Monday, 22 June 2015

The real reason purdah has uniquely been abandoned for the EU Referendum.

The 'for Britain' grouping are reformers. They don't want 'out' they want 'associate membership' that hasn't yet been publicly defined and can't be implemented in the time available before a referendum.

Matthew Elliott, leader of the 'for Britain' groupings, saw the 'Yes2AV' campaign fail because it was led by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) who were *against* AV, they wanted (and still want - the now obsolete) STV.

Matthew Elliott now wants to recreate this in the EUout campaign - by leading it to fail, by leading it as badly and half heartedly as ERS led Yes2AV.

Just before the referendum, if  the in campaign have not already clearly won, then the EU will offer 'associate membership' they will promise it as a 'vow' (as per the Scots independence 'vow' - the promise of Devo Max if scots voted 'in') and the reformers led by Elliott and 'for Britain' will switch from EUout to EUin - this is what they wanted all along (see http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/isabel-oakeshott-eurosceptics-need-to-wake-up-if-they-want-us-to-leave-the-eu-10289339.html)

The reason purdah has uniquely been abandoned for this referendum is precisely so this last minute Damascene moment can be stage managed - in the last week or so this offer will be made and hugely publicised - and the UK public will be expected to vote 'in' in a promise (cast-iron no doubt). With (but this time) only UKIP still speaking up for out!

Sunday, 21 June 2015

You can't trust reformers to run the #EUout campaign - they may switch sides!

The EUout, Brexit, Brindependence whatever campaign to promote the Exit arguments in the EU Referendum has to be run by people who wanted out last year, want it this year, will want it next year and want it forever.

For instance the EU (rightly for its interests), if it had to choose, would rather have 110 new jobs in Germany than only 100 in the UK. But - I (in the UK's interests) would rather have the 100 in the UK - Germany can look out for itself. This kind of choice happens all the time and (obviously on a far greater scale, millions of jobs, millions of choices) each time the EU's interests is not the same as the UK interest unless by sheer chance.

The EU is a bad idea for the UK, no amount of reform will change the fact that its interests and our interests will often be different, and by being a member we will have to agree to go against out own best interest. This is the national and political equivalent of self-harm.
So clearly, no amount of 'renegotiation' can 'fix' the EU. Anyone who is waiting to see what Cameron gets offered is not really committed to ending this self harm and leaving, they want to know what sweeties they may be offered to keep harming the UK.

If these 'reformers' are allowed influence in the EUout campaign, at any time before the actual referendum they could be offered the right sweeties and switch sides to support staying in.

We can see two things from the Scottish Independence referendum - firstly that it is stupid to make such fundamental decisions based on short term issues, as can and do change, secondly that if you do so a 'Vow' of extra sweeties just before polling can swing the result. For both these reasons anyone who is or has waited to see what Cameron gets offered has ruled themselves out as credible leaders, organisers or activists of the EUout campaign.

The only credible politicians so far that could be part of EUout are #UKIPpers (present, and many former), Kate Hoey and Daniel Hannan.

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

Conservative MP's - Stitched up (un)like Kippers.

Conservative Eurosceptic MP's (if any exists) are now cornered. Either they stay quiet and so passively support Cameron until his renegotiation is complete, or they back Conservatives for Britain and actively support Cameron until his renegotiation is complete.

See whats been done there?

There is no space for any genuine EUout'er to show their face within the Conservative party - at least not until Cameron completes his renegotiation. But what then?

Cameron has said he will be supporting an 'in' vote regardless - he actually said following successful renegotiation, but he'd never admit his renegotiation has been unsuccessful, so it will be declared successful regardless of what it contains and he will back an in vote based on it...

At this point Conservative MP's will have a choice:

Either to back Cameron, close their eyes, cross their fingers and follow where ever Cameron leads them which will be a Cameron led government in or out of the EU.

Or they may chose to oppose Cameron - effectively saying they believe their leader, their elected Conservative Prime Minister is working against the best interests of the country! Whatever happens in the referendum, they will have no career under Cameron - and none in the Conservative party unless the vote was 'out' and one of their number replaced Cameron and followed this with an extensive night of the long knives against all pro-EU conservatives and supporters of Cameron...

The second option is not the Conservative way - anyone capable of such oppositon to the elected leader would have been weeded out well before being selected to run in the last general election.

This is why I believe Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell left the Conservative party - they saw these were the options and realised no Conservative MP would be going against Cameron.

As long as Cameron is the leader of the Conservative party, all Conservative MP's are #EUin.

Monday, 8 June 2015

Prepare for the EU Referendum to be postponed! UKIP will need to win the 2020 General Election to leave.

Cameron and the conservatives are making great play about waiting to see what 'renegotiation' delivers.

I have no doubt that, should an 'in' vote not look certain, then Cameron and the EU will declare treaty changes are required and will be made to meet some objective or other (the actual detail doesn't matter).

