Tag: Vote Leave

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 4 December 2015.

The EU’s open border system – the ‘Schengen’ system – has recently been condemned by the former Secretary General of Interpol, Ronald K Noble, as ‘an international passport-free zone for terrorists to execute attacks on the Continent and make their escape’.

1. The Schengen system forbids countries from carrying out systematic checks on anyone with an EU passport from entering the EU. This makes it much easier for jihadists to enter from the Middle East. The former head of Interpol says this ‘is like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe. And they have been accepting the invitation’.

2. The UK has lost control of many aspects of border controls and migration (though we have some opt-outs from some EU policies). Our border controls are under constant attack from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Last year, it said that our Government cannot require migrants from other EU states to have a permit issued by UK authorities – even though permits from other EU countries are systematically forged. The Italian ID card, for instance, is simply a laminated piece of card, and we have no control over the way other EU countries issue their passports. This makes it easier for terrorists to slip through the net.

3. The EU prevents us from removing violent criminals (see the Rafacz case where we could not remove a violent killer). The ECJ also makes it harder for our Government to strip citizenship from British nationals who have gone abroad to engage in terrorism so they will retain the right to come back and live in Britain.

4. Using the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, EU judges now decide what powers our intelligence agencies and police have to protect us. In November 2015, a UK law to help the security services track terrorists was referred to the ECJ for a decision on whether it is allowed. If we remain in the EU, the ECJ will continue to take more control every year using the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

5. The Charter also stops us removing foreign criminals and terror suspects from the UK if it would violate their ‘private or family life’. It prevents European nations halting the flow of boats across the Mediterranean which have cost so many lives (see particularly the 2011 Hirsi Ali case which prevents EU states turning back a boat of terrorists if there is among them one person at risk of persecution at home).

6. The Charter also removes from the UK the power to interpret the vital 1951 UN Convention ourselves – the EU is now in charge of how we implement this international agreement. The Charter goes far beyond what the UN Refugee Convention requires and threatens the safety of vulnerable migrants and EU citizens. David Cameron once promised ‘a complete opt out’ from the Charter. Now he has abandoned this promise.

7. Brussels’ priority is taking more powers from member states, not security. They are still debating security powers which they said they needed after the Madrid train bombings in 2004. Last week, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the dangerous Schengen zone must continue or else the euro would die. Now the European Commission wants an EU army and intelligence agency, while the European Parliament has voted to strip the UK of our seat on the UN Security Council.

If we vote to remain in the EU, we will lose more vital powers over security every year. It is safer to Vote Leave and take back control. Outside the EU, we will continue to co-operate with our European partners to fight terrorism and organised crime – just as we do with important allies like the USA – but we will be outside the supremacy of EU law, the rulings of the European courts, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Vote Leave, take control.

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 7 December 2015.

Responding to Donald Tusk’s letter to the EU Heads of Government, Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of Vote Leave, said:

“In an effort to secure a deal at any cost, David Cameron is only asking for trivial things, not the “fundamental change” he used to say we need.

That’s why he is now having a manufactured row with the EU to try and make his renegotiation sound more significant than it really is.

People are fed up with politics as usual and want real change. They want an end to the supremacy of EU law, to take back control of our borders and to stop sending £350 million a week to Brussels. The only way to do that is to Vote Leave.”

Notes to Editors

The full text of the letter can be found here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/12/07-tusk-letter-to-28ms-on-uk/

David Cameron has dropped 9 out of ten of his promises to change the EU. These include the promise he made just a year ago that ‘we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here’ (speech at JCB, 28 November 2014, link) and his promise of a ‘complete opt out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (speech on EU, 4 November 2009, link). Neither promise is part of the Government’s renegotiation, as the Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee on 17 November.

Discussions about ‘sovereignty’ and ‘subsidiarity’ are trivial. Nothing in the promised package of reforms will end the supremacy of EU law over laws passed by the British Parliament. Clarifying the meaning of the words ‘ever closer union’ will not change this.

The Prime Minister has no plans to restore control of our borders. He is instead focused on minor changes to welfare – and even there, the President of the European Council says there is ‘presently no consensus’ on the Prime Minister’s demands.

The President of the European Council is clear that the UK will not be allowed ‘a veto right’ to stop new EU legislation that discriminates against British businesses.

Promises of reforms to boost competitiveness should not be taken seriously. The EU’s Lisbon Agenda of 2000 promised that ‘an average economic growth rate of around 3% should be a realistic prospect for the coming years.’ These promises were not fulfilled and similar pledges today are not credible.

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 6 December 2015.

David Cameron marks ten years as Leader of the Conservative Party on 6 December. Over the last decade, David Cameron has broken ten key promises he made to change the EU – a broken promise for every year.

BROKEN PROMISE 1: Taking back control over social and employment laws

In the special Question Time debate between David Cameron and David Davis in November 2005, David Cameron said: ‘I think that we should have a very clear strategic imperative, which is that we need to bring back the powers over social policy and employment policy that are causing so much damage to British business.’
He repeated that promise in March 2007, saying that ‘it will be a top priority for the next Conservative government to restore social and employment legislation to national control’ (The Guardian, 6 March 2007, link).
Yet neither of the Governments David Cameron has led have taken back control of any powers in social or employment law – and on 1 December 2015 George Osborne admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that these important areas formed no part of the Government’s renegotiation with the EU.

BROKEN PROMISE 2: A ‘complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights’

In 2009, David Cameron promised to negotiate ‘a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (speech on EU, 4 November 2009, link).
Yet this forms no part of his renegotiation. Philip Hammond has now admitted that ‘the Charter of Fundamental Rights is enshrined in the European Union architecture. We have no proposals in the package we have put forward that would disengage from that’ (European Scrutiny Committee, 17 November 2015, link).

BROKEN PROMISE 3: Stopping the ECJ overruling our criminal law

In 2009, David Cameron promised to ‘limit … the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level’ (speech on EU, 4 November 2009, link).
Since then, he has done nothing to limit the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In fact, in November 2014, the Government opted back in to 35 justice and home affairs measures including the European Arrest Warrant, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ over them – an irreversible decision which the Government has no plans to terminate.

