Category Archives: referendum

Who are the Scots?

Posted on by
Reply

Al the Fish has named the big day, September 18th next year.

What do I think the result will be? I think the vote will be a no, the SNP have been very canny in extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, but I don’t think it will make the crucial difference.

If I had a vote, on balance, I’d probably vote no. There are just too many imponderables for my liking. The question of EU membership is central to this; no-one in either Westminster or Edinburgh has delivered a properly documented, evidence based answer to the question. The public noises coming from Brussels suggest to me that the answer is that Scotland would have to re-apply, and would be subject to adopting the Euro, Schengen and all the rest of the stuff that goes along with it. Personally, I fail to see the point of Scotland leaving the Union only to go and join the European Union; that does not reflect independence to me.

The question of Head of State is simple, it can still be the Queen, she can be Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, etc, so that isn’t a problem.

There’s the question of territorial waters, whether there would be border controls (unlikely, we have an open border with the Republic of Ireland, but of course they aren’t part of Schengen), the separation of common finances, rights of Scots in England and vice-versa.

No, there are too many questions which should have definitive answers way before a vote comes to pass for my liking.

That being said, I am ambivalent about the whole thing. I like Scotland being part of the country, but have no objection to Scotland deciding it wants to go it alone. I think the whole thing is constitutionally shaky, and wouldn’t be surprised if a yes vote resulted in some lengthy legal wrangling.

What is being proposed is a dissolution of the Union. I have a suspicion that the hardcore no camp would seek to block a yes vote on the grounds that the whole of the Union should have had a vote. Would it work? Probably not, but I’m betting it would provide a costly delay to the whole thing.

My main concern is not one of constitutional legality, nor of future treaties, my concern is based on fairness and propriety.

The Union has been in effect for three hundred years, give or take, and England and Scotland are so closely intertwined now that I don’t see how a neat job can be done of  severing the ties. You may as well get a glass of fresh water and a glass of salt water, pour them into a jug and then try to separate them again.

Who are the Scots?

You could walk down a street in Inverness and easily identify those who are Scottish and those who are not. Yet, assuming they are eligible to vote in elections, all will have a vote.

You could walk down a similar street in Ipswich and conduct the same exercise, yet none of them would have a vote. Is the Scot in Ipswich not as deserving of a vote as his compatriot in Inverness? If he is living abroad, he is entitled to vote in a British election, does his exile from Scotland in England prevent him from having a vote in the biggest issue involving his homeland?

These are pure Scotsmen, Mrs. Snowolf is half jock, her father lives in the Midlands, so he will not have a vote. But supposing he could vote, would Mrs. Snowolf have a vote being half-jock? Assuming Scotland got independence, I’d think she’d qualify for a Scottish passport. So why should she not have a say?

It is ridiculous to include those who may be transient and have no connection to Scotland, whilst excluding those who have a very real, if ex-patria, personal investment in Scotland. Certainly you could extend the vote to people who are living out of Scotland, but then how do you prove you are Scottish? Who gets to say who is and who isn’t? What would be there to stop me, with no connection to Scotland at all, registering for a vote? The whole thing would be reduced to farce.

How does one attain Scottishness? Do we follow German lines where people who have lived in the former Soviet Union for generations qualify on genetic grounds as German, yet second and third generation Turks, German born and spoken do not? Do you award Scottishness on residency grounds? Does being born in Scotland make you Scottish, or is it down to other grounds?

We are the biggest mongrel nation of all, we struggle with the idea of defining ‘Englishness’ and I don’t see how defining ‘Scottishness’ is any easier, I’m afraid a fondness for whisky, haggis and going misty eyed at a Rod Stewart song or Burns recital just doesn’t cut it.

It seems neither fair nor proper to me that the SNP have overseen the disenfranchising of a very large number of their own people. This leads me to a very uncomfortable conclusion; the SNP don’t care about the Scots, they care only about power and their own imagined magnificence. On that basis, I hope the referendum is beaten out of sight.

Outflanked.

Posted on by
3

So, what did we learn courtesy of Dave’s little turn this morning? I reckon we’ve learned that our PM is pretty gullible or is wilfully misunderstanding that which is before him. The speech started with a load of waffle about the post war era and name checked NATO only once, perpetuating the whole ‘EU is the bulwark of peace’ myth, but as NATO has proven, the enjoyment of peace in Europe is not down purely to the EU, although I am happy to accept it has played a part. However I also have real concerns that the collapse, as it will come, as it inevitably comes for all empires, could be the cause of war in itself.

We’ve learned that our PM believes that the aim of EU is to secure prosperity. Really? OK, it may be its aim, but the idealogical dogma that pervades throughout means that it will not happen. The stats the PM trotted out during the speech back this up, the EU accounts for 7% of global population, 25% of global GDP (although how you can have global gross domestic product is a mystery to me) and is responsible for 50% of ‘social spending’. This is just unsustainable. There is no way that this ideology can lead to prosperity. I think it was Churchill who drew the comparison to nations taxing themselves into prosperity with a man stood in a bucket trying to lift himself off the ground by raising the handle. The scenes in Greece will be repeated continent wide before the edifice collapses, in just the same way as the USSR fell apart.

