In the wake of the significant electoral advances made by UKIP during the local government elections, Conservative back-benchers have pressured Prime Minister David Cameron to hold an ‘in-out’ referendum on EU membership, but still Cameron attempts to fudge the issue by interpreting ‘now’ as ‘in four years time’.
Tory back-benchers have proposed an amendment to the Queen’s speech, to be voted on tomorrow, expressing their disappointment that there was no provision in that speech for holding a referendum during the current year. However, in order to head-off this back-bench rebellion, David Cameron has proposed a separate Bill allegedly ‘committing’ a future British government to holding a referendum before the end of 2017.
In a video published on the Daily Telegraph website, Cameron attempts to justify this move, and in doing so states that the bill will enable, ” … all Conservative MPs to have in their hand a Bill to show to their electors, ‘This is what you’ll get with a Conservative government, you’ll get the referendum that I think it’s time for this country to have.’”
Cameron then goes on, “I think the right answer and this is supported throughout the Conservative Party, and I would argue throughout much of the country, is to have a real go of trying to change our relationship with Europe, make changes to the European Union itself and then have that in-out referendum … the argument that you throw it as Nigel Lawson or Michael Portillo have said, the argument that you just say change in Europe is impossible, you’ll never get anything from a negotiation, I profoundly believe that is wrong.”
So, in one breath Cameron is telling the public, “… you’ll get the referendum that I think it’s time for this country to have”, while in the next he is stating that ‘it’s not time’, and attempting somewhat disingenuously to justify this by implying that no-one has as yet had ‘a real go’ of trying to renegotiate our relationship with the EU.
This latter point is quite obviously false because we know that Cameron himself has attempted in the past to renegotiate various aspects of our relationship with Europe and has dismally failed each time.
In only November of last year just prior the initial EU budget negotiations, Cameron vowed to MP David Nuttall in the Commons, “I can give my honourable friend that assurance. The rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, is an incredibly important part of making sure Britain gets a fair deal in Europe”, and as the negotiations began he stated, “… we’re going to be negotiating very hard for a good deal for Britain’s taxpayers …”, and yet on today’s Daily Mail website it was announced that the EU annual budget is to rise substantially and that Britain’s contribution to that budget will rise by £770m. thereby making a mockery of Cameron’s commitments.
It would appear that other EU leaders simply ignored David Cameron’s attempts to negotiate a budgetary freeze and out-voted him, thereby making a mockery of his commitments.
Clearly therefore, if David Cameron cannot protect our nation’s budgetary rebate and cannot keep a lid on EU spending, it is ‘pie in the sky’ for him to imagine that he will be able to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership.
Furthermore, During the negotiations establishing the Treaty of Lisbon, in an article for the ‘Sun’ newspaper on 26th September 2007, David Cameron wrote: “Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.”
Needless to say, Cameron wormed out of holding any such referendum and therefore I think we all know just how much we can trust a future Conservative government to honour the pledge to hold an in-out referendum in four years time.
In the absence of any better alternative, the public would be well advised to continue voting UKIP in the hope that their continued strength may force the government to eventually honour their promise.
We have had decades of membership during which various politicians have, to some degree or another, attempted to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the EU and all have failed, and we have had decades of broken promises where the EU is concerned, the British public need a referendum now, and one should be held as soon as practically possible, not after four years during which some spurious pretext can be found for breaking this current pledge.
As I have already stated, Cameron is merely fighting for time.
He considers an argument to stay in; an argument to get out; in, out, in, out; and ‘shakes it all about’; he does the ‘Hokey – Cokey’ and U-turns abound; that’s what it’s all about!
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
I think it’s a quite deliberate strategy to kick this into the long grass, making a promise he can’t & won’t have to keep, probably because he won’t be PM & Miliband, if voted in, will say I made no such promise & therefore no referendum.
Will the British public get angry enough about this or just meekly shrug as things deteriorate further?
It’s further proof we have no democracy & no choice in what is happening.