BROKEN PROMISE 4: Changing EU treaties before the referendum

David Cameron used to make promises about ‘treaty change that I’ll be putting in place before the referendum’ (The Daily Telegraph, 5 January 2014, link).
On 16 November 2015, the Minister for Europe David Lidington said: ‘Our timetable for referendum by the end of 2017 means that you just cannot [have] treaty negotiation and 28 national ratifications within that timeframe’ (The Herald, 16 November 2015, link).
And this week the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, killed off that promise entirely, saying: ‘it’s impossible to change the [EU] treaty before the referendum’ (The Guardian, 2 December 2015, link).

BROKEN PROMISE 5: Stopping EU migrants coming to the UK without a job offer

Just last year, David Cameron promised that ‘we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here’ (speech at JCB, 28 November 2014, link).
Yet this forms no part of the renegotiation he started less than six months later.

BROKEN PROMISE 6: Removing EU jobseekers after six months

In the same speech, David Cameron promised that ‘if an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave’ (speech at JCB, 28 November 2014, link).
Yet EU law – which the Government is not seeking to change – prevents the removal of jobseekers who are seeking work and have a genuine chance of finding it, regardless of how long they have been in the UK (ECJ, 15 September 2015, link).

BROKEN PROMISE 7: Ending EU laws which harm our NHS

David Cameron promised that his Government was ‘committed to revising the [working time] directive at EU level to give the NHS the flexibility it needs to deliver the best and safest service to patients. We will work urgently to bring that about’ (Hansard, 18 January 2012, col. 746, link).
Almost four years later, nothing has come of this ‘urgent’ work – and on 1 December 2015, George Osborne confirmed to the Treasury Select Committee that this formed no part of the Government’s renegotiation.

BROKEN PROMISE 8: Stopping the European Parliament meeting in two places

The Conservative Party’s manifesto for the 2009 European elections pledged that ‘the European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels’ (link).
The Conservative Party topped the poll in those elections – yet David Cameron has done nothing about this wasteful duplication, which costs European taxpayers over €100 million a year, and Downing Street has confirmed that this forms no part of the Government’s renegotiation (10 November 2015, link).

BROKEN PROMISE 9: Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy

David Cameron promised in his manifesto earlier this year to ‘push for further reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy’ (Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, p. 21, link).
But he is not pushing for any such reform as part of his renegotiation. Indeed, Downing Street has admitted that ‘we have never mentioned this in the context of the renegotiation’ (10 November 2015, link).

BROKEN PROMISE 10: Reforming the EU’s Structural Funds

David Cameron also promised in his 2015 manifesto to seek ‘further reform of … Structural Funds’ (Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, p. 73, link).
Again, he is not pushing for any such reform as part of his renegotiation – and Downing Street has admitted that ‘we have never mentioned this in the context of the renegotiation’ (10 November 2015, link).

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 12 November 2015.

Responding to BSE Executive Director Will Straw’s assertion that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that ‘Britain is stronger, safer, and better off’ in the EU, Vote Leave Communications Director Paul Stephenson said:

“Prime Minister Modi made clear that the UK is India’s most important ally in Europe. We have good reasons to believe that this will continue to be the case if we left the EU.

The EU has consistently failed to get a free trade deal with India – when we Vote Leave this will be much easier to achieve.

It is disappointing that Will Straw is distorting the words of the Indian Prime Minister during an official visit to this country.”

Key stats on UK-India trade

In 2014, India sold the UK £1.576 billion more than the UK sold India. If the UK leaves the EU, it will be in India’s interest to trade on as favourable terms with the UK as possible (Source: ONS, Pink Book 2015, link).

Over the last decade, the total value of trade between the UK and India has increased by £14.058 billion in cash terms, or by 156% (Source: ONS, Pink Book 2015, link).

The EU has failed to negotiate a free trade deal with India. Negotiations started in 2007 but show no sign of concluding (Source: BBC, link).

According to a 2013 EY survey, ‘companies in Asia are even more positive about renegotiating the UK’s relationship with the EU. Fully two-thirds (66%) of Asian respondents say a lower degree of EU integration would make the UK a more attractive location for FDI, against 25% who think it would make the UK less attractive’ (Source: EY, (2013), p. 35, link).

What Will Straw said:

“India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is the latest in a string of world leaders to say that Britain is stronger, safer, and better off in Europe. President Obama, President Xi Jinping, and now the Indian Prime Minister have all unambiguously underlined the value to the UK economy of our place in the EU.

Not only is Europe a crucial springboard for Britain to trade with countries like India, but nearly half of the UK’s trade goes to other EU countries and more than 3 million jobs in Britain are linked to our trade with other EU countries. Why would we risk all of that by leaving?”

What Prime Minister Modi said:

“As far as India is concerned, if there is an entry point for us to the EU, that is the UK and that is Great Britain. If we have economic co-operation with any country, then the economic co-operation is with the UK. Yes, we are going to other EU countries as well, but we will continue to consider the UK as our entry point into the EU.

The United Kingdom is the third largest investor in India behind Singapore and Mauritius. India is the third largest source of Foreign Direct Investment projects in the United Kingdom. Indians invest more in Britain than in the rest of the European Union combined. It is not because they want to save on interpretation costs, but because they find an environment that is welcoming and familiar.”

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 11 November 2015.

In a major strategic blunder, David Cameron’s top aides have revealed that the Prime Minister has abandoned 15 commitments he made to the British people on the EU.

In a ‘rebuttal document’ hurried out last night, Number 10 attempted to expose ‘mistakes’ by Vote Leave. But their panicked attack has revealed David Cameron’s 15 abandoned commitments on the EU.

Commenting, leading Vote Leave supporter Bernard Jenkin MP said:

‘David Cameron made a number of key commitments as part of a programme for fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with the EU. These were in Conservative Party manifestos and other key statements which we were led to believe would be the policy of the Government. But these commitments to the British people have now been abandoned.

‘The renegotiation package does not represent any substantive change at all in the UK’s relationship with the EU. It is telling that the Prime Minister’s top team thinks that his commitments were “mistakes”.

