Anyone thinking of voting to Remain in the European Union through fear of the unknown must remember that the EU is on a journey of its own, and will look very different in ten, twenty and thirty years’ time
… The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
– Hamlet, Act III, Scene I
In a must-read piece, UK Unleashed invites us to imagine a near future in which Britain has made the mistake of voting to remain in the European Union in the coming referendum:
It’s 2030. Thirteen years previously, after a torrent of negative campaigning by the Remain side and having been mind-crippled by unparalleled EU funded FUD, the UK population voted to remain in a ‘reformed EU’. The fight was down to the wire and, yet again, pollsters were shown to be wide of the mark, yet surprisingly on message. But when the count came in, Remain won by a mere 2%.
This ‘significant majority’ was accepted as a mandate by the then Prime Minister David Cameron to take the the UK in to a new relationship with the EU. ‘The British Option’ as it was called, brought us to the outer ring in 2022 after it was ratified by the people of the UK in a second referendum. Although originally seen as a triumph against ‘ever closer union’, in 2030 there are now well established concerns. Whilst the likes of Norway (which continues to top the world ranking for prosperity) sit at the top tables of global bodies where the rules are hammered out, the UK are now further retracted and marginalised, neither taking a global position or one of prominence within the EU.
To compound matters, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey have now all joined the ever growing federation, with Boznia Herzegovina and Kosovo also on the cusp of membership. Our margin of vote in the European Parliament and European Council are lower than ever and about to shrink yet again. In spite of complaints about the inability of any one member to stand up to the EU in any meaningful way, the committed europhiles, in thrall to their pay masters, repeat the mantra that we should be grateful to have the opportunity to ‘collaborate’. Our hands bound behind our backs, we’re unable to harness the power of the now maturing international markets, instead we remain chained to an ageing customs and political union in spite of the fact that EU exports have continued to decline year on year.
Unrealistic scaremongering? Hardly. Think of the organisation we joined back in 1973, and what a different beast it is today, both in size and competence. Then think of the current geopolitical crises and changes, and how they are already being used by the integrationists as a catalyst and excuse for further “essential reform”.
Only a fool could believe that the driving forces behind the EU think that their creation has reached a benign state of perfection, and that no further change is desirable. And only a fool could believe that the European Union’s response to the latest global challenges – from terrorism to climate change – will be anything other than “more Europe”.
This is a key point, because the chief argument of those who would keep Britain in the EU is the hysterical claim that leaving would be some terrible and unprecedented leap into the dark. Unable to wax lyrical about their beloved EU for fear of alienating vital swing voters – and because there is nothing remotely inspirational about the European Union – instead the europhiles hammer on relentlessly with the scaremongering notion that Brexit is scary while Britain’s future in the EU will be predictable, prosperous and permanently sunny.
Or as UK Unleashed memorably puts it:
I guess when you’re ensconced in the arms of the EU octopus and you’ve divested yourself of any sense of national identity, you’ll say what ever it takes to avoid being prised away. In their heads, these people probably don’t see themselves primarily as British, instead they’re EU nationals just waiting for the country to be hatched in the next treaty.
The europhiles are in absolutely no position to make such promises of security within the EU and destitution without. What little they know of the EU’s immediate future they cannot campaign on, because it would be repugnant to many British voters, and the rest is just as much a mystery to them as it is to everyone else. We simply do not know what future geopolitical challenges we will face, or precisely how they will be used by the arch-integrationists to continue the journey they began back in 1950.
All we can say with any degree of confidence is that the EU will look very different in 2050 than it looks today, and that the self-declared aspirations of many European national leaders and EU officials to pool even more sovereignty and undermine the nation state yet further will be in full fruition.
Dr. Richard North gives us a glimpse of what lies ahead:
Hidden in plain sight, as in various documents published in Europe including last September’s “State of the Union Address” by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, is the plan for a radical restructuring of the EU into two classes of member.
The 19 eurozone countries will move on to much closer political and economic union; while Britain and the rest become mere “associate members” (possibly also including countries outside the EU, such as Norway and Switzerland).
As Juncker explained, none of this is to be formally revealed until 2017, when the Commission issues a White Paper to trigger the laborious procedures now required for any new treaty. And these might not be concluded until 2025.
All of which completely transforms the game play. Mr Cameron can keep his original promise to hold a referendum in 2017, but only to ask the British people for permission to remain in the EU until the terms of the new treaty are clear. We will then have to hold a second referendum on whether we accept these terms.
Britain will then have the choice of belonging to the new inner core, the vanguard for the dissolution of the nation state, or membership of the outer rim of states, burdened with many of the same costs but with even less influence and fewer dubious benefits. That is what we can reasonably expect by voting to Remain – and if any EU supporter would care to argue otherwise, let them step forward and do so, presenting their own less dystopian vision of the future.
In reality, once the deceptive posturing of the Remain camp is stripped away, it is only the Leave campaign which gives the impression that they have given any thought at all to what life outside or inside the European Union might realistically look like for Britain beyond the next decade, or how such an exit from unwanted political union can be managed under a variety of scenarios.
