Saturday, 19 March 2016

BREXIT - Switzerland Voted Not to Join the EU as Member on 1 March 2016 and is this a Pointer to the British People What they Should do on 23 June 2016

Image result for EU Switzerland out        Image result for EU UK outImage result for Switzerland UKImage result for EU UK outImage result for EU UK outImage result for EU UK outeu-draft-migrant-deal-with-turkey---reuters
Image result for turkey EU outImage result for turkey EU out      Turkey will be a part of the EU and have free-passage to the UK through EU Visas in the very near future. So that means that 75 million Turkish people will have access together with those coming from the Middle-East conflict having an easier access to come to Britain over the next 5 years. You have been warned !


On the 1 March 2016, after 24 years of engagement with the EU since 1992, Switzerland voted 126 to 46 in their Parliament to withdraw the application to join the EU. Therefore the Swiss have seen sense and where they are now going it alone, making their own trade agreements with any nation in the world and even still with the EU. This makes a mockery of the those in the UK who wish to stay in the EU with regard to trade and where Britain too can negotiate trade deals outside the EU or within the European Union.
But the decision by Switzerland to not join the EU is a clear indication that the EU is not working, for if it were, they would have certainly wanted to stay in the EU as it is its largest trading partner. Therefore why has Switzerland decided to leave the EU behind and go it alone? For they certainly cannot fear any backlash from their main trading partner.


For the answer to the reasons why, the following Swiss article may enlighten the reasons why and educate those who think that it is better to stay in the EU. The article is entitled, 'Swiss Parliament decides to withdraw the application to join the EU' - http://www.lukas-reimann.ch/ger_details_1176/_Swiss_Parliament_decides_to_withdraw_the_application_to_join_the_EU.html
 


Today is the end of an era for the Europhiles: For years Switzerland has had a request pending to join the Union. But today the country quietly let that application lapse. Its citizens can all see for themselves one of the differences between being in the EU or being outside it.
 
Switzerland applied to join the European Union on 16 Mai 1992. In Brussels, the Government of Switzerland signed an official application to join the EU. The signatures have never been suspended and the application was not formally withdrawn. Switzerland has been applying for EU membership for 24 years.

The people voted in different referendums against becoming closer to the greedy EU law. But the Government said, the people’s vote did not oblige them to stop accession negotiations with the EU and in future the situation could change. Europhiles have warned for years about the dangers of Switzerland remaining outside the EU. But today Switzerland is stronger and freer as a result of being outside, rather than inside the EU. Independence and non-bureaucratic flexibility is an important part of the Swiss success. Today Swiss polls find those keen on EU membership dwindling in the 5 per cents and today there is an important change in Swiss politics that has been controversially disputed for many years:

Nobody seems to be interested in becoming a member in the coming billions and trillions of years far into the future: The Swiss parliament passed a proposition created by the EU-sceptical National Councillor (MP) Lukas Reimann, to withdraw the request of 1992. It is hardly surprising that the EU looks like an ever less attractive club to join. What, after all, is the appeal of joining a club into which the entire world can apparently move?

The vote of the Federal Assembly about this motion ended with a 126 “Yes” and a 46 “No”. Now the senate (second chamber) will discuss the proposition. Then the Swiss Government has to dissolve its accession team and stop its application to join the EU. Switzerland had been brutally treated as a nation aspiring to join the EU, in all its negotiations. It had to accept idiotic bureaucracy in the previous era of the Europhiles. Now Switzerland is a more independent nation and in a better position to negotiate with the EU.

“This is a clear and historical message from the Swiss parliament to British voters. We wish you the best of luck for Brexit. These days, Switzerland is called Britzerland because Swiss people support the Brexit”, said MP Lukas Reimann. He pointed out: “A big advantage of leaving the EU, is free trade worldwide, not only between the member states, making it easier and cheaper for British companies to export their goods to the rest of the world. 


The boost to income outweighs the billions of pounds in membership fees that Britain would save if it left the EU. The UK can have even more of its important negotiation power internationally, by leaving the trading bloc: It would be free to establish trade agreements with non-EU countries worldwide. Worldwide, Switzerland has many more free trade agreements than with the EU. A well-educated scientist moved from Britain to the EU-free zone of Switzerland to set up his own company. Within a few hours, he could completely establish his own first company without expensive lawyers and accountants - even they can’t know all the regulations from Brussels. 

