Category Archives: referendum

Dear Julian,

Posted on by
5

This has been fired off to the MP today, I shall report back when I receive a response. I’m betting it will be after the big day, but we’ll see. . .

I note with great interest that the members of the Backbench Business Committee have scheduled a debate on the question of a motion surrounding a referendum on our EU membership for October 27th.

As a constituent, I am writing to you to ask how you intend to vote following this debate, and to put forward my argument as to why a referendum must be given.

I could write about how I, and millions upon millions like me, have never had the opportunity to express an opinion on our membership, either by dint of not being born or not being at the age of majority at the time of the last referendum, and how the Prime Minister’s statement that we have already had a say is akin to basing a policy on the internet after inspecting one of Babbage’s difference engines.

I could point out the fact that the EU has failed to have its accounts signed off for almost two decades now, how whilst the nation states of Europe are reduced to penury, the EU votes itself ever larget budgets, about how the pattern of abuse of the expenses system by some MEP’s is well documented, how their fiscal projects have put a number of nations into bankruptcy, crippled with debt repayments unprecedented in history, that this has been done against their own laws and has almost dragged us down with them.

I could state that their behaviour and duplicity when the Constitution/Lisbon treaty was being steamrollered through is anti-democratic at best and the actions of a Stalinist Soviet at worst.

I could draw attention to the practices of adhering to the regulations as set out by the EU makes life very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses – the life blood of our economy, and in many cases financially impossible.

I could highlight the costs of our membership, both in terms of taxation taken from the public and the expense of complying with ever more intrusive and complex edicts and directives from the EU.

Whilst I believe all these points are important, I think the matter comes down to a basic and vital question; Are we sovereign?

Ever closer union has only one logical outcome – a complete political union where the nation states are reduced to the level of federal states. It is all very well for Messers Cameron, Hague and Duncan-Smith to talk about re-negotiations, saying no or not allowing any further steps, but they are trying to negotiate a rebate on the lunch money the playground bully has taken from them, and I am not convinced that what is said at conference is said in Brussels.

Mr. Brazier, the question of the UK’s continued existence as an independent and sovereign state is at stake here, and the citizens of the UK must be allowed to deliver a binding verdict on the subject, it cannot be signed away on the strength of the cabinet at the time knowing ‘what is best’, and that verdict must be allowed to be delivered without fear of retribution or sanction from the EU if Parliament or the electorate return the ‘wrong’ decision in the eyes of the EU.

You will no doubt not be surprised to read that in any such referendum I would vote for our withdrawal, favouring as I do a pure free trade model as espoused by Lord Tebbit. However, those who hold a contrary view to mine simply must be able to express it to get this issue sorted once and for all.

I look forward to your response.

STFU, Prole.

Posted on by
1

Just in case you still had any remaining doubts, just in case you were not certain if our politicians placed any value or import in our voice or opinion, just in case you wondered if our Prime Minister was a man of his word and capable of critical thought, I bring you this:

A SENIOR aide to David Cameron says the Prime Minister has ruled out a referendum on EU membership because Britain delivered a “very clear result” on the issue 36 years ago.

When we were never asked if we wanted this.

. . . he said Britons should be grateful for the EU’s “useful work” on global warming and global poverty. . .

Really? Really? Because when I last looked we were still being threatened with the bogeyman of Warble Gloaming and people were still living in tarpaulin shelters around the world. Perhaps the EU isn’t as wonderful as we’ve been led to believe?

These are compelling arguments why we believe Britain should be an active member.

No. They’re not. And I can state many more compelling arguments as to why we should get out. But there’s no point, because Cameron has made it clear that he has not the slightest interest in listening to what anyone has to say. He’s the PM, what he says goes, sit down, shut up, do as you are told, you disgusting little peasant.

Who was this letter to? Well, that’s the good bit:

His letter was sent to Anita Segar, a senior Conservative Party member in Mr Cameron’s home county of Oxfordshire and president of the Society for Graduates at Oxford University.

