Bearing in mind the ineptitude of the official Leave campaign, coupled with the project fear in which the Remain campaign are indulging, it would appear that the latter group will ‘win the day’ on June 23rd. In view of which it becomes necessary that we now look to the future.
David Cameron and his political comrades have been campaigning on retaining membership of a ‘reformed’ EU and by so doing keeping the UK’s seat at the EU table in order to continue the UK’s supposed ability to ‘influence’ that organisation. George Osborne, one of Cameron’s political comrades, has published a report which one journalist finds ‘questionable‘.
It has been suggested in the media and on the internet that the EU is withholding the issuance of further Directives and Regulations, for fear of influencing the outcome of the forthcoming referendum as they fear it may well affect the result of the referendum in favour of the Leave side; and that consequently, post a Remain result, there will be a tsunami of ‘law’ imposed upon the UK.
Indeed, in that context there is the 5 Presidents report to consider; along with the Bertlesmann/Spinelli paper: A Fundamental Law.
From the former is the wish to further the creation of a United States of Europe in that it talks about the need for a genuine economic union; a financial union; a fiscal union and, to provide and cement all the foregoing, a political union. In this regard a paper by European Insights on the subject of The Future of Energy Supply for the EU and for the UK makes the point that it is one of several projects associated with the objective of achieving “ever closer union” in the EU, while making further points which include that the Energy Union will transfer all regulatory authority to Brussels, representing a huge loss of commercial sovereignty for the UK, coupled with the fact that inbuilt into the agenda for the Energy Union is the goal of harmonising EU wide energy taxation levels, representing a significant loss of fiscal control away from the UK to Brussels.
With regard to the creation of a United States of Europe, A Fundemantal Law states that as not all member states can be forced, against their will, to accept the federalism of a United States of Europe and, therefore, that it must follow such states cannot be allowed to pick and choose what they want from the EU and discard the rest. It continues that the point has been reached when yet more à la carte opt-outs and derogations risk fracturing the cohesion of the acquis communautaire, thus ‘free-riding’ means disintegration. The Fundamental Law creates a new category of associate membership and that for such states institutional participation would necessarily be limited. Continued allegiance to the Union’s values would be required, but political engagement in the Union’s objectives would be reduced.
Where the subject of ‘Project Fear’ is concerned, so beloved by Cameron and Osborne, I cast my mind back to an article by Richard North about ‘Judas Goats’ (which contains a link to one of mine on the same subject, under my former name of Witterings from Witney). I cannot but think that Cameron read North’s article (or had it brought to his attention) and immediately thought to himself: I can use that and also do better than Hannan – I can be the Judas Goat.
It is 24th June and Cameron has the result for which he has worked so hard to achieve. Bearing in mind the stage that the EU has now reached, considering where it started (40+ years ago), it is obvious that the end result it seeks will take many years yet; by which time Cameron and his predecessors, who have furthered the progress of this albatross round our necks, will be long gone and out of reach of any retribution of those who will have predeceased him – or those that follow him. It is a younger generation – and possibly the generation after that – that will have to pick up the pieces; yet the next generation is one who presently do not even know a referendum is taking place; or why. Cameron, in his role as the Judas Goat (encapsulating his ‘Project Fear’); together with his predecessors who have ‘dumbed-down’ our educational system (I often think that now, instead of attending school to be educated, children attend to be instructed); must now be feeling pretty proud of themselves; for have they have not bred another version of ‘Dolly‘?
Cameron may well believe he reformed the EU, but when the EU does implement the aims encasulated in the 5 Presidents Report and that of A Fundamental Law, by means of treaty change, then he will have a reformed EU and one that transfers yet further powers to Brussels. There will be those who will imediately cite the European Union Act 2011 – which requires a referendum in the event of further powers being transferred – and the fact that the UK has a veto where treaty change is concerned. It has to be said that the chances of either of the aforementioned being invoked are a tad slim, bearing in mind the majority of those sitting on the green benches are but puppets of their respective leaders and those leaders are adamant that the UK should remain a member of the EU. If, as appears more than likely, the UK is relegated to associate membership of the EU it will be interesting to hear, then, from those who insist that membership of the EU is vital in order to sit at the EU ‘top table’ and thus have influence.
The referendum being held on 23rd June will not heal the wound that is the UK’s membership of the EU – it will, without doubt, continue to fester; consequently come 2020/2022, when the next treaty change is envisaged, it is logical to believe there will need to be another referendum.
As and when said referendum is held, what is needed more than anything when compared to the charade currently taking place, is for inept and ignorant politicians, coupled with inept and ignorant ‘wannabees’ such as Matthew Elliot, Dominic Cummings et all, not being allowed their input into the matter.
That brings us to the subject of democracy. Presently those that have ‘stiched up’ up how democracy is practised in this country have done so in a manner by which they ‘hold all the aces’; as where regulatory and/or advisory bodies are concerned, they appoint those that sit on them. If the people are to be governed and/or advised, should not the people be able to decide the personnel who comprise such bodies; and also should not those personnel be answerable (and removable) to/by those that appoint them? If we must have lead groups, come a referendum, then should such not be chosen by the people; after all it is the people’s money, via taxation, that funds them.
All of the foregoing is possible if The Harrogate Agenda (THA) is accepted by the people; and the extent of power the people can hold is explained to them. To date four years have been wasted since The Harrogate Agenda was first devised; and assuming that we have another 4/6 years until the next referendum, I have to plead that we do not waste further time.
As I have written previously, had THA been promoted, separately but alongside FlexCit (and with the same intensity, effort and funding), we surely would not have been in the situation we now are; ie, with the referendum lost. Yes, I am assured that THA will become forefront, but it must be separated from FlexCit and The Leave Alliance – more importantly it needs at its head a motivator, a driver, someone who is articulate and understands completely what THA is about and what it can bring to/for the people; ie, control of their country, control of their county and control of their own lives.
THA, if accepted by the people, in effect is a revolution and a peaceful one at that. So will those who appear to have usurped what was initially supposed to be a ‘people’s movement’ and now appear to wish to control said movement, allow the people to try that peaceful revolution? Yes, povide them with facts, figures, arguments, ideas of how it can work; what we don’t need is a group of people attempting to impose workshops and advisory panels in order to achieve the democratic revolution that is so desperately needed.
People who feel enslaved have but one cry: Set Us Free. Those three words are just as important when directed at those who have enslaved us within a democratic system whereby those that benefit from same are those that contol it; however it is also directed at those who have devised an alternative system of democracy wherein the people can be free, but who also wish to control how that freedom can be attained.
Afterthought: When I look at what was once a great country and the nadir to which it has now sunk, through no fault of its people who have had their society changed beyond recognition and without their agreement, I am reminded of words attributed to Anne Bronte:
Oh, I am very weary,
Though tears no longer flow;
My eyes are tired of weeping,
My heart is sick of woe.