Democratic Renewal

Voting to Leave the European Union is simply a switch which starts the many steps that it will take to become an Independent Sovereign Nation again. 

Once the Leave vote has succeeded, the Civil Service will need time to get its copies of FlexCit (The Market Solution) off their bookshelves and start to plan for its implementation. Then an Article 50 notification will need to be made giving a further 24 months to negotiate the exit deal that protects the United Kingdom's membership of the single market and its access to trade and which at the same time serves the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom. I do not expect that we will have left the European Union until maybe June 2019.

In addition to the external factors that need to be dealt with in Leaving the European Union, there are also internal issues that need to be addressed. Not the least of these is Democratic Renewal which is illustrated in The Harrogate Agenda.

The basic premise is that there is no point in taking back power from the European Union only to return them to the same bureaucracy, the same institutions and the same political class that gave them away in the first place. No politician should ever again be able to give 'cast iron guarantees' (Copyright David Cameron) only to renege on that guarantee when the mood suits them.

It is important to stress that the Harrogate Agenda demands can be implemented concurrently with the Article 50 negotiations being carried out externally.

The demands of the Harrogate Agenda, written into Flexcit (The Market Solution) are as follows:

1. Recognition of Our Sovereignty: The peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations and our Parliaments and Assemblies

2. Real Local Democracy: The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined). These shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted to the national government

3. Separation of Powers: The executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, Prime Ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of Parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no Prime Minister or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly

4. The People's Consent: No Law, Treaty, or Government decision shall be taken without the consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded and that none shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people

5. No taxation or spending without consent: No Tax, Charge or Levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval of the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures

6. A Constitutional Convention: Parliament, once members of the executive are excluded, must hold a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It shall recognise their sovereign status and their inherent, inalienable rights and which shall be subject to their approval.

I personally believe that number 3 above should be implemented as quickly as feasibly possible after a Leave vote. At present, political parties whip their members into the 'correct' lobby with threats to their careers if they do not do so. That threat would immediately cease if their careers were dependent on the people and not on their political party or party leader.

The 'Payroll' vote (ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and the like) represent their party not the electorate. Labour voters in Tatton (Gideon Osborne's constituency) or even Leave campaigners in Witney (David Cameron's constituency) are NOT represented by their member.

Mr Cameron would have to stand for election for Prime Minister in the same way as a General Secretary of a Union does so at present. Anyone could stand; Conservative, Labour, SNP etc and the best PERSON in the opinion of the electorate would be elected. That person could then appoint to their cabinet whoever they liked provided that those nominees would be subject to approval by a select committee of the House of Commons which would then have to be approved by the whole House. Prime Ministers and Ministers would then have to attend parliament to answer questions from a now independent and therefore reinvigorated legislature.

We cannot allow a position where a Prime Minister can give their word in advance to a foreign leader that the United Kingdom would become involved in a military expedition and railroad their word through the House of Commons against the will of the electorate (as in Iraq and Syria). 

Vote to regain YOUR power

Vote to ensure that no Parliament nor leader can ever again go against YOUR will and YOUR interest

Vote to make ALL politicians YOUR democratic and legislative servants

Vote to make politicians ASK the electorate for permission or consent to do what they propose

Vote for YOUR power

Vote to Leave the European Union

Commentaries on Obama's Interference

There have been various comments on the unwanted and unwarranted intervention and interference of the President of the United States into the internal politics of the United Kingdom and his advice to the independent electors.

I would commend firstly the views of Peter Hitchens on the subject:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
"Now will we grasp that the United States is not our friend, but a foreign country whose interests are often different from ours?

President Obama’s blatant intervention in our internal affairs is not a sudden breach of a soppy ‘special relationship’. The USA’s only real special relationship is with Saudi Arabia, a 70-year-old hard pact of oil, money and power, welded together with such cynicism it ought to make us gasp.

Barack Obama’s open desire for us to stay inside the EU is by no means the first or worst example of White House meddling here in these islands. Bill Clinton forced us to cave in to the Provisional IRA in 1998 and his successor, George W. Bush, continued the policy by making us do Sinn Fein’s bidding afterwards.

Washington came close to scuppering our recapture of the Falklands in 1982. And with the current state of our Armed Forces, which can nowadays do nothing without American support, I often wonder how the White House and the Pentagon would behave if Argentina once again seized Port Stanley.