The vast majority of small and medium-sized firms do not trade with the EU but are restricted by a huge regulatory burden imposed from abroad. Leaving the EU makes the United Kingdom more open to the world without being bound or enslaved by EU laws on areas such as agriculture, justice and home affairs. The era of the EU application is over for Switzerland. And the era of the EU membership could be over soon for Britain. 


This is Britain's chance of the century for a better future and for prosperity!

Euro scepticism is increasing all over Europe. The EU is hopelessly out of date and utterly incapable of coping with the challenges of the 21st century. A courageous and visionary Brexit is the beginning of freedom and prosperity in the whole of Europe! The almost interminable money sent to the EU without real transparency and without real accountability could be used to modernise Britain instead.
Switzerland and the UK have enjoyed close relations for a long time. Ever since the 18th century, British politicians have made much of Switzerland's neutrality on the European continent and repeatedly took Switzerland's side when dealing with other European powers. The Cantonal Tree erected just off Leicester Square, London, England celebrates the friendly relations between Britain and Switzerland. Brexit will make this traditional friendship better and more successful than ever. British and Swiss people are clever: They know why Europe is the most fascinating continent because of diversity, human rights, competition between the states and freedom. I wish you a courageous and visionary referendum!

Author 
Sandro Wächter, Brugg, Switzerland (Twitter: @sandro_waechter) 
in cooperation with Swiss MP Lukas Reimann, Wil, www.lukas-reimann.ch

For a further insight to why the Swiss do not want to be a member of the European Union can be gleaned from 'The Spectator' article, 'The other side of the Alps: living and investing in Switzerland - The politically-savvy Swiss are so happy they stayed out of EU' by Elliot Wilson - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/the-other-side-of-the-alps-living-and-investing-in-switzerland/

 

Switzerland has always been different: something of a sovereign interloper, the guest in the corner of a party that no one remembers inviting. Live here long enough and you begin to see the contradictions at work. People with an almost pathological aversion to confrontation, yet who own more guns per person than any country bar America, Serbia and Yemen. Rural craftsmen eking out simple lives assembling Rolex watches. A love of both money and thrift. One of the world’s most advanced economies, which closes down entirely on Sundays.


Yet perhaps the most glaring paradox is the nation’s relationship with the continent around it. The Swiss never quite ‘got’ the European project. They weren’t an original signatory to the European Coal and Steel Community. Nor did they join the European Economic Community, opting instead to cut a free-trade agreement with the bloc in 1973, the year Britain joined. In 1992, a national referendum to join Norway and Iceland on the subs’ bench as members of the European Economic Area was defeated by the narrowest of margins.

Brussels prodded and prompted, but to no avail. Switzerland signed up to the Schengen Agreement (a decision that, with the advent of the migrant crisis, it now rather regrets), but never entertained the thought of swapping the Swiss franc for the euro. In another plebiscite in February 2014, the country voted to limit the number of inbound ‘migrants’, a label attached even to white-collar workers from western EU states. A UK vote in favour of Brexit would be a cue for Swiss legislators to thrash out a new deal on migrant quotas with Brussels.

To understand Switzerland’s antipathy to outsiders, you just need to glance at its history. Wave after wave of foreign antagonists, from the Hapsburgs to Napoleon to the Nazis, have invaded, occupied or stared menacingly over the mountain passes, instilling a ferocious sense of independence. It’s easy to forget this is less a country and more a hodgepodge of 26 cantons, ranging from the mighty Zurich, population just under 1.5 million, to tiny Appenzell Innerrhoden, with just 15,854 — the female half of whom only won the vote in 1991. ‘This is a country that had no capital or national parliament until 1848; federalism is deeply rooted in the Swiss mentality,’ says Diccon Bewes, British author of Swiss Watching. ‘People think of themselves as Bernese or Genevois until they go abroad, which is when they become “Swiss”.’

Over time, notes Lorne Baring — managing director of B Capital, an asset-management company in Geneva and London — the Swiss ‘carved out their own robust, successful and well-defined model of sovereignty. It’s a system based on a politically savvy electorate that is content to make their own decisions.’

Little wonder Brussels and Bern, the seat of Swiss government, never saw eye to eye. And the longer the European project staggers on, the greater the vindication felt by the citizens of Lausanne and Lucerne. ‘The average Swiss looks at Europe with horror,’ says Bewes. ‘They see no growth, huge debts, the disaster that is Greece, a crumbling currency, the north paying for a fiscally irresponsible south. And the general reaction is: we made the right decision not to join.’