He believes the EU is an ‘anchor of democracy’. I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.

He believes that an independent UK would be stymied by isolationism. He’s right. However, I don’t think anyone is talking about isolationism, and he very conveniently failed to mention the one word that could prove our salvation, the word that will never be uttered by the pro-EUists, the word that will be kryptonite to the ‘innies’. That word is Commonwealth. We’re already a member of a club that is prosperous, that is (largely) democratic, and, more importantly, actually likes us.

He believes that he can reform the EU. He thinks he can usher in a new age of competitiveness, whilst ignoring that competitiveness is anathema to the vested interests in the EU, French politicians in thrall to farmer’s reliance on CAP for example. He wants to scale back on the directives, but the directives are life blood of EU, there can be no scaling back. Bureaucracy is king. He makes the mistake of trying to tell me that the EU is by the member states for the member states, but it just isn’t. It is run by the executive for the executive, this is why his claim that the EU is an ‘anchor of democracy’ is so laughable.

He wants to see more flexibility, but these are autocrats, there cannot be flexibility, only unquestioning obedience to the commissariats. These autocrats don’t want flexibility, for as soon as you allow people to be flexible, the autocrats surrender a degree of control. Everything must be prescribed, measured, regulated and controlled. They just aren’t going to sanction any flexibility.

He wants ever closer union, except for the UK. Cameron seems to think that ECU is good for some member states, but fails to understand, or purposefully ignores, the idea that the individual is subservient to the state in the EU. As far as the EU is concerned what is good for the state is good for the citizen and what is good for state comes second to what is good for the superstate – that being the autocrats.

He talks about democratic accountability, well forget it. They don’t want democracy. They’ve demonstrated this with the Irish referendum and the overthrowing of sitting prime ministers. Democracy returns the ‘wrong answer’ time and again. There is no motivation for any democratic accountability in the EU let alone any meaningful democratic reform. Jesus, this is an organisation with three Presidents and more than a score of Commissioners, over none of those appointments do you or I have any say. Democracy? Rubbish.

He glibly talks of referenda, saying of the EU electorate; ‘They’ve had referendums promised and not delivered’ Et tu, David? That was the point when I realised you weren’t ignorant and were actually malfeasant.

So, Prime Minister, tell me, if you’re in favour of a referendum, why did you whip your MP’s against it? Why no mention of this being a binding referendum?

You say we need to wait until 2017 to be sure of what we are choosing to be a part of or apart from. What we are choosing to be in or out of is simple. The EU will not change, it has no interest in changing. You cannot make it change.

This is hubris of the highest order from Cameron. He will be outflanked, the EU will introduce changes over the next 4-5 years making it even more difficult for us to leave. The EU’s campaign of propaganda to keep us in will start today.

‘It is time for the British people to have their say’ he says. He might as well have added, ‘Well, not quite, in four years or so, if you are all good little drones and vote for me. Then I promise, really really promise, that we will give you a straight in or out referendum, once we’ve ramped the pressure up on you, by telling you that leaving the EU will mean that a paedo will move into your spare bedroom.’

This whole thing is based on the assumption that he will gracefully deliver us a referendum if we vote him back into power. It is cynical, self-serving and given what has gone before in guarantees, I do not believe he can or will deliver on this promise.

Regardless, the EU keep UK in campaign will start today. Watch the EU funding pour into the BBC. See the scare stories come out as the insidious campaign to keep us in starts, paid for from the taxes that are taken from us.

What happens next? France, Germany and Spain made it clear pretty quickly that they aren’t about to negotiate. So a question, what happens when Cameron comes back from the negotiating table with nothing? What if he doesn’t even get to a negotiating table, because nobody consents to sitting round it. Is this referendum being sold on the basis of him getting a deal; therefore if no deal is offered, he can say the conditions for a referendum have not been met?

Just as what form Cameron’s proposed restructure of the EU looks like was vague in the extreme, his response to Miliband’s questions in PMQ’s was ambivalent at best. It would appear that he hasn’t considered the eventually that he will not have a deal to put to us. There’s his get out clause. Sorry folks, I tried. But hey, I got another five years at Number 10, so it’s not all bad!

Miliband was clear that there would be no referendum under Labour. Clegg has said that this is not the right time, but as far as I can see, the right time as far as Clegg is concerned is likely to be when hell freezes over.

It is obvious that the Tories will now sell this as a case of  ’vote UKIP get no referendum’, BUT, how many Labour voters vote for them because they are not the Tories, not because of their EU policy? How many Labour voters having heard Miliband’s response will be sufficiently exercised to go over to UKIP? Let us not forget, the famous Rotherham foster parents had gone to UKIP from Labour. How many people are supporting UKIP not because of EU policy, but because they are significantly different to the other three?

