EU Referendum: Flexcit, Obama And Boris

“America would welcome it if Britain should apply for full membership in the [EEC], explicitly recognising that the Rome treaty was not merely a static document but a process leading towards political unification.”(George Ball Under-Secretary of State for JFK 1961)

It's been well documented, even by its own internal Wilson report, that the UK public broadcaster is less than impartial when it comes to reporting on the EU accurately.

And it's also well documented that the United States is keen on UK membership of the European Union for reasons that are less than altruistic as the above quote illustrates very clearly. The US was always going to interfere, it wishes to have a relationship with a nation state with whom it has historical connections but which is subordinate to a supranational body.

All of the above has been perfectly evident from years of experience and from the studying

the mistakes and lessons laid bare in the wonderful 1975 Referendum book by David Butler and Uwe W. Kitzinger which with unerring and unintentional accuracy predicted many of the same problems 40 years ahead. The book is freely available on the internet,

With this in mind therefore we note this report from the BBC:

The BBC's opening website paragraph is this:

At a town hall meeting in London, US president Barack Obama told 500 young people to "reject pessimism, cynicism and know that progress is possible".

Obama hasn't mentioned specifically the EU, but the phrase of "rejecting pessimism and cynicism" makes it transparent of what his message is, given his previous statements during his current stay in the UK.

And then follows a relatively long piece BBC about Obama which includes interviews with an "international relations student" who's "a non-binary person", an "ethnic minority president of the Oxford University Conservative Association" and "a campaigner on disability and violence against women". All of which sounds very progressive and positive.

When we consider the recent fuss about the "debate" - if we can call it that - with Boris Johnson's ill informed intervention regarding Obama's comments on UK membership of the EU, describing the lame duck US President as "part-Kenyan", the inference and context of Obama's recent comments becomes obvious. The debate is being framed as a well meaning progressive Cameron against an idiot colonial and out of date Boris.

Obama is using well rehearsed emotional issues to attempt to isolate the Brexit campaigners as those who are not normal without, in this report, having to mention the EU. Thus the BBC doesn't have to show "balance" in this particular piece as part of its referendum reporting.

In this sense the referendum is going according to plan. It is a repeat of 1975. It's not like we weren't warned. We knew the BBC would be unfair, we knew the media be unfair, we knew Cameron would lie and we knew American and other countries would interfere.  We knew this.

And that was the point of an exit plan - it allowed us to launch an effective pre-emptive strike. By having a progressive positive plan we would have negated the effectiveness of an American President's intervention.

Instead we are increasingly being lumbered with Boris, a politician without a clue who this blog has long been less than convinced that he is a Eurosceptic Tory - if that term is not an oxymoron.

It's within this context it becomes increasingly difficult to tell whether Boris' current disastrous intervention in the referendum campaign is the result of idiocy or perhaps more cynically an attempt to hijack the leave campaign and deliberately ruin it, The latter would be very much in keeping with his and his family's well established pro-EU views.

The outcome though as it currently stands is the leave campaign loses, Failing to learn these lessons of the obvious mistakes of the past are now coming to pass....again.

The Cam Sham? Rule One Of Politics Is Never Trust A Tory

If Cameron was expecting favourable headlines this morning regarding his so-called negotiations then he will be sorely disappointed. Dubbed a "Cam sham" the tone of the coverage illustrated by the front pages above has been savage and rightly so. Cameron's so-called negotiations have been exposed for the nonsense they currently are.

As EUReferendum superbly dissects, despite Cameron's boast there are "substantial changes", there are no economic safeguards, no migrant safeguards, no end to "ever closer union" and no red card. Economic safeguards, ever closer union and red cards all require treaty change, a treaty which so far has every sign of having been put on hold. Cameron's migrant safeguards amount to little more than the UK having permission to ask the EU Commission for permission. I presume the Commission's permission will be delivered to Cameron "by fax".

Yet it could still get even worse for Cameron. Lost Leonardo notes that these non fundamental reforms "may not even be the end of Mr Cameron’s humiliation. The proposals now have to be assessed and picked over by the 27 other EU Member States, which may raise further objections in the upcoming European Council meeting, later this month".

Initially this leaves us rather optimistic that a referendum can be won. Without any kind of 'meaningful reform', and I use the term loosely, the polls have long suggested that the leavers will win.

But and there is a very significant but and it's one which leaves us distinctly uneasy. From experience and from studying the 1975 referendum there were certain expectations of Cameron's strategy. Substantial reform of course was never on the cards and so our anticipation of a deal was low, but delivered with plenty of spin.

