Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - How the EU Actually Works

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 14, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

55:04

How the EU Actually Works

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	David Coleman, MEP for Scotland, Leader of UKIP in Scotland.
	Chief Whitne.
	Hi, I'm Jill Seymour, West Midlands MEP, and I sit on the Transport Committee.
	Mike Hooker, Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, Deputy Leader of UKIP.
	I'm Margot Parker, MEP for the East Midlands, Deputy Chairman, and I sit on the standing committee here in the European Parliament.
	The European Parliament is essentially a unit.
	It has no power.
	The power rests with the Commission who make the decisions, who generate the legislation.
	And we are allowed to look at it, we can delay it, we can amend it.
	I think we can even reject it for a time, but essentially that's what it does.
	Mostly it's amending, and the Parliament is controlled by a mixture of centre-left and right-left, gooey sort of in-the-Middle East sort of people who be quite socialist in their approach.
	They believe in state control and they believe in making sure that they have a very good time at the taxpayers' expense.
	Okay, and can you describe the sort of structure of it?
	So, the MEPs and anyone above them as well?
	Yes, well, the MEPs in terms of the Parliament itself, the MEPs, we then have questors who are elected by the MEPs.
	I think they're elected.
	I don't remember actually electing any of them, but they seem to somehow, I do remember vaguely some sort of cross-on-ballot paper somewhere.
	And we elect the President of the Parliament.
	It's usually a choice between two extremely awful evils.
	The first time it was some crazy Spanish guy who was like something out of the Spanish Civil War, who was quite clearly not the sort of person people would have in politics in the UK, he'd be completely off the spectrum.
	And the alternative was a German socialist.
	The German socialist seemed less appalling than the alternative.
	Although I personally voted for the crazy guy on the grounds that I thought you managed to close the place down without a thought back, but unfortunately, the crazy guy didn't get elected, and the Parliament continues on.
	Above them, there's the Commission, which are appointed by national governments.
	They're not appointed by us.
	They make all the decisions and we just get to vote on it.
	They send the decision through to us.
	Then we have this laborious sort of evaluation system and we have committees that look into these things, internal committees which many of us are on, which is absolute torture to go through.
	The minute I discuss, the place is full of nitpickers.
	It's a nightmare.
	But eventually they produce a report and then that is then put forward for legislation.
	As MEPs, we are here today in Strasbourg.
	This is we come here usually once a month.
	All the work is done in Brussels, but once a month we have to come here to Strasbourg.
	There is no reason whatsoever that I can see why we have to do this, other than the French asking for us to come here.
	Everything we do here can be done in Brussels.
	There is a plenary there we can do it, and we do have mini-plenary, so we can do everything there.
	As MEPs, we do not have any powers whatsoever.
	All we can do with legislation is alter a line here or there and change that.
	All legislation comes from the commissioners, they push that forward, and we are just a chamber that is there basically to rubber stamp this thing and push it through.
	It's totally false democracy.
	You know, we need to be out of this.
	But as I said, we are in Strasbourg now, costing millions of pounds to the UK taxpayer.
	There is no reason for us to be here.
	We should be in Brussels, but eventually we should be out of this place.
	Now, you asked Margot will tell you how the elections of presidents is carried out.
	And it really, again, it's not undemocratic, it's anti-democratic.
	Some years ago, when we were first elected, the very first invitation I had was on our British politics programme, and Andrew Neill was in fact in charge in those days.
	And we had the Conservative leader here, a really charming, nice man, myself.
	And Andrew Neill was forensically questioning the Tory guy, Samarko Wyatt, lovely guy, and said, Well, you say, Mr. Cameron says he's not going to tolerate the selection of Mr. Juncker as the President of the Commission.
	So, what are you going to do about it?
	And he said, Well, I think David Cameron made his case to the German Chancellor.
	And actually, the truth was very much this.
	The German Chancellor selected who she wanted.
	It was clearly going to be Mr. Juncker because she knew him, she trusted him, and because she gets to make and pick the top guy.
	I mean, they fluff about between France and Germany, but this was her choice.
	What did Britain get out of it?
	Well, we got the commissioner, I think it was Lord Hill, who sat in the House of Lords.
	Don't really know very much about him.
	I think maybe he'd been in the city.
	So he had the next sort of senior role, obviously not the High Representative, which previously had been the Labour choice of Baronet Ashton, who had, I think, not excited many people because she'd run around the world not really knowing what she was doing and I think had never been elected to anything.
	Did I just say that?
	Yes, I did.
	She was head of Steve Luckwee, no, she, I think, was a president of Tring Health.
	She nearly caused a war with Russia.
	But anyway, so that's basically how it worked.
	But by actually saying that, that was a clear-cut, that's how it is.
	Everybody knows that's how it worked.