She had written to the Prime Minister last month threatening to resign from the party in protest over his “betrayal” to fulfil manifesto pledges and demanding a referendum.

She urged him to “stand up to the imperious, bombastic and arrogant pirates in Brussels” who are “plundering what remains of our heritage”.

So, he’s not even prepared to listen to the people that have come through the very same institutions as him. (The full text of the letter is here)

Meanwhile, Tottenham burned last night. The media is telling us that a few hundred people rioted because the police shot some bloke. Uh-huh, from what I can gather, this man was not exactly a pillar of the community. It seems unlikely to me that a few hundred would be so outraged by his death that they would go on the rampage.

My suspicion is that a small number were reacting to the shooting, the rest of them joined in because they are very very angry, and they don’t know why.

They’ll figure it out eventually. Could it be that they are angry because they feel they don’t matter, because nobody cares about them, because the system is not only incapable of caring about them but actively fears and despises them?

The markets are tanking, the EU is hanging by a thread, the politicians have been caught stealing, the media have been caught spying on the vulnerable as well as the ‘elite’ and the old bill have been caught helping them. We are constantly bullied, nagged and hectored, we are all treated as potential paedophiles and suspected criminals, we are told what to eat, drink and think. We look at the news and see the Arabs rising up, and our governments bombing the people who swat them down, yet our governments speak to us in a way not too far removed from the way the very people we bomb act. Closer to home in Spain we see protesters treated in a shocking fashion by their police.

People are angry and confused, and I can’t help the feeling that we are counting down to something big, it goes further than a PM’s slavish devotion to the EU and the police shooting a not very nice man dead.

Call out the instigators. . .

Somehow I doubt it.

Posted on by
3

At first it sounds like an attention grabbing policy, that a petition delivered to Parliament containing 100,000 signatures will have to be considered for debate. But there are far too many weasel words in it for my liking.

I’ll hand you over to the loving embrace of the BBC (emphasis mine):

Campaigners who gather more than 100,000 petition signatures could have their ideas debated in Parliament, via a newly launched government website.

It allows popular petitions to be discussed by the backbench business committee of MPs, which has the power to propose debates on non-government matters.

So, if you get enough people together, there is the chance that your petition might be discussed by a backbench committee who might propose a debate which will be subject to the usual whippings and even if they did make it through a vote would then be subject to committee hearings, secondary debates and the Lords where if it survives it will probably be changed beyond all recognition.

To be honest this sounds more galling to me than just being told to sit down and shut up. They ask for our opinion, will make the flimsiest attempt to consider it and then punt it out of play while turning to us and sneering ‘well, we considered it, prole. What more do you want?’

Labour has said the petitions could lead to debates on “crazy ideas”.

Which I take to mean any idea they’ve not come up with.

It is lip service at democracy when not actually providing any at all. I’d be happier to see a policy of bit of legislation that means the submission of a petition of, oooh, let’s say, 1.5 million people forced the holding of a referendum.

There are currently two newspaper campaigns that have risen on the back of this. The Sun, ever the moderate, wants a debate about bringing back hanging. Forgetting of course that the ECHR precludes the death penalty. It is not a petition I would sign at any rate.

The Daily Express, slightly smarter than The Sun, has a petition calling for an EU membership referendum. This is a referendum I will sign. Assuming the debate is successful and we pull out of the EU, no doubt the Express would then start another one for the return of hanging.

However I really think it makes no odds. If you want out of the EU, I’d urge you to sign the Express’ petition anyway, just to send a message if one really were needed. But be under no illusions, the answer will be ‘nah, we don’t fancy it.’

The bunch of bastards sat in Westminster couldn’t give a damn about our opinion, and as Witterings from Witney points out, are starting to get spooked by us. Our best hope for getting out of the EU is to vote UKIP en-masse (unlikely) or wait for Cyprus, Italy and Spain to bring the whole house of cards down (much more likely). The problem with the latter is that it will cause us significant pain.

