EU Referendum: All We Need To Know About Cameron

The Great Deception Continues

One of the main themes of our membership of the European Union is that it has been based on a gargantuan lie. Our entry was a lie, arguments for our continuing membership are generally lies and a referendum campaign for our exit will be shrouded in lies.

The problem with deception though as is widely acknowledged that the only person you end up deceiving is yourself. With this in mind I turn to Norman Tebbit's latest column in the Telegraph. In some quarters he appears to be viewed as a so-called "sound Tory" - for example he's highly critical of Cameron and is seemingly a supporter of Ukip:

How I wish that someone in the No10 circle could understand that there might be a better approach to winning the election than a mud-slinging exercise to expose the real or imaginary personal shortcomings of Mr Farage and just hoping that Labour will passively surrender.

Yet further down the article, in response to comments on his blog, he writes this rather revealing paragraph:

As usual Amos 47 banged on about the Single European Act. As I have explained before, that was designed to make a reality of the single market. Until then any member state could veto any action to open its markets to other members, notably against British exporter of services such as insurance and banking. It also gave us a chance to undo foolish decisions by our predecessors in Government.

And therein lies the classic deception - or self-denial - of a Tory, depending on how you view it. The SEA was not a single market treaty but instead part of a process to further integrate the member states into the EU, a clue given explicitly in its title.

Its origins lie with Altiero Spinelli who in 1984 via his Draft Treaty establishing the European Union proposed a massive and bold leap forward in European integration. So bold was this leap forward that for tactical reasons it was decided to split the draft into two separate treaties which happened 5 years apart. Thus it became the SEA (part 1) and Maastricht (part 2). One can see for example Article 3 from the original 1984 draft:

The citizens of the Member States shall ipso facto be citizens of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be dependent upon citizenship of a Member State; it may not be independently acquired or forfeited. Citizens of the Union shall take part in the political life of the Union in the forms laid down by this Treaty, enjoy the rights granted to them by the legal system of the Union and be subject to its laws. 

 ...which then went on to appear in Maastricht. Even some Tory MPs subsequently acknowledged the significance of the SEA and regretted its passing through Parliament. Peter Tapsell said: "We didn't give it the attention we should have done."

The second assertion by Tebbit is the implication that the abolition of the veto was a benefit, giving the then Tory government the chance to "undo foolish decisions of the past" created by vetoes. One is staggered by his naivety if he believes that. Abolishing the veto is the holy grail of EU integration as it transforms an intergovernmental organisation into a supranational one. Jean Monnet abhorred the right of veto. The SEA lead to the biggest-ever number of "competences" on which national vetoes would be abolished - it was a treaty precisely because it involved so much surrender of powers to Brussels.

Thus Tebbit's comment that it was designed to make "a reality of the single market" is a lack of candidness that fails to acknowledge that the EU is not an economic project but a political project disguised as an economic one. A lack of candidness that has lead to the collapse of the Tory party as illustrated by this article in the same paper:

....the party's own MPs openly admit [membership figures] could be lower than 100,000, around half Labour’s membership. Speak to those in the party outside Westminster, and they will tell you the branches out in the country are withering, and this could cost David Cameron an outright majority at the next election.

A collapse of the Tories, or indeed of any credible alternative, leads to a vacuum - one that inevitably gets filled which, as Political Betting starkly shows via this graph, leads to a rise of the others:

Mrs Thatcher eventually acknowledged the deception and real intent of the SEA - albeit too late, how revealing that a party that is so intent on admiring her can't bring themselves to do the same.

Cameron Admits He Won't Honour An Out Vote In A Referendum

While Cameron basks in the limelight of a "great leader and a great Briton", we find more evidence that Mrs Thatcher he most certainly is not. Whatever one thinks of Mrs Thatcher, one thing never in doubt was she said what she meant and meant what she said. Cameron could not be further away from that principle if he tried.

As has been well documented here and elsewhere, his promise of a referendum on our "relationship" with the European Union is a sham, will be rigged and is not possible. Trying to renegotiate a looser relationship with the EU goes against the very fabric of the organisation.