Anthony Woodville - Kenilworth
- Edit
David Cameron is an extremely selfish and pathetic person.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
It’s a mistake to think that simply by voting UKIP and getting out of Europe we will automatically be poised in the right direction. The real enemy isn’t Europe as such, or even America, but the whole global capitalist system. Above all we have to raise racial awareness and develop strategies for securing the future progress of European mankind. There is no doubt that Mr. Cameron is the equivalent of a snake oil salesman and his promises should be treated with the contempt they deserve. There is no doubt that Europe as it’s presently constructed serves the very global capitalist enemy we need to destroy. However, with the White race in severe decline we need White unity not disunity. We must start planning positively with small self identifying racial/cultural communities such as Orania. From there we need to construct a power block to harness all that’s best in our race regardless of geographical restrictions; our motto, “Blood is thicker than water.”
frederickdixon
- Edit
Waiting to be served in a chemist’s shop the other day, I noticed that the shop assistant and her current customer were speaking in a language which I didn’t recognise. We are all used to Asians working in pharmacies, but these weren’t Asians, nor were they Europeans of any recognisable kind. So when it was my turn to be served, I asked the assistant which language she had just been using, “Spanish” she replied, “I’m from Costa Rica and she’s from Cuba”. As I went out, I wondered why there were Latin Americans in England as neither Cuba nor Costa Rica have ever been members of the Commonwealth or the EU. Then I realised – Spain has admitted millions of Latin Americans in recent years, quickly grants them citizenship, and then they are free to live and work wherever they please in the EU, and given the levels of unemployment in Spain at the present time they tend not to stay there.
As other member states of the EU can grant the right to live in Britain to whomsoever they please, we must leave. If Cameron, as part of the renegotiations, can recover control of our borders, then we can think again. Sadly, he won’t, partly because he is an internationalist, but mainly because to the EU and most of the member states the freedom of movement for labour is sacrosanct. So out it will have to be.
Max Musson
- Edit
That is a very pertinent point Frederick. Thank you.
.
There are of course two issues here that have been touched upon here by yourself and the previous commenter, Mr Woodbridge;
.
Firstly, the desire for solidarity and co-operation with our racial comrades on mainland Europe, which while entirely laudible and proper, should not lead us to view ‘unity’ within the EU as something desirable. The EU is essentially a Marxist superstate modelled upon the Soviet Union (the constitution and governmental structures are the same), and it seeks to race replace the peoples of Europe by facilitating uncontrolled mass immigration from the Third World and as you have identified, facilitating the spread of non-White immigrants all across the entire continent of Europe; and
.
Secondly, while we desire to escape the clutches of the EU, we must not as Mr Woodbridge states, let our dislike of that evil edifice colour our perception of our European brothers and the other nations of Europe, who are similarly oppressed and under mortal threat from the EU, and we should work with them wherever possible in our common interests.
.
As you say however Frederick, we must get out of the EU at the earliest opportunity.
s ducain
- Edit
Cameron’s boss has instructed him that the UK MUST stay in the EU at any
cost. Clearly all EU countries are suffering the same problems of financial
irregularities and over-immigration. Therefore we all need to leave the EU as it is configured , and get our houses in order before contemplating a new
European set-up. If UKIP are the only party advocating exit from Europe then we must support them even if it means we don’t know where it will all end up.
Britain needs a change from the uni-political system of illusional choice. The Lib Lab Con axis of corruption must be discarded for good.
The Truth
- Edit
As you correctly point out, there is a difference between wanting to get out of the EU which is a globalist super-structure with the intent of enslaving people, and promoting European unity which is completely natural as Europeans are part of our family. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of pseudo nationalists who accuse Germany and its people of being behind plans to control Europe through the EU, when every sensible person knows that this false claim only serves to hide the real villains from sight.
Steve
- Edit
I have heard that Brazilians come here via Portugal & that some Turks come via Cyprus.
Cameron offered Indian degree students a direct invitation to come here to study, work & stay.
BritishActivism
- Edit
I always remember this clip from from the BBC Panorama “Immigration – How We Lost Count” documentary back in 2007 or so. I have chopped out the relevant part here and have shared it for download / viewing. : https://ge.tt/7Tmftqg/v/0
.
It is not quite clear from the clip or the documentary as to what the numbers are referring to – ie, how many are in Slough? How many are ‘Dutch’? How many of these particular ‘Dutch’ people are in the entire country?
