Stance of parties, pundits and people on the EU


Part 1 is herePart 2 is here.

There are reasons why Part 3 won’t alter behaviours but it will cause people to shut it out and send this blog to Coventry:

1. People have their own agendas and though the first two parts of this article might make sense, someone like Jailhouse Lawyer, for example, will still support the EU because it supports prisoner’s votes. He said as much in comments on Part 1.

Andrew Scott, who dislikes being misquoted [sorry Andrew], made the point:

I won’t be signing up, but I do kind of wish you success, because a referendum could settle the issue, at least for a significant time.

Up here in Scotland many people have a different perspective, because we have had so many years of living with a dominant and bossy neighbour (even when we do provide plenty of the politicians overseeing that dominance), so for us a referendum would be a choice between being dominated by England even more, or dominated by Europe, rather than the English choice of being dominated by Europe or being free (apart from subsidising Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, some of you would claim), and I think I prefer Europe.

2. You can’t attack someone close. You can attack Gordo or the EU or any organization that is not going to hit back but try “outing” a fellow blogger [e.g. in 2007] and you never hear the end of it. “Not done, old chap.”

This Part 3 does precisely that – it doesn’t bite the hand that feeds it but it does bite plenty of politicians and pundits, including fellow bloggers, let alone the people themselves, in all their naivety and laziness, i.e. they won’t read the literature or they read the wrong literature. An example is the person who reads the newspaper and IPCC reports and just accepts them uncritically.

The bottom line, as stated, is that you can’t attack someone close. Attack twenty people close and you have a war on your hands or complete ostracism, something Tory bloggers are doing with me at present.

# State of play

What we have are a number of players:

1. The EU and its agenda, as stated in Parts 1 and 2. In with them are lumped Gordo and all the global socialists and these people are determined, shady and are drawing on the vast experience of their forebears [e.g. the Venetians] in how to foment unrest and make a profit from the spoils. To them, the common man is an object of derision.

2. Fellow travellers who see the EU as supporting them but actually will see them treated as pariahs when the time comes and/or thrown back into prison. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, no matter how smooth the sow’s ear might seem at the time.

3. Those whom Dante reserves for the deepest pit of Hell, frozen in a river of ice. You won’t find Gordo in this group because he is an “open traitor” to the country, a person that even the Chinese make fun of.

Gordo is already for the 1000 years in the pit of fire, where there is a weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This third group though are those who purport to support democracy and vaguely libertarian principles and then abandon them and go off on some completely different tangent which destroys any chance of progress being made. Either they are naive, don’t understand UK politics or they are shills who fly false flags, to trap the unwary and needy.  I don’t purport to try to discern which are which.

These include people of influence too whom many saw as fighters for freedom and for the common man but in fact … they are anything but.

4. The misled. These poor souls follow people in N3 and find, later, that they’ve been led up the garden path. Poor sods.

5. The oblivious – the vast majority out there who will vote in this government or that and whose politics are the hip pocket.

6. The type of person who is writing to you now, soon to be labelled an insurgent and subversive and in a nice counterpoint, even labelled a traitor.

So, we may as well get started on this.

# Tory stance

Dave said and let’s quote him from May 26th, 2009:

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

The EU has a quiet word with him [no suggestion of any of the folding stuff changing hands – more likely a gun at the head] and hey presto, we get, through his minion:

And now William Hague has said it was “no longer possible” to put the treaty to a popular vote.

He added:

“Now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the president of the European Council, the loss of British national vetoes … These things will already have happened and a referendum cannot unwind them or prevent them.”

Of course, this does not go down well with true Conservatives:

Gerald Warner is less easy to please. Abandoning the referendum, he writes, is an “historic moment” because it sets a new paradigm in political chicanery: Cameron will become the first British leader to have ratted on his commitments BEFORE even taking office.

# Sovereignty

Now we get into the very substance of what this post is all about, why Tories who follow this tosh are in error, why the leadership of the former Witanagemot, now the English Free Press, is in error and why the current LPUK leadership has abandoned its principles.

As can be seen from Parts 1 and 2, the EU is a monster which is laying waste to this country. There are two reactions to this:

1. Let’s get the hell out of there now and this is why the Albion Alliance was born. This is why, at the Tory Conference, Lord Trimble called for an immediate renegotiation of the terms of the treaty and Conservative Home polls backed that up.