‘The Prime Minister led us all in opposition to the Lisbon Treaty, because we are against EU taking more and more control. Now he is suggesting that we should vote to stay signed up to all the provisions of Lisbon that we opposed, wherever it is taking the UK in the years to come. But he has kept his promise of a referendum.

‘Yesterday’s letter was a defining moment. It is now all too clear to Conservative Party members and to the country: if you want to take back control over how laws are made in this country, over how much we pay to the EU and our relationships with the rest of the world, you need to Vote Leave.’

 

How Downing Street revealed the Prime Minister’s 15 abandoned commitments

Abandoned Commitment 1
We said: ‘Securing treaty change before the referendum. In January 2015, the Prime Minister said his plans ‘do involve … proper, full-on treaty change’ (The Guardian, 4 January 2015, link).’

Downing Street said: ‘We have not ruled out treaty change’

In fact: A treaty that has not been ratified before the referendum will have the same legal status as an unsigned contract. The Prime Minister used to talk about securing treaty change before the referendum. In January 2014, he stressed the importance of this to ensure his proposed changes to EU welfare rules: ‘To change that you’ve either got to change it with other European countries at the moment or potentially change it through the Treaty change that I’ll be putting in place before the referendum that we’ll hold on Britain’s membership of the EU, by the end of 2017.’ Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 2
We said: ‘In 2005, Cameron stated that “our aim should be to take back control of employment and social regulation”.’

Downing Street said: ‘This was never part of our renegotiation. David Cameron made this statement before he was even Leader of the Conservative Party’

Broken manifesto pledge. This isn’t just something David Cameron said before he became leader of the Conservative Party – the 2010 Conservative manifesto stated: ‘We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation to the UK.’ Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 3
We said: ‘In 2009, Cameron promised to “limit … the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level” (BBC News, 4 November 2009, link).’

Downing Street said: ‘This was never part of the renegotiation – and is a quote four years before the Prime Minister first set out his renegotiation and referendum agenda in his 2013 Bloomberg speech.’

In fact: David Cameron promised to make this change in the 2010 Conservative manifesto, which said: ‘We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights [and] criminal justice … to the UK’. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 4
We said: ‘In November 2014, the Prime Minister claimed that “we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here” (BBC News, 28 November 2014, link).’

Downing Street said: ‘We are already delivering this, and it was never part of the renegotiation. We have already ensured that EU migrants will not be able to claim Universal Credit while looking for work, and if those coming from the EU haven’t found work within six months, they can be required to leave unless they have genuine job prospects.’

In fact: The Prime Minister stated clearly in November 2014 that ‘EU migrants should have a job offer before they come here… My very clear aim is to be able to negotiate these changes for the whole EU… If negotiating for the whole EU should not prove possible, I would want to see them in a UK only settlement’. However, as the ECJ made clear in 1991, article 45 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union ‘entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment.’ Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 5
We said: ‘The Conservative European Parliamentary Manifesto of 2009 said that: “The European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels”.’

Downing Street said: ‘We have never mentioned this in the context of renegotiation. The UK government and Conservative MEPs have consistently argued this case in a campaign, which is gaining traction.’

In fact: This is another example of Downing Street admitting that a manifesto promise won’t be honoured. If, after six years, Number 10 says this campaign is only ‘gaining traction’, shouldn’t the Government be doing something bolder to end this ridiculous situation which costs taxpayers over €100 million a year? Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 6
We said: ‘The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 stated that “We will push for further reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy”. Mr Cameron did not mention agriculture in his speech.’

Downing Street said: ‘we have never mentioned this in the context of the renegotiation’.

In fact: David Cameron used to argue that the EU needed ‘fundamental, far-reaching change’. British farmers – and consumers, who pay over the odds thanks to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy – will note that the Prime Minister does not think the CAP is part of the ‘fundamental change’ the UK needs. Even the EU-funded ‘Agra Europe’ report which came out last month conceded that, outside the EU, ‘consumers would gain from lower food prices’. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 7
We said: ‘The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 pledged “further reform of … Structural Funds.” Structural funds were not mentioned in Cameron’s speech.’

Downing Street said: ‘We … have never mentioned this in the context of renegotiation.’

In fact: Number 10 are making it clear that they do not intend to honour an explicit manifesto pledge. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 8
We said: ‘The UK can be permanently outvoted by the Eurozone. The UK has extremely little influence inside the EU’s institutions.’

Downing Street said: ‘We have already managed to achieve safeguards against Eurozone caucusing, negotiated by the Prime Minister, such as over the bail-outs, have had lasting effect’ (sic).

In fact: These safeguards only apply in the European Banking Authority (EBA) – not the Council of Ministers, where the key decisions are made and the Eurozone has a permanent majority. And the safeguards in the EBA are limited: EU law states that only one non-euro member state needs to approve a measure once those states fall below four in number – something that is likely to happen in the next four years. Moreover, these rules only apply to decisions under secondary legislation, and could be abolished by the Eurozone using its permanent majority. George Osborne himself admitted in his speech in Berlin last week that the EU had broken its promises on the bail-outs, and this will remain the case so long as article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allows the Eurozone caucus to force the UK to bail out insolvent Eurozone states. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 9
We said: ‘Without treaty change, the EU can carry on breaking its promises to non-Eurozone countries – as the PM and Chancellor know.’

Downing Street said: ‘We have not ruled out treaty change and we have already secured safeguards against Eurozone caucusing e.g. on banking rules.’

In fact: Again, the ‘safeguards’ the Government have secured are very limited (see abandoned commitment 8 above). The UK has no protection against Single Market laws affecting banks which pass through the Council of Ministers where the Eurozone has a permanent majority. Number 10’s response shows that they are not pushing for changes to voting procedures in the Council. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 10
We said: ‘The Prime Minister claimed that more regulations will be repealed this year than during the whole of the previous Commission. In fact, the size of the EU’s acquis is growing. According to the EU’s Eur-Lex database, the number of EU legislative acts in force has grown by almost 1,000 over the past year – from 22,139 acts on 1 October 2014 to 23,072 on 9 November 2015.’

