Andrew sent the following letter to the Daily Telegraph earlier today:

Dear Sir,

Your reference to me in an article on MPs’ expenses was misleading and mischievous. The main article was about living expenses claimed by Members of the Westminster Parliament, against whose greed and dishonesty we campaigned during the European elections. However, MEPs do not claim living expenses: we receive a flat rate subsistence allowance. Whilst there is no requirement to keep any record of how that is spent, I have kept a record of money spent on accommodation, hotels and meals, which I show to my colleagues in case they should think that I am enriching myself. I have never heard of any other MEP keeping such a record. The only other personal expense received is for travel. I make a claim only for amounts expended (the exact fare if I fly and the exact mileage if I drive or am driven). The amounts received in both subsistence and travel are on public record and I am not under any obligation to make any other return.

The allowances are quite distinct from personal expenses and cannot be used for personal enrichment or personal expenditure. The General Expenditure Allowance (for office expenses in the UK) is paid at a flat rate of 4,202 Euros per calendar month. I have it paid into a separate account and I keep a strict record of all money spent from it. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, I shall declare that surplus to the relevant office. I have not been asked to make any return but I have the exact figures if I am asked to do so.

Each MEP receives an annual amount of 43,697 Euros for communications with constituents. I have spent money on printed newsletter informing constituents of what I have been doing in the European Parliament and on newspaper advertisements inviting them to contact me if they should need my help. The content of any communications is scrutinised by the Parliament and there are strict rules to ensure that party logos do not exceed a certain size. The amounts spent are on public record. There is no obligation for me to make any other return.

Each MEP is allowed to spend over 17,000 Euros per calendar month to employ staff to help him or her in the role of MEP. They help me with office management, correspondence, production of my newsletters and advertisements, distribution of my newsletters, routine research into the EU and its activities and very particular research into matters that appear on the agendas of my committees and matters on which I must vote in the plenary session. MEPs of the large groups simply vote as they are instructed: we must decide individually and together how we should cast our votes. The persons employed and amounts paid are all on public record. There is no requirement to make any other return.

I was in the Parliament in Strasbourg throughout the week beginning 8th March and no attempt was made to contact me. It was only in the late afternoon of Thursday during my return trip from Strasbourg that I heard indirectly about your attempt to send me a series of questions. Why did you not contact my office when you knew that I would be there? The answer must be that you had already decided to write that I had declined to comment.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Brons

British National Party MEP for Yorkshire & North-East Lincolnshire

“However, I abstained in the resolution, as a whole, against Cuba.

“One reason was that the resolution purported to give authority to the European Union and its functionaries to speak and act on behalf of member states. The other reason was that many member states of the European Union prosecute and imprison people for exercising non-violent freedom of expression, the holding of heretical opinions or taking part in dissenting activity.

“It is utterly hypocritical for parties that favour political repression in Europe to point the finger at states such a Cuba that share their repressive and anti-democratic opinions and activities.”

ANDREW Brons has written to the editors of the Italian newspapers which include Rosarno in their circulation.
The MEP for Yorkshire and North East Lincolnshire wrote:

“I was a member of the European Parliamentary delegation that visited Rosarno last week, to investigate the troubles that took place in January.

“We met and heard accounts from two centrally-appointed prefects, one regional representative and several representatives of trade unions, trade associations and campaigning bodies. We even heard brief accounts from two of the migrants although there were no opportunities to ask extensive questions.

“The people we did not meet were the ordinary people of Rosarno. I had intended to make my own way to Rosarno to meet local people but the distance from our hotel in Lamezia to Rosarno was too great. I should be most grateful if your readers who were witnesses to any of the incidents in January would write to me and give me their accounts.”

It’s only Wednesday and I was able to make my fourth contribution in Parliament with a question to Baroness Ashton, the European Union’s High Representative (Foreign Minister).

“Baroness Ashton, your role is defined in Article 18 of the Lisbon Treaty as contributing to the development of a common foreign and security policy, as mandated by the Council, which of course contains the representatives of nation states. However, the same Article (18) states that you must be a Vice President of the Commission, from which you operate.

“Furthermore, I understand that Commission staff will be given preference over the diplomatic and foreign ministry staff of member states when staff are appointed to the European External Action Service.

“It is clear that your role was designed to undermine, continually, the influence of member states, not only individually but also collectively in the form of the Council, over the EU’s foreign policy.

“You and your successors will be mandated by the Council only on paper. The real driving force behind the EU’s foreign policy will be the (unelected and unaccountable) Commission and member states will be marginalised continually.”

In her reply Baroness Ashton said that the staff of the European External Action Service would be appointed on the criterion of merit

The name of the British National Party MEP was attached to an explanation of vote that was posted by four UKIP MEPs.