What happens if the Tories win the election, if the negotiations result in a package that can be put to the people, if the people then reject our membership? The EU don’t want us, but they don’t want to lose our money. What happens when the EU declines our resignation? What then? As far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected, the Lisbon Treaty says that withdrawal must be agreed by all member states. Well what if they tell us we can’t leave, in direct contradiction to a referendum result? They’ve got four years to put more obstacles in the way. Are they going to try to keep us in by force of arms? Will they see which way the wind is blowing and try to unseat a PM and get their own man in? Their own man is sat next to the PM on those green benches every Wednesday. Could an Act of Parliament enabling a referendum be repealed after Herself has signed it off but before it has been carried out?

Cameron taking a risk with his job here, but if he was going to be bold, he’d have been better off calling a referendum to run alongside the next General Election. Sure the LibDems would have created merry hell about it, but he could have called their bluff, had the government resign. OK the new fixed term parliaments mean it wouldn’t have led to a General Election, but it would have made life very difficult for both the LibDems and Labour if the Tories declined a request from Her Maj to form a government.

He’s fudged the issue. There are too many imponderables. Too many opportunities to sideline the issue and wriggle out of it, and when push comes to shove, after the ‘Cast-Iron Guarantee’ I just plain old don’t believe him.

My vote sticks with UKIP, because I will vote for what I believe in, not against that which I oppose.

Don’t believe a word.

Posted on by
4

You have a troubled marriage. You married your spouse when things looked their bleakest, when your self-esteem was at its lowest possible ebb. The merest bit of attention was so incredibly welcome that you raced down the aisle with the first person who showed an interest.

Now, on the eve of your 40th wedding anniversary, you review what the last four decades have got you, and you realise that you don’t actually have very much in common with your other half. Your spouse laughs at your sensibilities, at your hopes and dreams, they insult you both in private and in front of their friends. Your contact with your friends and family is strictly monitored and limited. They are not made to feel welcome in your house, meanwhile your spouse’s friends come round as and when they please, staying for as long as they like, eating your food, taking your hard earned money out of your wallet. There is nothing you can do about it.

It is an abusive relationship, and you get to the end of your tether as it becomes clear the relationship isn’t working, it has become toxic, and worst of all your spouse has no desire to consent to a divorce.

And so we find ourselves helplessly wedded to the EU. Yet over the last couple of days it appears that there is the merest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. We’ve been told that perhaps, if we’re lucky, we could get ‘associate membership’ of the EU.

Quite what that means I’m not sure, but to stretch the marital metaphor further, I’m betting it is akin to being given a divorce, but remaining in the same house together, albeit in separate rooms, and being allowed to arrange your bedroom furniture as you see fit. However, you’ve still got to do the cooking, your spouse’s freeloading mates will continue to come round, they’ll be free to stay in your room if they like, and you’ll still be expected to pay the lion’s share of the mortgage, and to pick up the beer and sandwiches tab. Beer and sandwiches that we’ll be prohibited from eating because we wouldn’t be ‘full members’.

The only thing the EU wants more than our fealty and obedience is our cash. They may well be willing to let us slack off on some of the former, but there’s no way in the world they’ll drop a penny piece of the latter.

I’m also willing to bet that the few powers that we manage to claw back under ‘associate membership’ would be subject to punitive restrictions, ifs, buts and maybes. There’d also be a good deal of smoke and mirrors, and I’m betting that a lot of stuff that is filed under headings like ‘employment’ and so forth will find itself filed under ‘single market’, and as an associate member, I’m betting there would be bugger all we could do about it.

When Cameron makes his much trailed Europe speech this month, he’ll be full of tough talking and blah blah blah, but don’t believe a word of it.

One thing I will say in favour of being a full member of the EU is that at least we can act as some sort of brake, even if it is only temporarily. I’m certain that if we signed up to associate membership, we’d be stitched up like a kipper.

Have no doubt, Cameron would sell this as a huge victory, but it is a find the lady game.

The EU will not consent to us renegotiating our membership, threat of in/out referendum or no, without them coming out on top. They just won’t. The only way we will remain full or associate members of their club is on their terms, and if we go for associate membership, they will make us pay through the nose for it, ensuring we have the minimum level of sovereignty and access with the maximum level of compliance and responsibility.

Like all abusive spouses, they thrive on control and making their other half feel worthless and undesirable, and if they can’t have us exclusively, they’ll make sure we’re so ugly that nobody will else want us.

When Cameron makes his big speech, don’t believe a word of it. He will offer us a deal before going to referendum, rather than going to the table with a referendum result in his pocket. He will sell us short. He will not be out manoeuvred, because he is on their side, not his country’s. He will give us up willingly.

