which the Tories have continued which suggests (and given their past mismanagement of finances) that they would have done exactly the same as the Tories are now, thats why you don't see any disagreement between them on this issue. A final note on the financial crisis, The Conservatives supported Labours spending plans until 2008 - they both have their fingers in the pie.

See again, it doesn't matter which one is in office because they are both in agreement with one another, proven by facts.


Of course the Conservatives have been pro-EU in the past and they probably still are, I haven't said anywhere that they aren't. All I have said is that it's "nice for a high member of the current Government to be in the minority" and it's therefore a step in the right direction.

Still are indeed, which is why I had to comment when you and Ayd spoke about Labour regaining the keys to Number 10 asking why it mattered in this instance whether Labour get back in come the next election or whether the Conservative Party wins the next election because both are fully supportive of the EU. Labour has voices against the EU as well you know, just because 30 Tory MPs (maximum) are against Europe doesn't mean the party is. They are a small insignifigant sideshow, intended to be there only so it gives the illusion that the Tory Party is defending British interests - which its not.

And anyone who wants this country to be independent again needs to wake up and realise this.

[Mathew]

Labour has voices against the EU as well you know,
In that case, then why is the "oh-so-dramatic U-turn" of a senior Conservative advisor who happens to be anti-EU so newsworthy? You've compared Labour and the Conservatives and said they're similar because their MPs are divided; if this is common knowledge to you, then why is it such a big deal?

[-:Undertaker:-]

In that case, then why is the "oh-so-dramatic U-turn" of a senior Conservative advisor who happens to be anti-EU so newsworthy? You've compared Labour and the Conservatives and said they're similar because their MPs are divided; if this is common knowledge to you, then why is it such a big deal?

Because of what he said, that having been pro-EU previously he has now seen the extent that the EU now dictates government policy and has come out against it after only a year in government - thats why its newsworthy, that somebody who used to support the status quo has now woken up to the issue which was far bigger than he first thought whilst in opposition. It is a prime example of why people should care and that it is time for people to start doing something about it, which brings me onto my next point/question;

So if you want your country to be independent why do you support a party which belives in the opposite, that we should be ruled from Brussels?

[Mathew]

Because of what he said, that having been pro-EU previously he has now seen the extent that the EU now dictates government policy and has come out against it after only a year in government - thats why its newsworthy, that somebody who used to support the status quo has now woken up to the issue which was far bigger than he first thought whilst in opposition.

So if you want your country to be independent why do you support a party which belives in the opposite, that we should be ruled from Brussels?
You're not understanding my posts. I have merely said that we are stepping in the right direction towards some independence, despite the chances of it happening being extremely low as there is still a lot of MPs to go at. I understand your point about him changing though and I assume you're saying the rest of them (Labour MPs who oppose EU for example) have always thought that. Interesting.

[Recursion]

LET'S GO BOYS. About time we pulled out of that ****.

[David]

Anyone post some pros and cons if UK back out?
I have no idea what's going on.

[alexxxxx]

Anyone post some pros and cons if UK back out?
I have no idea what's going on.
Pros:
-Dan would have to blame someone else for the UK's shortcomings.
-More money for the treasury
Cons:
- Have to abide by EU trade law without having any say in how it's made

[David]

Pros:
-Dan would have to blame someone else for the UK's shortcomings.
-More money for the treasury
Cons:
- Have to abide by EU trade law without having any say in how it's made

Thanks :)
Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Mathew]

Anyone post some pros and cons if UK back out?
I have no idea what's going on.

Why we should back out:


We can regain control of our immigration system and the free border wouldn't be in place. This means we wouldn't get people coming to live here from other countries and claming off our benefits system.
The UK would regain sovereignty and therefore wouldn't be expected to help bail out other countries such as Greece (to use a recent example).
Due to the UK's apparent (or perhaps outdated) label as being a super-power, we receive little benefits. The country should be wealthy enough to support itself and therefore doesn't need the help of EU for "trade links".
The EU largely over-powers parliament and we're expected to bow down and kiss their feet as they're giving us so much in return.
According to Treasury Reports, it's pretty fair to say that we give the EU about £14 billion a year, yet UKIP tend to advertise we're giving £40 million a day - I'll leave you to work out which is correct, although I'm sure you'll agree that it's £14 billion too much for what is little benefit.
Many of the laws passed in the UK at present come from this (to use Dan's catchphrase) "unelected Government in Brussels" - I have quoted an example of one of the EU's barmy regulations on the straightness of bananas and cucumbers:



As Commission Regulation (EC) 2257/94 puts it, bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature". In the case of "Extra class" bananas, there is no wiggle room, but Class 1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape", and Class 2 bananas can have full-on "defects of shape".
No attempt is made to define "abnormal curvature" in the case of bananas, which must lead to lots of arguments. Contrast the case of cucumbers (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much

So-called "pros" to being in the EU:


Free trade between 27 powerful economies - really?
Free border - is this really good?
Environment legislation - could be set up by ourselves?
Provides a "voice" for unelected parties such as UKIP / BNP... although on one hand I really don't see the fascination with this. For one, they weren't voted in. For another, they're probably not listened to in what is a large-scale organisation.
Apparently the EU also quite enjoys promoting itself as the largest combined economy, although what they fail to realise is that those countries would probably do better alone; or at least those like the UK would.

You could compare the EU to Communism. It sounds all hunky-dory in theory (with it's amazing free-trade with 27 powerful economies), but in practice it just doesn't work. The EU wanted to be a large group of countries all trading with the same currency and goals, hence the Euro; but also as we've seen lately... it just doesn't work. It seems to be forgotten that the UK was once a massive super-power with one of the biggest world economies and it's such a shame that we now have to polish the shoes of Brussels.

[David]

Why we should back out:


We can regain control of our immigration system and the free border wouldn't be in place. This means we wouldn't get people coming to live here from other countries and claming off our benefits system.
The UK would regain sovereignty and therefore wouldn't be expected to help bail out other countries such as Greece (to use a recent example).
Due to the UK's apparent (or perhaps outdated) label as being a super-power, we receive little benefits. The country should be wealthy enough to support itself and therefore doesn't need the help of EU for "trade links".
The EU largely over-powers parliament and we're expected to bow down and kiss their feet as they're giving us so much in return.
According to Treasury Reports, it's pretty fair to say that we give the EU about £14 billion a year, yet UKIP tend to advertise we're giving £40 million a day - I'll leave you to work out which is correct, although I'm sure you'll agree that it's £14 billion too much for what is little benefit.
Many of the laws passed in the UK at present come from this (to use Dan's catchphrase) "unelected Government in Brussels" - I have quoted an example of one of the EU's barmy regulations on the straightness of bananas and cucumbers:



So-called "pros" to being in the EU:


Free trade between 27 powerful economies - really?
Free border - is this really good?
Environment legislation - could be set up by ourselves?
Provides a "voice" for unelected parties such as UKIP / BNP... although on one hand I really don't see the fascination with this. For one, they weren't voted in. For another, they're probably not listened to in what is a large-scale organisation.
Apparently the EU also quite enjoys promoting itself as the largest combined economy, although what they fail to realise is that those countries would probably do better alone; or at least those like the UK would.

You could compare the EU to Communism. It sounds all hunky-dory in theory (with it's amazing free-trade with 27 powerful economies), but in practice it just doesn't work. The EU wanted to be a large group of countries all trading with the same currency and goals, hence the Euro; but also as we've seen lately... it just doesn't work. It seems to be forgotten that the UK was once a massive super-power with one of the biggest world economies and it's such a shame that we now have to polish the shoes of Brussels.

Thanks for that, great points in there.
The so-called pros, what idiot wrote these into play?
Made my mind up now, I agree with you on this, & yeah everyone overlooks the fact that Britain had her own Empire back in the day.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Pros:
-Dan would have to blame someone else for the UK's shortcomings.
-More money for the treasury
Cons:
- Have to abide by EU trade law without having any say in how it's made

We don't have any say at the moment, we have 70 odd members in a Chamber of 600 odd members which makes the smaller laws and is nothing like a parliament as the Commission proposes legislation. The Commission itself and the ECJ are the motor behind integration and the laws, the Commission meets in secret and we can also be outvoted on QMV (Qualified Majority Voting)... the say we have is very little and increasingly irrelvent as the EU continues to centralise power with the Commission.


Over the last 10 years the Commission has introduced around 2,340 regulations (cannot be overturned, have to be implemented as EU law states) a year compared to 103 directives a year (directives can be suited on member states behalf to how they wish to implement them and when). So about 96% of all new laws passed during the last decade are actually regulations, giving lie to the Commission which claim that is 'often' uses directives. This meant that by the start of 2009 only about 6 per cent of the total body of current EU law was now based on the more flexible directives, with a massive 94% coming from completely inflexible regulations.