It’s about courage.

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting little article over at Direct Democracy today about how the question of an in/out referendum regarding the EU won’t go away, how many Tories are turning to UKIP and the phenomenon of cross bench agreement between Labour and Conservative MPs in their support for such a referendum. It’s a rum old do, and I do think the debate about the votes for prisoners was the moment a very large penny dropped.

I remember the days when Labour were EUro-sceptic, well in part at least, there was a very real danger that Labour in opposition in ’93 could have wrecked the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Of course they didn’t because even then, their top table was completely in hock to the EUro project. I remember being raging at the time as a very naive teenager who was foresquare behind the EU, I’ve worken up since then. But the world has changed since the early nineties, not least because Labour are starting to lose votes to the BNP. I don’t think this is because Labour are propped up by a bunch of horrible racists, Socialists have many ugly facets, but casual racism isn’t one of them, it is because so many people are utterly fed up with the EU. Those Labour voters who are fed up with it aren’t likely to vote UKIP, because they are at heart Tories. Despite their discomfort about the BNP’s agenda, they are the only party offering what they want in a left centric fashion (pay no heed to the hype, there is nothing right wing about the BNP, they are as red as red can be, just as Mussolini was), so they will go there.

For the Tories the argument is simpler, they understand markets and are not burdened by a sense of loyalty – my party right or wrong – as it were. If the party they follow stops offering what they want, they will take their vote elsewhere. Unfortunately for the Tories their top table is also hopelessly, helplessly wedded to le projet. The backbenchers will stamp their feet, and can do it all they like, it will make no difference, the only thing cast iron about Dave and his chums is that he will do everything he can to ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Just like Mubarak in Egypt, Cameron will defy the wishes of the majority to the bitter end, right up until the moment a man with a (metaphorical in i-Dave’s case) gun taps him on the shoulder. It is no coincedence that one of Cameron’s first gambits was to neuter the 1922 Committee.

Even so, it is easier for the Tories to unseat their leader than it is for Labour. Lest we forget, Labour have never chucked a leader out on his ear, it just doesn’t work that way, and the current leader was elected by the internationalist trade unions, not the party membership.

The Labour back benchers could find themselves slapped down in short order.

The Tory backbenchers will be studiously ignored.

The LibDems, well, just look at Nick’s history, they talk a brave fight, calling for a full referendum when everyone else was calling for one over Lisbon was one of the more transparent bluffs I’ve ever seen. They’d run a mile if they thought one was ever on the horizon. They’re a blusted flush, anyway. When Farrage talks about UKIP being the proper voice of the opposition right now, I don’t think he’s too far from the truth.

I’ve always maintained that Labour sold their heritage down the river when they plumped for Blair and Brown, they abandoned their core constituency because they wanted power. That damage will take years to repair, if it ever is.

The Tories did the same thing when they elected Cameron, they’d rather be in power than have a leader who represented their views. Well, it was your party, your choice.

So, it is all about courage.

Will the MP’s have the courage to jeopardise their hands being on the levers of power? Will those who vote for the big two have the courage to vote in a way which means their tribe may not have power?

Do the Labour backbench MPs have the courage to go against their newly imposed leader? Doubt it.

Do the Tory backbench MPs (who at least have two options) have the courage to either defy their leader and try to bring about a leadership challenge, or even more radically try hold him to ransom by threatening to bring the government down by taking the UKIP whip if he doesn’t submit to their demands, and do they have the courage to actually do it if he calls their bluff? Doubt that too.

No, the real courage must come from the voters. Do the electorate have the courage to realise that our continued membership of the EU is the biggest issue out there? Make no mistake about it, if you want to be a resident in a territory that is a constituent part of a Federal single European state, then you want to stay in. If you don’t then you want to get out. There are, and can be, no half measures here, the stated aim of the EU is clear, if you think it won’t end in one bloody great big country stretching from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic, then you’re kidding yourself.

