22nd October 2013: Yesterday evening at the European Parliament in Strasborg, Andrew Brons gave a one and a half minute speech during a debate on the Enforcement of International Trade Rules.
"The Rapporteur protests that, "There is no protectionist aim whatsoever", as though protectionist might be one of those hate labels, like racist, so popular with cosmopolitans.
"The Rapporteur is using the word protectionist in its strict economic sense, referring to tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade.
"However, if he had been using it in its more general and every day sense, his denial would be equally valid. The EU is emphatically not trying to protect Europe's interests - still less the interests of member states.
"The objective is to follow the World Trade Organisation Globalist agenda. Retaliation would not be used to protect Europe's economic interests. It would be used to enforce observance of the WTO'S Globalist rules.
"The Theory of International Trade is that unrestricted trade makes the world, as a whole, richer. However, even if that were always the case, it would not follow that it made everybody or even every country richer.
"Free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, which is what all Globalists, including the EU Globalists are driving for, can only work if prices and wages are on undifferentiated scales.
"If that happens, the developed world, including Europe, has everything to lose. The Third World and the emergent economies have everything to gain."
After his speech Andrew was 'blue-carded' by Jorg Leichtfried, an Austrian Social Democrat MEP, who asked him what he would put in place of it (meaning either the proposed measure or the World Trade Organisation).
"Ideally, I would like member states to revert to being sovereign countries that could decide what trade they would take part in and what trade they would not take part in. However, my second choice would be that the European Union would actually protect the interests of Europeans instead of driving towards a global international free trade area."
17th October 2013: At the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 9th October, Andrew Brons made the following contribution to a debate on Migratory flows in the Mediterranean, with particular attention to the tragic events off Lampedusa.
"The loss of life among illegal migrants in the Mediterranean is of course an appalling tragedy. Improving the rapidity of response to accidents is necessary but of course it is only part of the solution.
"The main answer is to remove the incentive for them to travel to Europe. We must replace the policy of allowing most of these people to stay with a policy allowing none of them to stay. When that message gets through to would-be migrants they will stop taking the risk. Repatriation of illegals really will save lives.
"The architects of the EU asylum policies, including people in this house, are directly and personally responsible for deaths in the Mediterranean. They should really hang their heads in shame.
"The logical extension of non-refoulement is a recipe for allowing all Third World illegal migrants to stay. Of course the real unspoken migratory policy of the EU is to cleanse ethnically the indigenous populations of Europe and replace them with people from the Third World. When that happens, parts of Europe become outposts of the Third World."
Andrew also asked a rhetorical question of one MEP who had spoken during the debate:
"I was impressed by the generosity of the lady about this 50 million. I wondered how many she is prepared to house in her own home or are the poor and homeless in Europe supposed to make way for them and remain poor and homeless?"
You can hear Andrew's speech and question here and here.
17th October 2013: Contribution from Andrew Brons to a debate in AFCO, held on 14th October 2013, on a proposal to establish a single resolution mechanism for all credit institutions in the Euro-zone and in other countries that choose to participate.
"Looking at the proposal at first sight, you might be forgiven for believing that this was primarily a proposal with economic objectives and that the institutional architecture, as it has been called, is simply a collection of political means of achieving those objectives.
"However, if you look at the Explanatory Statement (in the original Rapporteur’s report) and listen to the very clear explanation from the present Rapporteur, you see that the reverse is the case.
"In the third paragraph of the Explanatory Statement, it says, “it is paramount to destroy the links between banks and sovereigns*”.
"We were told by the present Rapporteur** that banking union was essential to European (by which is meant EU) integration and an enhancement of the role of the European Parliament was in the forefront of her explanation. It is true that the present Rapporteur also mentioned scrutiny by the parliaments of member states but the reaction to that from members of this committee indicated that that part of her proposal was unlikely to survive.
"It seems that EU integration is the principal object and the crisis is simply the pretext, whilst any perceived economic advantages- such as the single market in financial services – are incidental.
"I shall not take any more of your time; you have heard all this before. However, it is possible that people out there watching the web-streamed version, might not have done so."
* by which it means governments of member states.
** A Rapporteur is an MEP who writes and presents a report to a committee or to the whole Parliament. On the occasion, one Rapporteur wrote the report and a different Rapporteur presented it to AFCO.
10th October 2013: This morning at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Andrew Brons made the following contribution, under the Catch the Eye procedure, to a debate on the Rule of Law and human rights in Russia, especially with respect to xenophobia* and homophobia**.
"We have heard from the Commissioner that there ought to be respect for the Rule of Law - that people should not be condemned without a distinct breach of the law established by the ordinary courts.
"However, we heard yesterday from the President of the Civil Liberties Committee - no less - that people accused of complicity in an undoubtedly horrific murder in Greece, could be regarded as guilty before any trial.
"Before we point the finger at Russia, members of this House should look into their own hearts.
"We have heard that Russia is restricting freedom of expression. If that were the case, it would be reprehensible. However, many EU member states lock people up for expression of opinions that contain no hint of violence.
"Commissioner Reding would like to go further and criminalise Thought Crime.
"I am sure that many members here have been speaking honestly and from the heart. However behind this debate is an agenda that has little to do with sexuality or freedom of expression. It is about Russia's foreign policy."
* xenophobia means, literally and etymologically, fear of strangers, which can only be a Redingian Thought Crime.
** homophobia means, literally and etymologically, fear of sameness, which is simply a nonsense.