The Swiss are typically highly informed about political issues, with a robust grasp of the long-term implications of fiscal decisions. ‘Political culture holds that it’s better to devolve power to the local level,’ says Daniel Kalt, the chief economist for Switzerland at UBS. ‘That federal power plus direct democracy helps instill discipline in fiscal policy across the country.’

This kantönligeist, a word that translates directly as a ‘spirit of federalism’ and more broadly as pride in running local affairs, also imbues the country with competitive bite. ‘Cantons compete with each other to attract the best companies and the best taxpayers,’ says Kalt. By contrast, the Swiss view the EU as ‘an extension of the French obsession with centralised control, which reduces competition. That’s not what we want at all.’

But kantönligeist can only get you so far. After a blessed decade during which Switzerland benefited from a weak franc and an inflow of skilled workers (nurses from France, doctors from Germany), darkling clouds have begun to gather. Much of this is due to the perpetual weakness of the eurozone, the largest buyer of Swiss-made goods. When the Swiss National Bank unpegged the franc from the euro early last year in the run-up to the launch of European QE, the franc soared. Investors rushed to buy a currency described by Charles Sizemore of Dallas-based Sizemore Capital Management as ‘the ultimate safe haven, the ultimate hedge against volatility’. The price of Swiss goods rose sharply, hitting exporters and an already embattled tourism industry. According to the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry — a barometer of the wider economy — exports fell 3.3 per cent year-on-year in January, the first monthly fall since 2009. Marco Estermann of SIX, the country’s leading stock exchange, expects unemployment to rise over the next few years as growth slows.
Switzerland has also faced attacks on its rigid secrecy laws, which protect investors but act as camouflage for extracurricular activities from money-laundering to tax evasion. Washington passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act in 2010, expressly to prevent Americans from parking untaxed earnings offshore; the pain was felt not by Swiss banks, which continue to profit from global upheaval, but US expats. ‘The problem for a US national living in Switzerland is finding a bank willing to take them on as a client,’ says Sizemore. ‘This is really too bad, because Swiss banks… are particularly good at serving the needs of people who travel regularly or have business dealings in multiple jurisdictions.’

2,000 - Number of global firms with HQs in Switzerland
3.3% - Year-on-year fall in Swiss watch exports in January 2016
$84,815 - Swiss GDP per capita, 2013

Yet Switzerland will survive, adapting in its adamantine way to the lurching and listing of the outside world. Major industrial firms will move more production to eastern Europe and Asia to trim costs, while keeping their board and executives firmly planted on Swiss soil. ‘There are around 2,000 global corporates headquartered here, not just letterbox companies but real structures,’ notes Estermann. They come for the low tax rates, and stay for the high quality of life. Glencore, the FTSE-listed but Baar-based global commodity giant, springs to mind. Nor is the nation’s reputation for money-management likely to come under threat, despite negative yields on Swiss government bonds, low returns on other domestic financial instruments and a slowdown of the local property market. Buying a Swiss chalet was ‘a real money-maker over the past decade,’ says Baring. ‘That moment has now passed.’

But good investment opportunities remain. Estermann points to the host of leading Zurich-listed multi-nationals, from GPS chip-maker U-blox to specialty chemicals firms Syngenta, EMS-Chemie and Clariant, plus industrial giants ABB and Schindler. Sizemore notes that the iShares SMI, an exchange-traded fund that gives investors access to a weighted basket of the largest Swiss stocks, is on track to deliver dividend income of around 4 per cent in 2016.

Then there are the likes of food giant Nestlé and drug makers Novartis and Roche, corporate rocks on which the Swiss economy is built. ‘You really can’t lose with Nestlé,’ says Sizemore. ‘It will still be around in a hundred years’ time, making stuff you need to replace on a daily basis. Who knows if Google will still be around then, but you can be pretty sure that your grandchildren will still be eating chocolate and drinking bottled water.’ He adds that for all their recent woes, Switzerland’s big banks, Credit Suisse and UBS, are trading at valuations ‘that would have seemed crazy pre-financial crisis. They are a decent buying option down the line.’