Do the electorate have the courage to end their own abusive relationship with their tribal party and vote elsewhere? Is there really a desire to get out of the EU? Do people really care?

Unfortunately I fear not, and this is what the EU, the European Commission and the leaderships of the big three bank on. I’m confident that if a referendum came to pass, that an out vote would win the day, but I don’t think the electorate have the gumption to force the issue through the lobby or the ballot box. I think that those who do care can make life uncomfortable for their natural parties, but I don’t think they can bring the house down.

So that means it is down to our MPs to do the right thing and give us the chance to have our say, once and for all, whichever way it goes. The prospect of relying on them chills me to the bone.

A good evening.

Posted on by
Reply

An email popped into my inbox the other day from the Take Back Parliament people, informing me of a meeting which had been called at a pub just a couple of minute’s walk from my house. It’s a part of a programme which has been touring the country trying to drum up support for the yes vote in the (hopefully) forthcoming referendum on the change to an AV voting system.

I’d rather see a full PR system in place, but one step at a time, eh?

Anyhow, this evening was the appointed time and as it was so close to home, I thought it would be churlish not to toddle along, although to be honest, I wasn’t expecting much.

Well, what a pleasant surprise. A good turnout of almost two dozen people was pretty impressive for what is a small town on the back of the email equivalent of a cold call. Without wanting to get all New Labour, there was a very healthy cross section of ages, gender and, most importantly, political belief. It felt weird sitting there, agreeing with Labour and Green Party members.

We’ve all swapped email addresses and have agreed a provisional date for another meeting to organise some events, get to know each other a bit better and generally try and raise the profile of this issue.

It’s an issue I think is very important. I have almost no common ground with a Green Party member, but if they, we as Libertarians and other small parties are to make any inroads into the political orthadoxy we have to persuade people that it is worth their while voting in the first place. We could have the best policies in the world (and I believe we do) but it won’t matter a pair of dingo’s kidneys if people turn round and say ‘yeah, I like that, but there’s no point, the Tories/Labour/Lib Dems have this seat sewn up.’

I’ll disagree with pretty much everything else they say, but if I have to work with a Green Party member to ensure that both our parties get a decent chance of picking up the votes they have the right to, then I’ll do it. Let’s get a fair system in place first, the tribal ad-hominem attacks can wait for later.

Anyhow, to this end I’ve set up a blog for this group which is linked on the right, and a link to sign the petition if you’ve not done so already and would like to. If you live in the Canterbury and East Kent area and would like to more, keep a weather eye on the other blog, if all goes to plan there’ll be details of events, meetings, rallies etc. You’ll be more than welcome, it really is a very broad church. Hopefully I’ll not be the only person burbling along over there, you’ll be able to read other people’s burblings as well.

The One That Is Waiting To See. . .

Posted on by
Reply

So the Czechs have been given an exemption from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (link in Czech), obviously those rights aren’t as fundamentally important as getting Klaus to sign on the dotted line then.

So that leaves the Czech Constitutional Court as the remaining bulwark between the status quo and complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It would seem that the chances of this treaty being live at the time of a British general election are somewhere between slim and none then.

All too often we Libertarians are accused of nihilism, so I’m going to buck that stereotype. I’m not about descend to the very bottom of the slough of despair, I’m not about to write Cameron off.

Just yet.

At conference he said something about not letting it rest there if he got the keys to No. 10 with the Lisbon Treaty on the statute. I don’t know what that means, I hope (and this hope is waaaay bigger than any expectation I have) that out of the blue Cameron announces that we’re going to have the BIG one. But I’m not holding my breath.