If anyone thinks Hillary Clinton is a great friend of Britain, they’re in for a big surprise.

But surely the Americans fought with us shoulder to shoulder against the Kaiser and Hitler? Not exactly. The USA (quite rightly) fought for its own interest in both great wars, not for us.

When we ran out of money after the First World War, Washington seized the chance to force us to limit our Navy, and so began to overtake us as the world’s major naval power. We had feared Germany would do this. It is one of the great ironies of history that it was the USA that ended British sea power.

In the blackest months of the Second World War, just after the fall of France, the US Congress demanded almost every penny we owned before it would authorise the famous Lend- Lease programme.

Secret convoys of Royal Navy warships carried our reserves of gold bullion (estimated to have been worth £26 billion in today’s values) across the Atlantic – mostly never to return. Billions in negotiable securities went the same way, and British assets in the USA were sold off at absurdly low prices.

I don’t blame the Americans for this. In 1934, Britain had defaulted on her giant First World War debt to the USA. This is now worth up to £225 billion in today’s money, depending on how you calculate inflation.

We still haven’t paid it off, and never will, though it’s not considered polite to discuss it and it’s one of those facts so grotesque that most people refuse to believe it when first told of it.

During the Hitler war, the USA gave us enough aid to stay in the fight, but not enough to recover our former economic strength. The eventual peace was made on American terms, and Soviet terms, with us as onlookers. And after the war, Marshall Aid came with strings – open up the British Empire to outside trade, and then begin to dismantle it.

Not wanting to get embroiled in any more European wars, the USA also put a lot of effort into creating a permanently united Europe. Documents came to light in the 1990s, probably by accident, showing detailed CIA involvement in the European Movement.

I regard America’s behaviour as perfectly reasonable. It’s the sort of thing we used to do when we were top nation, and had more sense than to squander our wealth on idealistic foreign wars.

I like America and Americans, lived there happily for two fascinating years, and wish them well. But I never forget that the USA is another country, not a friend or even a cousin. Nor should you."

The following is a commentary from EUReferendum.com

http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx

"From the Declaration of Independence of the United States:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

And that's why, Mr Obama, we're having a referendum."

This is a rare piece of wisdom from an unlikely source:

"There are only two coherent attitudes to Europe. One is to participate fully...and to endeavour to exercise as much influence and gain as much benefit as possible from the inside. The other is to recognise that Britain's history, national psychology and political culture may be such that we can never be other than a foot dragging and constantly complaining member, and that it would be better, and certainly produce less friction, to accept this and move towards an orderly, and if possible, reasonably amicable withdrawal." 

(Lord Roy Jenkins of Hillhead Former pro-EU MP and President of the European Commission 22nd March 1999)

This is for the electors of the United Kingdom to decide.

We can rely on a soft landing if we use the steps in the plan set out in Flexcit, the Market Solution.

We can stay in the single market if we choose as a first base the EEA/EFTA Option

We can rely on existing treaties under International Law.

We will not be at the back of any queue.

When you vote, vote so that not only you but your children and grandchildren can grow up and live in an Independent Sovereign Nation and so that they will regain power. Power that our political class has disgracefully outsourced to a Supranational Foreign Power.

This referendum is about Governance.

This referendum is about who governs the United Kingdom - 27 other nation states or the electors of the United Kingdom who LOAN power to their politicians

Vote to regain YOUR power

Vote to Leave the European Union.

Outside Interference

I am not happy. Not content with sidelining his cabinet colleagues, stopping the civil service from being neutral, lying to the British People and to the House of Commons (which used to be a resigning issue), David Cameron has now called in aid the outgoing President of the United States, Barack Obama. What the decision of the individual electors of the United Kingdom has to do with the United States I have no idea.

By far the best analysis of this intervention is on 'Semi-Partisan Politics'

https://semipartisansam.com/2016/04/21/thanks-for-the-eu-referendum-advice-mr-president-america-should-give-supra-national-political-union-a-try/

which I commend to EVERYONE and which I have copied below:

An open letter to Barack Obama, responding to the American president’s heartfelt intervention in our EU referendum debate

Welcome back to Britain, Mr. President. It’s always a pleasure to have you here.