And on this note it is extremely encouraging to see that Dr. Richard North, pre-eminent authority on the European Union and author of Flexcit (the best adaptive Brexit plan in existence), is partnering with Arron Banks and Leave.EU in a consultancy role to make Flexcit that group’s official exit plan.
This is great news, and means that one of the two largest Leave campaign groups (really the only one, since Vote Leave is teeming with people who don’t actually want to leave the European Union) actually has a robust, solid plan for Brexit. If Brexiteers learn about and support this excellent plan, we will be able to go into the referendum battle with the Remain camp’s best weapon – the false claim that Leave supporters have “no plan” for Brexit – broken in their hands.
The Remain camp’s whole fearmongering argument to persuade us to vote to stay in the European Union is that we are safer and more prosperous under our current arrangements, while Brexit would throw everything into flux, potentially create chaos and leave us worse off. Basically, their uninspiring campaign message is “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
But that is not the choice before us in this referendum. The EU is changing, moving down a swift and pre-determined path to further integration for most member states with powerless irrelevance awaiting those other countries not wishing to join the core. There will be no “devil we know” to side with, but only devils we don’t. And of those, staying part of an ever-tightening political union for which most of us have no love or affinity is far more threatening a devil than having the faith and confidence that Britain can succeed as an independent country playing a full and unfiltered role on the world stage once again.
That’s the choice before us now. And since the Leave camp now has Flexcit on their side while the Remain camp has nothing but smears, scaremongering and a vision of the future they are too ashamed to articulate, the only devil to be avoided is the one which pledges fealty to Brussels.
Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.
Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on Twitter, Facebook and Medium.
This is a simple truth eloquently articulated, there is no ‘status quo’ option.
In the end we must choose full integration or intolerable marginalisation as part of the EU. The only other option is to leave now.
Brexit is the only sensible choice left to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks. You distil the choice perfectly:
1. Full integration and dissolving of the United Kingdom into the EU’s de facto state
2. Intolerable marginalisation on the periphery of this state, clinging on for fear of losing the near-zero “influence” we would have as a half-hearted member
3. Re-emergence as a bold, confident independent country, co-operating with the EU and other partners where appropriate, but enjoying true sovereignty and autonomy over our affairs
So long as we can convince people that “the EU as it now stands” is not one of the options available for selection, we should be able to convince a majority to vote for Option 3.
…’Scotland in the EU’…
Damn. Sorry. ‘Scotland in the Union’.
…’….the false claim that Leave supporters have “no plan” for Brexit …’…
Oddly enough, from what I learn in what has been written with regard to Cameron’s comments in recent hours – he himself has no contingency plans in place for a ‘Brexit’ and yet allegedly intends to remain as PM? Notionally, what right would he have in demanding detailed Brexit plans from others? It’s also worth remembering that the establishment-approved Campaign to keep Scotland in the EU demanded of Salmond – via Darling – that he highlight clearly his ‘Plan ‘B” should various incoherent parts of his stated plans for Scottish Independence go awry. So there’s fairly plain evidence that same Establishment ought to feel itself under a similar obligation to publish their own ‘Plan ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and so on?
But to come back to his alleged plans to remain as Prime Minister – I’d have a fairly simple question.
How is he going to compel – *compel* – Ken Clarke to go along with withdrawal legislation in the HoC?
I really do believe he’s talking drivel. (That’s the kind version. I’m not going to be pressed into obscenities for such an incompetent and inadequate fool…)
Arrogance, desperation and an over-inflated sense of entitlement may well prompt Cameron to try to remain as PM in the event of a Brexit vote he campaigned against, but his authority would be totally shot, and I think he would not last long under such circumstances. A lot would depend on there being a viable eurosceptic cabinet minister ready to give him the shove he needs and replace him as PM, so it will be interesting to see if any of the “big guns” do have the courage of their convictions to vote for Brexit. If the only ones to break ranks are junior cabinet ministers, there may be nobody viable to replace Cameron, allowing him to cling on in the supposed “best interests” of the Conservative Party.
But I quite agree, the man is talking drivel – albeit dangerous drivel, as it always is when coming from the bully pulpit of 10 Downing Street.
I’ve just read the Guardian piece where Cameron talks about his intention to stay:
“The prime minister expressed confidence in his progress in negotiations with Britain’s EU partners to address what he described as EU issues that “drive us up the wall”.
“It is hard work,” he said. “But the areas that I have identified are the things that drive us up the wall about Europe that we need to deal with. Let’s make sure we are not part of an ever-closer union. I think we are on the way to getting that fixed.”
Quite. The prime minister identified his own issues, based on the subjects which were causing the most noise / angry headlines in The Sun on that particular day. At no point did he engage with the British people to ask what our concerns with the EU really are. If he had done, he might have been confronted with the all-important S-word: sovereignty.
Which, of course, is why he never asked us in the first place. Because whatever other cosmetic tinkering David Cameron is happy to do, he knows that EU membership and national sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible. And he chooses the former over the latter, although he dare not say so in public.