% of EU law coming from regulations rather than directives

1985 - 81%
1009 - 81%
1995 - 82%
2000 - 91%
2005 - 93%
2009 - 94%

In terms of trade with the EU, China manages to trade with the EU as does the rest of the world (including Switzerland which is landlocked inside the European Union). All the United Kingdom has to do is sign a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union like many other countries have done so, that is if we want free trade (I personally do); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Agreement_between_Mexico_and_the_Europe an_Union

It's as simple as that, don't let them fool you into thinking we are a small tiny nation - we are the worlds 6th largest economy and we should be free to decide who we trade with, on what terms we trade with and how we trade with other nations around the world. This applies especially to the Commonwealth which contains some of the fastest growing economies in the world. Besides, the EU was never intended to be about trade in the first place;


The first president of the European Central Bank (ECB) backed up this view; 'The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU (European Monetary Union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a United Europe.'

+many more quotes provided on request.

[alexxxxx]

We don't have any say at the moment, we have 70 odd members in a Chamber of 600 odd members which makes the smaller laws and is nothing like a parliament as the Commission proposes legislation. The Commission itself and the ECJ are the motor behind integration and the laws, the Commission meets in secret and we can also be outvoted on QMV (Qualified Majority Voting)... the say we have is very little and increasingly irrelvent as the EU continues to centralise power with the Commission.

You bit, so i might as well respond. It is a parliament and it holds some very important jobs. Most UK regulations are not passed through parliament either. Not all UK-based regulation is passed through the UK Parliament either. The cabinet meets in secret too. It's comparable.



In terms of trade with the EU, China manages to trade with the EU as does the rest of the world (including Switzerland which is landlocked inside the European Union). All the United Kingdom has to do is sign a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union like many other countries have done so, that is if we want free trade (I personally do); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Agreement_between_Mexico_and_the_Europe an_Union

It's as simple as that, don't let them fool you into thinking we are a small tiny nation - we are the worlds 6th largest economy and we should be free to decide who we trade with, on what terms we trade with and how we trade with other nations around the world. This applies especially to the Commonwealth which contains some of the fastest growing economies in the world. Besides, the EU was never intended to be about trade in the first place;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union-Turkey_Customs_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquis_communautaire

The idea is to make Turkey abide by EU law even though it is not even part of the EU or has any method of input. And the link to your Mexico agreement contains this:


were eliminated or reduced that apply to a large quantity of importing goods.

Not EVERY tax is eliminated with these 'Free Trade' agreements and Switzerland has to implement some elements of EU law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA

[-:Undertaker:-]

You bit, so i might as well respond. It is a parliament and it holds some very important jobs. Most UK regulations are not passed through parliament either. Not all UK-based regulation is passed through the UK Parliament either. The cabinet meets in secret too. It's comparable.

The British Cabinet is elected, the Commission on the other hand is not accountable to the electorate.

Besides, who asked for a Commission to make laws which overrule our parliament and our cabinet?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union-Turkey_Customs_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquis_communautaire

The idea is to make Turkey abide by EU law even though it is not even part of the EU or has any method of input. And the link to your Mexico agreement contains this:

Not EVERY tax is eliminated with these 'Free Trade' agreements and Switzerland has to implement some elements of EU law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA

We have all deals with all nations on what standards we can and cannot use, the difference with Europe is that Europe seems to require a ridiculous amount of standardisation which simply pushes up the prices for its own citizens, not for the producers like the Chinese. So being outside is far better, as we can still provide goods for Europe to their standard (but have to sell them at a higher price to Europe as a result) but then on the other hand we can do what Europe cannot which is make products to the less-stringent requirements of Asia, the United States and the world in general.

Europe with its slow growth rates, ageing population, mass of regulation and high taxation is fast becoming an irrelevance which Britain doesn't have to tie itself to. The Euro is collapsing around your head (as many said it would) and you still want to be a part of this mad house, incredible. The following video is from March of this year, everything he and others have said over the past decade has turned out to be spot-on;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDNw9JHuv4

The choice is now a breakup of the Euro or a fiscal union, of which there is no mandate for the latter. I mean, we tell you this would happen but as usual the people at the bottom will suffer because of the wild dreams of a few at the top all because they wanted their United Europe of which none of the peoples of Europe want. An utter disgrace and you should be embarrassed at trying to defend its total incompetence.