Today David Cameron set out his reasons why Britain should remain within the European Union in a speech he made at the British Museum. His office released a full transcript of the speech and below I reproduce the main points of that speech together with my own rebuttals exposing the many flaws in his arguments:
David Cameron began by rightly stating that the decision before the British people is a momentous one and one that will have a massive impact on the future of our people. The inference from Cameron’s speech is that by voting the wrong way, by voting to leave the EU, we risk disaster by upsetting that delicate balance upon which our future wellbeing depends.
He states: “This is a decision that is bigger than any individual politician or government.
“It will have real, permanent and direct consequences for this country and every person living in it.”
What he fails to explain however is that the EU is a constantly changing edifice and whatever we think we are signing up to today, it will be entirely different in just a year or two. There is no ‘delicate balance’ within the EU; the EU is about to admit Turkey into the union and has a policy of permitting the uncontrolled immigration of countless millions of immigrants from Africa and Asia to our continent. Furthermore, it is plain to see that the principle officers of the EU have their sights set on press-ganging Britain and every other member state into a political union that has already taken the form of a bureaucratic tyranny dominated by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
There is no ‘delicate balance’ and while the decision before our people is indeed a momentous one, it is a choice between remaining a passenger on a run-away train that is heading for a dark and forbidding destination, or of stepping off and going back to the way we used to govern ourselves prior to 1973, with a constitutional form of government that had evolved organically and as an integral part of our nation’s culture over a period of almost a thousand years.
In setting out his advantages to remaining within the EU, David Cameron stresses many times the ‘access’ that our membership entitles us to, of “a single market of 500 million people”, in which we “can trade freely by right”. The single market and the multiplicity of trade agreements that it involves are in effect a ‘tied arrangement’ comparable to a commercial deal in which a customer agrees to transact all of their business with a single supplier in return for ‘preferential terms’. The difference here however is that the deal we are being offered by the EU is not one that we will be able to extricate ourselves from, at some future date. This referendum is a once and once only opportunity that we will never be offered again.
It is interesting to compare the enthusiasm that our corrupt politicians have for this ‘special offer’, with its ‘not-so-golden handcuffs’; the type of deal that the consumer lobby would never recommend and would issue dire warnings about in any other circumstances. If the EU was a financial services company attempting to lock customers in to a contract that would bind them for life and in which the company would in future have the right to vary the terms of that contract at their convenience and irrespective of the impact it would have on the customer, we would have BBC’s ‘Watchdog’ going apoplectic, but when it comes to entering such a dubious arrangement as a nation, our politicians including the Prime Minister, are all for it!
Cameron states: “Our membership of the single market is one of the reasons why our economy is doing so well”, and he then goes on to list; “our superb workforce”; our “low taxes”; and our “climate of enterprise”, as three other reasons why we are doing so well[sic], all of which we would still have even if we were to leave the EU.
What Cameron again neglects to consider are the multiplicity of other lucrative markets that we could trade with once we are free of the constricting, tied arrangement offered by the ‘single market’.
Cameron claims: “If we leave, the only certainty we will have is uncertainty”.
However, as I have already explained, we have no certainty within the EU either, and locked into the EU, we have no way of avoiding any adverse changes that might come along, whereas outside, we can make our own way, as our forefathers did, for thousands of years before the EU was ever conceived.
Cameron claims: “The Treasury has calculated that the cost to every household in Britain would be as high as £4,300 by 2030 if we leave.”
Statistics such as this however, are meaningless when we consider they were produced by the Treasury, which is the government department under George Osborne’s direction. George Osborne is fervently pro-EU and therefore any statistics produced by the Treasury must be regarded as tainted by that bias.
Here again, we find ourselves like the energy customer being told by their energy provider that they are £50 a year better off by being on their ‘exclusive’ tariff, when in reality calculations of that sort are impossible to make because of the large number of unknown variables in the equation.
The question of whether to remain within the EU or leave, should not, and cannot be answered on economic grounds. In the final analysis, the EU member states will still want to export their produce to Britain irrespective of our decision. Despite being called a ‘Common Market’ and an ‘economic union’, the EU is and has always been a primarily political project with political motives for its creation and the economics will adapt themselves to whatever political structure exists.
All of the dire warnings given by Cameron and the pro-EU side, of impending economic disaster, of house prices falling, of prices going up, and of jobs lost, are all nonsense that is designed to scare the public into voting for the ‘status quo’, except it really isn’t the status quo as I’ve already explained.
Cameron asserts: “If we stay, we know what we get – continued full access to a growing single market, including in energy, services and digital, together with the benefit of the huge trade deals in prospect between the EU and the United States and other large markets.
“If we leave, it is – genuinely – a leap in the dark”.