As with much to do with the Conservatives, I don’t actually know what it is Cameron wants to do. I get the impression he’s in the middle of a fine balancing act, the old EUrophile and EUrophobe divisions are still in the party, they haven’t gone away. I have a feeling that Dave is leaning towards the anti camp, his detatching the party from the old centre-right grouping is especially interesting but with Ken Clarke such an important part of his pre and mid election campaign staff, he’s got to be very canny.

If he gets in with a healthy majority, then that will give him a lot more room to spread his wings and show us what he’s got. I just hope that when he does spread his wings, it was worth the wait.

Anyhow, as sceptical as I may be, I’m not about to condemn a man who has not done anything wrong yet. It would be nice to see him do something right, though.

Perhaps he’ll decide to hold a retrospective referendum. An unusual step, but the will of the electorate must take precedence over any other tool of government and if we don’t want it, we don’t want it. The word of the people is sovereign.

I can’t wait for the attack from the left and Brussels if we are given the chance and if that chance results in a ‘here’s your refund, now fuck off’ result. They will then show themselves to be the contemptible and anti-democratic slime they are.

The One That Says ‘Oh, They WILL, Will They?’. . .

Posted on by
2

Just sat here watching Sky News, the chap doing the bit to camera in Dublin about the Lisbon Treaty has just made the point that if the Irish vote ‘Yes’, (and how I hope the opinion polls are wrong, that people have being fibbing to the pollsters or that in the polling station they just think ‘Fuck you’ and vote ‘No’), that the Poles and Czechs will HAVE to ratify.

Will they? As sad as it is that the Irish constitution is the only one in the Europe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to have any faith in its population’s capacity for abstract thought, is it right that their decisions should influence, or force, the policy of another sovereign state?

Well, if the ‘Yes’ vote wins today, then get used to it, because the wishes of our national parliament and therefore (at least, on paper) the wishes of the electorates will be perpetually forced by the actions of a group immeasurably smaller than the group they hold power over. I speak not of the 3 million Irish with effective dominion over 497 million other ‘EU Citizens’, but of the fucktardish pen pushers, troughers and self appointed rulers sitting in Brussels.

And they will indeed hold power over us. Already Bliar is apparently a shoe-in for the job of President of the EU. Did you receive a polling card? I didn’t. I didn’t get the chance to vote for our commissioner, never have, believe me, there’s no fucking way I’d have voted for Kinnock or Mandleson.

An apparent Republic with a population of 500 million, none of whom have had the opportunity to elect their President or those who make the laws that govern them. There’s a name for a regime like that.

We’ve never had a say since 1975 – that’s before I was born, and this was not the deal on the table. I was disgusted to hear a colleague of mine who describes himself as being ‘Liberal’ and a ‘Democrat’ describe a referendum as not democratic as people would make the wrong decisions and it is very, very complicated.

He was amazed when I called him an arrogant, patronising little weasel.

This is what we’re up against. No pretence at democracy, no pretence at listening to what people want. Those on the top of the status quo want this introduced and it will be introduced.

Well, I’ve got news for you, you nasty little fuckers, a similar enterprise crumbled in Eastern Europe in the 90′s, and if you continue to ride roughshod over us little people, your Ceacescu moment WILL come, and you won’t even see it when it is right at the end of your nose.

A question. What if Lech Kaczynski and/or Vaclav Klaus turn round and say, ‘You know, as Head of State, I don’t want to sign this. I know what is best for my country, not you’, what happens then?

God save Ireland, God save Poland, God save the Czech Republic.

God help the rest of us.

The One That Says You Can’t Be Wrong All The Time. . .

Posted on by
1
A centre of common sense and reason, earlier today.

I quite often tear into organised religion on here. I don’t hold a lot of store in it. I think they are pretty much always wrong.

Not this time though.

And whilst I may not set a lot of store by what the Vatican has to say, but many in Ireland do. Old habits die hard.

Looks like the Pope is none too impressed with the grand European Project. During a Papal visit to reluctant participant, the Czech Republic, the Pope’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone* released a statement which will probably have the Brussels apparatchiks choking on their moules et frites.