He will present it as his great statesman moment, and I hope to god his party membership see through this sleight of hand on Cameron’s part, because it is them he is really trying to shaft. I’m sure Farage will make a big noise about it when the time comes, and I hope he plays it well, because Cameron and his buddies are staking their future on Farage and UKIP dropping the ball.

There can be no re-negotiation, the EU have nothing to gain. The EU will give nothing. There can be no ‘associate membership’. We can only take back, we cannot ask for things back, for they will not be given. There can only be in or out.

This middle way of associate membership is the very worst of both worlds.

What are you up to?

Posted on by
2

A big day today, and it’s all about the EU.

Obviously the big story is about the budget. There’s a two day talking shop where the PM, if we are to believe him (and it’s a big if), is to draw a financial line in the sand. Here and no further. Cameron is spot on when he says any increase in budget for the EU is quite wrong, and he has threatened to veto any budget that threatens our rebate.

On the face of it, that seems quite hard-line, but already I think he’s fudged the issue. The rebate is all very well, but there’s a wider issue here and we should bear in mind that the rebate is linked to the subs, if the payments go up, so does the rebate. It is unthinkable at a time when the Greeks are on skid row and the Spanish and Portuguese are building up a good head of steam to join them, when food aid is being delivered to the southern countries, when taxes are being hiked up at an alarming rate (the collection thereof being a different story), when unemployment, especially amongst the young, is rampant, and people simply don’t have any money in their pockets, that the EU wants even more money. When you set that alongside the fact that yet again, for the eighteenth year running, the EU’s accounts haven’t been signed off in the face of overwhelming evidence that our money is being scammed, misappropriated and just plain stolen, to hand over more cash is tantamount to incitement to commit fraud.

If we are to be good Europeans, then we must resist any attempt to extort more cash from us. Being a good European does not necessarily equate to doing what the EU and EC tells you to. Be under no illusions, the wellbeing of the member states and citizens resident therein is way down the list of priorities of the EU, if they make an appearance at all. Enabling the continued waste of money and promotion of corruption is not good for us, not good for our government and is not good for the populations and governments of the other countries. The EU is an organisation, if it ceased to exist then life would go on, we must escape this ideology that the EU is Europe, it just isn’t. It is no more representative of Europe than the Portman Group is representative of people who like a drink.

This is now turning into an abusive relationship, and it is time to gather up our most vital and precious belongings and move out.

Cameron has painted himself into a corner. If he comes back having been seen to have failed, he’ll be pilloried by his party and he’ll be dead in the water. If he comes back with a freeze on the budget either via negotiation or veto, he’ll be pilloried by the EU and we may find our relationship worsens. But, that being said, I think it will suit many other political heads of European state for him to be the lightning conductor. If he thinks it will be his Thatcher moment, he’s kidding himself. I’m not at all confident that he’ll come back with a widely, domestically, acceptable negotiated settlement, and I’m only moderately confident that he will use the veto.

A negotiated settlement is, on the face of it, the best outcome. He can use the veto, but the EC can also use their machinery to circumnavigate it and get their way anyway. But if we use the veto we become a pain in the arse again. Yes, the EC will probably get their own way in the end, but yet again we’ve been the noisy house guest and it takes us one step further to being shown the door.

Alongside this is today’s poll in carried out by the Observer. Even they have begun to accept the fact that the majority of us in the UK want out, their results make interesting reading:

Cameron would do well to take heed of the opinion held by his party’s membership, and Miliband will no doubt look at the figures from his membership with interest as well. I am flat out amazed that over a third of LibDems want out. The tide, it would seem, has well and truly turned.

Succinctly put, the party leader who addresses this issue best will stand a good chance of taking the next election. So why are they being so coy about it?

I think it is fear. Not of the European powers that be coming and doing a number on them, like they did with the Greeks, I don’t see how they could do that without us going to them cap in hand. I think it is fear of what would come after. I am confident that we could survive and indeed thrive outside the EU, but I understand the importance of the phrase ‘better the devil you know’, and I wonder how many of those polled who said we should stay in said that not out of a firmly held belief in the virtue of the project, but out of fear of the unknown. Let us suppose we walk, and let us suppose that it goes wrong and we find ourselves cut adrift and destitute. As a politician, obsessed with the concept of legacy, would you want to be the person remembered for taking us out and ruining us? I think it is an unfounded, but entirely understandable fear. Politicians are by nature small c conservative.

From my point of view, and for once I seem to be in the majority, I want out. I don’t care how. For the politician, the how is as important as the in/out question itself.

So, what of a referendum? Surely if a referendum is called through sheer weight of public opinion and an out vote is returned, a politician if they’ve maintained a neutral position or campaigned for an in vote, cannot be held responsible? Maybe. But the referendum is not without its problems. Firstly, politicians hate referenda. As far as they are concerned, they are elected to tell us what to do. If we get used to the idea that we can gather en-masse and make a decision, then that undermines their position.

