EU Referendum: Merry Christmas And Looking Forward To 2016

2015 is nearly over - a year which proved to be pivotal confirming that a referendum will take place in 2017 allowing us the chance to remove ourselves from the insidious supranational organisation known as the European Union.

Despite a number of pre-election predictions to the contrary, including from UKIP's Farage,that Cameron could not be trusted to deliver on his referendum promise if he won the general election in May, political reality suggested very strongly in advance that he had no choice.

And so it's proved, with 2015 being the year that a Royal Assent has recently formally approved an EU Referendum Bill. This will be the first referendum in over 40 years on the EEC/EU and so we, the British people, have a belated chance to decide how our country is run 40 years after the 1975 referendum. There can be no excuses now.

On an optimistic note so much has changed since 1975, not least that crucially we now have the internet. And with the internet there's is no hiding place when the likes of William Hague, among many other Tories, pretended in the past that they were Tory eurosceptics only to betray their gullible party supporters as they have always have done.

The referendum is likely to turn out to be a contest between the people versus the establishment (not unlike the Scottish referendum) and we have the freely available tools to spread the message easily.

This blog has been comparatively quiet recently, yet that is not a reflection on the what is happening behind the scenes. We are likely to have a fascinating year ahead, one which can help change the dynamics of the eurosceptic debate.

Meanwhile thank you to everyone who has read and commented on my blog in the past year. Have a fantastic Christmas and wonderful New Year. We'll be there on the other side in 2016.

"Repatriation Of Powers Is Possible"

Those were William Hague's words on Sky News at around 11:20 this morning in response to my question posted via Twitter:

Sadly, Sky News presenter, Dermot Monaghan didn't read out the complete question but instead he said (from memory);

"A direct question from PWilliams, do you agree repatriation of powers is possible"

Disappointingly but not surprisingly this allowed Hague to waffle untruths unchallenged.

That aside, Hague appeared also to confirm that Cameron is not giving his speech tomorrow, instead Cameron will be announcing tomorrow the date when he will give it - some time this week apparently.

One can be forgiven for thinking that the government is making it up as it goes along. What a shambles...

Impotent

With recent dramatic developments in Syria, one is interested in the BBC profiles of Syrian leaders linked to prominently on its front page. There are a number of ways of interpreting how the BBC reports this, that what it reports is true, or it's a consequence of its inherent prejudice or it's a mixture of both. (My emphasis throughout):

First up on the two killed ministers. Assef Shawkat, deputy defence minister:

The US and EU imposed sanctions on Gen Shawkat in 2011, accusing him of playing a key role in suppressing demonstrations.

Then a profile of the other, Daoud Rajiha, defence minister:

The EU also added him to its list of designated officials, saying he was responsible for the military's involvement in the crackdown on protesters.

Then also prominent on the BBC website are profiles of others within the Syrian regime.

First up a profile of Maher al-Assad, Republican Guard chief:

The EU also imposed sanctions on Maher, describing him as the "principal overseer of violence against demonstrators".

Then a profile of Rami Makhlouf:

In May 2011, the EU imposed sanctions against Mr Makhlouf, saying he was an "associate of Maher al-Assad" who "bankrolls the regime allowing violence against demonstrators".

And a profile of Abdul Fatah Qudsiya, head of Military Intelligence:

In May 2011, Gen Qudsiya was included in a list of Syrian officials subjected to EU sanctions for their roles in violence against protesters.

Then Ali Mamluk, head of the General Security Directorate:

The next month, the EU also imposed sanctions on Gen Mamluk, saying he had been involved in efforts to crush anti-government protesters.

Then Jamil Hassan, head of Air Force Intelligence

The next month, the EU said Gen Hassan was "involved in the repression against the civilian population" during the recent anti-government unrest, and imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on him.

And Mohammed Dib Zaitoun, head of the Political Security Directorate:

In May 2011, the EU accused Gen Zaitoun of involvement in violence against demonstrators, and announced a travel ban and asset freeze. The US also imposed sanctions on him later that month, accusing him of human rights abuses.

And Zuhair Hamad, deputy head of the General Security Directorate:

In November 2011, the EU accused Gen Hamad of responsibility "for the use of violence across Syria and for intimidation and torture of protesters" and imposed sanctions on him.

Then Hafez Makhlouf, head of General Security Directorate in Damascus:

In May 2011, the EU imposed sanctions on Col Makhlouf, saying he was "close to Maher al-Assad" had been "involved in violence against demonstrators" as head of the GSD's Damascus branch. 