In addition we expected plenty of theatre (preferably during late 2017 when the UK holds the rotating Presidency of the Council of Ministers), expectation management and the last minute reform rabbit out of the hat. All helped along by a "Pauline conversion" by the so-called right wing press such as the Mail who have always supported EU membership while not making it obvious. No where was this more apparent than over media reports of Cameron's phantom veto - which never happened.

We also have to consider that Cameron is being advised by the Civil Service, EU bureaucrats and other countries such as the United States, none of whom we should underestimate particularly as they all have vested interests in us staying in.

Yet despite that Cameron doesn't even seem to have managed to reach the very low bar he set himself, has left himself open to humiliation and instead of a last minute attempt at a big white rabbit has allowed the internet to have five months to completely ridicule his plans before a June referendum (if he is planning one).

Further concerns come to the fore when Boris Johnson, arch Europhile, suggests that "David Cameron 'made the best out of a bad job' as he refuses to praise EU deal".

Are we being played? Experience most certainly suggests we are. This appears too easy. Too good to be true. Is the ground being laid for something bigger.

Undoubtedly it could be that Cameron has made a complete pig's ear of this referendum and the negotiations. Cameron's form on the matter so far suggests this is perfectly possible.

Yet...we have to remember rule one of politics applies....never ever trust a Tory.

"Boris Johnson Is A Massive Europhile!"

Thus reports the Telegraph with seemingly not a hint of irony, on a piece of why UKIP are "stealing" Conservative votes. (Note the words "stealing" - last time I looked votes belong to the electorate not to any political party).

Apparently former Tory MP Louise Mensch, who has buggered off from being a MP or something, comes to the conclusion that:

" BoJo is far more pro-European that many people realise…"

Ah..."BoJo" - what a lovely chap he is! Of course Louise - I can't be bothered to do my job properly - Mensch is telling us nothing new. "BoJo's" pro-EU stance comes as no surprise, the level of his support for the EU puts Cameron to shame, if that is possible.

It's worth noting that Boris Johnson's father, Stanley, was between 1973 and 1979 a senior official of the EU Commsision. In 1984 he resumed his career in the Commission becoming Director for Energy Policy in 1990.

During the early 1980's a greater desire for EU integration emerged via Altiero Spinelli who is regarded as “one of the founding fathers of the European federalist movement". Out of this ambition was born The Crocodile Club, a cross- party group open to all MEPs convinced ‘of the need for European political reform of great width’.

As a consequence The Crocodile Club resulted in an EU draft treaty so ambitious in its leap forward in political integration that it had to be spilt into two parts – The Single European Act 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty 1992 in order to be acceptable (forced through) to “EU citizens”.

A UK Conservative at the time enthusiastically supported Spinelli's move towards a European federalist movement…stand up one Stanley Johnson.

Imbued With Arrogance

Some may have noted that UKIP this weekend have come under heavy fire from the Conservatives, an ill-disguised act of desperation by a party who are worried about Thursday's local elections. Of course if the main parties truly wanted to negate the UKIP threat then actually listening to the voters might help. But that would be too inconvenient.

In true Cameronesque style though it looks like the Tory tactics in the main are backfiring. It is rather amusing, and informative, however to watch the establishment squirm as they perceive a real threat to their comfortable status quo.

With that in mind, we note that the so-called buffoon Boris Johnson has waded in. I've made my feelings clear about him before. He's not a man to be underestimated in terms of power and ambition - the facade of buffoonery may have fooled Ken Livingstone during the London Mayoral elections - but it shouldn't fool us. In this we have further evidence in his latest article in the Telegraph - effectively titled "c'mon along chaps everything is all ok:

[Farage]’s a blooming Conservative, for heaven’s sake; and yet he’s in our constituencies, wooing our audiences, nicking our votes, and threatening to put our councillors out of office.

Behind the floppy blond hair we have assertions of "our constituencies", "our audiences", "our votes", "our councillors". None once does it occur to him (or does he care) that it is the electorates' votes, the electorates' constituencies, the electorates' councillors. I mean how dare other parties "steal Tory votes?" Boris Johnson articulating exactly the arrogance of the Tories, and indirectly also of the establishment. And he does it because he can.

Perhaps the Tories think he might make a better replacement for Cameron but if even he does become leader, for the rest of us it will be more of the same. We need another way.

The Closing Of Ranks Continues

With the real possibility of a referendum on our membership of the EU on the horizon what we're now seeing is the blatant about turn of the likes of allegedly eurosceptic Tories such as most recently; Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson. Pretence of eurosceptisim has been replaced by a self-serving need to protect oneself in the possible event that our exit might actually happen (been caught looking at your payslip Dan?).