But perhaps the best reason to invest here right now is that Switzerland is a great environment for bear investors. ‘If you see the world as a bad place that will get worse, having a Swiss bank account is a great move,’ says Baring. ‘Around 35 per cent of clients are UK-based non-doms, so they need to put their money to work in a safe place that’s outside but not far from Britain, and a place that is in Europe but not part of the EU. Switzerland fits the bill perfectly.’


Stop Press - Cameron Forced to put in the Queen's Speech or suffer defeat in parliament if he did not exclude the NHS from the TTIP trade negotiations

Cameron was forced to include a clause yesterday (19.05.16) so that the NHS was excluded in the TTIP negotiations. This should tell everyone that he is working for the corporations, as the TTIP is a corporate treaty in reality and why should he have had to be forced to do this if the TTIP is so good for the people?

But he is having to do this under duress. Unfortunately for the NHS this will not stop the EU from privatising the NHS over a relatively short period of time when we have signed to stay in the EU and where because the TTIP makes it clear that 'MONOPOLIES' cannot exist, the EU will demand that the NHS is privatised.

And Britain will not be able to do a single thing against this, as we would then be trapped inside an all-powerful EU and under their total control. Don't believe me, return here in a mere 10 years time to see that all the above has unfortunately come true if we stay in the EU. For only by voting OUT can the NHS be saved and that is ultimately the truth.

I just wish people would wake up to the reality of the EU and where we shall definitely not be able to save the NHS and anything else for that matter that we cherish so much, once we sign to stay in the EU. For this time it will be forever.



Dr David Hill

CEO, World Innovation Foundation

19 March 2016 (updated 20 May 2016)



Reference:

1. 'Brexit: efficient Swiss find EU affairs run nothing like clockwork' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/07/brexit-efficient-swiss-find-eu-affairs-run-nothing-like-clockwor/

2. 'EU referendum: Can Switzerland show UK route to Brexit?' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35615604 (note that this is the only article that was reported by the BBC on the Swiss not wanting to join the EU and a clear indication of their bias towards the government's 'in-Campaign'. For if the Swiss had decided to stay in the EU, it would have been broadcast from the rooftops from morning til night and debated for a few days after). I wonder why the BBC was so economic with this EI news? Anyone any answers? )


3. 'Switzerland–European Union relations' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

 

4. 'The other side of the Alps: living and investing in Switzerland - The politically-savvy Swiss are so happy they stayed out of EU' - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/the-other-side-of-the-alps-living-and-investing-in-switzerland/

5. 'Switzerland votes 'No' to EU membership, supports Brexit - See more at: http://www.sigmalive.com/en/news/international/142385/switzerland-votes-no-to-eu-membership-supports-brexit#sthash.QrGWumHH.dpuf' - http://www.sigmalive.com/en/news/international/142385/switzerland-votes-no-to-eu-membership-supports-brexit

 


HM Government & the EU Most Probably Covering-Up and Muzzling the Mainstream UK and EU News Media for their 'own' Political Reasons

The few articles above are the 'only' ones from mainstream media that appeared in UK and EU media and because Switzerland's 'out' vote is important to inform people, this can be seen as a 'cover-up' by mainstream media outlets to not inform the British people. Therefore the people of United Kingdom are not being told even highly material factors and where they should clearly understand this before they take the word of the government who are working on a strategy of fear that is not really there and a media cover up when it suits them. Indeed it clearly shows also that the BBC is being controlled by 10 Downing Street, for did you know that Switzerland had decided not to join the EU? Ask yourself that question and where the only answer is that you have to come to the conclusion that there is definitely a cover-up strategy against the people being orchestrated by the UK government.

Sunday, 6 March 2016

Brexit - The Truth Behind the EU's Accounts and the Endemic Corruption that Supports a Non-Changing System of Economic Waste and Jobs for the 'Boys'

Image result for EU corruption accounts        Image result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for The great european rip-offImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accountsImage result for EU corruption accounts




EU Annual Accounts


The Myths about The EU's Accounts Being Signed Off and Not Being Corrupt in the Slightest - The 'Truth' is Completely Different and That is Even from the EU Own Auditors and Their own Findings, so It Must be True, as otherwise, The EU would be Lying now wouldn't they?