	You just don't use that language in polite Euro company because it kind of offends them.
	But it is the truth.
	So we ended up with Lord Hill, and as you know, after the Brexit vote, he broke down and was quite tearful in the chamber.
	I felt quite sorry for him actually because he felt he had to resign because he felt he failed.
	No, he hadn't failed.
	Consecutive British governments had failed by not telling the British public exactly all about the European project.
	Maybe they would have voted to stay.
	I don't know.
	But they never told the truth.
	And when I think they did get the chance to vote, we had this amazing result from nowhere.
	So, the Commission's control suddenly backfired.
	David Cameron's backfired.
	The Labour Party backfired, and people got to grasp the real facts.
	Yeah, so we have a situation here, which is what I was saying, is not undemocratic, it's anti-democratic.
	When they elect the president of the chamber, and the one that we have at the moment is Tajani, the one before that was Schultz.
	So, we are asked to vote on this in a secret vote, secret ballot, RCV.
	We vote on this.
	We are allowed to vote in favour, we are allowed to abstain, but we are not allowed to vote against.
	So, if everybody in the chamber abstains, then what they do is they go for a second round.
	So, again, second round, you have a secret ballot, you can vote in favour, you can abstain, but you cannot vote against.
	So, if everybody abstains again, then it goes down to the commission then will put in place who they believe should be the president, and that man will be Tajani, who was always going to be the one that they wanted in.
	This is totally anti-democracy.
	That is how this place runs.
	There is no democracy in this building, it's anti-democratic.
	The commissioners, if a commissioner walked into this room now, I wouldn't know who he was.
	The commissioners are faceless bureaucrats.
	The British public have no chance whatsoever of seeing a commissioner or voting for a commissioner.
	It's the commissioners that is giving the legislation to the people of Great Britain, and the people of Great Britain have no democratic right to vote them in or vote them out.
	They never see them, they don't know they are, we don't know they are because we don't see them.
	But as I said, we are an amending chamber, we amend legislation, we do not propose legislation, they propose the legislation, we amend it.
	That reminds me, if you remember, I think it was in 2014 that we had a vote on this particular guy that they wanted to introduce to us all.
	I don't know whether it was a commissioner or whoever he was.
	We as a group never heard the man or knew anything about him, so we naturally decided to vote against.
	Went into the chamber to vote.
	Then they said, Who's for it?
	Majority of the chamber would vote for him because they like this establishment.
	A few abstentions, and we were waiting for the no vote.
	And we didn't get it, did we?
	And so, Jonathan Armit stood up and did a point of order and said, Mr. Chairman, who happened to be Schultz at the time, where's our no vote?
	And he says, As Chairman, it's my decision, you're not getting it.
	And we were just absolutely stunned.
	And that was my first experience of how this establishment works.
	If they don't like the answer, they don't just won't let it.
	And that's no different than the T-TIP that when that was really quite at the forefront in the media, we decided the public want to know more because, again, more information gives you a much more informed choice of decision.
	So, we were trying to get him to bring it onto the agenda for some other reason.
	After Stuart had gone to the secret room to see the secret documents that you're not allowed to take photographs, you can take a few notes, but you have somebody monitoring you when you're looking at this document.
	He was allowed to go and see it.
	He can make a couple of notes, but he couldn't do anything more than that.
	It was in a secret room.
	So, we felt well, the public could keep sending us emails, and we had thousands of emails to talk about TTIP.
	So, we thought, well, the only thing is we've got to keep pushing it to come back onto the agenda to have a proper debate.
	What I thought was democracy in this chamber.
	And it didn't happen.
	They pulled it.
	So, we thought we'd go through the rule book to see what rule we could play to get their attention.
	We discovered that if more than 40 MEPs at the time had entered the chamber, brought a point of order saying that we request for this to be put on the agenda, they would acknowledge it.
	So we were a little bit naughty, to be honest.
	We waited till the chamber had gone quite thin on the ground with MEPs and we started to slowly infiltrate the chamber.
	It was a female, somebody on the actual main part and the president.
	And we did all go in, and she must have wondered why all of the certainly the UKIP crowd, and we had quite a few supporters actually, if I remember rightly, from other groups that came along.
	And then one of our guys actually did a point of order, which she naturally took.
	And when she realised what it was about, we thought she was going to acknowledge it because, quite rightly, we followed the rules.
	We did exactly what the rule book said.
	But she hadn't.
	She pressed the fire alarm to get all the MEPs out of all the offices to break their necks to get back into that chamber to block our request.
	I have never ever in my life thinking that in democracy or the establishment that says that there, you know, it's a fair playing ground here, it is not the case.
	It is not the case at all.
	And I mean, yesterday, you witnessed what we all witnessed with the Hungarian Prime Minister.
	Whatever you might think of the way he runs his country, like any Prime Minister of any country, he had a massive majority.
