EU Referendum: Vote Leave, Vote Remain

As any genuine leaver of the EU knows, from long bitter experience, the first rule of politics is never ever trust a Tory. The second rule of politics is to follow the first rule.

With an impending referendum on the UK's membership of the EU it is becoming increasingly apparent that the obsessive SW1 party political nature of Westminster has failed to grasp that a referendum is a vote by the people. And within this context they, and the legacy media, has failed to appreciate fully that the internet has changed everything.

With this in mind we can see that the referendum is beginning to smoke out the faux Tory eurosceptics who have always hidden behind a comfort blanket of party politics.

General elections have allowed the Tories to express anti-EU views whilst not having to be in a position to actually advocate leaving. This lack of action not words has gone back decades. A lack of action reflected in Tory anti-eurosceptics trying to do what they have always done; making lots of noise expressing reservations over EU membership but ultimately, through loyalty, backing a pro-EU party.

The forthcoming referendum however has forced closet Tory europhiles out into the open illustrating the narrow fallacy of tribal loyalties. With a referendum now based on boolean outcomes weasel party political words (with personal ambitions very much in mind) simply don't cut it and are increasingly looking ridiculous.

A classic example is Tory MEP Dan Hannan. He has made his career out of eurosceptic rhetoric which suits the Daily Telegraph. Yet despite his copious media appearances expressing so-called Tory euroscepticism, this blog has rarely been convinced of his anti-EU principles.

Hannan has a long history of convoluted intellectual gymnastics where our membership of the EU is concerned. When we have to go over the top he's going to be found wanting.

We see a classic example of this in an interview from December 2015 on the BBC's Daily Politics programme with Hannan (1:55 mins):

DP Jo Coburn: "To be honest, Dan Hannan, there would be nothing that would satisfy you?"

Hannan; "Not true...I have repeatedly set out what I think would satisfy most people. Parliament should ultimately be sovereign, in other words the EU should not be able to automatically strike down parliamentary statutes. And we should have freedom to trade with more EU countries. And we should be able to opt out of some of the areas of EU policy that have nothing to do with economics or trade such as criminal justice, environment, defence and agriculture and fisheries - if we can get those things everyone would be in favour with it".

There we have in plain sight Hannan loyally supporting the Cameron and Tory line explicitly arguing that he favours EU membership albeit under nonsense 'reforms'. None of what he says would be necessary if we actually left. But to soften us up for the Tory line he lays the eurosceptic groundwork at the beginning of the interview before knifing us with the killer pro-EU mantra.

This becomes acutely relevant when via Companies House records from 5th January we see a number of new Directors being appointed to the largely Tory backed Vote Leave, one of whom is a certain Mr Hannan (click to enlarge):

Thus Vote Leave has appointed a "remain reformer" in Hannan. On its own it maybe a mistake but Vote Leave is also run by Matthew "supports a two tier Europe" Elliott and Dominic Cummings whose contortions over Article 50, as Mr Bexit makes clear, makes him not only a liar but is deliberately using distortion to back reform not exit.

To appoint one EU reformer may be regarded as a misfortune; to appoint two looks like carelessness, to appoint three looks like a Tory pro-EU stitch up. Vote Leave is fundamentally not fit for official designation.

Vote leave, vote remain - the message is clear.

The EU: The Poisoned Chalice

"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
(Treaty of Rome 1957)

For all the criticism which could be leveled at the EEC/EU it could rarely be said that it didn't hide its ambitions in plain sight. 

"Ever closer union" were the words in its first Treaty, as part of the first sentence. They meant it then, they mean it now. The organisation even calls itself the European Union. Not a single market but a union. We're in Ronseal "it does what it says on the tin" territory. 

The lack of candid appreciation of the EU's inherent ambition by the UK is why it is known as the "awkward member state" - it has failed to appreciate the rules of the club it has joined and willfully so. Is it any wonder that other member states are often exasperated by the UK's inability to fully comprehend the EU's primary objective - political union.

