EU withdrawal – what’s the state of play?

In 2010, before the General Election, there was an altercation between a major blogger and a group called Albion Alliance over the referendum.

He maintained that pre-election 2010 was the wrong time and it should have been just before the next, i.e. 2015. The theory was that things would have disintegrated so far in the EU by then that people might be amenable. If it were given in 2010, then people might be persuaded to accept repatriation of powers, not withdrawal. This was certainly the Tory stance.

There were a few things wrong with that.

First, Cameron or whoever it is can fudge on the question any time – in 2015, in 2010, now. He doesn’t need to submit the question to the people for approval and once set in motion, any dissent on the question would be shut down. In 2010, there was a very ugly mood and that was the time to strike. 2011/12 was not.

Second, the longer it goes, even though it gives time for the EU to disintegrate, it also gives it time to consolidate, to extract enough lucre from the old families to tide it over until the new financial model comes in by popular demand. So it’s most likely going to be irrelevant anyway, the referendum, as there will be a new structure by then, a new set of circumstances.

Third, the polls are rigged and yet journos are waiting, fingers poised to syndicate throughout the world any poll favourable to staying in.

Fourth, everyone saw what happened in Ireland and the billion or so pumped in to ensure the Yes the 2nd time round.Unless the EU has outlived its function and the new stage is ready to begin, that money is going to be pumped in again.

Fifth, the question of youth is a worrying one – they are not only dumbed down these days but are conditioned to think PC and do not have the memory of the troubles the EU has caused or about how it was a lie from the beginning. Youth, being more into lifestyle than politics don’t see it as a big issue in the same way we do. And even in our age range, there are Labour voters, Lib Dems and Pink Tories out there who are blind to the EU blight.

Sixth, there is the infiltration of key posts in the UK by Common Purpose now, funded by you and me. The chances of poll fraud on the day would be strong, simply because no one would believe it possible in Britain – this is Britain after all, no? And they WILL have the result they want.

Seventh, Obama in charge over there, the desire to form a new alliance with America is not burning in most people’s minds. He’s done his part alienating this country – it all helps the stay-in side of a referendum.

Eighth – the CBI.

2013 is good but those difficulties still remain.

In 2010, the polls varied between 53 and around 80 percent against the EU but the questions at the time weren’t all specifically about withdrawal. Still, it was sufficient.

The Guardian reported on October 24th, 2011 that “49% would vote for withdrawal and some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership”, which means a largish percentage want the opportunity to kill off referenda on it forever.

The Mail reported the yougov poll on January 21st, 2013, you’ll recall and that said more wanted to stay in. That news was syndicated worldwide in a flash and that is the received wisdom to this day for anyone exploring the issue. Google has this high in the rankings.

And that gave rise to comments like:

The EU has lots of faults some really serious ,but when push comes to shove leaving the eu and losing million of jobs would be worse than staying in.

However, 1,912 people were asked and 20% said they didn’t know. By the way, I do yougov polls. The question was that if Cameron managed to renegotiate the UK membership would you vote to stay in the EU? Not quite what the MSM reported, as we well know.

Autonomous Mind asked why the change of question.

The Telegraph came out with something different on January 25th, 2013:

More than half of British voters would choose to leave the European Union if given the chance to take part in a referendum today, according to a new Times/Populus poll. Among Tory supporters, 56 percent would vote to leave, and even 37 percent of Labour voters and 35 percent of Liberal Democrats would opt to get out of the EU as well. If “don’t knows” are included in the survey, 40 percent of Britons would vote to leave, 37 percent would stay, and 23 percent are undecided.

That did not get anywhere near the syndication.

However, Cameron’s sway over voters, even in January this year, has largely disappeared and he’d be hardpressed getting anyone to believe his promises now that he’d go in hard and fight for our rights within the EU. He will only give a referendum if his job is on the line. It might be soon, it might not be.

We’re up against snakes in the grass, that’s for sure and the chances of them playing with a straight bat I don’t feel are particularly high.

So what are the real numbers? Who knows? Somewhere around the 50% seems fair, maybe seven or eight points either side, around 40% for staying in seems reasonable, perhaps 10% are still vacillating and would be swayed by promises.

The rubbish about loss of jobs, without mentioning the huge losses we’ve sustained already in the country is par for the course. All sorts of scare tactics will be used. If 20% were vacillating enough to believe that rubbish, then it might still be up in the air.

Harris Poll, February 18th

Richard North wrote of a coalition of allies. Good, good, wonderful idea. So we would expect then, would we not, that he’d get right behind the Albion Alliance here and here.

Except that it didn’t happen. It had the double agenda of country before party and direct democracy, with an EU referendum a core part of that. It had some traction for some time but as Richard wrote:

When it comes to confronting governments, we have the inherent advantage of numbers – there are always more of “us” that there are of “them”. However, that advantage is only manifest if people are prepared to work together, and offer mutual support.

And there’s the rub. It cuts both ways. That campaign had a database, was directly contacting MPs and other PPCs but what happened?

Firstly, lack of support by those whom one would have expected to get in behind it, link, campaign etc. Secondly, everyone and his dog had his own little campaign going and so there was talk of ambition and how the AA wanted to dominate the agenda and other such rubbish.

OK, fine, it went the way of all things and the next thing was the bunfight between the Witanagemot and other English Parliament organizations. That sort of splintering gets no one anywhere.

Now there’s the ascendancy of Nigel but there are also people who have goodwill towards UKIP who are quite worried about Nigel representing himself as an “alternative leader”, a potential PM in other words, whereas he should have stayed aloof from personal politics in people’s eyes.