	And it's the public that these people are offending.
	It's not necessarily him, but these people voted for him.
	And the language, and it was a bullying, aggressive, it was vile.
	It was just like a pack of wolves in that chamber yesterday attacking a particular person who has his own point of view.
	Now, I'm a businesswoman, like many of us, we've come from backgrounds from businesses.
	You know, you have negotiating skills, you certainly don't pull up the drawbridge and start being rude and offensive.
	You put the hand of friendship in, you find some common ground to have a negotiation so you can pick out the bits that probably aren't agreeable to the European Union, and that you can try and, over a period of time, gradually get them potentially to think the way you think.
	That was not the case.
	It was the most aggressive, negative, vile language I've ever experienced yesterday.
	And I would encourage anybody to go on YouTube and look at it.
	But you were looking rather confused there when we mentioned the secret room.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	The TTIP document, the legislation, was held in a room with one door, no windows, locked.
	You have to make an appointment to go in there to see it.
	You are allowed in once you have been searched and any mobile phones, cameras, iPads, laptops are taken off.
	You are allowed in there with a piece of paper and a pencil.
	So anything that you want, you can write down and take out of the room.
	But you cannot record it with anything.
	You cannot photograph it.
	You can't do anything.
	You cannot take it out of the room.
	It stays in that room, locked.
	You are accompanied the whole time.
	You cannot walk out with it.
	So you're in there, do whatever you've got to do, you walk out and lock the door again.
	This is how secretive this place is.
	This is the way that this operates.
	And the British public need to know this.
	This is how they are being legislated against, by these players.
	One thing they are trying to do here is they do not want you forming national groups.
	That's what they absolutely do not want.
	They have put here what they call political families.
	So when you're elected to this place, you may come as a UKIP person, but you have to form part of a larger party with people from the Czech Republic, from Germany.
	We all have to form a political group.
	We are the EFTD, there's the sort of Tory group, Christian Democrats and Conservatives, then there's the Liberals and slightly socialist people, then there's the Socialists, and then there's the way off the way off the scale lefties, including Sinn Féin, IRA, Spanish terrorists, you name it, they're all in there.
	It's a horrible mixture of people.
	At the moment, we have 28 countries within the European Union.
	We are one of those countries.
	We have 751, I believe it's 751 MEPs that sit in the chamber.
	Of that 751, 73, I think it is, are British MEPs.
	It's made up of UKIP, which was the largest group at one point, Tories, Labour, and I think we have one Green, one Greenwoman, Sheila, and Liberal as I thought.
	So they're in there.
	But how this works, I myself am on the Fisheries Committee, I'm the coordinator for the EFDD on the Fisheries Committee.
	So some of these decisions are taken at committee level.
	Now, we always put things forward that will benefit the British.
	And if it doesn't benefit the British, if it says that the European Parliament is going to pass legislation, it doesn't benefit the British, we will vote against it.
	Now, we put legislation forward that will benefit the British.
	We put one forward that would benefit the British fishermen.
	And to a man, Labour, Tory, voted it down because they are sold into this huge big sausage machine that pushes out legislation and that they know that they are getting a very good salary out of this and they're going to get a very good pension out of this and they will back the European Union, the EU, every day of the week.
	The British fishermen were sold down the river by this place with the common fisheries policy.
	They are now trying again once we leave when we get Brexit to again sell us down the river.
	One of them turned a Dutch MEP turned around to me and said, Mr. Ockham, you are not going to get your waters back because it is too we earn millions out of your seas, you are not getting them back.
	Now we've always pushed that we want out 200 miles back.
	There are Labour and Tory MEPs that are voting against that in committee.
	So this is how we're set up.
	There is only one party that is fighting for the British people, fighting for the British working man and woman, and that's UKIP.
	There's only one party that's fighting for the British fishermen, and that's UKIP.
	We see it time and time again when these people will vote in favour of the European Union and the other 27 nations every time they will not back the British fishermen.
	The European Union is brilliant for fishermen as long as you're French, German, Dutch.
	If you're British, it's anti-British.
	Essentially, there's no possibility of beating the inbuilt majority.
	And the inbuilt majority is for the European Union, it's left of centre, and sometimes when it comes to the votes, it goes through like the Perth cataloging.
	They just go, it's like a catal auction because they know what the result is going to be before we even vote.
	Because we complained at the beginning, you're not even looking up, Mr President, you're not looking up to see who's voting.
	You know, hands up, those who want this, yes, no, whatever.
	They just rattle through it because they know what the result is going to be, which is ridiculous, but that's how it is.
	It's an insult to democracy.
	It's all stitched up, and the whole system is designed to give an image of a democracy.
	But it's not.
	This place is not even run by the Commissioners.
	It's run by people you've never seen, that the Commissioners probably don't even see.