Secondly, if you as a politician campaign vociferously for the losing side, you’re damaged goods. Out of touch, out of step and out of luck.

Finally, if a referendum is called you can bet that the EU will pump millions of pounds/euros into the ‘in’ campaign, they will have an effective bottomless pit of cash, and they will lie. They will tell us that business will not be able to export, that you’ll not be able to go to France on holiday, or to buy fags and booze, that we would be pariahs, that Jimmy Savile will come back from the dead and take up position as your babysitter, they will say anything to ensure that our cash tap remains stuck open. And it would be a one shot deal if the result was ‘in’. We’d never get another opportunity. If the result was ‘out’ then you can bet the EU would try every trick to have the result dismissed or to drag us back to the ballot box until the desirable result was forthcoming.

So, we find ourselves in a position where the politicians won’t take us out because of fear of failure, and won’t give us our say, not because they are scared of the result, but because they are afraid of giving us our say conceptually. Yet the poll results are clear, we want out, and it would be foolish of any party leader to ignore such a strength of opinion.

So the only viable option is for us to get ourselves kicked out.

Today sees the deadline for the giving of votes to prisoners as directed by the European Court of Human Rights. There is a debate on this in the House today and it seems unlikely that the MPs are in the mood to be told that prisoners must be allowed to vote by a super-national court, a court, which I understand, that we must agree to abide by as part of our terms of membership with the EU.

What will happen if we turn around and say ‘no’? What will happen if prisoners sue, win, get awarded damages and we refuse to pay up? Would the EU put up with our ignoring and flagrant breaches of the rules just to keep hold of our money? Instead of waiting to see how far they can push us before we snap and walk, how far can we push them before they’ve had enough and sling us out?

We’ve got, what? 18 months until the next general election? How far can we push and provoke the EU in that 18 months? Will it be a case of that we’ll see if we can get ourselves thrown out of the party by pissing in the pot plants and vomiting on the sofa between now and then whilst the politicians play a game of chicken, trying to time the call of ‘referendum!’ to get the maximum support in the run up to the GE? Crucially would we believe any promise given what has happened before?

I’m wondering if we’ll be thrown out before any referendum has to be called.

Fool me once. . .

Posted on by
5

Hmmmmm, the more I see of this government, the less I like it. Just as it was a damning statistic that Cameron’s campaign was unable to defeat one of the worst Prime Ministers this country had ever seen, it is equally as damning that Miliband’s Labour aren’t streets ahead of the Tories in the opinion polls at the moment.

The Liberal Democrats are so screwed that now most opinion polls now put them in fourth behind UKIP who are looking at present as if they’d take between 8-12% of the vote if the call came tomorrow.

Quite rightly the Liberal Democrats should be very concerned about this, but of course that concern is tempered slightly by the fact that not many Lib Dem supporters (as opposed to those who vote Lib Dem because they aren’t the Conservatives and Labour) are likely to find a natural home in UKIP.

This is not speaking ill of UKIP, far from it. UKIP’s smaller government, pro-sovereignty stance is clearly at odds with the centralist, big state, Euro federalist Lib Dems.

Indeed, going off on a tangent for a moment, this I believe is the port of major blame for the current malaise and disconnect between the political class and the electorate at the moment. Look at the opprobrium that Thatcher attracts even to this day, why is that? Because she stood for something. Whether you agreed with her or not, that was undeniable. When she was sat in the big chair, you had a clear choice, you had her way or you had the programmes sponsored by Foot and Kinnock. There was clear daylight between the two camps. Today we have two camps fighting for the same ground. They try to, well, I hesitate to say appeal, so I’ll go for not entirely piss off, everybody. Of course in the pursuit of that impossible aim they end up achieving the exact opposite.

Yes, Thatcher is pilloried in some sections, but ask yourself the question, if she was so unpopular, how did she manage to win so many elections? Simple, she pleased more people as thoroughly as the minority she pissed off thoroughly. What we have today is a massive car park, totally empty, with two posh college boys scrapping over the one parking space that is slap bang in the centre of the lot.

Have no doubt, the Tories are not at all happy to see UKIP get all this support. They may chuckle and shake their heads, give some throwaway comment about the loons, but as they feel it necessary to comment on UKIP, they obviously feel concerned.

We then come to the line about UKIP ‘splitting’ the Tory vote. This is bollocks, and is indicative of the arrogance of the big three parties; this feeling of entitlement that people’s votes belong to them. Uh-huh, sorry chum, those votes belong to the people that cast them. If people stop putting their vote behind you, that’s your fault, not the fault of the party that garners that support instead.

All those politics degrees washing around the party, and the Tories don’t seem to realise the way it works – you set out what you stand for, people look at it and decide to vote for it or not. If they don’t support it, then you picked the wrong policies, didn’t you?

Cameron continues in this impossible dance of being all things to all people, and ends up with all people thinking he is a twat. He’ll go too far for one lot and not far enough for the other, the result will be that everyone ups sticks and goes elsewhere.