Downing Street said: ‘We continue to press for a lighter regulatory budget.’

In fact: The Conservative manifesto for the 2014 European elections promised to ‘Cut red tape to reduce the costs to all businesses by at least £1 billion by 2019.’ There is no sign that the Government is still pushing for a £1 billion reduction – getting the EU to increase red tape at a slightly slower rate is not the same as a cut. The Government acknowledges that it has such little influence in the EU that it can’t even secure all of the minor reforms recommended by its own Business Task Force two years ago. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 11
We said: ‘The only way to stop ever-closer union is to end the supremacy of EU over British law. The phrase “ever closer union” was only inserted in the Maastricht Treaty at the UK’s request as part of the Major Government’s claims that it had put the brakes on federalism. Changing it would not alter how the ECJ interprets and creates EU law. The ECJ invented the concept of the supremacy of EU law – it was not in the original Treaties. The only way to end this is to Vote Leave.’

Downing Street says: ‘The constitutional phrase “Ever Closer Union” has been interpreted politically and legally to mean closer integration. The Court makes use of the preamble of the Treaties – where the phrase ‘Ever Closer Union’ is located – to make its rulings.’.

In fact: The 2015 Conservative manifesto promised: ‘No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference.’ In his Bloomberg speech of 2013 David Cameron argued that ‘we need fundamental, far-reaching change’ with the EU. In order to stop the ECJ transferring more powers from Member States to the EU, much more radical changes are needed than just removing the reference to ‘ever closer union’. When the ECJ invented the principles of the supremacy and direct effect of EU law over fifty years ago, it did not even refer to these three words – tinkering with them does not come close to the ‘fundamental, far-reaching change’ the Prime Minister promised. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 12
We said: ‘Cameron promised in 2014 that “if an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave” (BBC News, 28 November 2014, link). Yet as the ECJ ruled in September this year, “Union citizens who have entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment may not be expelled for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged.” Today, the Prime Minister ignored that ruling and claimed he had achieved his objective.’

Downing Street said: ‘This claim is misleading. The ECJ judgment that Vote Leave refers to actually endorses our plan.’

In fact: The ECJ judgment makes clear that jobseekers cannot be ‘required to leave’ – as the Prime Minister promised in November 2014 – ‘for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged’ (full judgment here). This confirms a 1991 judgment interpreting article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Expelling all jobseekers after six months can only therefore be achieved by Treaty change. Number 10 no longer says all jobseekers ‘will be required to leave’, merely that ‘they can be required to leave unless they have genuine job prospects’. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 13
We said: ‘Sir Jeremy Heywood has reportedly told the Prime Minister that his proposal to ban EU migrants from claiming tax credits in the UK for four years will be deemed illegal under EU law (BBC News, 4 November 2015, link).’

Downing Street said: ‘This is speculation. Our proposal is to ensure EU migrants cannot claim welfare for four years.’

In fact: It’s interesting to note that Downing Street does not deny that the Cabinet Secretary has said this. The European Commission was quick to say yesterday that this key promise is incompatible with EU law. In his speech yesterday, David Cameron made clear that he is ready to drop the plan: ‘I understand how difficult some of these welfare issues are for other Member States. And I am open to different ways of dealing with this issue.’ Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street (and the Cabinet Secretary).

 

Abandoned Commitment 14
We said: ‘Any deal the Government negotiates will be meaningless without treaty change before the referendum.’

Downing Street said: ‘The 1992 Edinburgh Agreement, which the Danish government secured, proves the opposite; it gave Denmark opt-outs that were legally-binding. Twenty three years later these opt-outs still hold. We have not ruled out treaty change.’

In fact: In 2014 David Cameron promised that there would be Treaty change before the referendum. Now Number 10 reveal that they are not looking at Treaty change until after the vote – when any EU member state can veto our changes. Vote Leave research has shown that key promises in the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement were broken by the EU. The Agreement declared that the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty on EU citizenship did ‘not in any way take the place of national citizenship’ and that the question of whether a person possessed the nationality of a member state ‘will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state’ . However, the EU has since reneged on this agreement – in 2001 the ECJ declared that ‘Union Citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’. In 2010, the ECJ held that a decision to deprive someone of national citizenship was a matter of EU law and that member states can no longer automatically strip citizenship from people who acquire it by deception. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

 

Abandoned Commitment 15
We said: ‘David Cameron has watered down his commitment to a “complete opt-out” from the Charter, which is not even mentioned in his letter today. In 2009, Mr Cameron called for “a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights” – now all he is proposing is a fudge.’

Downing Street said: ‘We are tackling this by enshrining in our domestic law that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not create any new rights.’

In fact: Number 10’s promises of domestic legislation are as credible as Tony Blair’s claims the Charter would have the same legal status as ‘The Beano or The Sun’. Their response is also legally inaccurate. It is firmly established that EU law is supreme over UK law – as spelled out in section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The UK’s so-called ‘opt-out’ from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Protocol 30), is meaningless – as the European Court of Justice made clear in 2011. The UK Supreme Court has since ruled that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has ‘direct effect’ in UK law. Putting the text of this Protocol into UK law will make no difference. Since 2009, the ECJ has used the Charter to create ‘the right to be forgotten’ and to create new prisoner voting rights. Any attempt by the UK to say that the Charter doesn’t apply in the UK will be deemed illegal by the ECJ and the UK will be subject to fines and damages as a result. Either way, it is much less than the ‘complete opt-out’ that David Cameron promised in 2009. Another commitment abandoned by David Cameron – as revealed by Downing Street.

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 11 November 2015.

The Government has committed to reduce in-work benefits for EU nationals during their first four years in the UK. If implemented, the Government argues the UK would become a less attractive destination for those looking to improve their living standards. This policy is intended to reduce inward migration by reducing the ‘pull factors’ that encourage EU migrants to move to the UK.

Owing to a lack of joined up thinking in Government, however, the plan will be completely undercut by George Osborne’s new ‘living wage’. The UK will therefore remain an extremely attractive destination for EU migrants, regardless of whether the Government succeeds in its plan to limit the benefits.