	It's run by people like Martin Selmaier, who's exactly who is Martin Selma?
	Martin Selmayer was the sort of the eminence gris of Jean-Claude Juncker.
	He was his advisor and he, you know, Sunday became successor to high office and now move from the bureaucratic side into the political side all of a sudden.
	There was a huge hoo-ha about it.
	Everybody kicked off about it because this is wow, the bureaucracy have become so blatant now, they don't even go through the old thing that the bureaucracy don't go into the political arena, they keep in the background and you never hear from them, you never see them, but they're the ones that really run it.
	But now because there's so much money, one assumes, in being the president of the European Parliament, there's so much money involved, they want to become front and centre, so they're bleeding into the political area.
	And you suddenly see Martin Selma, which has been a huge hoo-ha about him, coming from being an advisor, something he's going to be the successor of Jean-Claude Juncker.
	So it's interesting that the decisions are made by some shadowy body that no one's ever seen or heard of.
	The elected officials in the Parliament have no power.
	The Commission, which is selected by the governments, they don't seem to have any power.
	They are advised by this shadowy group of civil servants.
	Those people are the people with the power.
	Who are they?
	We don't know.
	We've tried to find out.
	It's labyrinthine.
	It's positively Orwellian.
	It's the Ministry of Truth.
	You've never come across anything so bad.
	It's loved by some of our politicians, the less scrupulous individuals, who want a sort of super House of Lords.
	This is the House of Lords with real money.
	So they can come here after they've finished destroying their own country and they can come here and destroy everybody else's in the European Parliament.
	It really is a super house of laws for the 21st century.
	Possibilities for reform if...
	If the European Union had come with some policies that would be reforming, if they'd put out the hand of friendship, if they'd control or attempted to control the mass migration that's happening in Europe, I believe we would have lost that referendum.
	It's because they will not move an inch.
	It is this project is too important to them, they will not move an inch.
	So there is no possibility whatsoever of any reform within this building.
	It's just not in their makeup.
	That will not happen.
	So, there's no way that the British voter can get this place to change.
	No.
	None whatsoever.
	And any politician in Britain that's actually telling you that there is a possibility of reform is lying.
	They are lying to you.
	It will not reform.
	In order to reform, you have to get 27 countries to agree on something.
	And it's not just 27 countries, it's 27 countries and all the various difficult political parties in all those different countries.
	It's impossible.
	And when you see this here, you realise what it's like.
	There's no chance of it ever being reformed.
	If you were setting up a European Union from scratch, you wouldn't do it like this.
	You wouldn't have a parliament, you wouldn't have an executive like this, you wouldn't have a flag, you wouldn't have all those other trappings.
	What you'd have is one minister from each country meeting once a month to decide what's in our common interest.
	That's what you would have.
	It makes absolutely no sense to have a duplication of parliamentary government and then who makes the decision, us or the parliamentary, you know, local parliamentary government.
	And the problem with it being here is this system here is not democratic.
	So the parliaments, Westminster, the French Parliament, the French Senate, and the French National Assembly, they don't make the decisions anymore.
	The decisions are made here in the European Union and as we had subcontracted.
	And the local parliaments quite like this in many ways, because it means they don't have to take any decisions.
	They blame Brussels.
	It's fantastic.
	So they go to the electorate once every five years and they say, well, it's not our fault we screwed up.
	It's Brussels.
	Let's blame them.
	So, you know, that's how they do it.
	And so they have all the fun, all the blathering they like, the money, they're going into parliament and looking terribly important without the responsibilities.
	And that's where it's an absolute disaster.
	Yeah, I find that it's like the Transport Committee, that I'm just a lone voice, very much a lone voice, even with the other UK MEPs in there, because they so believe that everything that's passed should go carry on, even though now we've won the referendum and we are supposed to be leaving, allegedly, they are still passing more and more legislation, more rules, more changes in the transport sector.
	And what I find really interesting is when I did a long time ago speak to the DVLA about some different things on the Department of Transport, I was shocked that they didn't even know some of these things that were going on here.
	They had no knowledge on us.
	But you're taking these locks on the belt, all the rules.
	When we leave, our government's going to take them all on board.
	And the only reason they've got to do that is because they've watered down their departments over the years.
	They had no plan.
	I mean, they truly believed when we had that referendum that we were going to remain.
	There was no doubt about it because, selfishly, they did not have another plan.
	So, David Cameron, when he went for the referendum, great that we won that argument, but nowhere along that line had they put any plans on us leaving.
	And it's took us two years, we're only starting now.
	So it shows you the incompetence of the present government we have.
	The arguments they're all falling around themselves falling apart.
	And the British public now have no faith in any politician in our own government who are supposed to be in charge of our country, who are supposed to be looking at all the things that happen here.