However there is now a sting in the tail, as noted by Richard North, Cameron has no intention of honouring an out vote in the unlikely event one would occur. In an interview with the Spanish El Pais with the headline quote from Cameron; "The best solution for the UK is to stay in a reformed EU", he was asked the following (via Google translate):

In case of a Yes victory in the referendum that will organize on leaving the EU, would you be willing to withdraw from the Union?

And Cameron's response:

I would not. (No me gustaría)

That Cameron makes such an admission - of willfully ignoring a referendum vote - in a foreign newspaper is revealing. Truly he's the child of Europe, his hero evidently instead is Barroso (EU Commission President):

“They must go on voting until they get it right."

Slightly amazingly "cast-iron" has managed to sink even lower.

No, No, No!

Thatcher Dies

 

Unsurprisingly because she was divisive in life, the news of Thatcher's death is also thus. Those in certain areas of politics seem not to see the irony, in the age of equality, that celebrating an elderly, and ill, lady's death let alone the death of the first female British Prime Minister is inappropriate even nasty. 

I grew up under Thatcher and it was her downfall and the subsequent Tory meltdown over Europe that initiated (largely) my interest in politics. One shouldn't forget though that Thatcher long supported our EU membership, yet conversely to her credit she is the only Prime Minister - post 1973 - to admit that her attitudes and policies towards the EEC/EU were wrong.

What in my view is Thatcher's legacy, among many other things, was that she demonstrated a 'correction'. A correction that was necessary due to the demise of the UK in the 70s. The further a pendulum swings too far one way the more robust the correction has to be to bring things back into balance. Thatcher's correction was against the unions, our current correction is for democracy. In this Mrs Thatcher teaches us some actions are necessary.

40 Years Ago Today

That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European super-state was ever embarked on will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain . . . should ever have become part of it will appear a political error of the first magnitude.’ Lady Thatcher

Sadly among the New Year celebrations, we must note that today is 40th anniversary of one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made in its history - entry to what was then the EEC (euphemistically called a Common Market).

The EEC was nothing but a staging post onto the final goal of full political and economic union. Britain was joining a project that was designed to eradicate democracy and sovereignty. Despite Heath's assertions that, “there is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty”, the politicians at the time, particularly Heath, were well aware this was not true and kept the true nature of the project hidden from the British public. And so began the underlying characteristic of our membership - monumental deceit; lied to on entry, lied to during membership and lied to about the nature of exit.

Inevitably a number of articles have appeared today, but it's Christopher Booker's in today's Daily Mail that lays out fully the nature of our 40 year membership.

Thankfully though there seems to be light ahead, as there now appears a significant shift in the mood music if not momentum. For the first time politicians, including Cameron, are openingly discussing exit as an option, and not just in the UK either. These comments by Jacques Delors indicate that a UK exit is also being considered by those in Brussels:

"If the British cannot support the trend towards more integration in Europe, we can nevertheless remain friends, but on a different basis, I could imagine a form such as a European economic area or a free trade agreement," Delors suggested.

20 years ago when I started out actively campaigning against our membership not once did I imagine that Delors would ever utter words such as those. It's a sign of how far we've come and how the sentiment is shifting. For the first time in 40 years, our withdrawal looks to be a realistic prospect.

Such a situation though was always inevitable. Not only because the UK is such a reluctant member as Booker notes: 

During those 40 years the British have never been happy members of this club. Too often we have been out of step, and even bitterly at odds, with the rest — as in our refusal to join that single currency.

More importantly though the nature of the EU project makes such a clash unavoidable. With idealism that firmly resides in make-believe territory, Monnet's EU vision was by removing the nation state and democracy and instead leaving power in the hands of bureaucrats he could create "an organised world of tomorrow". But the nation state and democracy are so fundamental to human needs that such an artificial system that tried to defy the laws of human nature would be unworkable. I didn't choose to be English, I just am. And nothing will alter that fact, certainly not a system or a government foisted upon me against my will.