UKIP does have some traction though across the land and that’s a start.   If it went to a stance of being “country before party” [where have I read that before?] plus had a comprehensive platform which stood challenge and was refined to reflect that, plus it took on board Richard’s “exit strategy”, then it would have a much better chance.

Above all though, no one wants to work with anyone else. Everyone has his own agenda and sees it as the way to go, calling out, “Follow me lads and lasses.”    Everyone moans that no one is joining together, getting behind each other but no one is doing it – they’re off on their own tangents.   Everyone is taking umbrage at someone else or making snide remarks instead of doing as Richard suggested:

We get perennial cries for “umbrella” and “co-ordinating” groups, none of which ever come to anything. Not least, to maintain a fragile unity, compromises have to be made on strategy and objectives, which weaken strength and resolve. Thus, the only real possibility of magnifying the effect of the disparate organisations is to form loose coalitions, willing to share information, occasionally co-ordinate action and to work towards the development of common strategies on certain issues.

Again, fine but it seems to be to be a bit like the special relationship between the US and UK – each side has to make concessions to the other to allow things to be taken onboard and that smacks of coalition and we all know how effective coalitions are.

And that’s where we are. What’s the solution?

8 comments for “EU withdrawal – what’s the state of play?

  1. Junican
    May 9, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    The situation really is awful.
    Let us suppose that the EU had been called ‘The European Alliance’ with the objective of integrating matters of mutual interest, one issue at a time, without a massive bureaucracy. In that case, it could have been a great force for the well-being of all Europeans. For example, the Euro could easily have been introduced as a common currency alongside national currencies, and acceptable as payment for goods and services anywhere in Europe. Would we be having all the problems which we are experiencing? Many aspects of law could have been harmonised quite easily.
    Instead, what has happened is the growth of a new aristocracy, complete with masses of charlatans and crooks.
    Is it too late to turn things round? I suppose that it is. But it is shame that the only ‘solution’ is to withdraw completely.

    • May 10, 2013 at 12:01 am

      The problem, essentially, as you say, is all those crooks who are running an organization based on deception of populations and dishonesty in its dealings. Surely such a noble aim should be accompanied by nobility in all things. As it’s not, time for the people to end it.

  2. The Cowboy Online
    May 10, 2013 at 10:31 am

    “Fifth, the question of youth is a worrying one – they are not only dumbed down these days but are conditioned to think PC and do not have the memory of the troubles the EU has caused or about how it was a lie from the beginning.”

    You aren’t wrong; the 19 year old daughter of one of my friends posted this to her Facebook page just yesterday;

    “We’re not going to have any say in who comes into this country if we leave Europe.

    Fucking idiots”

    To applause from her friends. 🙄

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

      Trouble is, they’re getting this at school and college. The teachers are generally that way inclined and what can one do – kids are a captive audience without the capacity to discern based on life experience. And they all vote.

  3. graham wood
    May 10, 2013 at 10:32 am

    Cameron’s duplicity in promising a referendum on the outcome of “negotiations” with the EU has at least clarified the field of action in that clearly he challenges credulity. It is now clear that there must be an in/out referendum WITHOUT prior re-negotiations.

    It is “impossible” to negotiate anything of the UK’s position within the EU for a number of reasons which he well knows. The “aquis communitaire” doctrine ensures that no powers are returned to member states once ceded by nation governments. There is not to my knowledge one single power in a ‘directive’ or treaty clause which has ever been retracted. The EU is a unitary monolith with no mechanism for such aberrations.
    Secondly, the EU simply could not afford to enter such a negotiation as it would open the flood gates for all or any other member state to also make their own demands.
    Thirdly. Other EU member state leaders have frankly told Cameron to take a running jump and that they have no intention of making the UK a special case at their expense! They have also affirmed that there will be no treaty changes or any new treaty.
    That leaves Cameron “naked” at the EU top table!
    The renegotiation is not only a nightmare scenario for them, it is also a complete smoke screen on the part of Cameron and his fellow travellers. Has he defined for example, any one single area of policy which he wishes to talk about? What about all the other myriad “issues” which pour out of the EU every day and which constitute a haemorrhage of power and money our of the UK to Brussels?
    In any event, such “negotiations” would take years not a few months – something else Cameron knows full well.
    Then there is the small matter of promising a referendum which is predicated on the basis that he will be returned to power – (no hope there!)- and so we could go on.
    Only the very naive or the totally ignorant would swallow Cameron’s lie.
    It is in or out. There is no half-way house on this.
    We must repeal the 1972 European Community Act (the gateway to all EU legislation) and leave – and now!

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:50 am

      It is “impossible” to negotiate anything of the UK’s position within the EU for a number of reasons which he well knows. He’s an out and out liar, a Blair clone. He knew that that promise would muddy waters and yougov was ready to pounce. He got a bloodied nose in the council elections, he’s going to get worse soon.

    • mona
      May 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm

      Unless you and others are as ruthless and determined as the Taliban you are staying in the EU. You know and I know the game is rigged, how will you overcome the BBC who play a sly game, will it mention the seeds issue? no Manchester United is more important.

  4. Furor Teutonicus
    May 11, 2013 at 5:47 am

    XX people…who are quite worried about Nigel representing himself as an “alternative leader”, a potential PM in other words….XX

    Well… AYE! I mean if they are aiming to win the election then they need a bloody leader/PM.

    You know, things like PLAN for Government!

    Or the morning after winning, are they all going to impersonate Spike Milligan in “Q7” (Or whatever number it was) and mill around in parliament chanting “What are we going to do NOW!?”?

Comments are closed.