But there is NO renegotiating with Brussels. They have no history of it and all they will get from Dave is concessions, whilst appearing to give up sovereignty in some areas. If you look back at 13th Spitfire’s chart again, you can work out yourself which ones those will be.

This is why, at the Conference, the Freedom Association and their Better Off Out group argued so forcefully for getting out now.

The group is chaired by Lord Vinson and the administrative work will be done from the office of Philip Davies MP. Here is the list of members:

Douglas Carswell MP, Baroness Cox, Philip Davies MP, Nigel Dodds MP, Jeffrey Donaldson MP, Philip Hollobone MP, Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE, The Earl of Liverpool, William McCrea MP, Dr. Ian Paisley MP, Lord Maginnis of Drunglass, Lord Mancroft, Austin Mitchell MP, Lord Monson, Lord Moran KCMG, Lord Palmer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Quinton FBA, Iris Robinson MP, Peter Robinson MP, The Earl of Shrewsbury and Waterford DL, David Simpson MP, Dr. Bob Spink MP, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Swinfen, The Rt. Hon. The Lord Tebbit, Lord Tombs, Lord Vinson LVO DL (Chairman), Lord Willoughby de Broke, Sammy Wilson MP, Ann Winterton MP, Sir Nicholas Winterton MP

2.  Unfortunately, there is a counter-movement, egged on by the Europhile lobby, which claims that we are currently in too weakened a position to have a referendum, particularly with Brown setting the questions.   Everyone – Europhile and Eurosceptic alike – concedes that with the very nature of the British public, the phrasing of the question is critical.

Q: Would you like to see a strong prosperous Britain with the security and family values the EU can provide in these troubled times? Vote Yes. Would you like to see more of the instability, job losses and debt which we currently have in Britain? Vote No.

Naturally, in terms of Parts 1 and 2 of this article, that is hardly the question.

For that reason, the Cameron-Clarkes have gone back on their earlier promise and reneged on offering the people a referendum. Their notion [if you can believe their motives at all] is that the British people need “educating” over a five year period and then, at the end of that period, a referendum can be put.

Have these people not seen all the material from the first two parts of this article, in various other forms? Did they not hear Roger Helmer when he stated at the Conference [and I quote verbatim]:

The European Union works on the principle of occupied ground, never giving back powers, once subsumed but promising to give them back nonetheless, under the easel word “subsidiarity”, a largely meaningless term, designed to convince the unwary. Brussels, once in control of some aspect of legislation, never gives back, never budges.

Clearly Dave never heard that or else he is already in thrall to other forces and can’t afford to hear it. So, a supposedly astute politician who has centralized his party structure and also, supposedly, is getting feedback from all sorts of think tanks, including his own at the Conference, still comes out with this:

David Cameron will promise that an incoming Conservative administration would set up a new constitutional court to protect British sovereignty from encroachment from Europe. This is according to The Times, which is retailing details of the Boy’s briefing to Tory MPs this morning.

He told them that an incoming Conservative administration would immediately seek to pass a Sovereignty Act which would set up a legal body, similar to the German constitutional court, which would rule on future EU proposals. A senior member of the shadow cabinet told The Times: “Because we don’t have a written constitution we have been particularly vulnerable to depredation from Brussels.”

This is, of course, total bullshit. We have a written constitution now. It is called the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, which takes precedence over UK law … and what remains of our constitution.

And it gets worse:

Ken Clarke, the shadow Business Secretary, is to hold secret talks in Brussels with Jose Manuel Barroso to assure the European Commission President the EU has nothing to fear from a Conservative government.

… and as part of that same report:

In November, Mr Cameron moved to reassure Brussels that, should he win elections in May, a new Conservative government would not trigger a “massive Euro bust-up” by holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which had just been ratified across the EU.

The Tory leader also tried to defuse the Europe issue by saying that it would take at least five years to negotiate the return of criminal justice and employment powers from the EU to Britain.


Lord Tebbit waded in with:

And, just to cap it all, it seems that our masters in Brussels are so confident of their mastery that they will not let us, the British, give any preference to ourselves in selling tickets to the Olympic Games that we are paying for here, in what used to be our own country.

In short, if he becomes Prime Minister, David Cameron will have more to worry about than whether he imposed enough Cameron Cuties on the demoralised remains of the Tory grass roots supporters.

Glad someone sees that.  A former Tory Councillor was particularly scathing about Dave’s poll position and his reneging on all he stood for.