	When we leave, they're taking the whole baggage with them.
	So, unfortunately, for the British people who have voted to leave, there's very little going to change because the government are incompetent of making their own decisions when we all believe from years ago that we are competent, we are big enough, strong enough to do our own thing.
	When they start to realise that, the people are having faith in politicians, and hopefully, someone underland will have a better country.
	I think the sadness has been over the years that the real truth has never been told because they didn't want to trust the voter.
	They expect you to go to the polls every four years, five years.
	And it's the extraordinary thing when you think that all of the political parties, that's the old parties, agree in principle they want to be here.
	So, they absolutely did pass the control to another head, another, you know, the Parliament in Brussels, but not really the Parliament, the European Union.
	So, another block that would make decisions.
	I think that the civil servants in both the United Kingdom and indeed in the EU have worked very well together because many British civil servants made their lives within the European Union.
	It was very comfortable for them.
	So, of course, they were very anti-wanting to change any of that.
	And you see, with the present Prime Minister brings a top civil servant, Mr. Davis resigned.
	He was the Brexit minister.
	And it must have been pretty bad for him to resign because a civil servant took the job.
	Well, if you have a Prime Minister surrounding herself with civil servants who are unelected and you put the elected candidate out, then that's what you've got.
	And I also think that they have so much power here and back in our own country.
	So I think people have become madly disillusioned, extremely angry, because they've been insulted with either the press, the remainers saying, oh, the British government are too stupid.
	They don't know what they're voting for.
	They did.
	Either they'd lost their jobs because of huge, mass, uncontrolled, unskilled immigration, which of course couldn't be coped with.
	We could never build enough houses.
	We never knew how many people come in.
	We never have enough jobs.
	You'd never be able to satisfy the NHS because, how do you know?
	You're treating so many more people.
	Nobody ever speaks about the stress.
	So everything cascaded down, and the voter said, Whoa, I'm no better off.
	I don't have a job.
	You know, my 17-year-old son that left school, he'd get a job normally in the same factory his dad works in.
	He can't get that job now.
	So the whole system completely turned on the people.
	And the Westminster bubble, the elitists that live and act Labour, Tory, it doesn't matter, they're all the same.
	They don't know what it's like not to have a job.
	You can't pay a mortgage.
	Why is this?
	Why are the youth of Greece being driven out of their own country?
	Spain too.
	Mass youth unemployment.
	No success there.
	terrible the effect and again i only have i can only speak on the committees that i'm on they have The effect they have on the fishing industry is fishing quarters.
	The quarter system in December is decided, I think it's late December, from an office in Brussels, how much a British fisherman can catch.
	That's the influence that they have.
	Where they can catch it, what they can catch, and the discard that comes from Brussels, out of Brussels.
	So that's an effect that they have, and I don't know whether you others have on your committees.
	It's exactly the same with transport.
	Most of the legislation that have been had here, the United Kingdom, takes on board everything.
	I don't know anything they've refused.
	I'd like to hear what they've actually refused, but they haven't.
	And our actual transport infrastructure, okay, we're supposed to have our own say, and some bits we do, but it has to always incorporate whatever's been put out from here.
	So the whole package of transport always has the EU's influence.
	Everything.
	You know, why we're moving to electric cars.
	Yes, I'm conscious of the environment, but there's this knee-jerk reaction now that the European countries have to bring down their emissions, quite rightly.
	But Jaguar Land Rover, who I've always supported, I mean, they're saying if we don't get the right Brexit deal at the moment, they won't get their spare parts.
	I've just read that recently in the Financial Times.
	But the thing is, are you telling me then that the European countries want supply to Great Britain all the parts to keep their business going?
	There will be some common ground where we can work.
	It's as though we never survived before we joined.
	And this is the bit where younger people who have never experienced the before can't recognize it.
	And that's the hardest part.
	And it was always the hardest part for us when we were going at campaigning, saying there was life before the EU, we could negotiate.
	You know, when we talk about businesses and trade, we talk about the bubble of the EU rather than talking about the world, you know.
	And I always find with all of the image that the European Union wants to convey to people is that we're here for peace and harmonization and all the goodwill.
	But what they've actually done, they've encouraged good skilled people from poorer countries to leave and go elsewhere.
	And actually, what that does is makes that country even poorer rather than building it up.
	What would have been better is if Britain was strong, which it was at the time, to encourage some of the key skills there to go and help the other European countries to build up their economy.
	To me, if they wanted to give a better vision, that would have been the best one.
	But for me, I just find the whole project they just not stop.
	And the thing is, the laws and the rules and the things they change into people, you know, and I know I often get that simple question saying, but it doesn't affect me, why would I have any interest in politics?
	Why would I want to be interested in politics?
	I don't believe anything.
	Politicians say they're all in it for themselves.
