We have received these letters from some of our regular contributors…
Here is the first letter by our contributor Simon Blanchard:
David Cameron’s “re-negotiations” was a success, to the EU
In November 2015, Cameron made his great speech at Chatham House saying he was going to negotiate a better deal and if he was not successful he would campaign for Brexit. When he returned he said the negotiation was a success and would campaign to remain. Confusion, perplexion and bafflement prevailed all around especially in his own party as to how “thin gruel” was a success. Well his negotiations were a “success” because his speech was not a “negotiation” it was a capitulation.
Carefully tucked into his speech so the msm would miss it, was this sentence; @11:10 …”We need a British model of membership that works for Britain and any other non-Euro member”…
My source in the EU, tells me that was EU code telling the EU Commission he will be surrendering the UK into “Associate membership” of the EU, covered in the Five Presidents report by the Spinelli Group. This was never a negotiation, this was holding up the white flag before he started his talks. To confirm this theory, Ian Duncan Smith said at the weekend Cameron had surrendered the veto on euro zone policy decisions (a requirement of associate member status)
“We had a right to veto the use of the court and the Commission in application of the Euro area. They needed our permission to use those to adjudicate matters in the Euro area. “One vote was enough to say veto.” Said IDS
The next stage in EU development is for a new treaty and the referendum “remain” result will, I suspect be taken as consent for the new treaty in 2017, needed under the EU Act 2011. It means Britain and all the other non euro countries will be parked off into a holding area or second tier, while the euro-zone area accelerates common economic, fiscal and monetary union including European army, social, justice…then by 2025, all the non-euro countries WILL have to adopt the euro.
Please share and pass on
Vote to leave.
Our contributor Sonya Porter wrote:
So Boris Johnson has finally said what I have known for more than 50 years. The EU wants to run a European Superstate, just as Hitler did.
Back in 1960, I worked as a shorthand typist in a small department of the International Labour Office, which is part of the UN in Geneva. One morning — long story — we all arrived at the office with a humungous hangover, so the boss, who was as bad as the rest of us, said that since none of us would get any work done, we should all go up to listen to whatever Conference was going on at the UN that day.
So we staggered into the UN Conference Room, flopped on to the seats and put on the earphones to make it look as though we were doing something. The Conference that day (there was one most days during the summer) was about the European Coal and Steel Community, the forerunner of the Common Market, etc., etc, and it was extremely dull. We were all dozing away when I suddenly woke up to hear the German delegate saying, in translation:
‘And we hope that within a few years, Europe will be one country.’
Now, he might have meant it in the nicest way, all brothers together, but this was only 15 years after the end of the Second World War, and that was not the way I took it.
‘Goodness, gracious me!’ I thought, although I used stronger words than that, ‘They’re at it again!!’
So I have been against the EU for longer than Boris has been alive. Let’s hope more people will wake up to the threat as well.
And finally, from our contributor Nigel Moore:
Open Letter to a High Profile Remainer
If we all write, they may get to thinking a bit more seriously about future membership of the European Union (EU) with a far different outcome (Leave is best option before the EU drags us down further).
The following highlights risk management. There is a strong case for its inclusion because we traditionally are far better at risk management and the EU is a failing political/bureaucratic experiment that encourages irresponsible behaviour and mutualises the resulting problems making them far worse.
Dear Mr. Cameron,
I read with some concern a transcript of your recent speech (9th May on strength and security) supporting remaining in the European Union (EU) and highlighting risks of leaving. Whilst to paraphrase Mark Carney on the Andrew Marr Show, 16th May, highlighting risks is necessary in order to mitigate them, nothing is being said about the risks of remaining. Could this be that whilst we traditionally are rather good at risk management, the risks arising from remaining within the EU are beyond our capabilities of risk management or mitigation? Thus the Public could be unaware of serious risks of remaining which cannot be effectively mitigated, whilst also being fearful of leaving under an erroneous impression regarding its riskiness?
I find developments within the EU, as reported recently in the Daily Mail(The biggest lie of all: The PM says Brexit could lead to war, but the truth is Europe’s more riven with hatred than at any time since 1945 because of the EU) and the Daily Telegraph (Italy must choose between the EURO and its own economic survival), rather alarming; hence raising the subject to risk management and mitigation. We are not being asked to remain in the EU as it is now, but an EU which is highly unstable and on a trajectory to create a Superstate.
From a risk management perspective, the EU by extending its powers and adopting ‘one size fits all’ policies that applies to all member states runs serious risks some Member States will be adversely affected. Some examples of this are the EURO and mass migration. Also there is a tendency to mutualise local issues or problems to all Member States making the results far worse, where previously these problems did not exist, such as in ECJ rulings. It would appear then that the EU is inherently much poorer at risk management and mitigation than we are.
Can the EU become much better at risk management or even reform? Professor John W Hunt, based on his studies of organisational behaviour in the EU and other international bodies, concluded that reform always gets pushed to the bottom of the pile. He noted: “International bodies rarely have a power base of their own….. To justify themselves, highly paid, often initially idealistic staff spend their time developing yet more ideas that can’t be implemented. The result is the worst of all worlds, there being nothing more cynical than a bunch of rich, demoralised ex-idealists.” Thus it is reasonable to assume the EU will largely remain unchanged, unreformed and poor at risk management.
I would be happy to explain further because we really do need an intelligent debate on all the serious risks not just those of leaving (which can be mitigated), but also those of remaining (which cannot).
Should you following examination of all risks and their risk management, including those of remaining, then heed the words of a great former Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury ‘The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies. When a mast falls overboard, you do not try to save a rope here and a spar there in memory of their former utility. You cut away the hamper altogether. It should be the same with policy, but it is not so. We cling to the shred of an old policy after it has been torn to pieces, and to the shadow of the shred after the rag itself has been torn away.’