# Other parties

OK, OK, you say – everyone knows the Conservative Party has been hijacked by the Europhiles so what can one expect except treachery from that quarter? And the people of Britain are showing, through polls, what they think of that.

That’s the once-great Tories, it’s not even necessary to mention Labour any more, the Lib Dems are at daggers drawn but one would have expected LPUK to have stood tall and represented the interests of libertarians, freedom lovers everywhere.


Not a bit of it.

At their 2009 conference, their new Leader announced that he believed that we should not revisit this [an EU Referendum] for 5 years or so, bringing his party into line with the Cameron-Clarke hijacked Tories.

Their current Deputy-Leader then came out with this:

With respect I told you [meaning Higham] that a one issue pressure group such as the Albion Alliance over Europe was too early, too public and not going to get any traction. The big two and a half are going to pretend that they can get away with running things as usual- when the political reality is that the storm is yet to break, when butskillism finally fails.

The EU is an issue, where we disagree is that it is not THE issue, if that is the way you honestly feel, you need to be members of UKIP who are totally focussed on the EU to the exclusion of everything else. Unfortunately their policies as proved under Pearson are largely old school Tory Authoritarian.

If you are trying to build a cross party consensus, don’t alienate potential supporters to your cause. The LPUK is regrouping after an intial burst of enthusiasm, and dealing with reality not pie in the sky aspirations.

Pie in the sky aspirations?

Wanting this country to escape what is happening to them [see Parts 1 and 2 of this article]?

It is not THE issue?

With this government and the next one in no position whatsoever to renegotiate with the EU and even as we speak, the noose is tightening further in the sphere of courts of justice?

Autonomous Mind,  one of the last of the true patriots, answered this and the subsequently ridiculous addendum that we are obsessive and quixotic in wanting a referendum:

It is not ridiculous to say that the UK is under EU control. Any business where 80% of the shareholding is owned by one person/group is under their control. So it is with the EU, which is the origin of around 80% of our laws and regulations.

I would not call myself obsessive about the EU. But realistically, it is not possible to fix a multitude of problems this country has if Parliament does not have complete political sovereignty. We cannot act in our own best interests when we have to conform to European models that are alien to us.

So the EU issue has to be priority one if we are to resolve the other problems. That’s why it keeps surfacing as an issue.

Quite frankly, the current LPUK leadership has sold its soul to the Europhile Tories so they might as well just join them. Meanwhile the people, as they always have been, are being sold down the gurgler and Libertarians need to find themselves a new party.

Has the current Deputy Leader never heard of grassroots action and the voice of the people?  Does he think that a Westminster and EU which is never challenged will somehow become good little people and hand back their powers?  Does he really believe we can trade ourselves back into a strong position whilst under the EU yoke?

Let me leave the question of LPUK with their new Leader’s own words:

1. On Douglas Carswell’s PMB:

I guarantee that this Bill will be quietly smacked down, but bravo to Douglas for trying. Cameron’s reaction should be interesting too: I wonder how long it will take the massively-foreheaded freak to engineer Douglas’s deselection…?

2. On the policy which Cameron claims is Eurosceptic, the LPUK leader first [correctly] lists this:

* No referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

* No referendum on Dave’s renegotiation proposal, i.e. something that would give Dave a strong bargaining position.

* No referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU—the very proposal of which would give Dave an even stronger bargaining position.

* A policy for repatriation of powers that wouldn’t fool anyone who knows anything about how the EU operates for more than 5 and a half seconds.

* No attempt to even bargain for repatriation of powers for “some years”—by which time the Tories hope to have their feet nicely under the table so that they can tell the EUsceptics to bugger off.

… and even prefaces this with:

Eurosceptic: my fucking arsehole. Pragmatic and achievable his policy may be—Eurosceptic it most certainly is not.

Now you would conclude from that [and note I didn’t dip into old posts from 2008 or earlier, when the political landscape was admittedly a bit different] that the new LPUK leader would be a key signatory. Clearly he believes in a referendum, on the strength of what he’s written.

Not a bit of it.

The very policy attacked in these posts is the one his party has adopted under his early leadership.

# UKIP and Lib Dems

WTF is the campaign leadership playing at?

While their PPCs put country before party and commit to a referendum on the EU, the leadership itself [not including Nigel] is being most untransparent and shows no inclination to work with other groups who are pursuing the same goals. The UKIP PPCs are good people, along with certain Tories who have defied the whip and various Lib Dems who seem to suffer the same problem we do [the Conservatives] – two parties in one.