This was also demonstrated today by Tory MP Michael Fabricant who in a very ill-disguised way accuses Ukip of racism:

Mr Fabricant, a former Government whip, said there are likely to be closet racists in every party, including the Conservatives. He urged the Prime Minister to think about teaming up with Ukip to gain the Tories more than 20 extra seats.

Ironically, the so-called eurosceptics' real colours are being exposed. Anything...anything to protect our membership of the EU. And so it is also with the supposedly neutral Political Betting website run by Lib Dem Mike Smithson. Despite the self-proclaimed sub-title:

Britain's most-read political blog - and the best resource for betting on politics.

....it's anything but neutral, particularly when it comes to all matters EU. Pro-EU tendencies often infect his posts - dismissing anything EU as not much to worry about. Here's an example:

Has Britain’s membership ceased to be an issue?

Last week my post on the public not really “caring a monkey’s” about the EU caused a little bit of a stir in some places. My argument was simple - we’ve been in the EU for 37 years and Britain’s membership has ceased to be an issue for all but a very small minority on voters.

I quoted the latest MORI issues index where those naming the Europe/EU as the “most important issue facing Britain” simply did not register and did not even rate a one percent figure by the pollster.

There have been times in the past when the response on EU-related matters has been very high but the long-term trend is one of decline to almost zero.
I stick with the point I made. Hardly anybody gives a monkey’s.

Strangely it didn't stop him from temporarily changing his tune when the EU directly affected him and going on a rant:

Why’s the ECJ being so breathtakingly stupid?

Should Britain say it will defy the court?

The story that’s made me most angry today has been the extraordinary decision by the European Court of Justice to stop insurance companies from allowing women to pay smaller car insurance premiums even though they are less likely to have accidents.

This is being stopped on ground of “gender equality”. Andy Cooke on the previous thread had this right:-

What a stupid ruling by the ECJ!

The different premiums aren’t based on sexism, but on demographic differences in propensities to have an accident! Will it be illegal to charge different premiums based on age? Illegal to charge different premiums based on where you live? On how experienced you are? Whether you’ve had accidents or traffic violations in the past?

So millions of teenaged girls will have to pay extra to subsidise teenaged boys. Women will have to subsidise men.

Soon, those of us in their thirties, forties and fifties will have to pay a bit more for the teenaged drivers (otherwise there will be significant age discrimination, surely?)

The ECJ are hardly improving their image - more like reinforcing the stereotype of stupid, out-of-touch politically correct idiots.

Could this be an opportunity for the coalition to have a battle with Europe?

But the march of staying in the EU ideology continues unabated, and Political Betting indulges this by means of its latest post to write an obvious smear of UKIP, despite that political neutrality is surely essential to its advice as a betting site.

This indicates that not only is a referendum coming but that TPTB have sensed it and are closing ranks. They will do anything to rig the result and protect their own. In terms of a referendum on our membership of the EU for eurosceptics the warning has always been there - in essence 'be careful what you wish for'.

Boris Rejects In/Out Referendum

For anyone who has followed Boris Johnson for some time the above news will come as no surprise whatsoever, as I've previously noted here and here Boris is a Europlastic. Boris signed the People’s Pledge for an In/Out EU referendum in March of this year but now that an EU referendum is increasingly on the cards he has backtracked. The Spectator has the interview from 5live:

Pienaar: Would you still want an In/Out referendum?
Johnson: Well, I’ve always said… I think we’ve been now, what is it? 75 was the last referendum on the European Union: I certainly think that if there were to be a new treaty, for instance, on a fiscal union, a banking union, whatever, then it would be absolutely right to put that to the people.’
Pienaar: What about In/Out though?
Johnson: Whether you have In/Out referendum now, you know, in the run-up to 2015, I can’t, I have to say I can’t quite see why it would be necessary. What is happening, though, John, is that… the thing that worries me, and I’m going to be making a speech about this pretty soon, the thing that worries me is basically the European Union is changing from what it was initially constituted to be: it is becoming the eurozone de facto, and the eurozone is not something we participate in, and I think it’s becoming a little unfair on us that we are endlessly belaboured and criticised for being the back marker, when actually this project is not one that we think is well-founded or well-thought through. It is proving to be extremely painful and difficult, and so I think, if the and when the eurozone goes forward into a fiscal, banking union, into a full-scale political union, then I think it is inevitable, given the changes that will entail to the EU constitution, that you will have to consult with the British people about what kind of arrangements they want, and in those circumstances, yes, you should jolly well have a referendum.
Pienaar: A yes/no, In/Out, that’s got to be part of the deal?
Johnson: Well, certainly, whatever arrangements we strike with our partners, I mean, you see, I don’t think it’s as simple as yes/no, In/Out, suppose Britain voted tomorrow to come out: what would actually happen? In real terms, what would happen is that the Foreign Office would immediately build a huge, the entire delegation would remain in Brussels, UKrep would remain there, we’d still have huge numbers of staff trying to monitor what was going on in the community, only we wouldn’t be able to sit in the council of ministers, we wouldn’t have any vote at all. Now I don’t think that’s a prospect that’s likely to appeal. What you could do is think of a new arrangement, new areas of the treaty that we decided we didn’t want to participate in… that is where people are thinking, now, so I don’t think it is, I mean, with great respect to the sort of In/Outers, I don’t think it does boil down to such a simple question.