 
How anyone can back further EU membership when you look at the EU's own Auditor's findings for their highly qualified EU accounts, is an insane judgement and beyond my comprehension in human intelligence. For the EU auditors state clearly that the EU accounts are given the comment and finding that,

"We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity"

Consequently those who wish to stay in the EU, must be able to accept corrupt systems and people who are in the EU. It therefore says very little about these people and questions have to be asked clearly about their integrity, if they put their names and support behind such regimes that clearly are against transparency and the rule of our sovereign law; as corruption even according to the EU's own auditors is endemic within the whole rotten operations of the EU. The problem of course is that the EU has now had over 20 years and more of first-hand knowledge of all these internal crimes that are being undertaken continually, but have done hardly anything to eradicate them. Indeed as the EU has grown ever larger, the corruption has got far worse, perpetrated by EU national states (EU 28), EU companies and EU citizens. Things are just going to get worse and where I for one do  not wish to be controlled by a corrupt political organization that simply does not care about how the people's taxation disappears year-in, year-out, without no change happening. Indeed questions have to be asked to the effect, is the top EU people  a larger version of what has happened at FIFA and they are as corrupt as the FIFA officials. Because as we all know, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (Professor Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet).
 

For what really those who want to stay in the EU are saying is that they are happy with signing off the EU's accounts in what we do not normally understand or accept accounts for the UK and where this is not the same as for transparent and balancing UK accounts, as they could not be signed off here in Britain.


In this respect, the EU accounts are highly qualified as I have stated previously and where no-one in the UK could get away with what the EU Auditors state in their annual findings, as they are totally unreliable.


Therefore if those who want to stay in the EU mean that Auditors of the EU sign off unreliable accounts they are right, but where you also have to agree with the statement, that also they are not signed off on the basis of what is accepted in all other walks of life. If they were, we would all be in prison, serving time.



Therefore for people's information, I copy and paste the 'exact' extracts from the 2014 EU Auditor's Report so that you are respectfully informed of the true state of the situation. But to comprehend what is the 'truth', it depends on your understanding of signing off of acceptable accounts, as bad accounts can be signed off if you wished to do that also and that is exactly what the EU has now done for 20 years, signing off highly 'unreliable' accounts.

The following is therefore listed as verbatim and taken from the EU's Auditor's actual reporting for the 2014 accounting period.
 
2014 - EU audit brief
Introducing the 2014 annual reports of the European Court of Auditors
 
...For many years now, we have identified persistent high levels of error in EU spending.
So, we highlight the scope for making better use of available information and full use of corrective powers to reduce errors further and recover more misspent funds...
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President of the European Court of Auditors
Payments for 2014 are materially affected by error.
We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
...It is important that the Commission analyses the areas of persistent high levels of errors as soon as possible and assesses opportunities for reducing this while strengthening the focus on performance in spending.
 
Personal Comment: Signed off but highly qualified that are given an 'adverse opinion on their legality and regularity' by the EU Auditors themselves. Who in the real world of business and commerce would accept such a situation, but apparently where all EU governments do, including  the United Kingdom, who wish to stay in this corrupt regime of elitist self-interest. This of course to the total detriment overall of the taxpayer and 90% of the 500 million+ EU citizens who pay for all this dire state of affairs. 
 
Example: Significant errors in research and innovation costs declared for reimbursement under FP7 by an SME
 
We found that €764 000 of costs declared by an SME working with 16 partners on a renewable energy project financed through FP7 were almost entirely ineligible. The SME owner had charged an hourly rate well above that set in the Commission's guidelines.
Moreover, we identified sub contracting costs which were neither an eligible component of costs nor procured by means of a tendering procedure. 
 
The declared indirect costs also included ineligible items, which were based on estimates and could not be reconciled with the beneficiary's accounting records.
 
The main source of error for the spending on economic, social and territorial cohesion as a whole continues to be infringement of public procurement rules, accounting for nearly half of the estimated level of error. This is followed by the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries' cost declaration, infringement of state aid rules and the selection of ineligible projects.
 
The impact of errors varies between these two spending areas.
Cases of serious failure to comply with public procurement rules that we identified in our audit work include, for example, unjustified direct award of contracts, additional works or services, unlawful exclusion of bidders, as well as cases of conflict of interest and discriminatory selection criteria.
Example: Unjustified direct award of public works
In a project in Malta related to the reconstruction and upgrade of a motorway section of a TEN T road network, the contracting authority negotiated directly a contract with one company without a prior call for competition. This is not in line with EU and national procurement laws and the expenditure declared for this contract is ineligible. Another main cause of error is ineligible expenditure. This is due to, for example, expenditure declared outside the eligibility period, overcharged salaries, the declaration of costs not related to the project, non compliance with national eligibility rules, or revenue that has not been deducted from the declared costs.
 