.
One can only imagine the scale of this “European Immigration” if there are 4000 of these ‘Dutch’ ‘European immigrants” in Slough alone….never mind the rest of the country or a mirror of such situations from France, Germany, Italy, everywhere in Europe!
.
I also wonder how it affects the so called “European immigration” figures….. where most assume them to be, errrr, Europeans. Something like 3/4 of immigration under Labour was from outside the EU – which I suspect means mostly non-white. But how much of the other 1/4 from “Europe” were also non-white?
.
It is only a short clip, but it at least shows I am not making this phenomena up – which I have been accused of before by some “liberals”.
Steve
- Edit
The liberals are either in denial & if they do know, they don’t want you to know but you do!
Once you know, you can object!
BritishActivism
- Edit
I have not been keeping up with the news, but wasn’t he said to have been reassuring the Americans/Obama very recently about our relationship with the European Union? He does not seem to wish to see Britain come out of Europe.
.
The endless calls for referenda – usually on “ifs and buts” such as the party getting re-elected – is no doubt a continuation of the kind of cheap publicity stunt and “mood music” that both the Labour and Conservatives have been pushing out for fifty years. Essentially, to me, it is an attempt at “kicking the can down the road”.
.
Four years will go by….and then there will be a postponement of this vote for some reason or another. In the meantime, they will have pushed the pro-EU argument and set about doing away with any real opposition.
.
Then there will be dithering on the vote, biased media, and some ploy to again “re-negotiate” or “compromise” – such as being wed into the thing but in a different way which gives the illusion we are independent from it, whilst the government of the day continues to take their orders from higher up.
.
Before you know it, six, seven, eight years might have passed. This is how it tends to go.
.
We all know the score with the immigration issue. It has rumbled on relentlessly since the 1950’s – and what has been done? Mood music, tinkering, blatant disregard for the wishes of the electorate, lies, cover ups, whilst in the meantime “re-shaping” society to accept it or make it near impossible to argue against.
.
However, I also think that people need to be careful for what they wish for when it comes to leaving the EU. What I mean by that is, by all means come out – but what you need to do first is make damned sure you have the trading partners, the structure of the country, the set up and so forth to switch cleanly away from it and for us to stand on our own feet without collapsing in a heap.
.
I have no doubt it could be done, but as the somewhat annoying phrase goes: “failure to prepare is to prepare for failure”.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Even if our departure from the EU were to be traumatic it is still absolutely essential if we are to save our country as a recognisable human society – a traumatic exit we will recover from, large scale racial displacement will finish us.
But there is no reason to suppose it would be traumatic, on the contrary it could be beneficial to our economic situation as Lord Lawson and several other Tories have recently pointed out. Contrast with those voices the doom sayers – Cable, Clegg, Ken Clarke, all of whom foretold catastrophe if we didn’t join the Euro!
BritishActivism
- Edit
I suppose what I am driving at is that without any groundwork or coherent networks already established, or any particular “exit-plan” devised, we could be left vulnerable and ‘caught out’ – or caught with our trousers down and taken for a ride by those who we would seek to be in business with or in competition with.
.
Many people – including myself – talk firmly of the imperative to leave the EU….but behind the ideological principles and knowledge we have of the EU, how many of us know exactly what will happen if we left tomorrow morning?
.
I am led to believe that there are certain traps locked into some of the treaties we have signed, which could make things difficult for us if we left. However, I am not well read enough on these deeper matters of technicalities to know what they might be or what implications they may have.
.
I think that those who are capable and interested in this kind of thing should be helping bring it down to the common man.
.
I am not a particularly stupid person, but have tried to study various aspects of EU related affairs, particularly over whether such and such laws and things can be repealed, the two year notice period, getting signatories off all member states, controversies over ‘article 50’ or whatever it was in the Lisbon Treaty, what superseded what, what legal rights the EU has over us in the notice period, and so on……. and it is like a brick wall of babble that does not want to sink in.
.
Maybe that is even the point of it all. I have always taken the view that leaving is easy – we just take our bat and ball home and refuse to play. However, I know it is probably not that simple – yet what is the real situation and how will it be dealt with?
.