Well quelle surprise. Boris no longer thinks Britain’s relationship ‘does boil down to such a simple question’.

'Wait 'till Boris gets in', is suspiciously like 'wait 'till Dave gets in'. Worried about the increasing clamour for a straight in/out (which will produce the wrong result) with an impending EU treaty, Tory after Tory after Tory are lining up for a strategy of staying put in the disguise of renegotiation, which as Christopher Booker today rightly points out can't happen unless we exit first.

This strategy has even led to Dan Hannan arguing for exit on November 21st:

Our presence in the EU is the single most common cause of conflict with our neighbours. British withdrawal would make everyone get on better.

Followed by a u-turn a day later, when he argues for renegotiation instead as pointed out by Richard North:

Considering that the [Dan Hannan] is supposed to be a life member of the "Better Off Out" tendency, it is entertaining to see his latest volte face which offers us a complex package of powers to put on the repatriation list, amounting to a partial withdrawal from the EU – which actually means that we remain members.

So complete is the conversion that the [he] dares not spell it out openly, relying on puzzled readers to work out the thrust of his ideas which put him firmly in the "fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden" camp, headed towards never-never land. 

Boris Johnson is a fraud, Dan Hannan is a fraud, the whole Tory party is a fraud. No wonder they have never won an election since the passing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

Sweet Eurosceptic Topping

Boris Johnson aka 'I'm a lovable buffoon really' has just woken up to perils of CAP in his piece in today's Telegraph. One wonders what took him so long? Anyway, he bemoans, in rather convoluted language, the negative impact the EU is having on the American owned company Tate & Lyle:

This historic company produces about 40 per cent of the cane sugar in the entire EU, and most of it comes from the London plant. 

Now this superb business faces a threat from Brussels, and the imposition of an unnecessary and badly thought-out regulation.

The plant has the capacity to produce 1.1 million tonnes of refined sugar a year; and yet the company is prevented, by the EU commission, from importing the raw materials in the quantities it needs. Their current output is now down to 60 per cent of capacity — and the result is that jobs are being lost in a part of London that already faces the highest levels of unemployment in the city and indeed in the whole of the country.

For decades they have been artificially shielded, by high tariff walls around the EU, which mean that sugar prices in Europe are more than double the world market price.

Boris is understandably not happy, even though Richard North highlighted the potential effects in 2004 and 2005. So after a lengthy criticism, by Boris, of the situation and of the EU, what does he propose to do? Well... wait for it...cue drum roll:

And we are lobbying Brussels to drop its crazy prohibition, and allow Tate and Lyle to get cane sugar from wherever in the world it can find the stuff.

Lobby Brussels? Not advocating withdrawal - nope - instead a pathetically weak proposal of lobbying Brussels. There lies another Tory Europlastic. Boris naturally has form on this. Take this interview with Paxman on the Lisbon treaty in 2009. When asked what should happen if it was ratified, Boris hides behind:

That's a hypothetical question...and...I'm not an expert on Euro Treaty law.

An answer that is basically no different from Cameron's "we won't let matters rest there". As always beneath the sweet Tory Eurosceptic topping lies stale Europhile substance.

With more than one eye on Cameron's position Boris knows the sugary appeal of Eurosceptisim will win over the sweet-toothed Tory faithful. But should he win the leadership or even become PM we'll go through the whole "veto" charade again.

The man is our enemy not our friend.

Things Can Only Get Much Worse

The Eurozone sits on the edge of collapse with the usual chaotic and rudderless lack of leadership from the EU on how to fix the crisis. The EU first indicated that a European banking rescue, as demanded by the markets, was on the cards and now EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn has denied it.

So what have the Tories to say about this looming disaster on our doorstep? Well they're too busy squabbling over the Human rights act, squabbling over a referendum on the EU, effectively admitting that there will be no repatriation of powers (if that were ever possible) and criticising someone else for not holding a referendum.