The greatest deception of course is self-deception. And with this it allows Tory MPs to put forward Judas Goat arguments of wanting "reform" allowing them to pretend to be eurosceptics (a word now debased) but really wishing to stay in. Here then we see a great example via Mr Brexit, regarding Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan:

The problem with having a Leave campaign that is owned and run by people who have never publicly called for Britain to leave the EU, but instead have long urged David Cameron to secure a deal to  'reform' of our EU membership, is that you cannot trust their apparent conversion.

Prominent Vote Leave supporter, the Tory MEP and arch Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan, has signalled the real objective of the Matthew €lliott/Dominic Cummings campaign with these words in a piece he wrote for ConservativeHome (run by €lliott protege, Mark Wallace):

Ah, some readers will say, Hannan and the Eurosceptics are just trying to raise the bar impossibly high. Actually, we’re not. Our key aims – the supremacy of UK law on our own soil, more freedom to strike bilateral trade deals with non-EU states and the right to determine who can settle on our territory – are remarkably moderate. Nothing would make me happier than for the PM to come back from Brussels with a deal that we could support.

The problem for Hannan is that he has been able to maintain his long standing duplicitous Tory position, often outside UK media scrutiny as an MEP in EU institutions while there was no referendum promise by his own party. But now there is a referendum, with only two options; remain or leave, he's come unstuck. A Tory to his fingertips.

In the spirit of Hannan's self deception, below are the four episodes of the BBC's The Poisoned Chalice on the UK's membership of the EU.

Episode one shows at the beginning Douglas Hurd ("now we've signed it we better read it" fame) treating other EU member states rather rudely by turning up late. Perhaps it played well at home in the UK but it merely demonstrates the arrogance of a country which consistently refuses to acknowledge the EU's true purpose. Reform is not an option...

EFTA And EEA: A Deliberate Deception?

We noted in our previous post regarding an article in Telegraph on the EFTA and EEA that it was not very reassuring when Icelandic and Swiss MPs are themselves seemingly unaware how their own country's agreements are made.

All is not what it seems however and delving in a little further shows that far from ignorance both authors of the piece Thomas Aeschi and Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson must be fully aware of the differences between EFTA and the EEA.

In the picture above second from the left sits Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, as the EEA JPC ( Joint Parliamentary Committee) President. With him are Nora Skaansar, EFTA Secretariat to his right, Pat the Cope Gallagher, EEA JPC Vice President and Tarvo Kungla, European Parliament to his left. It's safe to say that Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson is in the thick of the EFTA/EEA action as it were.

We can see further confirmation of this from his profile on Althing, the Icelandic Parliament's website which lists the committees that he is a member of:

Present committees

• Member of the Icelandic Delegation to the EFTA and EEA Parliamentary Committees since 2013 (Chairman since 2013) and 2003-2007 (Chairman 2005-2007).
• Member of the EU-Iceland joint Parliamentary Committee since 2013 (Chairman since 2013)

Thus it's utterly inconceivable that he would not know that access to the EU market is via EEA agreements (or bilateral treaties) not by EFTA membership alone.

The second author of the piece is Thomas Aeschi of Swiss People's Party. A member of the EFTA Parliamentary Committe and as part of EFTA/ EU Parliaments delegation he is invited as observer to the EEA Joint Parliamentary meetings" (click to enlarge):

Not participants but observers. EFTA's impotence in EU trade relations made clear. In February of this year David Campbell Bannerman MEP hosted a conference on ‘Alternatives to EU membership, where Thomas Aeschi was a speaker (my emphasis):

Ruth Lea, representing Economists for Britain, Heming Olaussen who led the anti-membership campaign in Norway in 1994, Thomas Aeschi of the Swiss People’s Party, and Bill Cash MP all said that the European Economic Area (EEA) is not a good option (democracy by fax, against national sovereignty and so on).  

Clearly then Aeschi knows EEA and EFTA are not the same. A point emphasised further when he argues, in this speech below, that he is not particularly fond of the Swiss bilateral treaties:

Revealing at the end of his speech (14mins 10), Aeschi puts forward his preference for a UK exit - "EEA lite" or "EFTA plus". This is also the preferred option for David Campbell Bannerman, and it is a deeply flawed and unworkable option that Scribblings from Seaham (under his old guise of WfW) took apart last year.