Thank you also for sharing the fruits of your wisdom on how we should vote in our coming referendum to leave or remain in the European Union. Your deep respect and affection for the United Kingdom (and the countless small ways in which you have honoured the special relationship since taking office in 2008) is well known here, and we are sure you would not have made this intervention at David Cameron’s personal request unless you sincerely believed it was the right course of action, and had our country’s best interests at heart.

But before you jet back to Washington DC on Air Force One, Mr. Obama, please allow us to reciprocate by sharing some words of advice for your own country and fellow citizens. We offer this advice in exactly the same spirit with which you blessed us with yours.

Mr. President, it is time for the United States of America to admit that the age of the nation state is over, to let go of excessive pride and patriotism, and form a political Union of the Americas. Don’t waste another moment. Assemble the heads of state from North, Central and South America and immediately sign and ratify a Treaty of Tijuana creating a political and customs union between your respective countries. For this is the only way that the great prosperity which Americans have known in the twentieth century can possibly be preserved in the twenty-first.

Now, we know what you’re going to say. The United States is still the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power. That’s true. But the same was said of the United Kingdom a mere century earlier, and look what a beating Britain took in the first eighty years of the 20th century – a huge expenditure of blood and treasure defending freedom in Europe, a global empire lost and an economy which went from being the world’s largest to smaller than that of Italy.

It was only by the election of Margaret Thatcher joining the European Community that a battered and declining Britain managed to staunch the bleeding and halt the decline. America should seize the initiative, recognise that – like Britain – her best days are firmly in the past, and hedge against the scary and uncertain future by dissolving the political ties which separate her from Canada, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Suriname, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guyana and Brazil.

Consider: America’s economy will soon be overtaken by China in terms of raw nominal GDP, as will that of our own blessed European Union. And the population of the United States is dwarfed by both India and China, two developing countries with nuclear arsenals and strong regional interests which are often at odds with America’s. If you wait too long to band together into a regional political union based on your shared continental values it may be too late – China will divide and conquer the continent.

No one country from the Americas can hope to stand up to China or wield the leverage to sign the amazing trade deals that one of your potential successors is promising. Only by binding your fate inexorably to that of Venezuela and Ecuador can the United States hope to secure a fair deal. Remember: united you stand, but divided you fall.

And speaking of being united, isn’t it about time that any citizen of North or South America was able to live, work or retire anywhere they please? The new American single market for goods, services and capital is incomplete if there is not also a single labor market, and so the very first act of this new Union of the Americas should be to abolish national borders and establish passport and visa-free travel across the entire continent.

Now, some may object to this with shrill warnings about national security, but consider – as part of this new Union, the United States will have access to the world-class intelligence services of Peru and Costa Rica. As we all know, national security cooperation is only possible through full political union, and so by joining this Union of the Americas the CIA and FBI will for the first time ever be able to share information with Mexico and Canada for the prevention of crime and terrorism.

We anticipate that your labor unions will also kick up a fuss at the thought of millions of economic migrants from South and Central America moving to the United States in search of work and higher living standards. But if you give Tony Blair a quick call, he will tell you that it is possible to overcome these objections by furiously ignoring them and labelling anybody who gets angry about the suppression of wages and conditions as a racist or xenophobe.

So how should this Union of the Americas work? Well, we humbly suggest that you model it on our own European Union, whose institutions are so beloved by all European citizens and whose founding fathers are no less well-known and revered than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.

Of course you will need a government for this union. We have found that a Commission of 28 mostly failed politicians from our respective countries serves this purpose very well indeed. This body will be the only one which can propose new laws for your union, so finding the right calibre of candidates is important. It’s the strangest thing, but former prime minister and presidents who left office under a cloud of scandal and popular dissatisfaction often turn out to make amazing commissioners. We don’t know why it works, it just does.

You will need a Parliament for your union, too, in order to act as a rubber stamp for new directives and legislation. But it is no good having each country voting along national lines – remember, the goal is to gradually weaken and erode national identity so as to gain public acceptance for our new Union of the Americas. So each member state should be divided up into regions, with each region represented by a number of MAPS (Members of the American Parliament). You might think that the United States is already ideally divided into fifty such constituencies in the States, but this is entirely the wrong way of thinking. The regions should be arbitrary places to which nobody feels any sense of connection or belonging. Geographic descriptions like “North East” and “South West” are always a good choice, because they help to break down peoples’ backward and antiquated feelings of patriotism and pride in their home, and finally begin to see themselves as the pan-American citizens that they are.