Some of the best people out there are Lib Dem PPCs and some of the most virulently stupid are also Lib Dems.

# Power 2010

One good thing the LPUK leader did though was to expose Power 2010. This is a group that pretended to want to know the views of the people of the UK and then applied its own little filtering system to the issues people thought were important, on the grounds that there were so many issues submitted, they had to cull the majority of them.

Cull the call for an EU Referendum, with from 53% to 83% of respondents to a wide range of surveys saying they wanted one? It doesn’t even make it into the Top Ten issues?

Has anyone ever heard the words “false flag’ and “shill”?  Not an important issue, guys? 13th Spitfire offers this graph:

spitfire graph

This graph shows something very interesting, it shows how people’s attitude towards leaving the EU has changed over the years. The graph is constantly updated and the data sets used can be found here. As the trend currently stands, the clever British public can spot a quisling when it spits them in the face.

# English votes on English laws

Only one thing to say on this:

RT: @GuyAitchison: Eng Votes on Eng Laws has crept up into third place on power2010 leaderboard thanks to campaign by Devil’s Kitchen, Kingsnorth & others…

Well, one more thing.  I’ll be toddling on over soon to sign up to this utopian notion, a great notion in itself but sadly doomed to failure in the current situation within the EU.

As for the Cameron-Clarkes’ position on English Votes – yep, another U Turn, prompting Daniel 1979 to exclaim:

WTF is David Cameron doing? He really is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – it’s not like he was heavy on the policy in his early years as Shadow Leader, but it seems just about every Tory policy he has announced over the years is subject to revision or reversal. With so few policies for those of us who advanced the Conservative line to use*, you would absolutely think he would at least get right the one’s he announced. Sort it out Dave!

It’s all so dispiriting, isn’t it?

No one in key positions seems to be supporting the people of the UK and certainly not supporting the English. In fact, the business of Cameron’s U Turn on English Votes shows English Nationals what’s in store if and when Dave gets into power.

Even that is not a shoe-in.

# Hung parliament?

Martin Wolf, at the FT, writes:

Yet there is, to my mind, an even bigger reason. I have long been a supporter of the British preference for single party majority government. Reluctantly, I have changed my mind. As a recent report from the Better Government Initiative makes plain, the UK’s government has been the author of a flood of ill-considered, media-driven initiatives. Almost nothing is properly thought out. This is the result of the domination of a handful of people over the machinery of power, unchecked by party, parliament, bureaucracy or any other tier of government.

Coalition government would make this change in desirable ways. So do I fear a hung parliament? Not at all. It would force the next prime minister to persuade some truly independent colleagues. Given the task ahead, government by whim and by whip is just not good enough.

# Conclusions

I’m not going to draw any. You can draw your own from what you’ve read in these three parts of the article and from what you’ve read elsewhere.

I’m not even going to promote the Albion Alliance at the end here. You’ll no doubt make up your own mind which way to go concerning the parlous state of the UK at this time, what is the single greatest cause of it and how it can be swiftly resolved.


1. From Damian Thompson:

Friday’s New Statesman carries a ComRes poll that will make interesting reading for David Cameron. Three quarters of his prospective parliamentary candidates want to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with Europe “as a matter of priority”. And 91 per cent favour a cap on immigration. Meanwhile, only 28 per cent believe that the next government should legislate to make people behave in a “greener” way.

2. I didn’t name certain people themselves above but rather their position in their party. It’s not the persons I take issue with [both are friends] but the political direction.

3.  I did think Nigel’s comment to Rumpy Pumpy was a bit OTT.  Let’s keep it civil, even as we unleash the missile.

Part 1 is herePart 2 is here.

33 comments for “Stance of parties, pundits and people on the EU

  1. February 24, 2010 at 16:55

    Good summary.

    However, say what you like about UKIP but they have not, after all these years, softened on the importance of getting out of the EU. They do have lots of other policies (some you’ll like, some you won’t, fair enough) but to say they are going soft on the EU is simply not true. And they are perfectly happy to ‘work with other groups’ AFAIAA.

  2. February 24, 2010 at 16:58

    I only mentioned the leadership, Mark, the campaign managers, not Nigel, not the rank and file and not the PPCs.