The reality as I have explained is that Cameron wants us to remain on a run-away train, over which we have no control, the driver of which can change the speed and destination of that train, and can change the price of the tickets without reference to us, and while we are locked in indefinitely, he is hell bent on allowing as many unsavoury looking stowaways as want to, hop on board and travel with us for free.
If we vote to leave, it won’t be a leap in the dark, it will be a lucky escape from an almost certain nightmare.
Cameron goes on: “But my main focus today will not be on the economic reasons to remain in the EU, important though they are.
“I want to concentrate instead on what our membership means for our strength and security in the world, and the safety of our people, and to explain why, again, I believe the balance of advantage comes down firmly in favour of staying rather than leaving.”
“So today I want to set out the big, bold patriotic case for Britain to remain a member of the EU”.
As Cameron continues, despite his use of the word, ‘patriotic’, it is increasingly obvious that he has no real concept of the British people as a nation.
“I want to show that if you love this country …,” he says, talking about the abstract concept of a ‘country’ rather than the flesh and blood concept of our people.
“We love this country”, he goes on, “and we want the best future for it. Ours is a great country.”
A ‘country’ as we all know is simply a geographically defined piece of real estate. There are to be found within it many natural resources and we can through nostalgia develop an emotional attachment to that piece of real estate, but our country is just as attractive to foreigners and offers foreigners that same natural resources and environment as it does us. Given time, foreigners will grow to love our country just as much as we do, but that doesn’t benefit ‘us’, the British people, and it is to the British people that our allegiance should be.
Cameron talks about our ‘country’; our ‘economy’; our capital city as a global icon; and our language, all of which can exist independently of the British people. But he does not mention the British people or our interests.
Cameron talks about “our national flag” as a “symbol of hope and a beacon for liberal values all around the world”, but he does not talk of the British people.
Cameron states: “Britain today is a proud, successful, thriving nation, a nation the world admires and looks up to, and whose best days lie ahead of it”. He talks about the nation state of ‘Britain’, as if the ‘nation state’ is the nation, without realising that a nation state in which the people of that nation have been marginalised and dispossessed, becomes merely a ‘state’, a politically defined piece of real estate. He refers to our nation as ‘it’ — “whose best days lie ahead of it” — he does not use the word ‘us’.
Cameron attempts to employ patriotism in order to induce his audience into committing an unpatriotic act, i.e. into voting for the continued dissolution of their nation under the heel of the EU. He has a section of his speech entitled, “The character of the British People”, and here he waxes lyrically about our unique character, “We are special, different, unique”, he gushes, forgetting for a moment the many times he has asserted that immigrants from the far flung corners of the globe exhibit those same qualities, and are just as British as we indigenous British.
Again skirting around the issue of the nation as a distinct people, Cameron then goes on to pose the questions: “Would going it alone make Britain more powerful in the world? Would we be better able to get our way, or less able?” And states, “I have just one yardstick: how do we best advance our national interest?
“Keeping our people safe at home and abroad, and moulding the world in the way that we want – more peaceful, more stable, more free, with the arteries of commerce and trade flowing freely.
That is our national interest in a nutshell – and it’s the question that has confronted every British prime minister since the office was created: how do we best advance Britain’s interests in the circumstances of the day?”
Here we see Cameron’s priorities laid bare, he is not interested in the interests of the British people, in the wellbeing of our flesh and blood, he wants peace and stability, and freedom, in order to keep “the arteries of commerce and trade flowing freely”.
“The reason that I want Britain to stay in a reformed EU is in part because of my experience over the last six years is that it does help make our country better off, safer and stronger”. In an instant, he is back talking abstractly about our ‘country’ again rather than our ‘people’.
Cameron then goes on to cite four reasons why we would be better off in the EU:
- What happens in Europe affects us;
- The international situation means cooperation with Europe is essential;
- We can better guard against security risks; and
- Britain’s power in the world is amplified by our membership.
He is right in that what happens in Europe does affect us, but this has always been so and it is the same with all nation states. What happens in China affects us and what happens in the USA affects us also, and what happens in China affects the USA, and vice-versa. None of which means that we need to create a world-wide political union to deal with that situation.
Outside of the EU we can take measures to protect ourselves against adverse developments within the EU, but inside the EU we cannot. We are therefore less constrained and better off by being out.
As for the international situation, it is the ambitions of the EU, of NATO, and our meddling with the Americans in Middle Eastern conflicts that are none of our business that have created an international situation that is problematical. Had we minded our own business and if we choose to mind our own business in future, we should not become embroiled in any international conflicts, and so this is a spurious reason also.
Cameron cites the Falklands War as an example to the kind of situation in which we benefit from EU membership, yet during that conflict, our EU membership did nothing to stop the French government continuing to sell Exocet missiles to Argentina throughout that conflict.
The internal security risks that Cameron cites are all the consequence of mass immigration from the Third World. EU membership makes us additionally subject to mass immigration and is not the answer. Stopping Third World immigration and the repatriation of the immigrant communities currently settled in the UK will provide the only solution to our current security problems, but these are measures we cannot take while we are within the EU.