If the Government is able to negotiate a way to restrict benefits for EU migrants, the living wage would still increase the take-home income of the lowest earning EU benefits claimants with no dependants by £57.99 per week or £3,015.48 a year by 2020 (when compared to forecasts for 2020 if the UK had not introduced the living wage). This almost entirely undercuts the reduction in take-home income for single earners with no dependants that the Government is proposing.

If the Government is not successful in negotiating a deal to limit benefit claims by EU migrants the pull factors will become even stronger than they are now. For a single earner with no dependants their take-home income would increase by £134.23 per week or £6,979.96 a year by 2020 (when compared against 2020 forecasts that don’t have the living wage). This is an increase of more than 60% compared to the results the Government hoped to achieve when it set out its plans to limit EU benefits.

Sir Jeremy Heywood – the UK’s most senior civil servant – has warned that David Cameron’s proposed restrictions to migrant benefits are likely to be illegal under EU law. This means they are very unlikely to survive a challenge in the European Court of Justice.

Following the Government’s own logic this suggests that the combination of the Government failing to achieve the four year restriction to benefits for EU migrants and the introduction of the living wage, will lead to the number of EU migrants rising rather than falling.

Commenting, Vote Leave Communications Director Paul Stephenson said:

“People are worried that high levels of immigration from Europe are putting our NHS, schools and housing supply under pressure. David Cameron wants to change that and make the UK less attractive to migrants by restricting the benefits they can claim here.

But George Osborne’s living wage will completely undercut David Cameron’s EU negotiation. It means that the UK will be just as attractive to many migrants as it is now. If, as the Cabinet Secretary has warned, Mr Cameron fails to achieve EU benefit restrictions, the situation will get even worse.

The living wage is a great thing for many workers in the UK but it looks like George Osborne did not consider what impact it would have on David Cameron’s plans to restrict EU immigration before he announced it. It is clear that the only way we can get back control over immigration is if we Vote Leave in the upcoming referendum.”

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 8 November 2015.

Commenting ahead of the PM’s speech this week and the letter on EU renegotiation, Vote Leave Campaign Director Dominic Cummings said: “We expect Cameron to get what he’s asking for but what he’s asking for is trivial.

‘The public wants the end of the supremacy of EU law and to take back control of our economy, our borders, and our democracy. The only way to do this is to vote leave. No. 10 is panicking because people can see the renegotiation is a dishonest gimmick.”

The fact that David Cameron is sending this letter is itself a concession. He was forced into doing so after EU leaders complained that the renegotiation could not happen without the Prime Minister setting out his demands in a letter. Senior figures across Europe have been frustrated by the slow pace of his negotiations – with exasperation coming to a head at the European Council meeting in October:

Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, complained: ‘The UK government raised the problem of the referendum … It is up to the Cameron government to make proposals. It is not up to us’ (quoted in The Guardian, 15 October 2015, link).

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said no real progress had been made by mid-October: ‘I can’t say that huge progress has been achieved. I can’t say that nothing has been achieved. But to tango it takes two,’ said on 14 October: ‘And so we have to dance and our British friends have to dance’ (quoted by Reuters, 16 October 2015, link).

Angela Merkel told the Bundestag the following day that it was up to the UK to ‘clarify the substance of what it is envisaging’ (quoted in The Independent, 16 October 2015, link).

Charles Michel, Prime Minister of Belgium, said: ‘It is time for Mr Cameron to put his cards on the table’ (Press Association, 16 October 2015, link).

‘Senior EU officials and diplomats said that a substantive political negotiation at December’s summit will only be possible if Britain delivers clear, written proposals to Brussels and the 27 other national governments by early November’ (Reuters, 16 October 2015, link).

The Government’s negotiations are already running behind schedule. As Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform, said in June: ‘Cameron hopes to clinch a final deal in December’ (26 June 2015, link). Philip Hammond told reporters as recently as 22 September: ‘When I’ve had a few glasses of champagne I think there might be agreement at the December European Council, a package and we can move forward’ (The Daily Telegraph, 22 September 2015, link). But following the exasperation of EU leaders in October, and David Cameron’s forced announcement that ‘the pace will now quicken’, it is clear that the December Council will only be a ‘substantive discussion’.

The Government didn’t want you to see this letter. At the Downing Street press briefing where it was first announced that the Prime Minister would be sending this letter to President Tusk, it was made clear that the letter would remain confidential, not made available to Parliament and the public. It was only after Sir William Cash – Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee – objected, that Number 10 confirmed that the letter would be made public (Bill Cash’s blog, 19 October 2015, link).

Any deal will be meaningless without treaty change before the referendum… Any new deal which is dependent on a treaty change is liable to be struck down by the EU’s courts after the referendum. The European Court of Justice has previously held that a political declaration of the European Council which limits rights under EU law ‘has no legal significance’ unless and until it is incorporated into EU law (R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Antonissen [1991] 2 CMLR 373, 400). Any treaty changes that the UK might be promised ahead of a referendum could be vetoed after the vote by any one of the 27 other EU member states, several of which may have to hold referendums under their own constitutions. A treaty that has not been ratified before the referendum will have the same legal status as an unsigned contract.

… as the Cabinet Secretary warned this week. Sir Jeremy Heywood has reportedly told Ministers that their proposal to ban EU migrants from claiming tax credits in the UK for four years will be deemed illegal under EU law (BBC News, 4 November 2015, link).

But the Government cannot promise that it will achieve that before the referendum. Following his speech in Berlin earlier this week, George Osborne admitted that some of the Government’s demands would need treaty change but was unable to say when this will happen. Although he admitted that ‘the changes we are seeking will require treaty change,’ all he could say on timing was: ‘how that is delivered and when that is delivered is of course subject to the negotiation’ (BBC News online, 3 November 2015, link).

The Prime Minister has already shelved nine out of ten of his demands. Vote Leave research has shown that 92% of David Cameron’s pledges to change the EU look like they will not be delivered by his EU renegotiation – either because they have been dropped, or because they require treaty change. (See the full Vote Leave research paper here). This includes black-and-white promises on crucial parts of the UK’s relationship with the EU, such as the Prime Minister’s promise in 2009 to negotiate ‘a complete opt-out’ from the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (David Cameron, speech on the EU, 4 November 2009, link).