And we can’t forget the judicial branch. Your new Union of the Americas must uphold the rule of law and ensure that national governments, corporations and individuals are in compliance with foundational treaties and Union laws and directives. The American Court of Justice (ACJ) will fit nicely above your own Supreme Court – and of course, any decisions which the US Supreme Court makes are subject to review by the ACJ because lovely though your own Constitution may be, Union Law must have primacy if this new arrangement is to work.

The goal, as you can probably tell, is the gradual accretion of power and responsibility at the supranational level, so that key decisions are taken in Tijuana rather than the capitals of each member state. National identity is so anachronistic, and stubbornly clinging to outdated concepts of nationhood will doom the American peoples to a lost century of relative decline. Now, naturally you may encounter some resistance to all of this from the voters, which is why it is actually best to talk about the whole enterprise exclusively in terms of trade and co-operation. If anybody accuses you of harbouring grander plans for political union, just dismiss them as cranks and conspiracy theorists. It works really well.

And don’t worry – you can keep all of your institutions. Congress, the Supreme Court, the office of the presidency, all of it will still exist under the new Union. It’s just that various powers and responsibilities will need to be outsourced to the supranational level to ensure the smooth running of the new Union. We think you will quickly come to like the arrangement – having dedicated civil servants in Tijuana administering social policy, negotiating trade deals and hammering out a common foreign policy will free up so much time for partisan grandstanding, political fundraising or a few more sneaky rounds of golf.

We know how tiring you have found the partisan gridlock in Washington. Well, by signing the United States up as a founder member of the Union of the Americas, you don’t have to worry about it any more! Democrats and Republicans can continue to posture, argue and filibuster about a whole range of largely symbolic issues, while increasingly all of the governing that actually matters moves to the supranational level. It’s a win-win situation.

I hope that by now you can sense the excitement we feel for the potential of this new Union of the Americas. And frankly, from a selfish European (I nearly said British – old habits die hard) perspective it would make our lives much simpler, too. It is rather time-consuming and expensive to maintain embassies and consulates in so many countries and cities across North, Central and South America. And at times of crisis, I know that Federica Mogherini, our incredibly well-qualified and able High Representative for Foreign Affairs, would find it so much easier if she only had to dial one number to speak to the Americas.

Nation states are a thing of the past. And good riddance, too – they have brought us nothing but war, misery and shame (as our French and German compatriots keep reminding us). So, Mr. President, let your parting legacy to the United States be setting in motion the process of her abolition.

But we do not need to convince you of any of this. After all, it is you urging us vote to remain in the European Union, because you understand the advantages of post-democratic, supranational governance better than many of our own stubborn, backward citizens.

And of course you would never recommend anything for your closest ally that you do not also consider good enough – and earnestly desire – for the United States.

Would you, Mr. President?

Personally, I hope that Mr Obama's intervention will not assist Mr Cameron. Possibly it will have the opposite effect. It will alienate people from the Remain Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt mantra.

This referendum is not about who governs the United States of America. 

It is about who governs the United Kingdom.

It is about the Sovereign Nation State that should be the United Kingdom

It is about claiming back power from an over mighty political elite, the Bureaucracy, the over powerful Non Governmental Organisations, special pleading organisations and others.

It is about empowering ordinary electors.

There is only one way to do this.

Vote to Leave the European Union.

Believe in YOUR power - Vote to Leave the European Union

I knew that David Cameron was in favour of remaining in the European Union. In my naivety I thought he would allow a fair fight. What has horrified me is that nothing could be further from the truth.

David Cameron is throwing every lever of State; the Civil Service, the bureaucracy at the remain campaign. He is even sidelining members of his own cabinet who disagree with his stance. Not only that but European Union leaders and even the president of the United States are being called in aid to help in the Remain cause. David Cameron IS the remain campaign - or at least its co-ordinator and propagandist in chief.

I am not sure all the apocalyptic warnings are doing the Remain campaign much good. All these horrors are forecasts, suggestions, 'war games' if you like. I have yet to hear one positive statement for the remain campaign. Why do they insist that the United Kingdom cannot go it alone on the one hand and yet state that it will bring down the European edifice if it votes to Leave on the other? These statements cannot both be true.