  3. QM
    February 24, 2010 at 17:08

    Masterly summing up James (all 3 parts) You’re right it wont make for happy reading for some, but it needed to be said by someone (anyone) It seems the political leadership of the various UK parties are lukewarm on the EU at best, wanting to either ignore it or fudge the issues.
    The general public and the grass roots of the parties are not however fooled, though many are in despair at what has and is being foisted upon them.
    Should Scotland and/or Wales wish to stay in the EU, well that’s up to them, though I doubt they’d like the conditions imposed after a net contributor (England) left.

  4. February 24, 2010 at 18:09

    Between you and Ellee I stay fully caught up on what’s happening on the other side of the Pond.

    non sequiter: I don’t think I’ve said it to you recently, but I was telling someone in NYC, when they were asking about my blog, that I owe my initial success to you. It was your mention of my blog several times on your quite sucessful blog that brought people to me in the beginning – so thank you again.

  5. February 24, 2010 at 18:36

    Nicely done, it was worth all that hard work 🙂

  6. February 24, 2010 at 18:51

    Thanks QM, Lady M and Cherie. I believe I’m going to be taken apart later by people who can do it. Stay tuned.

  7. February 24, 2010 at 18:54

    I shall post about this at more length, but I am sorry to say that you have utterly—and dishonestly—misrepresented the Libertarian Party’s policy. Our policy—as stated very, very clearly here in the manifesto—is as follows:

    “The Libertarian Party would take the UK out of the European Union. There are a myriad of reasons why straightforward trading arrangements with our European friends would prove economically more beneficial to UK citizens and businesses than full membership, but purely financial matters should not be our overriding concern. What really matters is our sovereignty—the ability for the UK to make its own decisions in its own interests. We find ourselves today in a position where EU law takes precedence over our own, and where EU rules and directives control the daily lives of UK citizens.

    “Incredibly, it would actually be legally impossible for the Libertarian Party to implement much of the manifesto that you are now reading if we remained within the EU—even something as fundamental as our national VAT regime is now determined at a European level. Whilst the UK remains part of the European superstate, it is largely irrelevant which party is elected to Westminster; the hands of our national politicians are tied by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. That’s simply ridiculous, and we believe that decisions about how the UK is governed really belongs to one group of people, and to those people alone—the citizens of our country.”

    We don’t want a referendum—we want out. If people vote for LPUK, it should be taken for granted that they are voting to leave the EU.

    We don’t make a massive thing of it because we don’t want to be perceived—as UKIP are—as a single-issue party.


  8. February 24, 2010 at 21:37

    Thanks, James – great job! WTF is Cameron thinking? Is he sinking the Tory Party? The site looks like Labour II, including greenism and progressivism. All these voters who are off this shite have will find themselves without representation! No getting this. Has he time to retreat? Probably too late now, right?

  9. February 24, 2010 at 21:52

    Thanks for dropping by, DK and setting the record straight. Now, let’s examine the charge of “dishonesty”.

    At the 2009 LPUK conference, you announced that you believed that we should not revisit this [an EU Referendum] for 5 years or so.

    You did say that – it’s on the record. Not only did you state that but the other day, your deputy wrote on this site that in fact the policy is and let me quote:

    With respect I told you that a one issue pressure group such as the Albion Alliance over Europe was too early, too public and not going to get any traction.

    The EU is an issue, where we disagree is that it is not THE issue, if that is the way you honestly feel, you need to be members of UKIP who are totally focussed on the EU to the exclusion of everything else.

    I stated in the post above that that brought your party into line with the Cameron-Clarke hijacked Tories who also have left their stated policies.

    So, one can reasonably assume that if a party’s leader and his deputy leader both state that something is the policy, then it is. On what basis may I, a non-member, assume anything else?

    Now, going back to the manifesto, I knew that your old policy was:

    “The Libertarian Party would take the UK out of the European Union … Whilst the UK remains part of the European superstate, it is largely irrelevant which party is elected to Westminster; the hands of our national politicians are tied by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.”

    You’ve kindly reprinted this above. The reason I knew it was LPUK policy was that both your former leader and the leader before him both said it was.

    But you do see the dilemma, don’t you? I’m assuming, because of your and your deputy’s changed stance that the policy itself had changed with you.

    Not for one second did I realize you had done a Dave and were actually out of step with your membership on policy. Perhaps you have always held out against a referendum but your earlier posts on your blog seem to say the opposite – that you supported a referendum.

    So you see, it was not dishonesty on my part but reasonable assumptions that actually showed up an anomaly within the party once I was assured that policy had not changed.