It's understandable to be cynical as to the intentions of this article as Douglas Carter was in a comment on my previous piece. It's apparent that the misleading conflation of EFTA and EEA is very likely not to have been born of ignorance but a less than candid attempt at promoting a free-trade agreement for the UK.

Interestingly Daniel Hannan who has long advocated a position similar, tweeted this:

It's also worth noting that Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson is a member of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR), who argue that the UK should seek a trade-only deal outside of the EU, which could provide the foundations for a greater economic union. And via AECR's official twitter account we see this:

And the secretary-general of AECR is...Daniel Hannan.

We guess international interventions in our referendum are going to be inevitable,and at least with the EU we can see the enemy coming. However with friends like this who confuse the issues and propose unworkable solutions...we will lose the referendum.

The Euro And Greece: The Empty Trojan Horse

It is remarkably curious that Greece, a country of relative insignificance, whose economy is smaller than Volkswagen's, has dominated the UK media agenda with much frenzied anticipation of a eurozone meltdown. Leading economists began predicting 'Grexit' including the economist who is credited with coining the phrase, as did other 'experts';

"Grexit is inevitable, it’s an absolute certainty"

And not just economists, this what Daniel Hannan had to say on July 6th:

It's interesting that with a Greek deal looking increasingly likely when we went to find the above tweet last night we found Hannan has now deleted it. Thanks to the internet though it can be found elsewhere. I guess the deletion speaks for itself.

Among other predictions, such as the 'European project is dying' there has been ill-disguised Anglo-saxon gloating and praise for "little democratic Greece standing up to the bullying EU". Greece though did not vote to leave the Euro or indeed the EU itself. They had instead voted to keep spending Germany's money without the inconvenience of paying it back. It's worth noting that the UK is owed around £10billion by Greece.

Whatever the referendum was, an exercise in democracy it was not. Called at the last minute, the referendum was rushed through with no time to debate the complexities of the bailout package, there was an absence of a proper "yes" or "no" campaign, the government put the "no" option (which it favours) above the "yes" on the ballot paper, the Greek media have been accused of bias and breaking the law leading up to the poll and it now appears that the result has been ignored anyway.

In that sense the referendum cannot be fair, or be considered a reflection of a true democratic decision. Instead it was merely an exercise in trying to bluff the EU using the Greek people as pawns. We can only be grateful in this country that we have an Electoral Commission to help negate government referendum stitch-ups like this.

So rather blow apart the eurozone, instead Greece is capitulating. It has proposed and is accepting a deal far worse than the one which was put to its people in a referendum. It will crawl away with a whimper.

The reason of course, as we noted last month, is that the current crisis, and the Euro in general, has less to do with economics and more to do with politics. The current crisis has not come about because Greece ran out of money - there was a deal on the table - but due to Tsipras deciding to do politics, and he has not come out of this well. It would seem he has been rather naive when dealing with the EU and we venture as far as to say "out of his depth".

He had a much weaker hand than he seemed to think - Greece economically and politically is insignificant - and he played it badly. By calling a referendum he thought he would frighten the EU into a better deal by the threat of political contagion to the likes of Spain et al.

Instead the markets largely shrugged off the referendum result and the only consequence has been that he has annoyed just about every leader in the eurozone. Annoyed to the extent that the ever increasingly robust language coming out of the EU indicates how fed-up they are with Greece. Fed-up to the extent that Greece was given an ultimatum on to agree a bailout package or leave. Tsipras backed himself and Greece into a corner. He's had no choice but to climbdown.

And the reasons are two-fold. For all the gloating by the UK media, they have largely overlooked two key points. They can deal with the economic part of EU membership but uttlery fail to acknowledge the more important political aspect. For Greece to leave would be contrary to "ever closer union". The EU cannot politically afford Greece to leave.They will paper over the cracks until the "English Question" is resolved and then we will have a new treaty.

Secondly, despite "preaching" by British" commentators that Greece would be better of out, their own experience suggests the opposite:

When it comes to money, the Greeks learned a lot of lessons the hard way over many generations. The drachma has always been seen by them as a way for the series of corrupt governments to steal from the people through devaluations and inflation.

This is what monetary theft looks like from the Greek point of view, and why they don’t trust their politicians and central bankers in managing a currency. They’ve learned the hard way and won’t forget the drachma’s 82% devaluation against the euro in two decades.