‘Individual European countries have their own identity. The EU prescribes its laws or views to them and they do not have to fit with their traditions and history. Some countries are logically resisting this – for example, Ireland’

He then bangs on about the evils of bum sex for a while – c’mon guys, get over it.

Never mind, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Let’s hope that in the morning Ireland has a sudden attack of deep Catholicism and does what The Vatican tells them – just for the day.

*How entertaining to see a title for an office of state that Mandelson doesn’t have. Granted with his name, he’d be unlikely to ever become a Cardinal, but I’m willing to bet he’d love to have the outfit.

The One That Is Hoping And Praying. . .

Posted on by
Reply

C’mon guys and girls. You’ve told them once already. If you let them push you around, you let them push a whole continent around.

Ireland could be the saviour of us all. A ‘No’ vote will not destroy the EU, but it will put the brakes on, if only for as long as it takes them to come back again and tell you you’ve made the wrong decision.

Thank God for Ireland’s constitution, and how sad that out of such a large group of countries, only one has the faith in its people to make their own minds up.

Ratification of this treaty really would give me serious cause to consider my continued residence in this country. The corruption in the EU, the arrogance, the anti-democratic practices and dictatorial manner in which business is done chills me to the very core.

The One That Bets They Don’t Get The Chance. . .

Posted on by
Reply

Jose Manuel Barroso after the Germans throw out the Lisbon Treaty.

According to Open Europe, 77% of Germans want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

I’ve a shiny €10 note that says they don’t get it.

Let’s look at some of the quotes attributed in this report:

German press agency DPA reported this week that “nobody expects a complete ‘No’” from the judges, adding that “a ‘yes, but’ is considered a possibility.

Errr, no. Try Yes or No. Simple as that.

Irish Europe Minister Dick Roche said in the aftermath of the Irish ‘no’ vote that “the first thing to learn about referendums – is to avoid them.

The first thing to learn about Dick Roche is to kick him very hard. In the head. Every ten minutes.


Former Commission President Jacques Santer added: “A referendum is good for democracy; it is not always good for a country. We need to make a distinction between democracy and what is good for the country.

News flash, Jacques, you detestible merde petit, the EU is not a country. Fucktard.

Valery Giscard d’Estaing, has explained the reason why it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty, saying: “Above all, it is to avoid having a referendum.

Because referenda look likely to tell us that the electorate don’t like our plans, and that won’t do, that won’t do at all. If we don’t ask them, they can’t tell us.

However, there is hope:

Bavarian Minister-President Horst Seehofer has said: “We want the population to be asked before German competences are irrevocably transferred to Brussels.

Nice one Horst, fancy pointing that out to Angela?

Silvana Koch-Mehrin, leader of the German liberals in the European Parliament, said: “Without a referendum in Europe the growing gap between the EU and its citizens will keep on growing.”

Although the cynic in me must point out that Silvana doesn’t say if that is a bad thing or not.

Reporting Judge Udo Di Fabio said: “One has to ask soberly: What competences are left with the Bundestag in the end?” He also bluntly asked “whether it would not be more honest to just proclaim a European federal state”. On the transfer of powers to the EU, he said: “Is the idea of going ever more in this direction not a threat to freedom?”

To answer those points; None. Yes, but there would be millions on the streets (but not in the UK, the BBC would show an Eastenders special, before C4 announce a surprise eviction on Big Brother). Yes, yes it is a very direct threat to freedom. I kinda think that’s the point.

We’re not dead yet, but we’re not at all well. The Czechs and Poles have yet to sign, I’m unsure about the Danes’ state of play, and perhaps the Irish will be persuaded by the no camp that the EU thinks they are all stupid bog trotters who should do as they are fucking told. Perhaps we can send them a picture like this?


It may not be flattering for us in England, but it’ll allow the Irish to get the message.