Given his recent history, I hope you’ll forgive my cynicism when he says ‘What it is increasingly becoming the time for is a new settlement between Britain and Europe, and I think that new settlement will require fresh consent.‘

I don’t believe you, David. You’ve pulled this stunt before, haven’t you? The cast iron guarantee, the ‘veto’ that never was. Yeah, you really stuck it to the man by standing up and doing. . . bugger all.

You really expect me to believe this now? You really think I’m going to sit back and say ‘well done Dave, he’s going to do the decent thing’? No. Not this time mate. Even given your tin plated guarantee I didn’t vote for your mob last time, and it ain’t going to work now. Oh, sure I stood in the polling booth and hesitated for a moment, but I reckoned you didn’t mean it and put my little x next to UKIP. I was right.

For a moment I bought the veto thing and you went up in my estimation. That didn’t last long, let me tell you. So, you fooled me once, well shame on you. You’re not going to fool me a second time.

When I was a teenager we had a name for girls who acted like you; prick-tease. That’s just what you are, you’re flirting away, throwing all this shit out in the hope that we think you’re going to finally put out. Naaaaaaah, come on Dave. How many times do you think you can get me hard and then swan off before I stop coming over every time you flutter your eyelids? Come the end of the party you’ll be the one sat in the corner of the kitchen crying because nobody wants to be around you.

Even if a referendum of some sort does materialise, your personal feelings on the matter are clear, and I have zero confidence that you’ll produce. Rather than campaigning on your opinion, mainly because it is at odds with the majority opinion of your membership, you’ll try to nobble the course before the horses start running. You’ll never give us what we want, you might give us the choice between the status quo and more integration, but you’ll never give us the big one, and you’ll try to sell us your preferred option as some huge statesmanlike act. Like I said, prick-tease.

UKIP splitting your vote? Bollocks, you’re driving people into their arms. You see I have this feeling, I think the current UKIP bounce in the polls is down to many many people who voted Lib Dem stating an intent to not bother voting for anyone, coupled with a small number of disaffected Tory voters, but that number is growing, and it’s all down to you mate.

I don’t want you stop, by the way, I want you to carry on. In fact, go further, tell the world that there will never be an EU referendum as long as you’re Prime Minister, that should do it.

‘But, ooooooh, Wolfers,’ I hear some of you say, ‘that would mean Labour would win.’ Yes? And? Look, there’s no bloody difference between the two, I oppose the Conservatives as much as I do Labour. It doesn’t matter to me which glorious collection of incompetent arsewipes is in power, because I don’t want them there. I’m not about to settle for the least worst option, I want what I want, if I can’t have it then we might as well have Timmy the amputee badger in Number 10. In fact, he’d probably be the least worst option.

He’s even more mental, or just a liar.

Posted on by
1

(Wolfers’ note: Apologies for the radio silence recently, this has been down to variously; work on the aforementioned project, which if not bearing fruit is seeing the blossom drop off and the little proto-apples starting to form, a holiday and a change of ISP which resulted in some down-time.)

I always remember my history lessons at school, it was a subject I enjoyed a great deal, this was down in no small part to an excellent and engaging teacher. I remember the great emphasis he put on the concept of self-determination in the context of the end of the Great War. Of course the important point was that nations had the right to self determination, rather than their population, but even as a teenager I was asking the question ‘what is a nation if not the population that resides therein?’

As is right it has been announced that the three thousand or so inhabitants of the Falkland Islands will be (once again) asked in a referendum if they wish to remain British or become part of Argentina. I’ve a shiny fifty peso note that says it will not be legal tender in Port Stanley any time soon. As is also right, the Prime Minister has come out and said that he will support the outcome of said referendum.

Well, that’s very magnanimous of you, Dave. I understand that acting upon the will of the electorate is a novel concept for you, especially given that you were so adamant we shouldn’t be allowed a say on our own futures, that you tried to whip all your MPs through the lobby to prevent us from doing so.

Yet in a startling display he’s come out and made what must either be one of the most delusional or deceitful statements I can remember a Prime Minister making. Yesterday he (or more accurately, his spokeswoman) said that ‘But in terms of our membership of the EU, he feels that is not something we should have a referendum on now. That is not something that the British people want right now.‘

That really is up there with Brown’s claims of abolishing boom and bust. The thing is with Brown I honestly believe he thought he had, I really do think that Brown was unhinged, with Cameron I think it was a bare faced lie because he’s so wedded to the project, I have little doubt that he is either a staunch supporter of the EU project, or having one of their placemen sat next to him, he looks at what happened to the leaders in Greece and Italy and figures that his fate would be the same were he to push that button. Either way, it seems obvious to me that his continuing employment as PM is a greater priority to him than the sovereignty and prosperity of the country he is supposed to serve.