	I don't believe what they're trying to change is for the good, or those that believe.
	Yet we're coming into peace.
	Well, I've looked at the time we've been in the European Union And I'd like somebody to tell me how peaceful we've been.
	Because there's media, and this is where the copyright directive is just come into at the moment.
	You know, we know about the news around other parts of the European Union where there is such civil unrest, but the people in each country have been blocked.
	This copyright directive, in my view, will block even more of the real news.
	Okay, I understand there's fake news and it needs to be addressed, but the real news, the things that really happen that the BBC in the UK will not talk about.
	I will say there was riots in Paris yesterday.
	People look at me back here and say, no, I'm not seeing anything.
	We need to get this more exposed to people to say there is a controlled media source that needs to be exposed.
	That people, when things happen around the European Union and the world, I thought we had an unbiased media source we do not have.
	I would say that the biggest problem, the reason why Britain simply doesn't fit in the European Union, is because of the different culture we have.
	Our culture has always been different from Europe.
	Europe is Bonapartist.
	It is ruled by the cold Napoleon.
	It is ruled by a different way of looking at things.
	They believe that the people are the slaves or the servants of the state.
	Whereas in Britain, we think it's the other way around.
	We think the state is a servant of the people.
	And that's always been the way we've looked at it.
	We've always looked at it differently.
	And they have been trying to influence, well, they've been pushing this idea of private rights being subordinate to the public good onto Britain.
	And that is my reason for objecting to the European Union.
	Europe is not democratic.
	The French Republic stopped cars anywhere they like on the motorways or whatever.
	And there's something called the Douin Fiscal, which is fiscal tax man.
	You basically have tax men running around, basically dressed up in uniforms as gendarmes, stopping cars, going through your paperwork, trying to see if you've been dodging taxes.
	You're a painter and decorator or you're a plumber or something on the side.
	They're so desperate to make sure you don't dodge your taxes or miss anything out, and also just to control you, that this is why we're so different in our way of looking at things.
	We assume that people are innocent until proven guilty.
	You don't have to have a piece of paper to prove who you are.
	This is another thing which we find obscene.
	You have to have a piece of paper to prove that you're who you are.
	This is unacceptable to the way we run things.
	And it doesn't make their countries any better.
	It makes people more frightened and more paranoid.
	And now they're having problems with terrorism.
	They're bringing in even more rules and regulations, but they're using terrorism as an excuse to clamp down with even more laws.
	Now they're saying you can't have more than 10,000 euros, take 10,000 euros in cash out of the EU, or indeed gold or valuables.
	Now, we believe in Britain, once you pay your taxes, you can do what you like with it.
	And the people here who are running this place have evidently never run a business in their lives.
	If they had been a car dealer, they would know that 10 grand when you go to a car auction is simply not enough money.
	Or you're an antique dealer and you're going to an international antiques fair.
	You need an awful lot more than 10,000 euros on you.
	And they've now brought in this rule, which means that they can, any tax man, any Duane Fiscal, any official, obesity, the new colour of authoritarianism is not the black of the 1930s, it's the de glue yellow of the wee man in the jacket.
	He's the new Gestapo, he's the new Commissar.
	They're the people who will take your money.
	Say, for example, you've got 110,000.
	They simply say, We don't believe you obtained that honesty.
	We're just going to take that money because I'm a little official and I'm just going to sign a piece of paper and take it from you arbitrarily.
	They take this money.
	Your business could go bust in the meantime.
	It could take months or even years for you to get this money back.
	And here, the system, the Napoleonic system, you are guilty until proven innocent.
	It's not like England where you're innocent until proven guilty.
	The burden is on you to prove you are innocent.
	This is unthinkable to us.
	And this is the difference between us and the European law.
	Why we do not fit, why we simply must get out.
	It does not fit with our way of doing things.
	Same with the Americans.
	The American system, very much based on the British system, and they don't get what's going on here.
	We certainly don't get what's going on here.
	We've got to get out because we can't fit in with that.
	And our freedoms are being restricted by this Orwellian, Orwellian system that they operate in Europe.
	What we always see in the press and the media, and one of the big exponents of this, the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation, it's the BBC.
	I'm pushing this time again.
	And I saw just recently there was an article out there looking in your area and seeing what funding the European Union has given your area.
	Well, I question that because the European Union doesn't manufacture anything.
	The European Union doesn't create wealth or money.
	That money is our money.
	And how this system works is: let's simplify it.
	I give you £20.
	And then what you say to me is, right, there's £10 back.
	But what you'll spend that £10 on, I will tell you.
	So what you spend it on, and I also want you to put a big advert out there, big boarding, saying money donated by the European Union.
	My money, my tax money.
	That's what the European Union is donating back to me.
	Tax money.
	That is how this system works.
	They don't have any money.
	It's our money.