    The confusion is over where you actually stand vis a vis a referendum. “Whilst the UK remains part” assumes you want out and the only way that can happen, as you know, is via a referendum. If there was another way, than Carswell, Hannan and Better Off Out would not bother calling for a referendum.

    Yet you say you want out and then say you don’t – that you don’t want a referendum.


    Now, it only remains for me to apologize to any libertarian out there – all is well, your party itself [if not its leadership] is still anti-EU and pro-referendum.

    I hope that you and the deputy can get this matter resolved, DK and that LPUK can then go forward from strength to strength. No need to apologize to me for the erroneous charge of dishonesty – I’ll put it down to a misunderstanding.

  10. February 24, 2010 at 21:57

    Another interesting series James. Thanks for taking the time.

  11. February 24, 2010 at 21:58

    Cassandra – thanks – our comments crossed. Daniel too.

  12. February 24, 2010 at 22:11

    Oh… I began interested (as usual) found there was way, way way to much reading for my priorities (sorry), decided to use the “scientific article” approach of jumping to the “Conclusion” (There being no Abstract either) only to find you saying: “I’m not going to draw any.”

    Oh well. I probably know the gist of it already, I suppose.

  13. February 24, 2010 at 22:17

    Andrew – congratulations. You are the 13th commenter on this post. Sorry about the anti-climax but I didn’t misquote you this time.

  14. February 24, 2010 at 22:27


    I am not the party: the Libertarian Party’s policy remains as stated on the website: that a Libertarian Party government would leave the EU. No referendums, no pissing about.

    My personal view (and, on the record, it should show that I stressed that this was my personal view) is that I do not want a referendum now because I think that we—that is, those of us who want to leave the EU—would lose.

    The pro-EU forces have dined out of the strength of a referendum on the Common Market for nearly forty years—we simply cannot risk another “stay in” vote.

    “So, one can reasonably assume that if a party’s leader and his deputy leader both state that something is the policy, then it is. On what basis may I, a non-member, assume anything else?”

    On the basis of the published manifesto.

    “Now, it only remains for me to apologize to any libertarian out there – all is well, your party itself [if not its leadership] is still anti-EU and pro-referendum.”

    Oh, do grow up, James. I have explained this to you at least twice in email conversations.

    As I said above, the party policy is not pro-referendum: our party policy is to leave the EU. There’s no referendum involved.

    And I am still anti-EU—as I have been for at least the last twenty years—but it is because of that stance that I do not want a referendum now.


    • February 24, 2010 at 22:40

      No, you’re out of step with your party, as I stated. You say you are anti-EU but you don’t want the UK out. As you know, the only way out is a referendum. And yet your party manifesto says you must go for that. How does “growing up” come into this? As I said, I hope you and your deputy get it all sorted out because the members would probably like to know whether you want out or in.

      In means any policy can be implemented. Out means referendum.

      This is the political truism you’d know if you’d read the material on the EU. I’ve summarized it in the first two posts in this series. You’ll see, of course, that the only way out is referendum and it has to be now, to keep you in line with your party policy.

  15. JD
    February 24, 2010 at 22:35

    “The end game in politics is always to pick up a gun”
    Buckmunster Fuller.
    ….or to put it another way, if you do not do what the government tells you, they will hit you. Either hit you in the wallet or by taking away your freedom or literally hit you as they did during the Countryside Alliance march against the hunting bill.
    If you continue as you are with well reasoned arguments and facts and figures and campaigns and fine words. they will ignore you. All that will happen is that you will damage your own psyche.
    There is another way and you actually touched on the theme when you wrote-
    “To them, the common man is an object of derision.”
    ……and that is exactly how you should respond. Do not fight them on their terms because they know how to play that game. Hit them in their weak spot – their egos. Fight them and they will fight back and win but laugh at them, ridicule them, wound their pride, prick the bubble of self importance. They are already nervous about what the people might do. It will not take much but it has to be sustained and at all targets you can find.
    You saw Van Rompey’s face, it was not the ‘wet rag’ or the ‘bank clerk’ but the ‘who are you?’ that would be the deepest cut. Nobody can survive ridicule for long, no matter how strong they are.
    Just a thought.

  16. February 24, 2010 at 22:54


    I can see what you’re saying, which would make sense if there was more than a snowball’s chance in hell of LPUK sweeping to power. Should everyone sit on their hands waiting for that glorious day?

    ‘we simply cannot risk another “stay in” vote.’

    The status quo is that we’ve lost. A referendum may be one last throw of the dice, but if we don’t take it, we’ve lost anyway.