Yesterday the Express was running a story that 80% of people now want a referendum on our membership of the EU. That doesn’t equate to 80% of us want out, I would imagine that a large proportion of that number want to be able to cast a vote explicitly in favour of the status quo, but their opinion is just as important as mine, and it seems only just to me that people should have the opportunity to say yes, no or meh.

Even if there’s a large degree of inaccuracy in the poll, that still equates to a public opinion that is clearly and hugely at odds with the PM’s assertions. Given the spike the PM had in his popularity in using the veto that wasn’t over the treaty that isn’t, surely his best bet of holding onto the big chair is to play this card, and the fact that he is so dead set against doing so speaks more about his claims of Euroscepticism than anything else could.

It isn’t going to be long until there’s a race between the big two to be the first to offer the referendum.

If the Tories came out and offered it first, would I vote for them? Not a chance, because I’m convinced that they and Labour, would have a question on the paper not a million miles removed from the voting reform referendum, it’s going to be ‘Do you want the status quo, or do you want to re-negotiate?’ And as anyone in business will tell you, there’s a world of difference between negotiating a deal and actually getting one.

I’m not going to be cancelling my UKIP membership any time soon, because I have no confidence in the big two to deliver.

Credit where it’s due, but. . .

Posted on by
2

Following my post the other day about the email I sent to my MP relating to the referendum debate, I can report that I have received a reply.

Just for the record, the MP in question voted with the government. I can’t say that I’m surprised he did, however I would not have been surprised had he voted against.

Despite disagreeing with the way he voted on a number of fundamental points, I will give the old bugger credit for replying (even if it was after the event), and for doing so in a personable letter. I won’t reproduce the whole thing here as it runs to two pages, and as I don’t have access to a scanner I’m buggered if I’m typing the whole thing out word for word. However I am pleased to report that this is no stock letter generated by central office, it is a proper reply with answers to the points I have raised, and it has to be said with more than a degree of sympathy for my opinion. I get the impression that old Julian had to undergo a degree of soul searching before deciding which way he would vote, as he describes himself as a ‘passionate eurosceptic’.

Where he falls down is his devotion to the idea that we can, in his words, ‘change our position in Europe rather than end it.’ I for one do not subscribe to the view that our departure from the EU would lead to our being ostracised by the rest of the continent, we’re just too big a consumer and service provider for that to happen.

He continues to tell me that he ‘will continue to press the Government to bring back powers from Brussels and insist on thorough reform of the EU’. The problem with that being the EU has no motivation to play ball. We can stamp our feet and huff and puff, but it is nothing but a bluff, and the EU know it – they have, after all, cut and marked the pack, they know exactly what we’re holding in our hand, and it ain’t the pretty picture cards, the EU has made sure that the special ones have those.

The only ace in the hole would have been for the PM to go to this summit we’ve just seen with a loaded revolver in the form of the petition and a motion from the House supporting it, with that he could have sat down and said ‘now look here, chaps, this really isn’t good enough, I’m under pressure from all sides to pull the trigger and I’m minded to agree with them – we need to talk and to get results, now.’

Instead the worst possible scenario has unfolded, the cash has been found and flung at Greece, and it would seem the markets are happy with it. The Chinese haven’t exactly told the EU to piss off when it came calling (they need to sell their goods, after all) and the Eurozone countries now look like they will be squeezing out those who haven’t joined by forming a bloc, especially with the new voting system that was ushered in by the Lisbon Treaty that Cameron gave us a cast-iron guarantee about and then failed to deliver on.

Unless Italy goes down, the last week has been a disaster for Cameron and the country. His actions have split his party, annoyed the electorate and reduced our influence in the EU even further. And yet the PM and his MP’s talk about the ‘national interest’, well if being marginalised with no bargaining chips and no voice is in our national interest, then I can’t wait to see what they will damage it, and no, closer integration is not the answer.

We cannot credibly maintain a pretence at self governance if we continue in this situation. He has either been out thought or is complicit. Either way, it is not an acceptable performance from ouir Prime Minister.

And how do you like it?

Posted on by
1

Cameron and his chums are still adamant that we don’t need to voice an opinion. According to him, and others like him, it would be a ‘distraction’. From what, I’m not sure. When the wheels are falling off, we’re being bled dry to fund the Euronightmare, the Greeks are striking and dragging everyone down with them, why would we not talk about withdrawal? It isn’t as if this debate is about staying in or getting out, it is a debate about having a debate for crying out loud.

Cameron’s hard line has served only to increase the numbers of MPs who look like going against the party line, as he tries to tell them, and us, to sit down and shut up because he knows what is best. He’s played this appallingly badly. He could have played the good guy and given a free vote, the motion would still have been defeated, but he’s decided to try and impose himself on the party and has whipped up a storm. Not very clever. Europe has always done for Tory leaders and all the time they elect Europhiles to the job it will continue to do so. Cameron has been caught in a lie, pretending to be a Eurosceptic when he clearly isn’t. You simply can’t be so disingenuous with a party which is, at its core, Eurosceptic, you’ll always come unstuck. What surprises me is that given the history in the party, the Conservatives didn’t take a good hard look at his Euro credentials when he stood for leader.