With regard to Britain’s power in the world, Cameron stretches credulity too far. He claims: “… Britain’s unique position and power in the world is not defined by our membership of the EU, any more than it is by our membership of the Commonwealth or the UN Security Council or the OECD or the IMF or the myriad other international organisations to which we belong.”
In making this statement he does not acknowledge the fact that none of the other international bodies he cites are emergent federal states requiring Britain to be utterly subsumed. Only the EU does this and so EU membership does very much define the future role that Britain will play in the world, and EU membership does not ‘amplify’ British influence, it usurps it and uses our influence for its own purposes, not ours.
Cameron then employs a number of statements that can only be regarded as disingenuous, if not downright lies.
He claims: “We take our own decisions, in our own interests. We always have done, we always will do”, but this is obviously not the case, as demonstrated by his recent and much publicised inability to effect restrictions on the benefits that immigrants are able to claim in this country.
He claims: “Indeed, over the last 40 years, our global power has grown, not diminished”, which would be laughable if it was not such a travesty of the truth.
He states: “We are renewing our independent nuclear deterrent”, and “Our two new aircraft carriers will be the biggest warships the Royal Navy has ever put to sea”.
“These are the actions of a proud, independent, self-confident, go-getting nation, a nation that is confident and optimistic about its future, not one cowed and shackled by its membership of the European Union”. However, the EU is not going to prevent us from having a nuclear capability or aircraft carriers, especially if those assets will ultimately be absorbed into a European Defence Force, as is proposed.
Cameron then admits without realising the self-contradiction that “Decisions on foreign policy are taken by unanimity. Britain has a veto”, and which of course means every other member state also has a veto and we can’t do anything militarily without the express consent of the rest of the EU.
Throughout all of this speech, David Cameron ignores the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon has already paved the way for the dissolution of the national governments of the member states, making provision for many powers exercised by the national governments to be devolved down to regional assemblies, and making provision for all sovereign powers to be eventually usurped by Brussels, and of course we are signatories to the Treaty of Lisbon, which effectively completes the European constitution.
What Cameron also conveniently avoids addressing is the effective lack of democracy within the EU and the fact that the bureaucratic edifice of the European Union is an almost mirror image of the old Soviet Union.
In place of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Council of Ministers in the Soviet Union, we have the Council of Ministers and the European Council within the European Union; in place of the Politburo and all its Commissars in the Soviet Union, we have the European Commission and all its Commissioners within the European Union; and in place of the Supreme Soviet in the Soviet Union, we have the European Parliament within the European Union.
In the Soviet Union, the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Council of Ministers determined broad strategy, just as the Council of Ministers and the European Council do within the European Union.
Similarly, the Politburo was the executive arm of the Soviet regime, drafting all new legislation and issuing directives, just as the European Commission is the executive arm of the European Union, drafting all new legislation and issuing directives. Furthermore, the Supreme Soviet, just like the European Parliament was the only directly elected body, but one that could not draft new legislation, but simply pass legislation presented to it by the Politburo, in the same way the European Parliament is unable to draft legislation of its own and can only rubber stamp laws proposed by the European Commission.
A vote to stay in the European Union is therefore a vote to have Britain subsumed into a revamped version of the Soviet Union and this is something we should be keenly aware of. It is not just coincidence that Brussels has become a bureaucratic tyranny imposing a totalitarian regime of political correctness, in the same way that the Soviet Union was a bureaucratic tyranny imposing a totalitarian regime of Marxist/Leninism.
Given the similarity between cultural Marxism and the political correctness that currently blights the West, it is evident that the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall did not herald the end of Marxism but a shift in its spiritual epicentre from Moscow to Brussels.
Far from saving Europe from conflicts between nations, the European Union is creating the conditions in which individual European nations are to be subsumed into a multiracial melting pot comprising not just the peoples of Europe, but vast hordes of non-Europeans drafted in from Africa and Asia in fulfilment of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. The European Union is a tyrannical edifice that is creating the conditions that will bring about the marginalisation and dispossession of the peoples of Europe, which sooner or later one of the member states is going to rebel against, and once the governments of the original member states have been abolished, there will be no constitutional way of negotiating a withdrawal from the EU. Any withdrawal will therefore have to be by way of a unilateral declaration of independence and a subsequent war of liberation with patriots from the member state involved in a bitter and bloody civil war with the European Defence Force, in the same way that the conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Central Asian Republics followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc countries of Eastern Europe.
We therefore have a stark choice. To vote to leave the European Union now and do so through peaceful negotiation, or to bequeath to our children conditions that will inevitably give rise to a bloody civil war that will destroy many of their lives.
I implore you to vote ‘Leave’ on 23rd June.
By Max Musson © 2016
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
# # # #