Britain's possible exit from the EU ('Brexit'): a list of relevant links followed by an outline of points relevant to public health, with special reference to Tobacco Harm Reduction / vaping issues. The links are important since they give facts and figures that are critical to the decision.
Here, for convenience, we assume that a referendum may take place, and that it asks UK voters if Britain should leave the EU; and that the question asked is presented as one of two options, either of which should be selected:
- Should Britain stay in the EU?
- Should Britain leave the EU?
It is understood that a Yes or No option would not be offered in case a "Yes" response offers a more positive action to voters and affects the result.
This page is designed to be an expanding list of links and topics. If you can supply any relevant links (or arguments), please use our Contact page - thank you!
Why does anyone want to leave the EU?
You could start with the fact that the EU is a vast, stinking cesspit of corruption; and that it murders on an industrial scale for profit and successfully covers that up with a torrent of propaganda. It deliberately, for profit, removes individual rights in areas such as consumer products, resulting in significant issues such as the removal of the ability to avoid serious disease and the removal of the right to a normal life expectancy. Then add the significant increase in consumer costs across the board; and the imposition of laws and regulations that many people find plenty in to object to, or would do were the issues not deliberately obfuscated by government.
What are the implications of Brexit?
Specifically with regard to UK public health of a British exit from the EU, and for THR / vaping issues in particular: the term "substantial" is probably the best word to use - if a Referendum with a vote to leave takes place. The EU imposes tens of thousands of preventable deaths on us for profit and intends to increase this to multiple millions in order to protect the smoking economy. All this death and disease can be avoided once we leave the federation and get back control of our own laws.
However, this assumes that (a) a referendum on the UK leaving the EU takes place, and that (b) a "Leave" vote results. Unfortunately, the first is not certain and the second does not seem likely at this point.
Governments and their best friends the transnationals love the EU more than life itself, and most people are propaganda victims and think the EU is a good thing. You can easily convince a blind man that the sky is pink, if that's all he ever hears on the subject; but he only needs half an eye to see that it is a lie. A significant part of the EU's activity is ensuring you never even get half an eye, and they are ably assisted in this by governments; after all, who can fail to love a structure that puts all important laws beyond the reach of the citizens' ability to influence them.
Brexit? Yes please!
Nicholas Stone for CapX.
A convincing list of economic reasons to leave the EU.
Prof Rodu on how many deaths the EU Snus ban has caused: see .
No "loss of 3 million jobs after Brexit"
Brexit would not cause the loss of 3m jobs and this is just a propaganda fearmongering tool.
Because the purpose and function of the EU is to place laws and revenue channels beyond the reach of the public; because it is an anti-democratic structure designed to remove the ability of citizens to affect any major policy, no matter how harmful. Because the design objective is to protect governments and transnationals to the detriment of the public.
Because the EU is a neo-communist structure designed to protect governments and transnational industries from any democratic or consumer-led threats to their power and revenues, and because EU law is superior to UK law, and therefore Brussels tells us what we can or cannot do and what we can or cannot buy. Because the EU removes individual rights and forces ill-health and early death on sub-groups of citizens. Because the EU is a major force for oppression. Because the EU kills and oppresses minorities, without there being any realistic legal route for citizens to challenge the laws.
If the designed effect of the EU were to be the improvement of freedom and choice, to improve our health without regard to the cost to government and transnational corporates, to lower consumers' costs, and above all protect our rights - then we could not argue. In practice the EU is the opposite of all of those things and is designed to be so. It is a near-totalitarian structure designed to enforce a centralised version of stability at any cost. Membership results in appalling public health crimes, removal of individual rights and choices, and increased costs for consumers.
Why is the EU a negative for public health?
Firstly, you need to appreciate that the EU deliberately kills over 10,000 UK citizens a year for profit . It deliberately inflicts serious disease on many more and does everything possible to protect cigarette tax revenue and pharmaceutical industry revenues for treating the staggering volume of serious disease that the EU itself causes. It deliberately inflicts the 8-year average reduction of lifespan they claim is caused by smoking on all smokers without exception by removing any recourse to safe alternatives - which apart from the enormous profits also means enormous savings for government in any socialised state when large numbers of people die early . Until you understand this, you might believe the EU-generated propaganda that covers up such issues.
