Be careful what you wish for

Politicians love to fool us or themselves by taking a position and then assuming things will go the way they plan. Take the so called leading EUskeptic Douglas Carswell and his call for a referendum on the EU caused no doubt by Cameron’s acceptance of the non treaty he did not block by his non veto back in November.


The Prime Minister is facing a revolt among Tory MPs over the “circumventing” of his veto which blocked a new EU treaty to deepen further fiscal union among eurozone countries at a summit last month.
Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said: “It looks like the veto has fallen apart … we are back to ministers and mandarins cutting deals in Brussels and shutting the interests of the British people out.”
Some Tory MPs were due to meet in Westminster to decide how to how to make clear their unhappiness ahead Mr Cameron’s statement to the Commons.
Mr Carswell said a referendum on Britain’s place in the EU was necessary.
“What happened yesterday was final proof that we cannot trust politicians to make Europe policy. We now need a referendum,” he said. 

The problem is of course is that the EU cannot be trusted on referenda, they’ll either keep asking until they get the answer they want as they did with Ireland or they’ll stack the deck against the answer they don’t want as they have with Croatia where the normal requirement for a 50% turnout threshold was abolished. The government gave money for the Yes campaign but not the No campaign. Their post office gave out Yes leaflets free, but not No leaflets. There were also free or discounted TV and radio Yes advertisements due to the largely German-owned media who campaigned for a Yes vote.

Even before the campaign started their Ministry of Foreign Affairs had paid for advertisements and one of their Ministers stated that pensioners could lose their pensions in the event of a No vote.

The campaign itself was limited to four weeks in midwinter (including the Christmas holidays) and at the end of it the vote split 66% Yes, 33% No on a 43% turnout. (H/T Norman Tebbit)

Anyone think it would be different here particularly with a well funded EUphile minority in Westminster?

Unless the EU is kept out of funding a stay in campaign (almost impossible they could claim an interest) then a leave campaign will face an uphill task to make up ground though admittedly there would be a slightly more friendly dead tree press to highlight any really over the top shenanigans though you could lay money on the BBC being so pro stay that would balance out the equation. There’s a strong possibility that the Trade Unions will throw their weight into a stay in campaign as well.

You could also lay money on the question asked being highly controversial somewhat along the lines of “Do you wish to remain in the EU with all the benefits to the UK that this brings” or “Do you wish for the UK to struggle alone in a hostile world” exaggerated yes, but you can bet the question will be something along those lines.

We should always bear in mind that the only way the EUphiles will allow a referendum is if they think they’ll win.

Douglass Carswell and others in favour of a referendum on the EU should be very careful about what they wish for.

4 comments for “Be careful what you wish for

  1. January 31, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    “Anyone think it would be different here particularly with a well funded EUphile minority in Westminster?”

    Not me.

  2. Mudplugger
    January 31, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    It is now widely acknowledged that the Stay In campaign at the 1975 referendum was largely funded by the CIA, in order to project the USA’s bridgehead (the UK) into Europe as the Cold War raged and the mainland was considered at threat from communist infiltration.

    Times have changed and that particular pressure no longer applies – maybe this time Uncle Sam’s dirty dollars may help the Get Out side ? Especially as we now have an East German Communist Party enthusiast, with close relations to Stasi stock, as Chancellor of Germany and default Fuhrer of the EU !

  3. nemesis
    January 31, 2012 at 11:13 pm
  4. February 1, 2012 at 8:18 am

    I believe things have altered. Though about the time of the last general election, there would certainly have been a skewed referendum, including a skewed question, it was a watershed moment and you’ll recall papers like the Express had taken it up. There’s a difference between not seeing it as a major issue and putting a cross in a box if you do have one presented.

    There was media about it at the time, Hannan and Farage were going strong and though it wasn’t a great chance, there at least was a chance. That was a time when I fell out with a person who thought using ad hominem was the way to win the day, so it had a personal element for me as well.

    His argument was that 2010 was not the time because the people’s consciousness was not yet raised on the issue. They’d need to experience bad times first and then Cameron would waltz in and give the referendum. My argument was that Cameron would never do that until the EU was fully prepared, these bad times would be put down to our going it alone whereas to be in the EU would give money to the country and a land of milk and honey, jobs etc.

    That is surely the strategy now – come in and be safe, have jobs. Your national politicians are corrupt and hopeless, we will look after you. This is far more of a factor now than it was in 2010. I still argue that if we were to have even a 55% chance, even on a skewed question, that was the remaining time before the EU was fully organized. They’d lost referenda at that time, if you recall.

    Now they’re organized and it’s hopeless. Now, in Feb 2012, the whole referendum question has dragged on for so long that the EU is well prepared for any attempt at it – hence the Croatia situation. For a referendum to be put here now, the whole thing would be so openly corrupt and they simply don’t care in the office of the PM what we think any more – there’s a bigger game afoot.

    When things financially crash here sometime between March and after the Olympics, when the dole money and housing benefit money just [temporarily] ceases, it’s still a controlled game from the EU. There’s plenty of money about, esp from the IMF, which came from us but the saturation coverage will point out that in the EU – good living, out – you can sink by yourselves.

    We did have a chance back then. Now it has to go along the lines of the agenda and that will lead to war before it leads to us coming anywhere near a land of near full employment with industry start-ups all over the place. By then it will be a federal model and Barosso’s boys will be in charge. The aim is to make the loss of freedom and sovereignty well-nigh irrelevant and seamless. Go with your nationalists into an uncertain future or secure your future for your families with us. Of course certain things must change [they don’t spell these out in detail and we, the sceptics, are shut out].

    There’s one hope and I quote that lady Svali again who was asked that very question:

    8. They are arrogant, and this could be their downfall. They view the common man as “sheep” with no intelligence. They are full of pride, believe they are invulnerable (see above) and that any press about them is the equivalent of a gnat to be swatted. Arrogant people make mistakes, and they are becoming more blatant and open in recent years.
    9. They believe they can overcome God, which is a huge mistake.
    10. There is a lot of discontent in the ranks, and there would be a mass exodus if the members believed it were really possible to get out (and live).

    She said that in a 2000 radio interview with Centrex, so the game’s been afoot for quite some time.

Comments are closed.