Then Prime Minister tops it all off by suggesting that the solution to the current crisis is for everyone to pay off their credit cards. As Richard North says, Cameron is not even in this galaxy.

Now the Telegraph writes:

It's now being reported that the Prime Minister won't be telling us all to pay off our credit card bills in his speech at the Tory party conference this afternoon, after the idea got a fairly terrible reception this morning.

Oh FFS! The Eurozone, and possibly the world economy, is on the brink of the abyss, Greece is ripe for a coup d'état and this is the best the Tories can do? It is draw-droppingly pathetic.

We really really deserve much better than this.

Another Plastic

Boris Johnson uses his 'lovable buffoon' routine well, even to the point of pretending that he can't play football properly. But it's an act that cleverly disguises a burning ambition to get to the top of the greasy political poll. He's not to be underestimated in that sense - a mistake that Ken Livingstone made to his cost over the London Mayor elections.

So as a Tory we can expect the usual Tory Eurosceptic nonsense to appeal to the grass roots and indeed Boris doesn't disappoint:

"In those days, the column appeared on Thursdays. On Wednesday afternoons he would typically seek inspiration by visiting his Westminster staff in the annexe room, where he would play a game to find the best idea. On occasion this would descend into a competition to suggest the theme most likely to produce catastrophic consequences for his career. One of Boris’s favourites was: ‘Why David Cameron is a complete c**t’ – indeed, he was so enthused, he even started to compose an introduction beginning: ‘One thing that has become apparent to me in my years of Parliamentary service is that David Cameron is a complete c**t’. Another time, it was, ‘Why I believe in a European superstate’."

And here's Boris rambling on about the Lisbon Treaty and the need for a referendum.

However...

From the way he talked during the fun and games, it was clear that Boris preferred the views and company of those inhabiting the more pro-European and left-leaning reaches of Toryism rather than the ones at the opposite end of the spectrum. ‘Boris and I got on because we have similar dislike of most members of the Conservative party,’ explains Chris Cook – one of David Willetts’ aides, also based in the annexe room. ‘He’s clearly not on the right wing, but actually quite Europhile in Tory terms. He liked to come into our office to gossipand bitch about the right-wingers, particularly Liam Fox, or indeed anyone else he thought had screwed up the party that week.’

The Tory injection moulding process continues unabated.

Boris criticised by European Commission

Previously I had speculated whether Boris Johnson will now be under pressure to bring forward his draft Air Quality Strategy, in order to avert a possible £300m fine regarding the UK's failure to comply with EU limits on pollution in London, as per Directive 1999/30/EC.

The Guardian reports today, however, that even this won't be adequate as the European Commission has rejected the draft strategy saying:

"important elements are missing, such as a clear timetable for the implementation of the abatement measures envisaged as well as an estimate of the improvement of air quality which can be expected by 2011".

Boris has complained that the Commission was being "unreasonable" for refusing to consider his proposed strategy on the grounds that it was only a draft document, he may have a point but it now seems in the article that there is an acceptance that a fine is inevitable, it's now just a question of who pays - a battle of the budgets (my emphasis bold):

"I don't think it is right or very likely there will be a fine because it's possible to sort this out, but the cost of the infraction should not properly in my view be borne by this city… if you look at the total volume in pollutants they are very substantially coming outside the greater London authority area. This government has chronically refused to put in measures necessary over the last 10 years for us to be compliant."

Of course it will be the taxpayer who ultimately pays; no taxation without representation? Not where the EU is concerned.

UK faces EU fines over London air quality

Last Friday the European Commission turned down a request from the UK Government for more time to comply with EU limits on pollution in London, which is in breach of Directive 1999/30/EC.

The UK is now facing legal proceedings and the threat of up to £300m fines after the European Commission ruled that:

"air quality plan for this particular zone did not meet the minimum requirements of the Directive for a time extension".

London Mayor, Boris Johnson will now be under pressure to bring forward his draft Air Quality Strategy, which was based on the assumption that an extension would be granted until 2011.

Laura Gyte, Friends of the Earth's solicitor, said:

"The UK has known about these limits for years - we are delighted that the EU has rejected the Government's bid to carry on polluting."

I'm afraid that I can't share in the delight that the elected UK Government, and the elected London Mayor have been overruled by the unelected EU Commission.

Interestingly, Boris Johnson was interviewed on the Andrew Marr show yesterday, during which he mentioned in great detail the cycling initiatives outlined in his Air Quality Strategy, but strangely the involvement of the EU and the decision of the EU Commission on Friday were not.