Greece simply does not want to leave. So ultimately Greece's gestures were empty, they capitulated as we expected they would. If nothing else this saga demonstrates once again how badly served we are by our media which doesn't bode well for our own forthcoming referendum.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum

"You're Stealing Our Votes!"

Dan Hannan is not quite silly enough to actually say it (yet), but the tone of his blog pieces certainly alludes strongly to the above Tory sentiment. However one of the comments underneath has him bang to rights (borrowed from Richard North's forum):

I am a member of UKIP as are quite a few of my old friends from Labour Party days of yore. Funnily enough the only parties that I have ever voted for are Labour, CPGB and UKIP. So much for the notion that UKIP are a party of the right...

People like you are really little more than the dogs who have been given leave to yap a little louder than the rest. All the employers' organisations, as well as the Tory party as a whole, are in favour of the EU. The Tories under Heath took us in, under Thatcher and Major they then marched us down the federal road towards greater political unity. The only party that had withdrawal from the EU in its manifesto was Labour in 1983 and 1987. (Would you care to remind people how you voted in those elections, Dan?)

I joined UKIP because Labour has now been taken over not by the left or the right but by a section of the middle class. It no longer even pretends to represent the urban working class. That said, the Tories are just nasty, so if push came to shove, I would still prefer Labour to them.

Then along you come and tell me that UKIP, my new home, may keep the Nasty Party out of office at the next election... Be still my beating heart...

Quite! After all the couple at the centre of the Rotherham foster parent scandal are ex-Labour. Yet Tory arrogance continues unabated.

The Judas Goat Strikes Back

Dan Hannan, he who without any sense of shame performed a U-turn so large it was visible from space (changing his views from an EU exit to a renegotiation position within a matter of days, after looking at his payslip) has yet again tried to argue that Eurosceptics should side with the Tories. Despite the massive historical evidence to the contrary - apparently we should still trust the most europhile party going:

The tragedy is that it will come too late. By the time UKIP and the Conservatives accept Britain’s electoral logic, the damage will have been done.

It is now likelier than not that the Conservatives will offer an In/Out referendum. The danger is that my party will do so ambiguously, tardily or unconvincingly. Too unconvincingly, at any rate, for those in UKIP who are predisposed to disbelieve everything Tories say.

The two parties will end up fighting each other at the 2015 general election. UKIP won’t win a single seat, but will cause the Conservatives to lose dozens.

The arguments against the Tories, particularly Mr Hannan, has been made many times before, to the point of watching paint dry, but sadly it needs to keep being reiterated. Here's the Tory record:

1. Entered the EEC on a lie (read the 1971 internal document FCO 30/1048)
2. Campaigned in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote, including Thatcher
3. Passed the Single European Act
4. Shadowed the Deutschmark in preparation to enter the ERM.
5. Entered the ERM which directly lead to the early '90s recession
6. Passed the Maastricht Treaty
7. Have become, in Roger Helmer's words the most pro-EU government ever, since elected in 2010.

Actions speak louder than words and no amount of rhetoric can cover the fact that the Tories cannot wait to constantly integrate further. Here's what I wrote in November 2011:

To use a football analogy; I have supported my team for over 25 years, in that time I've criticised players, managers and the board but every year I still renew my season ticket. That makes me a supporter not a sceptic. And the same is true of Tories, despite the criticism of some aspects of the EU, when that EU season ticket renewal comes up they gleefully renew. They are supporters not sceptics.

Dan Hannan is our enemy. Bollocks to him - the Judas goat - and to his attempted deception.

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.

Judas Goats And Other Stories

Master Hannan's rather pathetic apologetic piece for the Tories in the Telegraph is rightly getting a thorough kicking in his own comments and across the blogosphere.

Ultimately his conclusions are, albeit expressed slightly more opaquely than his colleagues usually do, is that it's Ukip's fault the Tories are in trouble and thus we should all be ashamed of ourselves. This is tribal loyalty at its most deluded as Hannan claims the Tories are Eurosceptic. The Talking Clock highlights this to be the fallacy that it always has been. Indeed, Labour has a better history of Eurosceptisim than the Tories.