	So the European Union don't give money to the farmers because it's our money.
	They don't build hospitals because it's our money.
	That's where the money's coming from.
	This place doesn't create, you know, it just doesn't manufacture it.
	Nowhere whatsoever can it create that money.
	It's our money.
	It's the 27 nations, 28 nations money that they're giving back to.
	It's a Ponzi, it's a scam.
	It's one of the biggest scams in the world.
	It's the biggest scam in history.
	This is what these people are doing.
	It's our money.
	They don't have any money.
	What the British people must be told and they must learn is the European arrest warrant, which we've been saddened with now because of this place, which means, as David's already said, this Napoleonic law in Europe.
	you are guilty until proven innocent.
	The European Arrest Warrant means that somebody can go into a political Brussels or France or wherever, tick the right boxes on a piece of paper, and then you will be arrested on no evidence whatsoever and taken and imprisoned whilst you try and plead your case to say that you're innocent.
	You're from another country, somebody in Romania fills a form saying you go on holiday to Spain and somebody in Spain can make complaints against you, tick the right boxes, they will come to your house and arrest you.
	The British people can pick you up.
	Yeah, it's on a European arrest warrant and we have to get out of that.
	As David's already said, in Britain, you are innocent until proven guilty.
	Under these people's roles, you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
	So this is one of the aspects that we say is totally wrong.
	We need to be out of this because we need to be returning back to British law.
	There's also, on our legal system, we have an adversarial system where the judge is not partial.
	He sits to judge the art, basically to control the two sides arguing the case.
	They argue the case, your lawyers, me, the prosecutors' lawyers, they argue the case and the judge just keeps control of the whole thing.
	In European law, they have things called investigating magistrates.
	So you don't have a jury of 12 good men and true to judge you.
	You're not judged by your peers.
	You're judged by a tribunal.
	So like the French Revolution, from which it sort of derives, where you have magistrates who are public prosecutors and they just fire questions at you.
	And they assume you're guilty until you're innocent, to prove yourself innocent.
	That is not the way to run a justice system.
	It's certainly not acceptable to me.
	And I don't think the problem is the majority of people in Britain neither have the time nor the inclination to find this out.
	They want to get on with their business.
	They're a plumber, they're a carpenter, they're a whoever they have to be.
	They're too busy trying to make a living to worry about all these esoteric ideas of justice and the rest of it.
	But until they actually come face to face with this, they don't realize what they're up against.
	And when you do come face to face with us, and you have to, you've got these people accusing you of something, and you just feel the whole world's against you.
	It is not a system that I would call justice.
	Can I just add that some years ago we had a debate here and it really referred to the movement of people, people coming into the United Kingdom, and the specific subject was a gentleman that came to the UK, been in and out, but he'd also served, I think, a life sentence for murdering his wife.
	He freely was allowed to come into the United Kingdom because there's no check on a criminal record.
	And the tragedy of the particular case I was speaking about was a young girl in Ely in London who happened to be going home from school, wrong place, wrong time, and she was murdered.
	Sadly, had they known about the fact that this chap had a criminal record, they could have probably done something about it.
	However, he then killed himself, I don't know, maybe the same time, whatever.
	But the point is, somebody's life could have been saved had checks been made about people coming in that quite clearly.
	And I wouldn't mind if somebody had gone from London and murdered a girl in Rome, I'd say the same.
	You need to know who these people are and what a risk they are to the public.
	And they're a right to know that.
	So that is something we have airbrushed away.
	Right, okay.
	So the final thing I wanted to ask, are there any other points that you want to raise that I'm not asking before I get from the phone?
	You might be very interested to know about the European Union are always going on about taxes.
	They're always very interested in getting people to pay more taxes.
	We want a just society, a social, socially equal society.
	What a lot of twaddle.
	All the people who work for members of parliament, all the bureaucrats here, you know, the people we take on, secretaries, whatever, advisors, they do not pay income tax.
	They pay 15% income tax.
	This is the biggest tax scandal in Europe.
	They accuse businessmen, they don't like businessmen, grubby sort of people, not professionals like us.
	That's what they tend to, that's what the European bureaucrats think.
	Oh, they're not professionals.
	So we're not, you know, they're not quite proper.
	So, you know, they're trying to grub about the market for money.
	Not really nice.
	Actually, that's quite interesting.
	Well, wait a minute, let me just finish.
	And these guys, they don't like that, but yet they are all on special tax deals.
	I'm not sure what Jean-Claude Jung gets by, but he doesn't pay much income tax anyway.
	And British MEPs, we pay income tax like everybody else in the UK, but other members of the European Parliament, other countries, do not.
	French MEPs do not pay.
	We pay in England.
	British MEPs, we pay the full bag.
	But we pay twice, we pay here and we pay in the UK.
	Exactly.