Still, it appears that Cameron has got a taste of his own medicine:

At one point in the exchanges, Mr Sarkozy was quoted as telling Mr Cameron: “We are sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? Well, welcome to our world, you vain little ponce. This is the shit we put up with every day. So Sarko, who himself is more than likely to be on the way out, is treating Cameron with the same disdain that Cameron treats his MPs and the electorate. Stings, doesn’t it, Dave.

Not to be deterred, Cameron indulges in some quite stunning weasel words, talking about how an opportunity for reform may present itself at some point in the future. Wow! That’s fantastic, we may get a chance, if we’re lucky, at some unidentified point? Well, that’s fine then.

Van Wossisname however has taken Cameron’s legs out from underneath him.

EU president Herman Van Rompuy said after a day of emergency talks in Brussels that members would “explore the possibility of limited change”.

So any change would be limited, and even then it is only going to be talked about if they absolutely can’t avoid it.

Cameron’s world is starting to crumble, and the constituency associations are starting to add to his misery, as Guido reports. It is not surprising, given the strength of the local parties (as is right), that MPs are being told their futures.

This is Cameron’s first big test. He’s picked this fight himself, and has painted himself into a corner. His behaviour has been clottish in the extreme and the party must look at him and wonder what they’ve elected.

What a surprise, and what a surprise.

Posted on by
1

So, it now appears that the referendum debate has been moved forward to October 24th, as Hague and Cameron will be in Australia, no doubt to serve as a warning as to what the Aussies could end up with if they don’t watch their step, or something.

It is obvious that the Tory party big boys are taking this very seriously. As was made clear in PMQ’s yesterday, Cameron will do everything he can to make sure that we do not get a say. It is perverse that our system allows for the servants (the politicians) to dictate what the masters (us) may have. The Telegraph has revealed that, unsurprisingly, there will be a 3 line whip to ensure that the Tories accommodate Cameron’s wishes rather than those of the party membership.

If Miliband had any sense (and he doesn’t) he’d be whipping his MP’s through the opposite lobby, but he won’t and Cameron knows this.

Also, unsurprisingly, the comments on The Telegraph piece include a number of howls of outrage at Cameron’s stance – understandable given the song and dance he made about a referendum before the election. What is surprising though is the outrage expressed in the comments in this article over at the BBC.

Those in favour of the EU will claim that the commentators are unrepresentative, that there is a pro-EU majority who are silent. We’re in, they’ll claim, why do they need to make a fuss about staying in? It’s difficult to argue against it. It is true to claim that there are many, many people who want us out, but are they a majority? I simply don’t know. The opinion polls are a useful suggestion, but are certainly not a hard and fast indicator. Ironically, the easiest way to find out is to hold a referendum, but I’m far from convinced that we’ll get one.

Without doubt a number of Tory MP’s will rebel and go against the whip. There may, possibly, even be a couple who decide to surrender the whip and take up with UKIP, especially once they get their heads around the boundary changes – it could get them a good local name and improve their chances of re-election, or if all seems lost, at least allow them the opportunity to go down in a blaze of glory.

But this rebellion against the PM is one thing, what the party membership will make of it is another. I can’t help but wonder what the responses to Cameron’s stance in the constituency parties are. He’s taking a hell of a risk, and runs the risk of opening up a war on two fronts.

Europe did for John Major, and it could be the same for Cameron, a EUrophile head of a EUrosceptic party will always have problems butting heads with the membership, and unlike Labour, the Tories can unseat their leader in the time it takes to eat their cornflakes of a morning. He’s banking that he’ll be able to lay down conditions with the threat of collapsing the coalition, he’s banking that the membership would rather be in power and dictated to by their leader than (potentially) be in opposition. But the Tories I speak to don’t see it that way, they are becoming disillusioned with their leader, very quickly. They have two options, get rid of him or go elsewhere. Going elsewhere, especially to UKIP where they have a ready made home, is the simple solution.

The second front where Cameron’s problems really could come is from the MP’s. The referendum debate, whip and all, is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but it could prove a catalyst. Cameron’s intransigence on this subject, and remember this isn’t a debate in the House on if we stay in or out, it is a debate on whether we, the sovereign electorate, should be permitted to have an opinion, could see thousands upon thousands of Tory voters abandon the party for UKIP. A poor showing in the Europeans (and it could be disastrous) has the potential to spook the MP’s, fragile coalition or no, and that is what could seal his fate.

It may be early days yet, but we’ve seen how divisive an argument about Europe can prove within the party and it is always the leader that pays the price. This three line whip is a huge gamble, and I’m not sure Cameron has the support to impose himself upon the party.