Mr Cameron PMQPC (PM of the Quisling Parish Council) has “promised” us a 2017 referendum, which depends on the outcome of a re-negotiation of better EU terms of membership.

We know he will fail and this is all delaying tactic guff.  He has to perform the minor miracle of convincing all 28 countries of the EU to agree (some of them through their own referendums) and even then the European Court of Justice (ECJ) could scupper it all.

This is the smoke and mirrors trick the Conservatives are trying to pull on the voters, to get them to vote on something they and you have no idea what the outcome will be, if anything at all is conceded by the EU and ECJ. It’s the Harold Wilson 1975 referendum trick being played out again with gusto.

What’s the significance of that 2017 referendum date?

The UK takes its turn to chair the Council of Ministers from July 2017 for 6 months and during that time media focus will try to make it look as though the UK is at the centre of the EU with heaps of “influence”. The pro EU medja, especially the Brussels Broadcasting Corp, will no doubt say that negotiations are going well, concluding soon, looking promising and “much better for the UK now we have more influence”.

However, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is the formal procedure for negotiating amendments to the founding treaties of the European Union, and the rules forbid treaty talks outside the IGC process.

We are led to believe, of course, that negotiations will have concluded by the time of a 2017 Referendum, during the UK’s chair period. The Bruges Group points out that this is impossible.

Negotiations in an IGC could last for up to 5 years, maybe longer. So there will be NOTHING agreed for people to vote on in a 2017 referendum except vague promises and we already know how good Cameron is at keeping his “cast iron guarantee” promises.

The “Pinocchio nose” scale will scarcely be able to measure this smoke and mirror trick without use of a tape measure calibrated in metres.

So, if a referendum is held in 2017, based around this mythical “renegotiation”, what are the two possible outcomes?

  • A vote to stay in the EU. The negotiations would stop, before they’d started. Done deal, job well done, and you can pat yourself on your back. Result? UK subsumed into the United States of Europe, at an even faster rate. We would adopt the Euro, Schengen, the whole nine metres before our feet touch the floor.
  • Vote to Withdraw from EU. Sounds hopeful for UKIP and other anti-EU supporters? Wrong, the pro-EU Government would delay the decision to invoke Article 50, until after the negotiations were completed “to make sure the voters knew what they meant”, taking many years. They would hold more referendums supported by leaked-out deals not yet struck, dirty tricks, scare stories, MSM lies, lobby groups, big business and big government self-interest and of course the £2Bn/year EU self-promoting fund. If polls still showed the public wanting OUT, I believe they would be desperate enough to indulge in vote rigging, centred on our already corrupt postal voting system, with an army of ghost voters to vote the “right way” at the referendum.  Result? UK subsumed into the United States of Europe.

In the unlikely event any serious concessions were actually obtained from the negotiations, such as immigration quotas, the ECJ would declare them illegal as infringing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes the Right to a family life. Their role is like policeman, Public Prosecutor, judge and jury rolled into one to enforce EU law. The talks are pointless: the negotiators would know this and “play the game”. Don’t believe me? Read this!

UK Democracy abolished!!

The word democracy comes from two Greek words. Demos means the Common people of a country and Cracy means rule or power. The EU is a foreign bureaucracy: there is no demos in the EU, and I’ll tell you why now.

UK sovereignty, democracy and independence has already been 70% abolished and replaced by an Assembly of MEP’s, worth 9% “influence” on:

“The Commission, the executive, the government of Europe and it has the sole right to propose legislation. It does so in consultation with 3000 secret committees, staffed mainly by big business and capital. All legislation is proposed in secret… once something becomes European law, it is the European Commission themselves that have the sole right to propose, repeal and change that legislation. THE COMMUNITY METHOD means the way in which the European Commission makes and holds law is actually the very enemy of the concept of democracy itself, because it means that in any Member State, there is nothing the electorate can do to change a single piece of European Law” (Nigel Farage UKIP leader)

Proposed Commission legislation is supported by most MEPs and that legislation is imposed against our will. This has been proved time and time again with Qualified Majority Voting. There is no opt-out or veto in the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament. It would require pan-European co-operation from many MEP’s and a minimum 4 Member States to block any legislation:

There are 736 MEPs in total…if you wished to err on the side of caution you would probably need to presume that the plenary was in full session and all the MEPs were present. If that were the case, you would need to convince 369 MEPs or more that a proposal should be rejected.” (Source)

Most MEPs are self-serving, unaccountable and anonymous and readily pass legislation as their countries are likely net beneficiaries. They are also well remunerated to keep pushing that “YES” button.

So when politicians talk about fax democracy and influence when discussing Norway for example, fax democracy applies to all the legislation passed onto the UK as well. With EEA membership, Norway chooses the bits to participate in the Internal Market. They adopt almost all EU legislation related to the Single Market, except laws on agriculture and fisheries. The rules include “free movement of peoples, workers and capital”. So, not ideal for them either, but a slight improvement: they have their own fishing grounds and agriculture. Their greater influence lies in the early stages of formulating EU regulations in the various (70+) international bodies we are excluded from as EU members.  Dr Richard North advocates a “pro tem” EEA membership as a temporary staging area, because the conditions are similar, without political membership, while bi-lateral trade treaties would be agreed at a later date probably 5 years after EU exit.

I believe we would be better off out, no treaty at all: completely sovereign and independent of EU decisions on domestic policy. Trade with Europe, the Commonwealth, Anglosphere, BRICS etc. by companies and corporations adopting whatever regulation are required to trade with them, just as they do anyway around the world, in the global arena, paying the small amount in tariffs if applicable, usually those set by the WTO.

The EU needs us more than we need them. We are their largest export market. The UK is the 6th largest trading country in the world. Trade will continue unabated, despite the scare stories. Most people who have moved to neighbouring EU Member States and are working or retired will still be protected under the Vienna Convention on Treaties 1969 and other international law, as will companies and corporations.

“Trade with Europe, be friends with Europe, not run by Europe”

So what are YOU waiting for Mr Quisling MP? Invoke Article 50 to get your job back doing what you’re meant to be doing and that is passing UK law and policy. If you start repealing EU law and policy then maybe the Quisling nickname will be dropped… eventually.

yours sincerely

Simon Blanchard

Branch Secretary

UKIP Dartford

Print Friendly, PDF & Email