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 10 November 2015.

Reacting to David Cameron’s speech this morning, Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave, said:

“The public wants the end of the supremacy of EU law, to take back control of our democracy and borders, and to spend the money wasted in Brussels on our priorities like the NHS and science. Cameron’s renegotiation isn’t even asking for this – he is only promising to change what he already thinks the EU will give him. People won’t trust his spin. The safest choice is to Vote Leave.”

On what was missing from the speech:

The Prime Minister has already shelved nine out of ten of his demands. David Cameron used to have a longer list of demands to secure the ‘fundamental, far-reaching change’ which he talked about as recently as his 2013 Bloomberg speech. Vote Leave research has shown that 92 per cent of the pledges David Cameron has made to change the EU since he became leader of the Conservative Party look like they will not be delivered by his EU renegotiation – either because they have been shelved, or because they require treaty change. This includes black-and-white promises on crucial parts of the UK’s relationship with the EU, such as:

Securing treaty change before the referendum. In January 2015, the Prime Minister said his plans ‘do involve … proper, full-on treaty change’ (The Guardian, 4 January 2015, link).

Taking back control of employment and social regulations. In 2005, Cameron stated that ‘our aim should be to take back control of employment and social regulation’ (David Cameron, Policy Programme, 10 October 2005, link).

Limiting ECJ jurisdiction over criminal law. In 2009, Cameron promised to ‘limit … the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level’ (BBC News, 4 November 2009, link).

Requiring EU migrants to have a job offer before coming to the UK. In November 2014, the Prime Minister claimed that ‘we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here’ (BBC News, 28 November 2014, link).

Requiring EU jobseekers to leave after six months. Cameron promised in 2014 that ‘if an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave’ (BBC News, 28 November 2014, link). Yet as the ECJ ruled in September this year, ‘Union citizens who have entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment may not be expelled for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged.’ Today, the Prime Minister ignored that ruling and claimed he had achieved his objective.

Ending the European Parliament sitting in two places. The Conservative European Parliamentary Manifesto of 2009 said that: ‘The European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels’.

Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 stated that ‘We will push for further reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy’. Cameron did not mention agriculture in his speech.

Reforming EU structural funds. The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 pledged ‘further reform of… Structural Funds.’ Structural funds were not mentioned in Cameron’s speech.

A full list of the pledges which have been shelved is available in this Vote Leave research paper.

On Cameron’s four objectives

1. ‘protect the single market for Britain and others outside the Eurozone’

Asking the EU formally to recognise that the currency of the UK is the pound sterling shows how stuck in the past the EU is – it’s more than a decade since we made clear that the UK would not be joining the single currency (despite calls from the CBI and others for us to do so). As Cameron acknowledges in his letter, ‘the United Kingdom has a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone.’

The UK can be permanently outvoted by the Eurozone. The UK has extremely little influence inside the EU’s institutions. Our presence in the two key bodies – the Council of Ministers and the Parliament – has declined over our forty years of membership. We are now set to be permanently outvoted by the Eurozone caucus in the Council of Ministers. Since records began, the UK has not managed to block a single proposal placed in front of the Council from becoming EU law. On all 72 occasions on which the UK has voted against a measure in the Council of Ministers, it has gone on to become law – 40 of these since David Cameron became Prime Minister. The direct budgetary costs of these laws to the British taxpayer is over €3 billion (£2.4 billion) a year. (See the full Vote Leave research here.)

Without treaty change, the EU can carry on breaking its promises to non-Eurozone countries – as the PM and Chancellor know. Speaking in Berlin last week, George Osborne highlighted the way the EU has recently gone back on promises not to require countries like the UK to bail out countries in the euro. Osborne showed how frustrated he was about this, saying:

‘We must never let taxpayers in countries that are not in the euro bear the cost for supporting countries in the eurozone. This is exactly what was attempted in July, when, out of the blue, in flagrant breach of the agreement we’d all signed up to, and without even the courtesy of a telephone call, we were informed we could have to pay to bail out Greece. That would have been grossly unfair … we shouldn’t have to fight a running battle on these issues’ (George Osborne, speech to the BDI, Berlin, 3 November 2015).

In March 2011, the UK was made a promise that the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) ‘should not be used’ for bailing out Eurozone states. The Prime Minister assured the House of Commons that Britain would be exempt from bailouts, and has repeatedly used the deal as proof that he can renegotiate Britain’s membership with the EU. Indeed, the 2015 Conservative manifesto boasted: ‘We took Britain out of Eurozone bailouts, including for Greece – the first ever return of powers from Brussels.’ Yet in July this year, the EU broke its promise and agreed to use the EFSM to grant €7.2 billion in bridging finance to Greece. Article 122(2) of the Treaty of Rome still allows the Council of Ministers (where the Eurozone has a permanent majority) to grant loans secured on the whole EU budget to insolvent Eurozone states. Without Treaty change, this could happen again.

2. ‘write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union’

Nearly 1,000 more regulations over the past year alone. The Prime Minister claimed that more regulations will be repealed this year than during the whole of the previous Commission. In fact, the size of the EU’s acquis is growing. According to the EU’s Eur-Lex database, the number of EU legislative acts in force has grown by almost 1,000 over the past year – from 22,139 acts on 1 October 2014 to 23,072 on 9 November 2015.

3. ‘exempt Britain from an “ever closer union” and bolster national parliaments’

The only way to stop ever-closer union is to end the supremacy of EU over British law. The phrase ‘ever closer union’ was only inserted in the Maastricht Treaty at the UK’s request as part of the Major Government’s claims that it had put the brakes on federalism. Changing it would not alter how the ECJ interprets and creates EU law. The ECJ invented the concept of the supremacy of EU law – it was not in the original Treaties. The only way to end this is to Vote Leave.