Eureferendum calls the piece the return of the Judas goat. I really do like the term Judas goat. Not only does it sum up Hannan et al wonderfully concisely and accurately but it sounds deliciously rude - particularly if preceded with robust terms meaning 'move along quickly please'.

The Devil's Kitchen does a great fisking of Hannan's piece, well worth a read in full here. You really do have to wonder (if not admire) the levels of cerebral twister required to justify the following as a defence of your party and criticism of others not to vote for it:

It’s true that most Conservative voters would withdraw from the EU tomorrow. So would most party members. And so, I suspect, would most Tory MPs in a secret ballot. That, though, is not party policy.

But soon it's local elections and Hannan has to do his bit for the party like a good little boy. And given the dramatic increase in anti-UKIP rhetoric for the Tories, it does suggest that they are getting confirmation via internal polls, of their electoral problems.

Can He Wire A Plug?

I've never met Tory MEP Dan Hannan but going by his Telegraph blog I have the impression he's a bright and well-read chap. But I also get the impression that he indulges in convoluted intellectual gymnastics that, as a guess, is probably necessary as a result of being a member of the Tory party which as a consequence presents him with contradictions. This leaves the unfortunate, maybe accurate, view of 'yes he's bright but can he wire a plug' - i.e. does his common sense often elude him?

And so it's with these thoughts in mind I read his latest blog piece which argues against the breakup of the United Kingdom in light of a possible Scottish referendum on independence. Whilst I have some sympathy with the view that a breakup would largely be a bad thing, it's the following passage that caught my eye:

What’s so special about ‘the UK as a whole’? Why is it worth keeping? Well, look at what we have achieved together. Centuries of unbroken parliamentary democracy. No revolutions, no dictatorships, no invasions. Secure property rights and an independent judiciary. Armed forces that are respected around the world. Religious pluralism. Moderate and democratic political parties. If you think these things can be taken for granted, watch what is about to happen in some eurozone states.

It's hard to know where to start. Apparently we have achieved "centuries of unbroken parliamentary democracy". As one of the authors of the book the Plan - in his words an attempt to renew Britain's democracy - this seems a rather odd statement to make to say the least. Is Hannan really suggesting that omitting half the UK's population from having the right to vote until 1918 or that full universal suffrage wasn't achieved until 1928, or that the unelected House of Lords had the same powers as the 'elected' Commons until 1911 or indeed that the rotten borough of Old Sarum which existed in the 19th Century constitutes a "centuries old parliamentary democracy"? If so, one has to wonder what version of democracy Hannan believes in.

But even by Hannan's established Parliamentary democratic terms, leaving aside the flaws in the basic principles of representative democracy, we can only argue that the UK's system of 'parliamentary democracy' has only ever really existed between 1928 and 1973 (when we joined the EEC).

But even this is not enough. If we indeed argue that genuine democracy existed in those short 45 years - this is undermined by the fact that under a genuine democracy, we'd never would have joined the EEC in the first place. In 1970 only 15% of people approved of EEC membership and joining never cropped up in the 1970 election as an issue. However just 2 weeks after being elected Heath began negotiations for entry with no obvious clear mandate. A wonderful example of 'parliamentary democracy'.

Hannan then states that we've had "no dictatorships". Really? Presumably being fair when Hannan says 'centuries', he's not going back as far as the mid 17th Century. However since 1973 that is precisely what we have had in effect. The Oxford dictionary lists a dictatorship as:

Absolute authority in any sphere.

We cannot elect the EU Commission nor throw Barroso nor Rumpy Pumpy out of office or reverse the overwhelming laws that emanate from Brussels. Some democracy - it certainly looks like a form of dictatorship to me.

Then Hannan says:

Armed forces that are respected around the world.

Would these be the same armed forces that lost in Iraq, were humiliated by the Iranians and can't even run our own aircraft carriers.

And, laughably, we should be proud of parliamentary democracy because we have:

Moderate and democratic political parties...