	But the difference is that the other European countries.
	What I'm saying to David is: if the British MEPs, we pay the Belgian tax, the Brussels tax, Belgian tax, but then we also pay tax in the UK as well.
	But the European Union, these people here, or sit on judgment on us, or chasing us like hell for money, they pay, and I don't even think it's 15%, David.
	I think it's less than that.
	Well, it's not 12% there, I can honestly say there's been quite a few occasions when the UKIP MEPs, occasionally, so the few years I've been here, have tried to bring that particular issue up, and every time they've realised that we're talking about internal taxation on their staff, we are cut off instantly.
	They do not want the media or the public or anybody to know how they work.
	They talk about harmonisation of taxes, but I can genuinely say there is an imbalance of what they get paid here and how their taxes have gone to people in other parts of the European Union.
	So again, it's an unfair system.
	But they keep going on about harmonisation.
	They can't even do it in-house.
	And also, even more, is one law for us and one law for the rest.
	In the European Parliament, in the bars, there's a little sort of box where everybody can go and smoke.
	So everyone else all over Europe, you can't go down the pub and have a fag.
	But the European Parliament, good God, they're all in there in the little box smoking like chimneys.
	Nigel Farage is utterly delighted because he smokes like a chimney.
	But he sees The ridiculous state of affairs.
	But there's one law for the legislators and one law for everybody else.
	scandalous.
	Yes, we do it all the time.
	They don't pay any attention.
	They don't want to hear it.
	It's a story they don't want to hear.
	Well, they don't believe it.
	Well, they do believe it because they know file.
	They see the little boxes in the bars.
	No, it's because they don't want it.
	Because the media, the British media, is told for the vast majority of them are pro-European Union.
	In one way or another, they maybe want reform, but they're in favour of the European Union.
	The BBC, absolutely mad team for the European Union, totally sold.
	They are complete collaborators.
	ITV very well has to say.
	The media will not publish what we say and will not listen to what we're saying.
	Because what we have at the moment, as David's already said, you've got the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation that is gaining money from this place.
	They get millions from here.
	They're trying to keep it quiet.
	Most of your media now are left wing, so they don't want to listen to any of this.
	And Project Fear is going loud and strong at the moment.
	I've just got a text so now saying that the latest one that they're saying is Roaming Charges will be returning to Britain on holiday should we get a no-deal Brexit.
	Absolute rubbish.
	And that is from people, as we've said this afternoon, that are not businessmen.
	Businessmen create business, not politicians.
	Politicians should keep the nose out of business.
	Businessmen create business.
	The wine makers in France are not going to stop sending wine over to England.
	Mercedes are not going to stop sending cars to England.
	This is absolute rubbish.
	It is Project Fear.
	And it's going loud and strong as we speak.
	And that's going to carry on until we get out of this thing.
	And once we're out, hopefully, we will get a no-deal Brexit.
	We'll return to WTO Rugs.
	And again, there is no such thing as a no-deal because the deal's there.
	It's WTO Rugs, and that's what we will trade on.
	That's what we will work on.
	And we will trade with the rest of the world.
	We will speak to the rest of the world and we will speak to Europe and trade with Europe.
	There's only one set of people that's saying there's a problem, and that's the people in this building that do not want Great Britain hope put a lot of money into the European Union.
	They do not want us to leave because they don't want to lose our money.
	I'll tell you something else: one of the reasons, the main reason, why they're bringing this copyright act, they're not worried about creative people losing money.
	They're not interested in any of this.
	What they're interested in is that there would have been no UKIP, there would have been no Brexit if we hadn't had the internet.
	UKIP grew because of the internet.
	And they are terrified because the elections are coming up in Europe.
	And the only way that little parties can do well is because we've got the internet.
	We've not relied on the big media outlets that they control.
	And the French, for example, believe it, the French are not keen on the European Union universally.
	They're brainwashed into it in the main by the government.
	But more and more people are dissatisfied with France.
	There's a big move for Frexit.
	And little parties like the Patriots and other parties that may not be so sort of people we have anything to do with, like the Front Nationale, but other small parties in France that um agriculture, peasants parties whatever, they cannot get money because you're only allowed to give seven grand per person in France to a political party.
	But the government give money to the big main parties.
	They get millions, but any little party gets very little.
	And the media in France television radio, all controlled by the state.
	The newspapers mostly controlled in not directly but indirectly in some way by the state, or or people who are have something to do with the state.
	And that means that the fr to get a party off the ground in France that you d, you know it's, it's nearly impossible.
	The one saving grace was the internet and now the European Union are trying to close that down with this copyright deal.
	This is all about closing down all the people out there in in in you know it that are trying to start off little little little news outlets and that's what they want to stop.
	They wanna kill us dead and they're gonna kill you dead to make sure that happens.

▲