THE EU

On the 13^th May, Sir John Major, as he now is, made a high-minded speech at the Oxford Union in which he sought to put the case for Brexit in its place. Sir John, has form with the EU. It was he, as prime minister and before he was awarded a knighthood, who took Britain far deeper into the EU than people wanted, than very many in the Tory Party wanted, was prepared to split the party, and even withdrew the whip from those Tory MPs he described as 'bastards'. He wrecked the British economy in pursuit of his vision of making sterling the hardest currency in the ERM (Sir John's ERM exploits are dealt with in The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21^st Century, page 191 onwards). Sir John declared that he had 'embarked on an economic strategy designed to see the British pound replace the German mark as the hardest and most trusted currency in the European Community'. Sir John took great pride in his deliberate destruction of a large part of the economy and was more than happy to ruin very many peoples' lives with unemployment, business closures and house repossessions. He was tough.

 

Britain entered a deep recession that continued from 1989 to 1993. Unemployment leapt from less than two million in 1989 to more than three million in 1992. Business failures reached a record high (never equalled) and personal bankruptcies more than quadrupled between 1988 and 1992. Between 1988 and 1993 there was a fifteen-fold increase in the number of mortgages 12 months or more in arrears, and more than a three-fold increase in house repossessions. The negative equity due to the fall in house prices (leaving the home owners with a mortgage greater than the value of their homes) was a consequence that plagued very many throughout the 1990s. The ruination of so many was all water off a duck's back for Sir John. This is the calibre of the man who now dares to intervene in the EU referendum to demand that Britain remains in the EU.

 

Despite all Sir John's bravado in 1992, yet again, Britain's attempt to fix its currency at an overvalue failed. Despite pushing interest rates up to 15% (inflation was only 2%) Britain was forced out of the ERM. After which, despite all the loud proclamations that exit from the ERM would be harmful to the British economy, with talk of high inflation, unemployment and loss of influence etc., the British economy boomed. Lower interest rates and an economic policy geared towards British interests rather than those of the EU proved a success. The ERM collapsed.

 

Sir John, unlike his contemporaries such as Lord Lamont and Lord Lawson, has learned nothing. His fascination with the EU remains undimmed. He is proud to be politically correct. In the Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, the difference between the factions of the politically correct is defined. Sir John, is firmly in the Wet Liberal faction. He is firmly convinced of his moral superiority.

 

Never should it be forgotten that it was under Sir John's premiership that Britain embraced political correctness. So bad were the activities of the National Lottery Community Fund, which Sir John created, that it had to be abolished. Even the Wet Liberals were unable to defend its politically correct, Loony Left, fanaticism (see Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, page 148). It was under Sir John's premiership that Britain lost control of immigration, with organized crime taking control of Britain's immigration policy. Sir John's response to the surging number of claims for so-called asylum seeking was to fiddle the figures. Immigration soared. For example, despite fiddling the figures, in 1988 only 4,000 claimed asylum; by 1991 the claims had increased to 45,000; by 2000 the number had reached 97,000.

 

Then there was the EU débâcle, from which the Tory Party never recovered. A large number of genuine Conservatives left and joined UKIP. The Tories lost the following general election and stayed out of office until 2010, and even then had to form a coalition. They were a hated brand.

 

Now, Sir John, weighs in to the EU referendum campaign. The case he puts is a monologue of clichés. There is little originality. He urges that Britain should not try and 'go it alone' – whatever that is supposed to mean. As a part of the EU, Britain, according to Sir John, has 'serious political and diplomatic clout, as well as economic advantages'. He cites Britain's sanctions against Russia, and against Iran as examples, as well as the EU taking 'nearly half' of Britain's exports. Whereas: 'Outside Europe, we would still have to comply with EU rules and regulations, unless we surrendered all access to the Single Market – which all reputable authorities, not least the IMF, OECD, NIESR and the Bank of England, regard as economically foolish'. These are, of course, all the same organizations who loudly told us that Britain had to remain in the ERM or else economic catastrophe loomed. They were all wrong then and they are all wrong now. What they are arguing for is their own interests. They want Britain to remain in the EU for their own reasons. The interests of ordinary British people count for nothing. Of course Britain's exports would have to comply with the regulations of the EU, just as they have to comply with the regulations of any export market. Those firms that do not export at all, or do not export to the EU, will be freed from EU regulation upon Brexit. However, Sir John dismisses this as being 'nothing other than reckless, imprudent folly'. It is no such thing. It is common sense and a desirable elimination of red tape.