A profile of Mohammed Nasif Kheirbek, deputy vice-president for security affairs:

In May 2011, the EU imposed sanctions on Gen Kheirbek, saying he had been "involved in violence against the civilian population".

Then a profile of Hisham Ikhtiar, director of the National Security Bureau (NSB):

Gen Shalish is Bashar's first cousin and head of Presidential Security. In June 2011, the EU imposed sanctions of him, saying he had been "involved in violence against demonstrators".

And finally Rustum Ghazali, head of Military Intelligence in Damascus Countryside:

In May 2011, the EU said Gen Ghazali was head of Military Intelligence in Damascus Countryside (Rif Dimashq) governorate, which borders Deraa governorate, and was involved in "violence against the civilian population".

Throughout note what information is missing, as reported elsewhere:

LONDON — Foreign Secretary William Hague said a suicide bombing that killed two top Syrian security officials on Wednesday showed the need for a UN resolution to end the crisis.

A Shambles

Watch William Hague wriggle desperately yesterday on Andrew Marr regarding a Tory referendum on the EU. Damned by Hague's own words, results in a performance which although is more experienced is still the nonsense equivalent of 'Chloe Smith's interview earlier in the week.

When asked by Marr the following question:

But if you’re one of those people who say we’ve really had it with the EU the way it’s gone; we’ve had it; we want our voice; we want an in our out referendum - you’re saying vote UKIP?

The subsequent expression on Hague's face is priceless:



Hattip: The Talking Clock

Blah Blah Blah

For a party that has effectively banned discussion of Europe at their conference it's odd that they can't stop planting stories in the press talking about it before the conference even gets going. Patrick O'Flynn of the Daily Express seems to think this is because cabinet ministers are 'bricking it' about grassroots anger.

So in today's Mail on Sunday we get the following to appease the Tory Europlastics.:
A vote on Europe? Needless to say the piece confirms that the opposite will be true. I'm not going to bother to fisk the piece - it's effectively the same ol' Tory Europlastic policy-by-numbers; a discussion on a referendum, a vote that won't be binding for the government and a government that has insisted that it won't hold an 'in or out' anyway. As confirmed by this piece in the Observer:

Hague's comments have just been verified by Cameron on the Andrew Marr show this morning; who argued against such a referendum by saying that he "knew what the British people wanted and that was to stay in the EU". The arrogance of his assertions are astonishing although come as hardly a surprise.

So the Tory posturing continues. But events have far overtaken their silly little outbursts. A dose of reality which is in today's Times (£):

The possibility of a second banking crisis looms large as France and Belgium battle to save continental lender Dexia and fears grow of a delay to the next bailout payment for Greece.

By the time Parliament gets round to their 'debate', the whole edifice of the Euro, and possibly the EU could've collapsed. The Tories really are irrelevant.

EU Bill Receives Royal Assent

On the 19th July Cameron's much lauded (by himself) 'referendum lock' bill became law. Hague says:

For the first time it gives real control to Parliament and every voter in the country over the most important decisions a government can make in the EU.

"This is good news for our democracy and will significantly strengthen it.

"For the first time it gives real control to Parliament and every voter in the country over the most important decisions a government can make in the EU.

So now, of course, we can expect copious referendums on the transfer of power to Brussels as promised. Can't we?

That Broken Record

Here we go again, clearly rattled by a rise in eurosceptism and louder calls for a referendum of our EU membership, so called eurosceptic Hague (aka dome-headed twat) is wheeling out the old Tory argument in today's Telegraph of: "in Europe not ruled by it". Witterings from Witney and the 13th Spitfire are not impressed. And rightly so - the Lisbon Treaty makes it clear that EU law is supreme, to be a member is to be subservient to it - it is its raison d'etre.

I've heard this bollocks from the Tories for over 20 years, and it's getting very very boring. They still continue to integrate further our country into the EU whilst trying to pretend otherwise; even as late as last Monday - when the press obsession with the Murdoch fallout continued - the Tories quietly agreed to opt-in to yet another EU law:

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10610/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, No. 10613/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, No. 10612/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to a Commission Communication–strengthening victims’ rights in the EU and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 16 May 2011 relating to a Council Resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening the rights and protection of victims, in particular in criminal proceedings; and welcomes the opportunity to consider views on whether the UK should opt in to the draft Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims and the Draft Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.