  17. February 24, 2010 at 23:12

    I think what is being missed here was that the pro vote was 3% in Wilson’s referendum because the question was framed in a positive atmosphere towards the EU. Now there is between 53% and 83% wanting out. So the atmosphere is that a yes vote would ensue.

    So what risk of a “stay in vote”? It’s a smokescreen. I mean, look at the logic. If you’ve read parts one and two which I suspect you haven’t, you’d know there are myriad regulations in the pipeline. Every day are a couple of dozen more. The UK is in the process of being broken up right now.

    The people are angry and a large majority want out. So leaders who won’t support that are going against the people’s voice. It’s a case of Nero fiddling.

    What the UK needs is leaders who will take a firm stance on this.

    What is also being missed here is that the very MPs who are in the thick of it over there know full well what is going down. That is why both Conservative and UKIP are both singing the same song. They are in he middle of it, they see it, they realize the urgency. Hence Douglas’ PMB.

    It’s only in the UK that we have this fast asleep syndrome written about by Orwell. It’s like people are unaware of the danger. It’s like the Nazis at Calais and someone over here waves to them and says, ‘Oh look, nice German tourists.”

    Just read the material please, for goodness sake and follow the links.

  18. February 24, 2010 at 23:19

    The problem we face is the current leaders have a vested interest in staying in.

  19. February 25, 2010 at 01:40


    “You say you are anti-EU but you don’t want the UK out.”


    Yes. I. Do. If I were in charge, we would be out tomorrow.

    However, all that you are proposing is a referendum. Which, right now, we would lose—thus condemning us for another forty years, at least.

    “As you know, the only way out is a referendum.”

    No, it’s not. A willing government could take us out tomorrow, simply by repealing the European Communities Act (yes, they could: it’s the one advantage that the Lisbon Treaty had over the EU Constitution).

    A referendum result, however, is not binding in our constitution.

    “And yet your party manifesto says you must go for that.”

    No, it doesn’t. Because a referendum is not the only way out. Get it?

    Trooper Thomson,

    “The status quo is that we’ve lost. A referendum may be one last throw of the dice, but if we don’t take it, we’ve lost anyway.”

    Much better to have the referendum in, say, five years—when the British people have realised the full horror of the Lisbon Treaty—and we can guarantee the result.

    This is called practical politics.


  20. February 25, 2010 at 08:02

    Sigh. OK, right. Let’s go:

    No DK, you miss the whole point and clearly you haven’t even bothered reading the summary in the first two parts. It showed clearly that the UK does NOT have power under the ECA – this is the dangerous mantra which the main party leaders have been tantalized with and are trotting out to the rank and file.

    They have a technical power in terms of a provision but there are counter-provisions in other legislation. Also in “practical terms”, as you put it:

    Parliament can only repeal UK laws, i.e. the European Communities Act if 2 things are still in place in 5 years time;

    a. A United Kingdom, and
    b. A United Kingdom Parliament.

    Regional governments won’t have the power to withdraw; that’s why there is the headlong rush to grant more devolution to Wales, NI & Scotland, and the minions are calling for localisation (more properly regionalisation) in England.

    This is not being done by accident

    You’re not unintelligent, DK, so why are you putting this stuff instead of leading us? Heaven knows the country could do with a leader. I suspect that your real life work is soaking up the bulk of your time and you’re both not looking in the right direction, at the right material in your spare time plus you are probably very tired right now.

    You cannot take us out unilaterally because the government has signed away, relinquished the power to make policy and they’ve relinquished it to a self-amending body. Don’t you understand that it is not a static body, that the Commission and the Council are both changing shape in terms of your “practical” politics which you speak of.

    You’re doing precisely what you accuse me of – putting a technically correct mantra which is wildly IMPRACTICAL. It cannot be done in practice because of the ramifications for other treaties and agreements, many of which are based on our debt to other bodies. It is so naive I can’t believe you’re putting it forward.

    Do you want me to back that up? I have. Read effing parts one and two, with the greatest of respect. What, for example, do you think of Article 490? 491? I humbly and with enormous respect entreat you – read the effing material before you speak!

    You see, what you’re doing is not recognizing that it is changing on a daily, weekly basis. The goal of the EU is to keep Germany, France and the UK, i.e. England inside to keep funding it and to minimize the chance of independent action. They are doing it not only with regulations, delegated legislation and SIs – they are also doing it through a culture of the European Community which is tied into the BIS and Round Table groups – the money, in other words.