Bolstering national parliaments will require treaty change – and the present ‘yellow card’ scheme is being ignored. The role of national parliaments in the EU is currently governed by the EU treaties. National parliaments have the right to be sent European Commission proposals and draft legislative acts from the EU institutions. In an eight-week period following the proposal of a draft legislative act, national parliaments may send the EU institutions a reasoned opinion stating that the proposal does not comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. If a third of national parliaments forward such an opinion, the proposal must be reviewed, but it may nevertheless be adopted. This so-called ‘yellow card’ procedure has been invoked twice. On one occasion, the Commission withdrew the proposal, on another, it decided to maintain it. The Luxembourg Court has never struck down an EU measure for breach of the principle of subsidiarity, usually requiring the European Parliament and Council of Ministers merely to produce a form of words stating they have thought about the principle. Any proposals for the ‘yellow card’ procedure to be replaced by a ‘red card’ procedure, under which national parliaments could actually block a legislative proposal, would require full treaty change following an inter-governmental conference. This would require unanimous agreement by the heads of government, and ratification by every member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements.

4. ‘tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and enable us to control migration from the European Union, in line with our manifesto’

David Cameron is no longer talking about restricting free movement to people with a firm job offer. In November 2014, the Prime Minister claimed that ‘we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here’ (BBC News, 28 November 2014, link).

The Prime Minister’s claims about what he has achieved are contradicted by the ECJ. The Prime Minister claimed in his speech that ‘if those coming from the EU haven’t found work within six months, they can be required to leave’. Yet as the ECJ ruled in September 2015, ‘Union citizens who have entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment may not be expelled for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged.’

The Cabinet Secretary has warned the Prime Minister that it can’t get what it wants on welfare. Sir Jeremy Heywood has reportedly told the Prime Minister that his proposal to ban EU migrants from claiming tax credits in the UK for four years will be deemed illegal under EU law (BBC News, 4 November 2015, link).

On the need for treaty change

The Prime Minister said today: ‘I want to be very clear: if we are able to reach agreement, it must be on a basis that is legally-binding and irreversible and where necessary has force in the Treaties’ (David Cameron, speech at Chatham House, 10 November 2015).

Any deal the Government negotiates will be meaningless without treaty change before the referendum. Any deal which is dependent on a treaty change that hasn’t happened by the time of the referendum is liable to be unpicked or struck down by the EU’s courts after we vote on it. The European Court of Justice has previously ruled that a political declaration of the European Council which limits rights under EU law ‘has no legal significance’ unless and until it is incorporated into EU law. Any treaty changes that the UK might be promised ahead of a referendum could be vetoed after the vote by any one of the 27 other EU member states, several of which may have to hold referendums under their own constitutions. A treaty that has not been ratified before the referendum will have the same legal status as an unsigned contract.

But the Government knows it cannot secure that before the referendum. Interviewed last week after his speech in Berlin, George Osborne admitted: ‘Well I do think the changes we are seeking will require treaty change, how that is delivered and when that is delivered is of course subject to the negotiation’ (BBC News, 3 November 2015, link).

On the Charter of Fundamental Rights

David Cameron has watered down his commitment to a ‘complete opt-out’ from the Charter, which is not even mentioned in his letter today. In 2009, Mr Cameron called for ‘a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ – now all he is proposing is a fudge. He said today: ‘we will enshrine in our domestic law that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not create any new rights. We will make it explicit to our courts that they cannot use the EU Charter as the basis for any new legal challenge citing spurious new human rights grounds … We need to examine the way that Germany and other EU nations uphold their constitution and sovereignty … [and] consider how this could be done in the UK’. This simply repeats the text of Protocol (No 30) to the Lisbon Treaty, which the Blair Government negotiated, and which the ECJ has since ignored.

The Charter gives EU judges the power to decide issues like prisoner voting. In 2009, the then Labour Government claimed ‘it is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from … the charter’, having previously said it would be no more binding than ‘the Beano or The Sun’. This was quickly shown to be incorrect. The European Court of Justice made clear in 2011 that the UK did not have an opt-out, and the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Charter has ‘direct effect’ in national law. The ECJ is using the Charter to do whatever it likes, recently holding that it should decide whether or not prisoners should have the vote.

David Cameron’s fudge. The only way that British legislation could stop the Charter having legal effect in UK courts is for primary legislation to state explicitly that it takes effect ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’. This would provoke considerable conflict with the EU given the ECJ’s longstanding doctrine of the supremacy of EU law. If the UK were to pass primary legislation stating that it takes effect contrary to EU law and re-asserting the historic supremacy of British law, the ECJ would undoubtedly find that it is contrary to EU law. This would leave the UK’s membership in a legal twilight zone and expose the UK to fines in the ECJ. It is therefore unlikely that this is the course of action David Cameron envisages. The most likely scenario is that as part of the theatre around the renegotiation, in which all 28 members sign a document promising a new UK deal in the next EU Treaty, some words are inserted promising to change the status of the Charter in the next Treaty. Such words should be taken as seriously as Tony Blair’s promise that the Charter would have ‘no more legal effect than The Beano’. It must also be remembered that nothing in David Cameron’s proposed changes to the Human Rights Act will end the supremacy of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which will also remain in charge of human rights law in the UK.

On the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk

When Denmark was negotiating with the EU, they set out their position in a 250-page White Paper – all David Cameron has managed is this 6-page letter. It is now more than six months since the general election, and all David Cameron has published setting out his negotiating objectives is one letter. In contrast, after Danish voters narrowly rejected the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum on 2 June 1992, the Danish Government began to negotiate guarantees from the EU. By 9 October – just four months later – they had produced a 251-page white paper, ‘Denmark in Europe’. It was discussed at the meeting of the European Council in Edinburgh on 11–12 December 1992.

David Cameron didn’t even want to send this letter. He was forced into doing so after EU leaders complained that the renegotiation could not happen without the Prime Minister setting out his demands in writing. Senior figures across Europe have been frustrated by the slow pace of his negotiations – with exasperation coming to a head at the European Council meeting in October:

Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, complained: ‘The UK government raised the problem of the referendum … It is up to the Cameron government to make proposals. It is not up to us’ (quoted in The Guardian, 15 October 2015, link).