Monnet knew this, and subconsciously acknowledged this fundamental flaw in his plan, by determining that his project should be implemented by stealth, gradually constructing it without ever acknowledging the ultimate goal. He hoped, as did British politicians in the early 70s, that by the time the project revealed itself it would be too late to change anything. That situation of the project revealing itself is now coming to pass.

And it is not without some irony, that the EU who abhors the nation state, adopts many of the characteristics itself; it has a flag, a national anthem, and a capital city. Rather than try to abolish the nation state, it in effect is trying to force through a change of allegiances, from one flag to another. How anyone thought this could work successfully beggars belief. But think it would work Heath, Monnet et al did. That we embarked on such a folly of the first magnitude is testament that ending 40 years of membership won't bring back our democracy on its own, instead 40 years is a reminder that we never had it in the first place.

But above all else, exiting the EU does mean I, like many of my fellow countrymen, will no longer live and die as an EU citizen. I truly hope I live to see the day we leave.

Happy New Year.

No, No, No!

Sadly I'm not referring to Thatcher's most famous Parliamentary moment but Nick Clegg's response on this morning's BBC Today programme when questioned over the Euro.

I linked to it in an earlier post, but only now have I've had a chance to listen again properly. It's in fact a wonderful example of weapons-grade weasel words. My earlier thoughts that he claimed no-one predicted the Euro crisis are slightly incorrect. That's the impression Clegg wants to give however he specifically argues that no-one predicted that the current budget rules, particularly by France, would be flouted. A different assertion altogether.

When pressed by Justin Webb that 'Tory Eurosceptics' predicted a crisis Clegg goes into a 'no no no' moment and says:

"That is complete nonsense, people criticise the Euro for wholly different reasons they didn't predict that the Stability and Growth Pact and the rules enshrined in that... would have been so summarily ignored"

By concentrating on such a narrow aspect of the Euro crisis, and ignoring wider concerns expressed at the time, Clegg is trying to maintain that he's been right all along if only everyone abided by the rules... or to put it another way it's a desperate attempt at trying to get out of a 'told you so' moment.

Meanwhile, due to the crisis, the Greeks have resorted to eating from bins*:

Today Greeks are also looking through bins. Many of them are looking for things to sell, but others are searching for food.

For 25 years, Iranian born Samat Eftehar has owned a tavern in Exarchia. "It is still a lively little neighbourhood. I have known most of the people here for years. Some of them who were already on low salaries have had their wages cut. They are decent people, and now they are forced to eat from bins," he says.

Giorgos Arabatzoglou works as a street cleaner for Penteli district in the north of Athens: "Even in this well-off suburb, people are going through the bins, especially on market days. And it’s on the increase,” he says. “We are always finding torn bin liners, so we think more people are rooting: not just in the supermarket bins, but also outside souvlaki shops. Recently, I saw the extraordinary spectacle of a well-dressed young woman, rooting through a pile of expired yogurts trying to find the one with the most recent date."

I doubt somehow that multi-millionaire Clegg gives a damn - his Euro ideology is more important.

*hattip: Muffled Vociferation

Thatcher Sympathises With UKIP

It's not unexpected news that Thatcher has sympathy with UKIP, however Alex Singleton at the Telegraph has an interesting post:

Baroness Thatcher may be the ultimate symbol of the Conservative Party, but it seems that she has sympathies with UKIP. Before the general election, she had lunch with Lord Pearson and they discussed the problems that Pearson, then UKIP’s leader, was having in keeping the support of activists.

She advised him to hire Viscount Monckton, a former Telegraph journalist, who she said had done a brilliant job for her in the Number 10 Policy Unit.

If this is the case then Alex's final paragraph is spot-on:

...there’s a question [the Tories] should be asking themselves. If even Margaret Thatcher, the longest-serving Conservative PM of the 20th century, now thinks that UKIP is worth helping, aren’t the Tories getting something seriously wrong?

Quite.