In reality this is a struggle for the soul and future direction of the Conservative Party. Matthew Parris in the Times is reported as saying as much:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/16/tories-admit-using-referendum-battle-party/

"And horror at what this would mean for the party I’ve supported all my adult life. June 23 will define the Conservative party for a generation. We moderate Tories are staring down the barrel of a gun: the strong chance of a crushing triumph for the Tory right."

This is not or should not be about the Conservative party. It is about the Governance of the United Kingdom. If 'the left' want to be timorous europhiles and be ruled by a Greater Germany that is up to them. It is not for me. We must wrest control back and govern ourselves again.

Then we have the International Monetary Fund (IMF) whose head, Christine Lagarde is to face charges over her role in 'handing over £293 million to a French Businessman' 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/12056620/IMF-head-Christine-Lagarde-ordered-to-face-trial-over-Bernard-Tapie-scandal.html

not sure I would rely on her to be the best person to give financial advice to the United Kingdom.

Next we have Gideon Oliver Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Without wishing to be unkind, he has hardly been a shining beacon of Financial Management has he? The date that the Government gives for spending less than it receives in revenues has slipped more than once.


If the United Kingdom left the European Union and joined up with the EEA/EFTA states that would be the fourth biggest trading bloc in the world. Where is the leap of faith there?

In the 'Daily Mail' today Richard Littlejohn says that he would rather live under a Labour Government than vote to remain in the European Union:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3546903/I-d-live-Labour-stay-EU-Tory-puppet.html

As an aside, if the vote is to Leave then the Conservative Government will not have a bonfire of workers rights partially because it will be too weakened to do so.

This is the chance for the Electorate to regain power back from the politicians and the political class.

The United Kingdom should be and needs to be an Independent Sovereign State again. It is that simple. I predict that a vote to Leave will have a negligible effect on sentiment as we have two years under Article 50 to negotiate an exit AND there is a soft landing in 'Flexcit' (The Market Solution).

Vote to regain your power

Vote to show Cameron and Osborne that you are not taken in by their lies

Vote for The Market Solution (Flexcit)

Vote to Leave the European Union.

The Dodgy Deal unravels

David Cameron's dodgy deal is not legally binding.  You do not need to take my word for it. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff who is vice president of the European Union says so. From the 'Daily Mail':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534934/Cameron-s-EU-renegotiation-deal-hammered-local-bazaar-isn-t-legally-binding-says-eurocrat.html

"David Cameron’s renegotiation with Brussels is nothing more than a deal ‘hammered out down the local bazaar’, a senior EU figure has said.

The Prime Minister spent months meeting European leaders to come to his agreement, which he claims gives Britain a ‘special status’ in the EU and powers to suspend migrants’ benefits.

But Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, vice-president of the European Parliament, said the deal was not legally binding – and warned that MEPs may vote down any elements which hampered the EU principle of freedom of movement.

Out campaigners said the comments showed that the British people had been ‘hoodwinked’ – because the European Parliament could tear up the deal after the referendum.

Mr Lamsdorff – also known as Count Lamsdorff as he is part of the German aristocracy – sits as an MEP for the country’s liberal Free Democratic Party. 

Five years ago he was quoted saying: ‘It was a mistake to admit the British into the European Union.’

Speaking to the EurActiv Germany website, he said yesterday that the deal between the European Council and the UK was ‘not legally binding’.

‘At the moment, the whole thing is nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar,’ he said.

‘The European Union, however, is a community of law, in which there are regulated responsibilities.

‘If the British are going to put all their eggs in one basket, in a promise made like this, which has not yet complied with our clean process of law, them for me, this process of law is more important and preferable.’

Mr Lamsdorff said that the ‘emergency brake’ idea – under which in-work benefits for EU migrants could be suspended for four years in times of pressure – went ‘too far’, and could lead to the end of the single market.

For the emergency brake to come into force, the EU directive on free movement has to be modified with the consent of the European Parliament.

Asked whether this might be refuse, he said: ‘I’m sure that I will certainly not agree to a change of the directive, as it would restrict one of our basic fundamental freedoms.

‘I assume that many in my group will feel the same. What position the other groups take remains to be seen.