“I have been assured that this was an innocent bureaucratic error and have no reason to doubt the integrity or honesty of the Parliament’s civil servants”, reported Andrew.

“However I was appalled and dismayed to have been associated with UKIP who I regard as the spineless hypocrites of the Establishment’s Safety Value.

“I would also like to distance myself from the anti-Iranian sentiment of much of the debate in question.

“I am concerned that the West is seeking a cause for starting a new war in the Middle East – this time against Iran.”

After Andrew Brons spent an hour on the telephone yesterday evening to a range of EU departments, he managed to get his name removed from the vote explanation and the record set straight.

“The e-mails also reveal that scientists sceptical of the hypothesis have been squeezed out of the peer review process to avoid flaws in research being revealed to public scrutiny.

“Can a hypothesis that depends on manipulation of data be a proper basis for justifying enormous expenditure and the closing down of factories such as the Corus plant in Middlesbrough?

“The European Union pays enormous subsidies to environmental pressure groups that agree to advise the EU to follow a policy to which it is already committed.

“Is it appropriate for the European Union to use public funds to subsidise pressure groups? This wastes public money, gives bogus support for the European Union’s policies and compromises the independence of campaigning organisations.”

If their movement to other states is facilitated, it will be much more difficult to check the genuineness of their status and more difficult to locate them when their true status is discovered.

Although the United Kingdom is not in the Schengen Area, the European Union has a track record of regularising illegal immigrants. Today’s holder of a long term visa or residence permit might be tomorrow’s illegal migrant and the day after’s EU citizen with complete freedom of movement.”

“Fifth time lucky” – that was the response of Andrew Brons after he was called as the last speaker of the afternoon session today in the Strasbourg Parliament today.Andrew had been overlooked four times in a row, so was delighted he was able to make his one minute speech on globalisation.

THis is what he had to say:

“Global Capitalism moves people around the world – some legally, some illegally – as though they were simply expendable factors of production.

“It moves goods and even services around the world in a bid to undercut the prices of its latest victim, closing factories, farms and offices and throwing workers on the scrapheap.

“It moves money around the world, closing workplaces in Europe and the developed world and opening them in places where wage rates are a fraction of the cost (above).

“The European Union’s embrace of Global Capitalism is an embrace that will smother us all. Whenever, there is an economic crisis, politicians line up to denounce protectionism. However, it is only protectionism that will enable us to rebuild our manufacturing bases and guarantee our peoples their livelihoods. Economies exist or should exist to serve our peoples. We do not exist to serve economic forces.

“There is no way in which Europe can compete with the Third World without becoming part of it and it is happening already.”

“One comment that I would make about our approach (to this inquiry) is that we heard from and questioned officials and representatives of organisations but we did not hear much from two groups of people who might have been able to tell us what happened.

“One is the population of immigrants. We heard from two of them briefly but shortage of time meant that we were not able to ask them any questions. The other group from whom we heard nothing at all was the ordinary population of Rosarno. If we had heard from both of these, we might have discovered the motives or even the identity of the people in the car from which a shot was fired that started all of the trouble.”

(in response to a claim by an MEP that the immigrants were all legal)

” I would like to comment briefly on the legal status of the immigrants. We did hear contradictory evidence. I shall give just two examples: the representative of Medicin Sans Frontieres said that most (90%) of the immigrants did not have labour permits. The representative from ARCI said that most did have labour permits. I am not in a position to judge which evidence is the more reliable. I suspect that they were looking at two different samples of immigrants.”

Dear Sir

Darius Guppy’s article on the money-making activities of commercial banks might have been a revelation to your readers but it was simply confirmation of what British Nationalists have been saying for decades.

When I was an Economics student over forty years ago, the credit creation role of the commercial banks was mentioned but its significance was never explained. There is scarcely ever any mention or explanation of it in the Establishment media. The Sunday Telegraph does deserve credit for having published this article.

When the role of credit creation is assigned to the banks, that credit is created as a debt which must be repaid with interest. Even if the amount created was the appropriate amount to absorb any growth in the economy, the amount repaid, with interest constitutes a withdrawal of spending power and must be covered by loans in the next period that compensate for the repayment of the debt plus the interest , as well as any amount necessary to absorb subsequent growth.

The result is spiralling debt and a constant mismatch between the needs of the economy and the amount of money in circulation.

The political right (or rather neo-liberals) must set aside its prejudices against state ownership and realise that private control over credit creation is no more acceptable than allowing Darius Guppy’s friend Tommy to resume his replication of bank notes.

Yours faithfully

Andrew Brons
British National Party MEP
Yorkshire & North East Lincolnshire