If we compare the UK with Sweden, it immediately becomes clear that the EU has killed very large numbers of UK citizens and intends to kill a lot more, by means of the 23 year old Snus ban, and soon the de facto ban on vaping about to be implemented. In Sweden, they have full access to all THR products: modern low-risk alternatives to smoking that smokers will switch to if they are allowed. These are banned in the rest of the EU, with the result that the very great number of lives saved in Sweden have been lost here, and the huge volume of serious disease prevented there has all profitably occurred here. Look:
We can estimate that at least 10% of all UK smoking deaths are caused by a ban on access to Snus: 66% of Swedish male tobacco consumers are snusers while only 33% are smokers. After a ban of 23 years here, it is impossible that any less than 10% of UK smokers would not have switched to Snus if given truthful information, since Snus has no clinical elevation of risk for any disease and the health outcomes of smokers who switch to Snus or who totally quit are the same. A smoker who switches to Snus is a non-smoker in every respect including health outcomes.
The EU Snus ban successfully kills on an industrial scale, and is only done in order to protect revenue streams - fairly obviously... And now the EU wants to regulate ecigs out of existence too; that means they want to prevent the 50%+ switch to ultra-low-risk alternatives that is now in the process of taking place. That means they want to stop the prevention of 50,000+ smoking deaths per year (half or more of the 100,000 a year they say are killed in the UK by smoking). That means they want to kill millions of UK citizens for profit.
The EU is a vast, stinking cesspit of corruption that wants to make you seriously ill for profit and kill you for profit.
The Snus ban
When Sweden joined the EU they demanded and received a derogation (exemption) from the EU-wide Snus ban which was implemented in 1992. Otherwise they would not have joined. Why join a federation that guarantees to kill tens of thousands of your citizens?
Snus is mostly used by men, who find it easier to switch to the specially-processed specially-packaged oral tobacco than women. In 2003, Sweden's male smoking prevalence was 17% and it has fallen at the staggering rate of 1% per year ever since; we can see, then, that it will be 5% by 2016. A 5% prevalence is the rate internationally acknowledged by the Public Health industry as 'insignificant' or 'equivalent to no or very little smoking for all practical purposes'. This is understandable when we consider that male smoking prevalence in the UK was said to be around 80% in the 1960s. So, we see straight away that Sweden will have no male smoking, or the international definition of it anyway, by next year. This is due to their unique option, within the EU, of being able to switch to a low-risk alternative.
No other EU country (or any other developed country anywhere, come to that) has the remotest chance of achieving this.
You can try to calculate the exact figure for the many thousands of lives that would have been saved here had the ban not been put in place (and never removed even when obvious that it was a public health disaster of epic scale); and just as importantly, perhaps, the vast amount of serious disease caused by the ban (and by how much that figure would be reduced if we leave the EU). Keep in mind that ASH UK state for every smoking-related death, another 20 people are ill as a result of smoking. If this is correct, by saving half the UK's suggested annual smoking-related deaths (half of 100k = 50k), as an exit from the EU would allow, it indicates that, if such figures provided by the Public Health industry are correct, 1 million cases of illness will be prevented at any given time. This level of disease is extremely profitable for those who determine the voting in the EU.
In the UK alone, the number of lives lost because of the Snus ban is in the hundreds of thousands, and the cases of serious disease here caused by the EU as a result, as explained above, must now number in the millions. The EU has caused hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer and heart disease here, deliberately, for profit, to benefit government tax revenue, pharmaceutical industry profits, and cigarette trade receipts.
The EU is a vast, stinking cesspit of corruption that murders on an industrial scale for profit.
