Pages

Friday, 15 April 2016

In or Out

An EU perspective from regular commenter Wiggia.


Up to this moment in time I have received two pamphlets from the pro EU camp and nothing from the leave campaigners. Both leaflets read in the simplistic "leaving is bad for us" vein even to the completely discredited 3 million jobs ”could” be lost if we leave quote.

But it is not about the content or the words that come from these people. Anyone with a brain will have by now, if they are vaguely interested in the issue, seen through the malfeasance and the faux renegotiation and will have a view based on facts. Or those facts that are allowed to surface, for one thing that is very obvious is that anything that shines a bad light on the EU will be buried or adjusted for public consumption to be benign.

In a sane world the emergence of figures like Lord Kinnock to promote staying in the EU would alone assure a victory for the leave vote. Staying in the EU to preserve several large pensions for Kinnock is not a reason to stay. What else can the man bring to the table other than being along with his family a gross receiver of the EU’s largesse?

Unfortunately despite some stirrings amongst the population it will not be enough to influence a large section of them. The young don't care and have never known the country to not be in the EU so cannot connect with an out vote and see no reason because they are not interested. A large part of the population will vote on party lines as in a general election despite the apathy to all the major parties and lack of ability to think outside those parameters. Another large portion will not vote at all because like the young they are not interested and the whole thing is beyond them. The change in political thinking many of us hoped the UKIP surge would provide as a stimulus in politics seems moribund.

For me though there is an overriding reason to vote out. Yes all the economic, immigration and sovereignty issues are important, yet for me there is one thing else.

In 1975 I voted to join the EEC, I was convinced that a trade block with ease of regulations was a sensible move forward. Do you notice something there? The EEC, European ECONOMIC community, no mention of political or monetary union or binding laws drafted in a foreign country. Of course we now know that was the plan all along and our political representatives deceived us all those years until the moment someone cried "foul" and the answer came back “this is where we are at” and we should make the most of it, embrace it. It has been the line ever since probably the Maastricht treaty when so much came out and our eyelids were prised open to the fact we were not in something we had voted for, and the name conveniently went from the EEC to the EU as it was always planned to.

As a nation we are not prone to uprisings on political matters, even Cromwell failed to see through what he had started and the status quo to a large extent returned. So the likelihood of any major shift over the EU is possible but unlikely.

It would be fascinating for a list of those at the top table of the EU who have affiliations with far left socialist parties. The majority of the EU's major countries are socialist and many of the major game players heading up the EU are of the same political mind set. It may well partially explain Jeremy Corbyn’s about face on the EU when he now talks of a socialist Europe. Not exactly a democratic way of governing when countries who are not socialist are forever overruled by a socialist superstate for that is what it has already  become.

In fact it is a subject seldom broached when the EU is discussed. A short summary of a few at the top of the EU is revealing.

Jean-Claude Juncker whose main claim to fame when Luxembourg finance minister, is turning  his own country into a tax haven. He now denies doing it and doesn't want to talk about it.

José Manuel Barroso, a communist and former leader of Portugal’s underground Maoist group.

Martin Schulz who apart from being a “booklender” for a short period has never worked outside politics and has the career highlight of twining his town of Wurseley when he was Mayor there.

Guy Verhofstadt, another career politician who ended up as Belgian PM believes in a unified Europe and managed as PM to preside over the country that managed to slide to the state where it had no government at all. It has to be said neither he nor the government were apparently missed and out of work he became a shoo-in for a high profile EU appointment.

Federica Mogherini a Vice President, never had a real job, studied political philosophy at university and joined the communists that subsequently merged into the Italian SDP. Achievements nil apart from goading Russia with the stupid EU backing in the Ukraine. Feels Muslims and Islam are part of Europe’s future, and sheds tears easily.

And of course Angela Merkel who whatever anyone else says tells the EU what to do anyway. She has a strange background as her family migrated to East Germany in '54 at a time when people were literally dying to move the other way. Another professional politician with communist roots, whose recent achievements are well documented, inviting in all and sundry from the ME and beyond against a statement made in 2010 that claimed “multiculturalism has totally failed”.

These and many more are the people who run the EU. What on earth have they got in common with this country? More importantly they should have no say over this country. If voting to stay in is the right thing to do just look at Greece and what happened to them when they voted stay, thinking it would solve all their problems.

But I return to my main argument about our status with the EU, we simply were never asked if this is what we wanted, we were sold out and very many of those promoting stay are those responsible. In a fair society Madame Guillotine would beckon. 

7 comments:

Derek said...

Well said. My sadness is in reluctantly accepting that the population at large has been diluted to some degree by immigration, pummeled into semi-consciousness by excessive rules and regulations, and stone-walled by their so called elected representatives in a parliament full of theatre, and lacking in morals such that apathy rules. Few believe that voting makes a difference, because so often it has been proven it does not.

It will be costly in the short term, but this Nation needs to get out.

Woodsy42 said...

I'm afraid I am 100% cynical.
The referendum will be close but sadly I think the scaredycats will win with their persistent scare tactics.
The big problem is that even if the Big Scare fails and leave wins (can we even assume the count will be honest) I doubt we will be allowed to leave. Either there will be some new high profile but essentially meaningless concessions then a re-run vote in a year or two's time. Or we will 'leave' then be signed up as 'associate' members with the pretence of freedom but in reality with all the existing federal controls hidden from sight and a bit delayed.

Michael said...

As usual, Wiggia makes good points even better.

I well remember the blue adverts pasted on windows everywhere here 'Yes to Europe, no to Communism'. The blasted Heath distastefully admitted much later, that it was all going to be a federal state in the end, not a trading agreement.

Wiggia correctly points out the connections with the far left, and we have our own problems with the previous administrations here (yes that useless ConLib one), and of course the disasters under Brown and his cronies, who incidentally shooed in Catherine Ashton, for 'Foreign Affairs' who had absolutely no business experience, but had spent a lifetime in politics, which explains the complete lack of trade interest in reality, and the desire to keep grabbing public money at all costs.

I suspect that nearer the time, apathy will drift in, but the refusal to accept any politician saying 'in', is the best advert for getting out as soon as possible, so it's going to be a long haul, I'm afraid.

My money's on getting out, but maybe with the reservations expressed by Derek and Woodsy.

Henry Kaye said...

How sad it is that the difference between voting "in" or "out" is not just a matter of difference of opinion but the difference between freedom and a life prison sentence. The importance of getting out is so enormous that those of us who understand the implications would understandably resort to extreme measures in order to achieve our goal. In my case I would restrict voting to those under the age of, say, 30; I would also require an intelligence test and set a standard below which a vote would not be allowed. I would also disallow all civil servants and those in receipt of EU pensions (not too many of those - YET. If I knew where I could obtain an AK 47 I might even consider starting an armed resurrection, although at the age of 84 I might be a little old for that.

James Higham said...

Anyone with a brain will have by now, if they are vaguely interested in the issue, seen through the malfeasance ...

You may have touched on the very issue here - anyone with a brain.

Demetrius said...

Historically, I see the EU as something akin to a revival of the old Habsburg Empires. The people you name above are perhaps the equivalent of the Cardinals present in the Emperor's Courts. It was why Britain rejoiced in being Protestant.

A K Haart said...

Derek - I think you are right - apathy rules and voters don't make the effort to ensure that their vote is at least an informed vote.

Woodsy - yes I don't see us leaving whatever the outcome. If it wasn't rigged there wouldn't be a vote.

Scrobs - agreed.

Henry - I'm not so sure we can get out even if we vote leave.

James - one they are willing to use.

Demetrius - an interesting parallel, worth pursuing further.