The problem for the Tories is that the world and the EU has moved on - integration continues apace against the will of 'EU citizens'; it's no longer as easy as it once was to hide our real government, and being out of touch with its own members has had its consequences, notwithstanding the obvious consequence of a rise in euroscepticism, from all sides of the political spectrum, as the project ever more reveals itself.

The EU's demise is inevitable and our exit in one form or another is also inevitable. By clinging on to a failed 20th century ideology the Tories are sowing the seeds of their complete destruction.

John Major greatly damaged the Tory party passing the Maastricht Treaty, and it seems that his successors are keen to finish off the job. With the demise of the EU will be the destruction of its greatest cheerleader - the Tories - and when it comes, it will be good riddance to them both.

That European Union Bill

The pointless European Union Bill, and it's non-existent referendum lock, received its second reading yesterday. Due to other commitments I completely missed the debate. However there are some good comments on the debate here, here and here. Despite the deliberate ineffectiveness of the bill, it won't be the end of the EU problem for Cameron - there are likely to be unintended consequences. Ultimately though it's the usual Tory fudge, followed by backbench huffing and puffing yet still resulting in more integration.

Personally I'm rather pleased that it won't work. I don't want a referendum on every single transfer of power to the EU - what a waste of time (and money) - I just want the one referendum; 'in or out'.

A strong and successful referendum lock would have made the 'out' cause that much harder. It will allow the Tories to argue that they were genuine eurosceptics shown by the fact that regular referendums were held, it won't negate all of the previous EU competencies that have been agreed so our real government would still reside in Brussels regardless.

Having a weak referendum lock will ensure that integration will continue apace, which means the 'out' cause not only becomes easier all the time to argue for but that exit gets ever closer. By introducing such a weak bill, Cameron has unwittingly helped in our cause. More integration means a quicker exit.

In other words we need a Queen sacrifice to force checkmate.

At Last

From today's Order Paper it looks like the Sovereignty Bill (Referendum Lock) gets its first reading:

EUROPEAN UNION

[No debate]
Secretary William Hague

Bill to make provision about treaties relating to the European Union and decisions made under them, including provision implementing the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 June 2010 amending the Protocol (No. 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; and to make provision about the means by which directly applicable or directly effective European Union law has effect in the United Kingdom.

Nonsense On Stilts

Firstly a quick apology for a temporary decline in the number of my posts - real life is currently getting in the way.

In the meantime I thought that I would highlight the ongoing drama that is David "it's just a flesh wound" Cameron, and there's so many quotes in this Telegraph article that it's hard to know where to start:

David Cameron has promised a shift in power from government to the people today as Whitehall departments published business plans setting out what they intend to do and how voters can hold them accountable for it.

A shift in power to the people? Is Cameron promising a referendum on the EU? Oh don't be silly:

Mr Cameron said Labour's targets ''bred bureaucracy... created inefficiency and unintended consequences (and) crushed morale in the public sector.

Bred bureaucracy? What about that other place. Oh sorry we mustn't mention that a la "He who should not be named":

Instead of bureaucratic accountability to the Government machine, these business plans bring in a new system of democratic accountability - accountability to the people.

"Accountability to the people?" Now there's a novel idea, it might even catch on:

''We will be the first Government in a generation to leave office with much less power in Whitehall than we started with.

Ha ha! Yes because you gave most of of it away to Brussels - this is one 'cast iron' promise Cameron may actually be able to keep:

Mr Cameron said the move would help reverse the trend towards centralisation of power in Whitehall and would encourage ministers and officials to govern for the long term.

''We are going to take power from government and hand it to people, families and communities - and how we will do that is set out right here in these business plans.

''In one of the biggest blows for people power, we're shining a bright light of transparency on everything government does.

I'm truly astounded, he really has surpassed all my very low expectations of him. The "Cameron piss-take-o-meter" has just gone so far off the scale it needs re-calibrating for further tests.

Autonomous Mind has a great post here about Cameron's deceit.

Then yesterday, former eurosceptic now converted 'where's the soap' William Hague appeared on Andrew Marr (my emphasis):

As proposed, it would not give rise to a referendum because our proposal - and we will publish our legislation on this in the coming week - is that if any government, if we or any future government propose to hand over new areas of power to the European Union, then there must be a referendum of the British people.

Ah new areas, and so fulfilling Carswell rule number 2. Congratulations Mr Hague you've now joined Mr Redwood's club. 'The People' naturally weren't informed of the 'new areas small print clause' when Cameron gave his speech here.

