The EU Crime Club: More Reasons For Leaving    Jim Hutchinson's Two Tomorrows

Lady Belinda The Happy Fox Page List

 

top  

EU: Government Organized Crime

 

       Exposing The Spiralling Cost of EU Regulations
Matts Persson: February 5, 2009

The Government’s own figures for the cost of legislation, reveals that instead of decreasing, both the flow of regulations and their cost impact have in fact skyrocketed. Since the launch of the reform agenda in 2005, the annual cost of regulation in this country has gone from £16.5 billion to £28.7 billion – an enormous increase of 74%.

Counted cumulatively, regulations introduced in the last ten years have cost the UK economy £148.2 billion – the equivalent of 10% of GDP, and enough to abolish income tax for a year, or cut the national debt by 24%.

This is in contradiction to the Government’s claim last month that the administrative cost of regulation is coming down.

Likewise, similar efforts at EU level have failed.  Our study finds that a staggering 72% of the total cost of regulation in the UK stems from EU legislation. In other words, EU regulations introduced in the past ten years have cost the UK economy almost £107 billion.

The cost of EU legislation has gone up year-on-year over the past decade. In 2008 alone, EU legislation dating from 1998 cost the UK economy £18.5 billion – up from £12.2 billion in 2005.

If the current flow of regulation continues, by 2018, the cost of EU legislation introduced since 1998 will have risen to more than £356 billion.  This is around £14,300 per British household. For the same amount, the UK Government could pay off almost 60% of the national debt, or abolish income tax for 2 years and still leave the Treasury with a surplus.

All this tells a clear story. The fundamental problem is simply not being addressed – Matts Persson Open Europe.

 

 

Obama's Government
 

 

 

 

Bent Bankers: Start Here

Bank of England Nominees aka BEN

This study was presented at the meeting of the Forum for Stable Currencies on October 5th, 2000 by Robert Owen, one of the Directors of SAFE, Struggle Against Financial Exploitation.

Robert Owen ~ THE BANK OF ENGLAND
[House of Lords 5th October 2000]

On 27th July 1694 a private joint-stock association called ‘The Bank Of England’ was formed with a capital of £1.2 million, this capital was ‘loaned’ to the government in consideration of a monitory and banking monopoly over the Kingdom of William III, ergo The United Kingdom. [See Bank of England Act 1694]

The government of Clement Attlee nationalised The Bank of England in 1946, issuing Treasury Notes in the sum of £11,015,100. All the stock was owned by the British Government, although The Bank of England continued as a ‘Royal Charter Company’ with the absolute protection of confidentiality and security afforded by a Royal Charter and The Official Secrets Acts.

Obviously the nationalisation was not welcomed by its share holders or bankers of the day.

The ideal time for the share holders to strike back and re-take the Bank of England came with the government of James Callaghan 1976-79 Callaghan had virtually no majority. ‘UK Ltd’ was and effectively bankrupt, with double digit annual inflation and Sterling frequently suspended on international exchange markets.

On the 6th April 1977 the Bank of England formed the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES LIMITED, (BOEN), a wholly owned subsidiary private limited company.  Its Memorandum & Articles of Association’s Objectives are;-

“To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

MELANIE JOHNSON MP, Minister for the Treasury, informed me that “BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, which was granted an exemption by the Minister of State for Trade from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because;

“it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders”.

As we have seen above The Bank of England with its Royal Charter Status and Official Secrets Act, has more confidentiality and security than the MoD and is even immune from questions being asked in the House of Commons. So why form a wholly owned ‘NOMINEE’ COMPANY which in 23 years HAS NEVER TRADED and only lodges ‘Short Form’ un-audited accounts ?

I allege that The Bank of England was sometime after 1977 effectively ‘Privatised’, it’s shares being held in BOEN, thereby making a ‘closed loop’ , i.e. although BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, BOEN has effective control of BOE through the said shares owned by the secret share holders. I am advised that only 50% of the shares were sold, but they have ALL the voting rights ! Share holders appoint directors, look who makes up the ‘Court’ of Directors of The Bank of England, bringing one to the only conclusion that the Bank of England is owned covertly, if not by the banks, then by a higher banking entity which has the interests of the banks at heart, which justifies the rampant and systemic fraud perpetrated upon their customers with arrogance and impunity.

It is said to be the Duty of every Chief Constable to enforce the Law but there is no record of Regina v High St Bank, except, The Queen -v- Barclays Bank Plc, ex-party OWEN ~ which I brought. Police funding stops them from being effective against organised, national, international crime, perpetrated by banks.

In 1997, in the foot steps of Three Rivers District Council, who won their action against the Bank of England for failing to control BCCI, several of us who were casualties of banks made formal complaints against the BOE for not enforcing control over our respective high street banks, but contrary to the Bank’s own Statement of Principles and Banking Acts we were rejected on the grounds that the BOE does not intervene between bank and customer. Within months the BOE complaints staff and department had been transferred to Canary Wharf under the guise of the Financial Services Agency who are unable to act on complaints emanating prior to their formation.

 

 

 

 Top

 

Back Home Next