    We have an empty treasury currently and deep debt to foreign lenders. Do you think all this just happened through Brown’s incompetence? It was set up for the bigger picture – holding England in. They know very well about the ECA. They know every step of the game. You’re not dealing with nobodies in Europe.

    “I would take us out tomorrow?”

    How? How? You have no mechanism, except a technical one. What, you’d default on all our loans? You could do it unilaterally only one way – appeal to the people’s voice and the people’s voice is only through a referendum.

    You can’t even do the negotiating without that legitimacy. You say we’d lose the vote – quite the opposite. We’d win it if it were put to the people correctly by our side. i.e. in simple terms they’d understand and that doesn’t take five years – it takes some months for the attention spans of the average punter.

    We keep coming back [not me coming back – we, we, the UK] to the referendum. Of course they’ll ignore it but it gives any leader of ours legitimacy which Brown signed away, on behalf of future parliaments. You can quote the old Act which does not allow parliaments to do that but you no longer, when it comes up for legal scrutiny, have British courts dealing with it – they are European courts, using Corpus Juris

    These are the things which are just so frustrating that people do not understand.

    Practical politics? These are the practical politics, DK.

  21. February 25, 2010 at 08:40

    Yikes, it got through.

    Shiver me timbers!

  22. February 25, 2010 at 09:11

    While ever eu bribes are filtering through by way of strategic investments, (bribes in real terms, just the same as eu pensions for dozens of Lords) you don’t stand a chance, James.

    As more control is taken, westminster loses financial control, eu picks targets to bribe, sheep will increasingly vote for eu.

    it’s just the same as in any election…promise the most, get elected. Electorate dependency becomes a majority.

    Cut off the money!…. or perhaps it’s too entrenched, even now!

  23. February 25, 2010 at 09:15

    DK, the Justice Laws Thoburn v Sunderland is a key factor here. There is now, thanks to Brown not countermanding it, a hierarchy of statutes proposed by Laws.

    It is so that constitutional statutes are derived from English law and not EU law in terms of that judgment but this has been overridden by Lisbon itself. The Rawlinson [et al] opinion was that in a dispute involving implied repeal, the latter stature would rule, i.e. the EU opinion.

    Now, this is not to be argued, in the next five years, in purely English courts – it is being argued in a European context because it involves repeal and withdrawal.

    What I’m saying here is that learned opinion and precedent is being set in an area where it had not been an issue before. The court must refer to something so it has this and other judicial opinion.

    What we have here is the odds being stacked in favour of the repeal failing. What would bolster the withdrawers’ case would be a referendum No because it gives the much needed precedent in order to argue. All else is just argument.

    Therefore, in order to do what you say – try again in five years, you have to lay the groundwork now before EU Law subsumes national law – that’s what’s going on right now – the mad scramble.

    To let it go for five years or to hope to put up a constitutional case not based on the will of the people is highly dangerous. So – far from it being impractical to hold a referendum now, it is in fact immensely practical because it would determine the whole debate from then on.

    And it would be a Yes, not a No as you say because DC would be framing the question. His Eurosceptic wing would raise hell if he tried to put anything but a clearcut in/out. I know he’ll try it because I heard what was proposed at the Conference.

    But things have moved on from then.

    The only way I’d agree with you here that it is too early is if Brown was returned or to do it right now. We’re not talking about that – we’re talking about in the first year of the new parliament, while it is still a parliament of the UK.

  24. February 25, 2010 at 09:23

    It’s the same in the US.

    Bailed out entities are supporting the stock market, which is the basis for balance sheet valuations, 401K, pension valuations, and feel-good-factors.

    Everyone is screaming that those entities and the Fed should be under more control, but no-one dare make a move.

    Once politicians have sold their soul to money, they are bought and paid for. What the money says, goes.

    IMHO the only way ahead must follow political collapse, ie, a complete vote for NONE of the big three, only for who-ever else is standing in your area, just anyone. Let the gravy train cunts suffer in their own quality of life, toss the bastards out, whom ever they are.

    Only when they suffer personally will they understand.

    And prey that a leader may emerge from the fringe. There are NONE in the big 3, so what’s to lose?

  25. February 25, 2010 at 09:27

    I’m going to close off the comments section here and transfer the purely EU based comments to the new post.

    This was because it was getting a bit unwieldy and difficult to trawl through. So, please follow the link to the continued discussion.

Comments are closed.