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said no real progress had been made by mid-October: ‘I can’t say that huge progress has been achieved. I can’t say that nothing has been achieved. But to tango it takes two,’ said on 14 October: ‘And so we have to dance and our British friends have to dance’ (quoted by Reuters, 16 October 2015, link).

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, told the Bundestag the following day that it was up to the UK to ‘clarify the substance of what it is envisaging’ (quoted in The Independent, 16 October 2015, link).

Charles Michel, Prime Minister of Belgium, said: ‘It is time for Mr Cameron to put his cards on the table’ (Press Association, 16 October 2015, link)

The Government didn’t want you to see this letter. At the Downing Street press briefing where it was first announced that the Prime Minister would be sending this letter to President Tusk, it was made clear that the letter would remain confidential, not made available to Parliament and the public. It was only after Sir Bill Cash – Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee – objected, that Number 10 confirmed that the letter would be made public (Bill Cash’s blog, 19 October 2015, link).

On the negotiations

The Government’s negotiation is not being taken seriously in the EU. George Osborne was in Berlin last week outlining the UK’s proposals – but a German government source revealed that they were not taking him seriously, saying: ‘Osborne must have his crusade … We are happy to play along’ (BBC News, 2 November 2015, link).

Even the BSE campaign were unimpressed with David Cameron’s speech

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP and a member of the Britain Stronger in Europe (BSE) board, put out a statement saying Cameron’s speech was ‘deeply depressing’. She said:

“Cameron’s vision for an EU based on little more than an increasingly deregulated free market is deeply depressing.

The EU has given us so much – free movement and the right to make a living across a continent, protections at work and key environmental laws – yet the prime minister wants to reduce our relationships with neighbouring countries to little more than business transactions. That’s not a vision I share.

Britain must remain a part of the EU because we’re better off when we work together on cross-border challenges we face: from climate change to bank regulation. The EU will only succeed if it’s much more than just a market.”

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 3 November 2015.

The CBI’s claim to be the ‘voice of business’ took a further blow yesterday after a leading member of the British Polling Council concluded that its polling of business opinion on the EU ‘looks pretty dodgy’. This damning verdict followed a complaint by our Campaign Director Dominic Cummings. It brings into serious question the claim by the CBI that ‘8 out of 10 firms say UK must stay in EU’. Indeed, the CBI has now back-tracked from its own survey, claiming that it was ‘never intended to be a poll of all British businesses.’ The CBI has deliberately fiddled its surveys and misled the public on business attitudes towards the EU. It has no credibility on the issue and should not be trusted.

CBI is funded by the EU

New research by Vote Leave reveals that the CBI receives millions from the EU and public bodies. Taxpayers’ money from the European Commission has funded the CBI to the tune of almost £1 million over the past six years – its largest source of public money. As the Mail leader asked this morning, ‘could this have anything to do with its support for the European project?’

Since 2009, taxpayer-funded public bodies including the European Commission have paid over £7 million to the CBI in membership fees and other payments. Not only does this call into question the CBI’s claim that it is the ‘voice of business’, but its own rules mean that many of these public institutions will have to resign from the CBI if it continues with its plans to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU. The Scottish Independence referendum was an embarrassing episode for the CBI after a number of major public bodies resigned when it registered to campaign against independence. A month later the CBI was forced to withdraw from the campaign.

Outgoing CBI boss John Cridland has given an interview to the FT today in which he sees the criticism of the CBI’s ‘dodgy’ polls and its unfaltering pro-EU stance as a ‘badge of honour’. Most people would see this behaviour as shameful.

US trade diplomat’s EU ties revealed

Michael Froman, a US trade representative, made headlines last week by claiming that the UK was unlikely to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US in the event of Brexit. However, as John Hulsman wrote in yesterday’s CityAM, the next US President is ‘highly likely to do exactly the opposite’ of what Froman implied. What the trade representative failed to mention was that he had previously worked in the European Commission as a member of the Forward Studies Unit. He clearly wasn’t the only one to have accepted a ‘duty of loyalty’ to the EU.

Watch out for EU funded scare stories

As the referendum campaign continues we should expect more of these attacks from those with vested interests. The EU gives millions each year to organisations to be cheerleaders for Brussels. That’s why EU-funded reports say that 90% of UK farmers wouldn’t survive outside the EU. That’s why former EU employees are warning the UK won’t be able to do its own trade deals with the US. That’s why the EU-funded CBI will put out scare stories about how the UK won’t survive outside of the EU. They should not be trusted.

This was no better demonstrated by a report from Agra Europe last week which claimed that 90% of UK farmers wouldn’t survive the loss of subsidies following a Brexit. It only became apparent days later that Agra Europe and its sister company had received more than €200,000 in EU funding.

The press release issued by Vote Leave on 3 November 2015.

New research by Vote Leave reveals that the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) received nearly £1 million from the European Commission between 2009 and 2015 – and that the EU is the CBI’s single largest source of public sector funds, which total more than £7 million.

The research – based on hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests – reveals that:

▪ Between 2009 and 2015, the CBI received £955,484 from the European Commission. This equates to 12% of the CBI’s retained income in the same period.

▪ 95 public bodies were members of the CBI during the period 2009–15, providing the CBI with £5,172,204 in membership fees from the public sector rather than industry.

▪ Since 2009, the CBI has received £7,031,797 from 140 taxpayer-funded public sector bodies in membership fees, conference fees or other payments. This raises serious questions about how far the CBI is truly the ‘voice of business’.

▪ If the CBI continues with its plans to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU, many of these public institutions will have to resign from the CBI.

Commenting, Rob Oxley said:

“The CBI is funded by the EU, so it is no surprise that it wants to campaign for the UK to stay in the EU regardless of whether there is any reform or not.

The CBI leadership has consistently got it wrong on the EU, from its disastrous campaign for us to join the euro to its undermining of the case for an EU referendum.

The CBI leadership wants to stay in the EU at all costs, yet with so much public sector and European Commission funding it is deeply compromised. We think its public sector members should resign if the CBI decides to campaign for the UK to stay in the EU.”