Thursday, 16 May 2013

EU Hokey Cokey

Politics can be confusing. I should know, I've been called a Nazi for some of my fairly mainstream views, yet I have no sympathy for parties like the BNP; as a matter of fact I abhor socialism, which is their underlying ideology. On the other hand I can see that unrestrained freedom has its downsides because I also believe we have a duty to help those unable to help themselves. According to the leftists this means I can’t be a Tory, yet at heart I'm pretty sure I must be.

If I support UKIP that makes me a fruit, apparently, or in the closet, or some such thing. Oh, for certain, wanting to regain control of the UK’s own fortunes absolutely must make me a racist, yet UKIP is the only party that expressly refuses membership to racists, which policy is then said to be biased against those who wake up and change their political allegiance. See? Confusing.

We wake up today to news that some experts are disputing the case made by some other experts for spending vast sums of money we don’t have on HS2, for benefits nobody can quantify and absolutely nobody except potential bidders ever asked for. And yet another bunch of experts are undecided about the state of BP and whether it has yet paid sufficient penance for daring to make so much profit before the Deepwater Horizon incident. In every arena it seems that those who are paid huge sums of money to know about things later turn out to have known fuck-all.

The thing I’m most confused about (I'm not really - the only way is out, but bear with me) and about which nobody really knows is the EU; are we having a referendum or what? And if we do, what is the likely outcome going to be? And will it make any difference, either way, to anything?

Everybody now knows, surely, that Heath took us into the Common Market on the lie that it was a trade agreement and not a massive plan to create a country called Europe. Some even insist that, worse than just a massive lie, the whole arrangement was and remains contrary to the UK constitution and is therefore illegal. But it was the Tories, the most patriotic party, that oversaw the move while Labour, the most natural of EU bedfellows, that wanted us out. Now, the opposite seems to be happening but I’m not so sure.

So, do the Tories want us to be IN or OUT of Europe now? What does the ‘revolt’ by half the Tory backbenchers last night mean, when they voted for an amendment to the Queen’s speech ‘regretting’ that she hadn't mentioned, at least in passing, the humungous white elephant blocking the door to the chamber? And does it make any difference what our supposed elected officials want if the EU says otherwise?

And what, exactly, does Cameron’s proposed Referendum Bill actually mean? I read Dan Hannan’s (as usual, brilliant) telegraph blog about it, but I've forgotten the detail. Does it mean there WILL be a referendum, or there won’t be one, or there’ll only be one if DC gets back in and doesn't ‘forget’ to hold it? Has he finally shot that elusive fox, or has he just given everybody more cause to suspect treachery?

At stake is the prospect of UK independence, or being forever shackled to an institution that can (and does) overturn democracy and rob private bank accounts or impose massive spending increases such as this demand for an extra three-quarters of a billion pounds per year at a time when everybody’s belts are tight. Surely there must be a massive case to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the costs? Yet there isn’t; there are only hollow words and two decades of unaudited accounts. Running a continent? This lot couldn’t run a corner shop.

But the confusion over Europe doesn't start and end with the Tories. Does anybody know what the increasingly desperate Labour party stand for now? And where are the LibDems with their EU hokey-cokey: in-out, in-out, shake it all about? They say that membership of the EU is low on people’s priorities, way behind jobs, immigration and the economy at large, but that doesn't mean people are actively pro EU. If anything, as the EU affects all of those important issues (and many adversely) it can be shown to be easily the top priority. In my life, which has been anything but parochial, I have met few people in favour, but a clear majority broadly against.

A dangerous game?

So, as the great propaganda machines of state creak into life expect two years of repeatedly and confusingly seeing answers to the following impossible questions.

Is the EU: 
  1. great/bad/brilliant/bad/superb/bad? Or is it, 
  2. crap/good/shit/good/disastrous/good? 

Which way round is it? What was the question again? Does 'yes' keep us in, or does 'no' get us out? Do we cut the green wire, or the red? Nobody knows, so let’s get the hell out of there before somebody blows the bloody doors off.


  1. So BMP is racist is it? I've nothing to do with them, but they told us about the Paki gang rapes years ago and were called " racist ". Now UKIP is sounding off about it

    If racism is their biggest offence, they can't be all bad

    1. If you want to re-post you can and I'll delete this one. But before you do, you should re-read and understand what I'm actually saying before you take umbrage. :o)

  2. The question that will be asked in any future EU referendum is this:

    "If we asked you which answer you would prefer to give if we had a free and open referendum in which you could participate, would you vote for a question on whether we asked you about being in Europe with a yes or no or a question about whether you thought leaving the EU was bad for Britain?"

    See, ask the right question and you get the answer of the nation. I really don't know why anyone has any problem with this, because it is plain and simple.