Hague's interview continues:

ANDREW MARR:

But you're going to give away billions as well. And, furthermore, the 2.9% hasn't yet been agreed by the European Parliament who could push it higher. So what happens if they do that?

WILLIAM HAGUE:

It can be blocked. This is the … What you're talking about is the budget for next year …

ANDREW MARR:

Yes.

WILLIAM HAGUE:

… that has to be agreed between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. David Cameron at the European Council ten days ago assembled much more than what we would call a blocking minority to ensure that the Parliament and the Commission cannot have their way, and that will save the British taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, probably four hundred and fifty million pounds…

ANDREW MARR:

(over) So I come back to the question what happens if they increase it beyond the 2.9%?

WILLIAM HAGUE:

They will not be able to.

ANDREW MARR:

Why not?

WILLIAM HAGUE:

Because we have now got 11 countries lined up with us out of the 27 to say you cannot have more than 2.9% whatever you do. And I think David Cameron did extremely well with that. And now there is an even bigger task to address the point you're making about European expenditure …

Whoops. Hague will come to regret that; "They will not be able to" remark.

Then the Telegraph editorial today:

The EU juggernaut must be stopped
Telegraph View: When David Cameron returned from the Brussels summit on budget contributions last month he was perhaps a bit too pleased with what he had achieved.

A bit too pleased? Blimey even the Telegraph has noticed that Cameron has...er... not done as well as hoped, however in the spirit of true Conservative misguided optimism it writes:

Until now, Mr Cameron has given the impression that he knows how to stop the EU "juggernaut", as he rightly calls it, in its tracks.

That's translated as; "wait 'till Dave gets in then we'll see that he's Eurosceptic":

But every British prime minister has made a similar claim, and every one of them has failed. If Mr Cameron is not to join their number, he must find a way of turning his rhetoric into action – and quickly.

My comment in response to the editorial is currently the 2nd most popular on the Telegraph article.

The Other Big Story...

...of the day apparently is whether William Hague is gay or not. Guido has been running with innuendo laden posts for a couple of days now, which have been 'repeated' in the media and even Iain Dale has waded in.

You know what? I couldn't give a stuff if the dome-headed, beer guzzling silly cap-wearing foreign secretary is gay or not; what he does in his private life is up to him. What is important is that he's foreign secretary at the very time we are giving up our armed forces to the French.

But no, the only priority it seems for the 'big hitters' in the UK blogosphere, is someone's sexuality. Sometimes I wonder if the citizens of the UK don't deserve to live in a sovereign democratic nation.

Vote Tory, Get Brussels

Further evidence in today's Financial Times that the Tories will be just as enthusiastic about the EU project as they always have been. I'm not going to dwell on this too much, suffice to say these passages speak for themselves regarding how little will change should the Tories win:

William Hague said on Tuesday that the Conservatives had made “a strategic decision” not to pick a fight with Europe if they won the election, insisting that a Tory government would be “highly active and activist in European affairs from day one”.

and:

Mr Hague said he wanted the new EU external action service to succeed and would deploy top British diplomats to Brussels to make it work. He said Europe needed to speak with a strong single voice on the Balkans, energy security and dealings with Russia.

Despite concerns that the External Action Service could replace the FCO, is uncosted and unaccountable Hague wants it to speak with a strong voice. And (my emphasis):

Mr Hague said that a Tory government would try to repatriate powers in employment and social law and fundamental civil rights from Brussels, if other EU member states insisted on a treaty change.

'Tries' and 'ifs'. Well that has me convinced. And:

But the former Tory leader warned that there were limits to his tolerance of EU integration and suggested that future battles lie ahead over defence and any proposals to create a European Monetary Fund.

Limits eh? Reassuring to know that current EU integration hasn't yet reached the limits of Hague's tolerance. I wonder where the marker is? At what point will he say no?

Why John Redwood is wrong

UKIP does not help Euroscepticism John Redwood argues on his blog, claiming that UKIP are part of the problem not the solution regarding the EU question.

Now I don’t doubt for one minute Mr Redwood’s personal eurosceptic views and indeed I have a collection of his publications, but I wonder if this is a case of doth protest too much.

Let’s not forget that he’s a Conservative politician so it is obviously in his interest to try to negate a potential threat to his party’s vote share.