At this point it will be declared that it is stupid to have a referendum until the treaty changes have been formerly completed as we will not know for sure what in or out means. And so the referendum will be postponed until the changes are complete.

The treaty changes will not be completed while an 'out' vote is likely.

So there will be no referendum from the Conservatives until 'in' is certain.

Then the only way to get 'out' will be to give UKIP an absolute majority in the 2020 general election.

Sunday, 7 June 2015

Why the EU is fundamentally bad for the UK, and no amount of 'renegotiation' will make it any better.

The EU are acting rationally and sensibly for its own interests - but these are fundamentally different to the interests of the UK. 


'Greater Good'.

This is the core failing of the EU for UK interests.

Greater Good refers to the sacrifice of the good of someone/thing because overall it will be better for the group.

In a family, members may happily make sacrifices for other members of the family or for the family as a whole - although if what is asked/expected is too much then a member may leave or cut themselves off from the family or certain members of it.

As an independent legal entity/personality the EU operates for its own good - but this will often be at the expense of one or more of its members. In fact the only time it matters that the EU is a legal entity with governmental force is when it needs to make a member make a sacrifice for the greater good... otherwise no force/coercion would be required.

So being a member of the EU - instead of a trading partner - means it can oblige the UK to act against the UK's own interests because it benefits some other part of the EU. In fact the ability to oblige the UK to do so is the sole reason for the EU to have any power over the UK at all. As anything that benefited the UK, the UK would freely do anyway, whether or not a member!

The 'flip side' of this is that other countries may be made to act against their best interests to benefit the UK in some way.

Well, I don't want to force countries to do this. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for a countries government to force its people to act against their own interests. And I certainly don't want to benefit from the fruits of such evil coercion!

But even if I didn't have a moral stance on this - the EU is spreading into more and more disadvantaged countries - who have nothing to give up for 'the greater good', so the traffic/sacrifice can only be one way - away from the UK to other parts of the EU.

The EU are acting rationally and sensibly for its own interests - but these are fundamentally different to the interests of the UK.

This is why the UK should leave the EU - so we can act as we see fit for ourselves - not be coerced/obliged to act against our own best interests and be forced to make sacrifices that would not otherwise choose to do.

Thursday, 4 June 2015

BBC and MSM - Pavlovs news bell ringers. Go www.radiofreeuk.org

It used to be people had genuine issues/concerns and they discussed them.

Then jounalists stepped in and recorded these issues, they got put into newspapers, other people read the newspapers and about the issues, some readers realised they had the same issues, some readers simply empathised with those who had the issues, some readers called for action on the issues. Often readers would discuss the issues they had read about.

This is how things were.

Over time some newspapers expanded, collecting stories from ever larger geographic areas, and were read by ever larger groups of people. Other newspapers didn't make the change or were squeezed out and those smaller, more localised newspapers closed.

With only big stories making it into the big newspapers people had more to discuss with people from a wider area - they shared the same news. Local stories were back to being only discussed amonst close groups of friends.

Around this time the newpapers realised that they were no longer reporting what people were already talking about, rather people were talking about what was in the newspapers. So  now, instead of the media reporting the peoples news, the media were telling the people what their news was.

People continued to react in the same way to the news they read - they discussed it, empathised with some of it and called for action on some of it. But they were no longer connected to the original issues, they were now connected with the newspapers storys about the issues.

Like pavlovs dogs drooling when they heard the bell even if there was no food - the newsreading public would react to a story even if there was no real issue behind it.

Monopoly or near monopoly on the media became a hugely powerful tool to manipulate the public - hence big media and poliitcs becoming intertwined. They choose the bell to ring and how loud, the public duly react as if there was really food to be had - even if there is none.

Despite the best efforts of the state and mainstream media, communicaiton has become partly democractised - particularly with the internet and the social media it supports.

There are some hicups - radicalisation and cultish activity has been induced in some by groups using the techniques once only available to the state/msm. But once communicaiton is fully open these technique will be useless, as people will be free to choose what influences they are (or are not) subject to - it will not be dictated or twisted by restricted access to news and communications.

My contribution to freeing people from the biased influence of the state, bbc and main stream media is the creation (still on going) of www.radiofreeuk.org - an unregulated platform/channel for the free disemincation and communiation of information, education and entertainment with out the establishments so called progressive socialist agenda.

Monday, 1 June 2015

On 'EUSceptics' or EuroSceptics if you want to pretend EU is Europe.

There is no time for Cameron to get any treaty change from the EU.

Without treaty change there is no change worth the name - it can all change back again whenever the EU commission simply decide to change it.

So the battle lines are drawn right now.

In with the current treaties - including the hated Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.
or
Out

In light of this, anyone who isn't already signed up for 'out' cannot be trusted in the out campaign.

This is a reflection of the debasing of EUphile and EUsceptic - especially by the BBC - now an EUphile is 'In regardless', EUsceptic is 'In but could be improved'.

They have no word for anyone who thinks the UK should rule itself.