These would be the same 'democratic' political parties where there is no difference between them on major policy issues, such as EU membership, taxation or climate change (to name just a few), where breaking manifesto promises is a given, where every party exploits taxpayers money for expenses. Or where Parliamentary parties are selecting candidates on any criteria far removed from being democratic. As Witterings from Witney rightly says it's a democratic dictatorship

Hannan's loyalty to his party is blinding him to the obvious contradictions of his position - a perfect example of everything that is wrong with how we are currently governed.

Isolated But Right

UKIP have put together the following compilation of the disdain shown by other countries towards the UK regarding Cameron's (phantom) veto:



Leaving aside that Cameron didn't actually veto anything, what's revealing is that 'Brit bashing' is apparently fair game. Should eurosceptics in this country have indulged in such language about other EU countries then the usual retorts of 'little Englander' would've be chucked about with abandon.

Naturally all of this will be used as an argument of the UK being isolated in Europe. The isolation argument has always been a red herring. It matters not if you're on your own, what matters is if you're right. It's far better to be isolated yet correct, than be wrong only in order to take comfort in being a sheep. The latter is perfect territory for extreme political outcomes that ironically the EU was supposedly designed to prevent.

Ronald Reagan once said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

I'm partly here on this planet because my maternal grandparents met, as workers, at the Supermarine Spitfire plant in Swindon during WWII. They, in their own way, helped fight for my freedom and so as a consequence handed it down for me to do the same - I intend to carry that fight on. If that makes us isolated then so be it - I don't care.

Carswell's Signed...

...the in or out pledge:

I've signed the pledge demanding an "in / out" referendum on the EU.

Why don't you sign up now, too?

For decades politicians and diplomats have managed our relations with the Brussels. I think it is time that we allow the people to pass judgement on the results with an "in / out" vote.

Once you've signed, why not also write to your MP and ask them if they'll sign up as well?

An email is already winging its way onto my MP, though given that last time he wrote this, I don't have much hope of success.

Now For The Most Important Vote Of All

Yesterday Dan Hannan officially launched his cross party referendum campaign for an in or out vote, something that he hinted at here in August:

If we can have a referendum on whether to have a mayor in Hartlepool, what about one on whether the majority of our laws should be handed down from Brussels?

Today sees the launch of a cross-party initiative for precisely such a ballot. The EU Referendum Campaign brings together businesses, trade unions and members of all parties who want a vote on whether Britain should continue to be a member of the EU. We hope people will visit our website – EUReferendumCampaign.com – and sign our pledge.

Naturally I've signed up, and I urge everyone else to do the same.

Mr Cameron is not going to be happy, he desperately doesn't want Europe to be an issue on his watch. But he doesn't have much choice, it's here, it's coming and there's much much more on its way. Cameron's tactics amount to hiding your credit card statement- unopened - in the hope that it will make the debt go away. It doesn't. The only real argument against a referendum, as Hannan rightly points out, is fear of the result.

Personally I think the vote would be closer than some anticipate. There's clearly a lot disquiet about the EU, and this manifests itself via a mixture of perestroika and the nuclear option. Would enough British people be brave enough to press that red button when given the chance? Given that the entire political establishment, the judiciary, the BBC etc all have vested interests in us staying in, every trick in the book will be used; lies, scaremongering and possibly even voting fraud. There's been plenty of concerns over the Irish second Lisbon vote.

Whatever the outcome, a discussion about our membership is urgently needed. And if the referendum result gives a 'wrong' answer, I'll take a leaf out of the EU's book and keep campaigning for a rerun until I get the answer I want.

Busted

Marvellous:

In 1992, Heath came back the Oxford Union to speak in a debate about the EU and, at the same time, to unveil a bust of himself. It was a controversial occasion: a group of Eurosceptic undergraduates removed the sculpture to a safe house, and announced that they would return it only if Heath voted for a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. He was, understandably, unamused.

New In Or Out Referendum Campaign?

Via the Talking Clock, I notice this response from Dan Hannan at the Telegraph to one of his readers:

"If I and others set up a cross-party campaign for an In-or-Out referendum... do you promise to join?"

The operative word here, of course, is 'if', but it does seem to suggest that there maybe plans afoot. I would, naturally, join in an instant and more besides.

Update: I wonder if this new website, campaigning for a referendum, has any relevance to Dan Hannan's comments? hattip: eurogoblin