 

Sir John cannot stop name dropping. He says: 'The NIESR warns of a collapse in the value of Sterling. The LSE warns of higher prices. The Bank of England fears higher interest rates and mortgages. All this and more – from independent bodies – is ignored and brushed aside by the “Leave” campaign'. These are not independent bodies, they are all pro-EU bodies. Sir John studiously avoids mentioning the government deficit or the trade deficit. Inconvenient facts are ignored.

 

Sir John is fearful that 'We may end up leaving Europe because absurd falsehoods are widely believed to be true. One absurdity is that, subsumed in Europe, we would lose our traditions, our heritage, our individuality. We won’t: after sixty years of Europe are the French less French or the Germans less German? Of course not: and nor will we be less British'. The de-culturalization of Britain is a matter of fact. The anti-English race quotas, the education system swamped with foreign children, the lower living standards, the visible impact of Islamification (such the number of Burkas, the number of mosques, as well as the extremist rhetoric and terrorism), and the multiculturalization policies all prove that Britain is becoming less British. Very recently, Trevor Phillips, lauded the objective of ethnic minorities making up one-third of Britain's population by 2050. In England the percentage will be far higher as it is England where the immigrants are mostly settling. The policy is to reduce the English into being a minority in England.

 

Sir John claims that the EU has no say over Britain's welfare system, 'none' over our military, 'none' over the police, and 'none' over our economic policy. Given the EU's plans for its own military capability, and that we are told that we have to cooperate with the EU over security, that the proposal to limit welfare payments to immigrants was abandoned due to German disapproval, and that we have had to bail out Greece and are offering all sorts of monies to Turkey – then Sir John's comments are patently wrong.

 

Interestingly, Sir John does say that 'if any new Treaty seeks more power, that Treaty would have to be put to the British nation in a Referendum and if – and only if – it were approved by us would it become law'. Sir John is no longer in power and no longer in a position to make any commitments of this type. He is merely expressing an opinion. What the government actually understands the situation as regards any future need for a referendum on a treaty change is unclear. It might be noted that Sir John fastens the referendum to a treaty change rather than the surrender of power generally.

 

However, the thrust of Sir John's speech, and the part which gained the most coverage, was his attack on those who wanted to control immigration. Sir John describes this issue as 'dangerous territory' and that if it is 'handled carelessly' then 'long-term divisions' in society can be opened up. He accuses that the Brexit leaders 'morph into UKIP'. At least they should be relieved not to be called 'bastards'. Sir John recalls his Brixton childhood and claims that the 'massive West Indian immigration' was motivated by a desire 'to give themselves and their families a better life. But, at the time, fears were fanned by careless statements from political figures. That was a mistake then, and would be a mistake now'. Although Sir John acknowledges that it is 'legitimate' to debate the numbers of immigrants, but 'Not in a manner that can raise fears or fuel prejudice. The “Leave” campaign are crossing that boundary'. He condemns the alleged tendency to 'attribute motives' of immigrants that are 'speculative and, frankly, offensive'. He further takes issue of the prospect of the admission of Turkey into the EU and the likely immigration from that country. He states that Turkey's accession would have to be agreed by every 'Member State'. That might be so, but every country that has started accession negotiations has joined and it is the agreed policy of all three major political parties in Britain that Turkey should join the EU. However, Sir John states that 'when the “Leave” campaign warn of “opening our borders to 88 million” (meaning Turkey and the Western Balkans) they cross the boundaries of responsible comment'. The English Rights Campaign would disagree. It is in fact a key issue, especially given the scale of immigration that occurred after the accession of the eastern European countries, and given the barbarity of the terrorism that is blighting the Middle East. Furthermore, the ruling Ponzi Class's determination to get Turkey into the EU is despite the fact that Turkey is not a European country.