Mr Redwood does seem to be adopting a rather similar attitude to Labour - point out that something doesn't matter thus inadvertently revealing that it does. Labour, of course, claimed to be so unconcerned about The Sun newspaper switching party allegiances - during their conference - that they took to ripping up a copy of the paper on stage in frustration.

According to John, UKIP are part of the problem because voting for them is based on two falsehoods. So let’s look at those two in more detail. The first:

is that a vote for UKIP will take the UK out of the EU. It never has, and on current polls is miles away from doing so. To make that a honest proposition UKIP would need to be polling 40-45%. It is currently polling 3%. Far from strengthening the eurosceptic cause, this specialist Eurosceptic party claims an embarrassingly small portion of the vote allowing federalists to say it proves people are not very worried about the issue.

It is true that UKIP are ‘miles away’ from attaining the lead required to form a government (although UKIP is currently polling 6% not 3%) but that is almost impossible for a mainly single issue party which receives relatively very little publicity in contrast to the three main established ones.

It’s worth noting, however, that UKIP are a relatively new party (formed in 1993) and has established itself in a very short time as the major fourth party often breaking electoral records. It achieved the highest vote ever by a fourth party in a UK election in the EU election of 2004 and surpassed this in 2009, coming second - this is not to be dismissed lightly.

It's intriguing that Redwood should without much resistance succumb to, and acknowledge, the traditional attack line of not many vote for UKIP so it means people are not very worried, rather than point out that there are other issues that don't register strongly either, but are given much more prominence.

Take this list of concerns from politicalbetting.com, crime and the economy naturally feature near the top but climate change is not even listed as a subject on its own. It would probably come under the 'catch-all' phrase of pollution / environment and yet that still only comes tenth. The Green Party, another largely single issue party regularly polls less than UKIP.

Despite this, all the main parties' try to out do each other on how green they are; green taxes, regular 'urgent' climate change conferences such as Copenhagen next month, and the Tories have even changed their party logo to reflect these new green 'concerns'. It seems that the embarrassing small portion of the vote principle doesn't apply here, why can't Mr Redwood acknowledge this, why doesn't he put up more of a fight?

Conversely immigration comes third in the list of voter's concerns but this is an issue that the parties have tried, until recently, to studiously ignore.

Mr Redwood continues:

By showing how little support its cause has it fails to bully the Conservative leadership,

But that's no reason not to keep trying, bullying of major parties works. That is essentially what the BNP have done with Labour over immigration. For many years Labour’s strategy has been to dismiss as racist anyone who is concerned about levels of immigration into the UK.

As a regular viewer of Question Time, what was significant to me regarding the Nick Griffin episode, apart from his appearance and the inevitable reaction, was that it was the first time I had heard the issue of immigration discussed at all, let alone in the measured way that it was. It was only the threat of a minor (odious) party that forced politicians to discuss the issue.

I'm not suggesting that UKIP adopts the BNP's more repulsive views but UKIP polls much better and so, despite Mr Redwood's rather dismissive attitude, attacking the Tories voting share will work in the long term, and they will not be dismissed so readily come the general election in six years time when the Tories have yet again failed to deliver on the European Union issue.

And that leads me onto Mr Redwood's second point:

There is a democratic Eurosceptic opposition to the Labour and Liberal Democrat federalists in the Commons. It is not UKIP.

It's true that UKIP do not have a Commons seat yet (with one dubious exception Bob Spink) but Mr Redwood's claim that the Tories are a Eurosceptic party is, of course, utter bollocks when considering the principle of judging a man by his deeds and not his words. By this criteria the Tories fail every time.

The Tories have given more power away to Europe than any other party, via the ECA, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty - a treaty which, in my view, was more of a power grab and betrayal than the Constitution Lisbon Treaty.

To illustrate how non-eurosceptic the Tories are, 'cast-iron' Dave on the Andrew Marr show recently said:

I don’t want an ‘in or out’ referendum because I don’t think ‘out’ is in Britain’s interests.”

And William Hague, Tory Shadow Foreign Secretary said:

There will be no instant bust up with Europe

This is confirmation that the Tories know the voters have reservations about Britain's relationship with the EU, but will carry on regardless. Business as usual in other words.

The inevitable problem comes for the Tories, however, when the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty begins to bite, and bite hard, then their policy of 'please trust us' will fall apart.

Overall, it's hard not to conclude that Mr Redwood is more interested in preserving the Tory Party from UKIP, rather than the UK from the European Union.