‘But I believe that we in the Parliament have an institutional responsibility to protect the common European integration, which is incompatibl with measures that will help bring down the internal market.’

Last night Priti Patel, the employment minister and member of the Leave campaign, said: ‘These comments suggest that EU politicians entered into the renegotiations with profound ill-intent.

‘They hoped that the British people could be hoodwinked into remaining in the EU on the basis of a deal that the European Parliament will tear up within days of the referendum result.

‘It serves as a timely reminder that so-called reform agreements with the EU are not worth the paper they are written on.’ "

People like Richard North of EUReferendum.com have been saying ever since Dave brought the deal home that it is worthless.

The deal is not legally binding and the European Parliament could yet vote down parts of the deal. Other parts that depend on a new European Treaty cannot be enacted because there is no treaty change on the agenda and France states that there is no need for a new treaty.

Dennis Skinner was thrown out of the House of Commons for calling Mr Cameron 'Dodgy Dave'. Well actually that was quite mild. 

The deal is not only dodgy, it is not enforceable and will not be enforced. 

There is nothing here to see and no deal.

David Cameron is not to be trusted. He has, sadly, lied to the British people and to the House of Commons.

This referendum is about taking power away from the politicians and giving it back to the people. It is about the Governance of the United Kingdom.

There is nothing to fear from a vote to Leave. A Leave vote is not a leap in the dark. It is a statement of intent to put the United Kingdom back at the top table, not acting in the interests of the other 27 nations of the European Union but in the interests of the United Kingdom.

David Cameron is not to be trusted.

David Cameron has lied to the House of Commons

David Cameron has lied to the British people

Have confidence in the future of an Independent Sovereign United Kingdom

Vote to Leave the European Union.

David Cameron has LIED

One of the most shocking things about this referendum is that the Prime Minister has lied to the House of Commons (something that once would have been a resignation issue) and then has lied and continues to lie and to mislead the electorate - the people who have loaned him power and which he is so sadly misusing. 

This lie has not been called out by Jeremy Corbyn or by any member of the Labour Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Scottish Nationalist Party, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist or Sinn Fein let alone any member of the Conservative party so far as I am aware. Nor has the legacy media been trumpeting the lie either. This may well be because all of them want to remain in the European Union and calling the lie would help the Leave cause but of course that is purely a guess.

The true 'Heir to Blair', David Cameron has said that the deal that he brought back was legally sound when it is not. Some of the changes are dependant on future treaty revisions which President Hollande of France for example says is not necessary and of which there is no sign on the horizon.

Whatever the Conservative 'Government' of the United Kingdom - which is really a local council answerable to the European Union - does, it has to pass by the European Union first and is constrained in what it does in almost every field by its membership of the European Union.

My fear about the possibility of the remain vote winning is that the United Kingdom will be increasingly marginalised by its 'partners' in the European Union. I fear that the United Kingdom will be outvoted by Qualified Majority Voting in matters that are vital to its National Interest and that it will have to act against its interest - why should or would we tolerate that?

"In June, we can choose economic security, not an unnecessary leap in the dark. We can choose to be stronger, safer and better off." David Cameron

The dodgy deal that David Cameron has brought back requires a leap of faith in the good intentions of the other member states of the European Union. I mean do you really trust France or Bulgaria or Greece to rise to the promises made to Mr Cameron? What about the European Court of Justice - can we rely on their good offices to interpret the dodgy deal in the way that Mr Cameron intends?

A vote to Leave is not a leap in the dark. It is a logical thing to do to take us out of a supranational organisation which is pushing 'ever closer union' which in my opinion will end in tears (and possibly riots). 

A vote to Leave is the FIRST step (this cannot be repeated often enough) toward full independence. The day after a vote to leave will be the start of a road. We might leave the European Union in 3 years with a 'soft landing' to EFTA/EEA but it might take 10 years to reach full independence and why not - it has taken 43 years to get to where we are now.

We can choose to be stronger, safer and better off by Leaving the European Union.

Vote so that the people have power. Reclaim power back from the bureaucrats and the liars. 

Vote to live once again in an independent Sovereign United Kingdom that will once again be able to act in the interests of its people and not in the interests of millions of unknown people on the continent.

Do not fall for David Cameron's lies

Vote to Leave the European Union