Possibly not. Governments love the EU, and the UK is no exception. All the noise about it is simply to try and get lower costs of membership and perhaps nothing else. Cameron loves the EU and will do anything to stay in - as would any UK leader or anyone else running an EU member country.
If an in/out referendum does take place in 2017, which way will the vote go? Almost certainly (by today's measures) it would be "Stay In".
This is for three important reasons:
So, if it comes to a vote, and if that happened tomorrow, it seems likely that the vote would be around 60% for "Stay In". You can expect that as a 2017 referendum approaches, the propaganda war on behalf of the government and major industry to try and ensure people vote to stay in will ramp up to massive proportions. You will not be able to go one day without seeing advice to stay in being pushed hard.
Expect the BBC to be in the forefront of the propaganda campaign to stay in: they do as they are told (the BBC operates as a UK gov propaganda tool whenever no other imperative overrules this; and they do the same for the EU, having received £22.4m from the EU to date); and when the paymasters take a day off, their socialist cadres make sure the hard-left agenda takes precendence. And that's UK in and vaping/Snus out. The Left always without fail want absolute control of the production apparatus and its revenues, which means that the EU is their darling.
 Some people, such as Prof Rodu, think it could be a lot more.
 In a given year when UK tobacco sales are £14 billion (around 2013, for argument's sake), the tobacco trade earn £2bn, the government earn £12bn in taxes in total (VAT plus tobacco tax), and the pharmaceutical industry earn about £4bn from treating the disease resulting.
In addition to the £12bn government makes on the frontend, they make the same on the backend: when smokers die 8 years early (the average reduction in lifespan that the Public Health industry claim is caused by smoking), they save a fortune on pensions, on the relatively high healthcare costs for the elderly, and on other social support costs for the elderly. So they make £12bn on the frontend and a £12bn equivalent, in savings due to early death, on the backend. Then they also make another couple of billion or so on all the taxes associated with the cigarette trade: all the income tax and corporate taxes paid by anyone anywhere connected with the manufacture, import, warehousing, distribution, and retail of tobacco. And then some more in other minor channels, probably. All that totals around £26bn, minus their costs of around £5 or £6bn or so.
So all in all, the UK government is a greater than 90% stakeholder in tobacco sales, and as a result, you buy 18 out of the 20 cigarettes in a pack directly from the government. Can you see a reason, by any chance, that gov UK would like to protect cigarette sales? Or why they might want to stay in the EU as that takes all responsibility for protecting the trade out of their hands?
And as an aside: you might also have noticed that pharma makes about double the income of the tobacco industry out of it. Easy to work out: take whatever figure you think the costs of smoking-related illness are to the NHS, and half of that is the drugs cost (drug costs are around 45% of NHS costs for any treatment area on average, but drugs for treating smoking-related disease are among the most expensive - the costs of cancer drugs for example are exceptionally high; therefore it is likely that drug costs are significantly higher than the average 45% of total cost). A nice windfall for pharma: multiple billions per year in fact. Can you think of any reason, now, why the giant pharmaceutical transnationals will be putting intense pressure on the UK government to ensure we stay in the EU, given that if we leave at least half of that bonanza will vapourise?
And as a final footnote on this point: did you notice that the tobacco industry earn so little out of smoking compared to the others, who are raking it in, that they are not just only minor partners in the trade but you could quite reasonably suggest that all they do is ship product for their bigger partners. Their job is just logistics, and acting as a scapegoat. They like the deal, by the way, as it gives a guaranteed future at a guaranteed decent wage: £2bn is an OK fee for just doing some shipping, taking some kicks, and never having to worry about a smoking ban or having to advertise or any other problem faced by other industries. It's money for nothing, in fact. Pay enough tax and make enough people ill and your future is assured - as long as you can fix it so we stay in the EU.
 A government's best friends are the giant transnational corporations that help it maintain economic stability. The giants are protected against any threat, as a suitable reward. The EU does this better than anyone.
 Prof Rodu on the Snus issue, and how many deaths the EU Snus ban has caused:
edited, extended and expanded as required