Without a confident and convincing alternative being put forth, I think it will hinder a complete severing of the ties because people will be unable to work out what is going on, or could be scared into only partially leaving.
.
Cameron could quite easily change the referenda to be one of ‘staying in, with caveats and some sovereignty returned to the British Government” – which could be used as a simple shell in which things carry on as normal whilst people are under the impression we are making the decisions as a country. Of course, scandals would emerge over the years showing that this independence was not the case, but as ever, they will be too late.
.
Speaking of the British Government, I think it also has to be reinforced that leaving the EU is not a panacea to the problems it causes – particularly when you have globalist agendas and politicians of a pro-EU and globalist agenda in office.
.
UKIP may win the day and force the Tories to leave, or they may take some kind of office themselves, but if either (or Labour) are simply doing the bidding of the globalists from a satellite of Europe and not stopping the fundamental problems of that world view, then it will likely be “more of the same” only with one of our strings to the bow removed.
.
Maybe it is wrong of me to get paranoid, but if or when we see some of the globalist big hitters backing an exit, particularly ‘the city of London’ and former champions of the EU project, my spider-senses start tingling that there is something being orchestrated in the pipeline to work to their advantage, or make/con £Millions out of us, or something!
.
As I say, it is probably nothing like that, but it might help if the ‘Euro-sceptics” who are largely the operatives of change and pressure were “on the ball” for any such side-effects. I am decidedly nationalistic and have no time for the European Union, but I cannot say I can stand up and explain precisely what an exit strategy may be or what would need to be involved.
Max Musson
- Edit
As you suspect British Activism, exiting from the EU would not be a simple or straight forward matter. Many of our essential industries and utility services are now under foreign ownership and it will probably take years to unravel such arrangements that have almost certainly been deliberately contrived in order to make it as difficult as possible for any member state to leave the union.
.
The EU is the result of I believe six treaties, starting with the Treaty of Rome (1972), which has then been modified by five successive treaties; the Treaty of Luxembourg (1987); the Treaty of Maastricht (1993); the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997); the Treaty of Nice (2001) and finally, Treaty of Lisbon (2009).
.
The way to read the treaties, the only way that enables one to understand what is being read, is to start with the Treaty of Rome, and then make all the modifications that were introduced by the Treaty of Luxembourg, and so on, until the original treaty has been modified by all of the subsequent treaties in turn. This resultant highly modified treaty is known as the Composite Treaty and it is the one that binds the member states. Other than the Treaty of Rome, it is not possible to read the subsequent treaties individually, as on their own they simply appear to be legalistic gobble-dee-gook.
.
The First five treaties established; the EU Parliament; the EU flag; an EU ‘national’ anthem; the European Central Bank; the European Commission; the Council of Ministers; Europol, a European police force; and a European Army, the so called ‘Rapid Reaction Force’.
.
Treaty of Lisbon created; the EU Presidency; the EU Foreign Ministry (the ‘High Representative’); changed the name and role of the Council of Ministers to the Council of Europe; and it usurped the legislative powers of the governments of the member states, devolving the lessor powers down to the Regional Assemblies (Britain is divided into 12 regions) and the statutory powers up to the European parliament. This usurpation of legislative powers effectively makes the national governments of the member states redundant and they only continue to exist as ‘window dressing’ until such time as the Council of Europe and the Commission consider they can be wound down without too much protest from the nationals of the individual member states.
.
On the 1st December 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon took effect, the United Kingdom effectively ceased to be a sovereign state and the concept of the UK as a nation state became an anachronism as far as European Law is concerned, and of course European Law supercedes English or Scottish Law as far as the European Court of Justice is concerned.
.
Why has no one told us these things before?
.
Because they don’t want us to know … until it’s too late to do anything about it.
.
Should we concede defeat?
.
No, because under English and Scottish Law our Westminster Parliament is supreme, it’s powers cannot be lawfully usurped and at the time that they were enacted, the six European treaties were illegal under the 1689 Bill Of Rights, under the Law of Treason and under Common Law.
.
We will need to negotiate our way out, but we will need to be prepared to fight our way out if necessary, especially if our Parliament at Westminster has been moth-balled before negotiations begin.