 

Sir John even objects to the argument that tinkering around with the benefits immigrants can get will not deter those immigrants, as the higher wages they can get will still attract them and that the National Living Wage will only make this worse. Sir John dismisses this as a 'red herring' and doubts that they would be prepared to come to Britain 'to receive a few pence a week extra'. In fact, they do not come for a few pence a week extra. Incomes per capita in Eastern Europe are very low. For example, Bulgaria's and Romania's being only a little more than one-third of those of the Britain in 2013, with Hungary's and Poland's being only a little more than half of those in Britain. Combined with very high levels of unemployment due to the eurozone disaster, particularly youth unemployment (more than half of Greeks and Spanish between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed), then there is a very strong incentive for large numbers to move to Britain. It should be noted that Sir John does not see any inconsistency with his assertion that immigrants are here 'to give themselves and their families a better life'.

 

Nevertheless, Sir John admits that Britain could keep out EU immigrants on leaving, 'such as the 54,000 EU migrants now working as Doctors, or Nurses or Ancilliaries in our Health Service, or the nearly 80,000 working in Social Care. We could exclude skilled workers like builders and plumbers – or unskilled labour that takes jobs that are unappealing to the British. In short, the people we could most easily keep out are the very people we most need'. According to Sir John, without immigrants 'the Health Service would not be able to cope – nor would our public transport system; and our hotels, restaurants and shops would be without staff to serve their customers. We would have a shortage of many skills for industry. This is the reality of what lies beneath the emotive language of those who seek to raise the drawbridge on our country. And, in any event, a short term migrancy flow should not be the issue that drives the UK out of an economic union that already benefits our country immensely – and will continue to do so in the future.'

 

Despite his attempted high-mindedness and moral superiority, Sir John's rationale is humbug. The reason why there are so many foreign doctors and nurses etc. in the NHS is because of the restrictions placed on the training of British applicants, the majority of whom are turned away. For example, between 2010 and 2014 the numbers of nurses trained was cut by 10,000. The number applying to train as nurses was 100,000 and there were only 20,000 places. Even older nurses wishing to return to work have been unable to do so. Thus having created a shortage, the NHS happily fills that shortage by encouraging immigration and dumps a large part of the costs of that immigration (the strain on public services, the housing shortage, etc.) onto the general public. What Sir John has glossed over is the destruction of the proper functioning of the national labour market. To say that Britain cannot train its own builders and plumbers etc. is nonsense. He, being politically correct, is strongly in favour of open-ended ongoing mass immigration for its own sake.

 

Despite Sir John's attempt to moralize at the Brexit leaders and condemn them for comments that 'raise fears or fuel prejudice' having crossed 'the boundaries of responsible comment', it is Sir John who is guilty of that which he accuses others. He is peddling race war politics. Regarding the accession of Turkey and other countries, he asserts: 'It is unlikely in the extreme that – I quote – “another 88 million people will soon be eligible for NHS care and school places for their children”. I assume this distortion of reality was intended to lead the British people into believing that almost the entire population of possible new entrants will wish to relocate to the UK. If so, this is pure demagoguery'. The key terms are 'I assume' and 'If so'. In fact he assigns to the quoted text a meaning that is not stated (no one alleged that the 'entire' population would move to Britain). It is he who is peddling a meaning that he describes as 'pure demagoguery'. It is Sir John who is trying to stir up division. This is the true face of political correctness.