Example: Incorrect declaration of salaries
In a project in Portugal related to a training programme for young people, the grant agreement provisions on how teachers’ salaries are to be calculated were not complied with by the beneficiary. In addition, the teachers did not work as many hours as declared. This resulted in personnel costs being overcharged.
Examples of overstated or ineligible claims
Aid for permanent pasture
In the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Poland, Slovakia and Spain, some land claimed and paid for as permanent grassland was in reality fully or partly covered with ineligible vegetation (dense shrubs, bushes, trees and rock).
Aid for arable land
In the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom, we found cases of land claimed by beneficiary farmers as arable when this was not the case. In Spain, aid was paid for land claimed and recorded in the land parcel identification system as arable land which was, in reality, a motocross track.
 
Examples of eligibility errors
We found three cases of suspected intentional circumvention of the rules when claiming for aid. These cases were forwarded to the European Anti Fraud Office for analysis and possible investigation. For confidentiality reasons, we cannot disclose specific details of these cases but can describe the general nature of these errors:
 
Well established companies, which would not qualify for financing, set up new entities to artificially meet the eligibility and selection criteria.
Groups of persons set up several entities for the purpose of obtaining aid which exceed the ceiling allowed under the conditions of the investment measure. Although the beneficiaries declared that these entities operate independently, this was not the case in practice.
 
Examples of non compliance with agri environment commitments
We detected six such cases in Germany, Italy and United Kingdom. For example, in the United Kingdom, a beneficiary did not respect the commitment he made to close off a hay meadow for grazing before 15 May of each year.
 
We found significant weaknesses in nine of the 12 reviewed systems of Member States. For the five paying agencies that we visited on the spot, the system weakness that we found were very similar to those identified and reported in previous years.
 
Comment & Conclusion
The EU's Accounts are signed off on the basis of a great deal of riders as briefly outlined above and are highly qualified. The EU's Auditors make this very clear in their declarations.
 
The most damning statement being, We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
 
No other accounts in the UK say, would be allowed to do this as they are not a true picture of reality, as the books do not balance and there is a high degree of corruption as stated in outline above. As previously stated, all copied and pasted verbatim from the actual EU audit for 2014.
 
For if you were a potential investor in a company called EU Limited and knowing of the highly qualified accounts, you would not buy into such a company due to its inherent corruption (and based upon the EU's Auditor's comments).
 
Or, the big question is to all those who just want to stay in the EU, would you, no matter what; because once signed up after the referendum, there will be no coming out as the treaty makes it clear that it is legally irrevocable and therefore forever? Therefore what if we make a very big mistake and realise this in the future. What then?



Stop Press - Cameron Forced to put in the Queen's Speech or suffer defeat in parliament if he did not exclude the NHS from the TTIP trade negotiations

Cameron was forced to include a clause yesterday (19.05.16) so that the NHS was excluded in the TTIP negotiations. This should tell everyone that he is working for the corporations, as the TTIP is a corporate treaty in reality and why should he have had to be forced to do this if the TTIP is so good for the people?

But he is having to do this under duress. Unfortunately for the NHS this will not stop the EU from privatising the NHS over a relatively short period of time when we have signed to stay in the EU and where because the TTIP makes it clear that 'MONOPOLIES' cannot exist, the EU will demand that the NHS is privatised.

And Britain will not be able to do a single thing against this, as we would then be trapped inside an all-powerful EU and under their total control. Don't believe me, return here in a mere 10 years time to see that all the above has unfortunately come true if we stay in the EU. For only by voting OUT can the NHS be saved and that is ultimately the truth.

I just wish people would wake up to the reality of the EU and where we shall definitely not be able to save the NHS and anything else for that matter that we cherish so much, once we sign to stay in the EU. For this time it will be forever.


Dr David Hill
CEO, World Innovation Foundation
6 March 2016 (updated 20 May 2016)



 References:
 2014 - EU audit in brief - Introducing the 2014 annual reports of the European Court of Auditors -    http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/auditinbrief-2014/auditinbrief-2014-EN.pdf#page=10