Sunday, 12 August 2012 15:45

U.K. May Soon Vote to Leave EU Despite Massive Pressure

Written by 

As the European Union continues to assume ever greater powers over the once-sovereign nations of the region, voters in the United Kingdom have been fed up for a while. In fact, if they were allowed to vote in a referendum, polls consistently show the U.K. would overwhelmingly opt to ditch the EU once and for all. And analysts, as well as activists on both sides of the issue, believe the day may soon come where British resistance to the emerging super-state finally prevails. 

According to a German newspaper, the will of U.K. voters ultimately being fulfilled has former Prime Minister Tony Blair “deeply worried.” Meanwhile, a strategy paper by Asian banking behemoth Nomura showed that the bank is preparing for what its analysts believe is an increasingly likely scenario: British withdrawal, or at the very least, a mass repatriation of powers usurped by the Brussels-based entity. 

Responding to overwhelming public pressure even from within his own party, current Prime Minister David Cameron has pretended to take a firm stance against some of the most enormous EU power grabs — more than three quarters of the laws in Europe now come from the EU. Most recently in December, his government rejected a massive European “fiscal treaty” that would have further centralized taxation and spending authority in Brussels.

Like several other U.K. political leaders, Cameron campaigned on a platform of allowing voters to decide the nation’s future relationship with the expanding EU super-state. Indeed, the promises likely played a crucial role in bringing him to power in the first place. Once Cameron became Prime Minister, however, he refused to allow a referendum.

Last month, facing dissenters even among leaders in his own conservative party — not to mention the surge to prominence of anti-EU political parties such as the U.K. Independence Party that threaten the ruling political class — Cameron reluctantly agreed to possibly consider allowing a referendum at some point in the future. Or not. Most of his statements were typical political pandering with no concrete pledges.

"There are those who argue for an in-out referendum now. I don’t agree with that because I don’t believe leaving the EU would be best for Britain. Nor do I believe that voting to preserve the exact status quo would be right either,” Cameron recently told members of Parliament, trying to play both sides of the fence. "Just as I believe it would be wrong to have an immediate in-out referendum, so it would also be wrong to rule out any type of referendum for the future.”

Despite Cameron’s refusal to allow an immediate referendum — a temporary obstacle to British withdrawal at least — the prospect of letting voters decide has some establishment power brokers very nervous, considering how lopsided public sentiment against the EU now is. A recent poll by YouGov, for example, revealed that just 15 percent of the people would vote to remain in the EU as it currently stands. And analysts say the prospect of a complete British exit is increasingly probable.

According to the Nomura document, the Asian bank is drafting contingency plans for what it dubbed a “Brexit” — a British exit from the EU, along the lines of the much-touted “Grexit” that would have seen Greece ditch the single currency. "A referendum on EU membership without first securing significant concessions from EU partners would result in the UK leaving the European Union," explained the strategy paper, written by former British diplomat and ex-Blair adviser Alastair Newton.

The bank’s analysis said that the ruling coalition made up of conservatives and the largely pro-EU liberal democrats was in danger of breaking apart, too. If that were to happen — and it appears increasingly probable — a new election would be held, which would be “followed, irrespective of the outcome, by a referendum." That would, of course, result in the U.K. leaving the EU unless Brussels agreed to massive concessions, an unlikely prospect.

In an interview with Die Zeit, former Prime Minister Blair pointed out the obvious: The Eurozone crisis will lead to a “powerful political change” of the EU itself. Like all crises, the ongoing financial turmoil in Europe has been seized upon by advocates of bigger and more centralized government to concentrate more power in the hands of regional institutions. Even U.S. Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke absurdly cited the crisis — largely created by the EU and central bankers — as a reason to create a “single fiscal authority” for Europe.

But because the power grabs have been so massive and sudden, Blair, who wanted the U.K. to join the crumbling single currency before it exploded, told the German paper that he was “deeply worried that Britain could decide by referendum to leave the whole process." Indeed, surveys consistently show that most U.K. subjects want to vote on their nation’s membership in the controversial European super-state. The polls also reveal that, if they got their wish, they would vote to ditch Brussels in an unprecedented landslide.

Blair, however, apparently thinks that if there was simply more “democratic legitimacy” — as in the largely unelected and unaccountable regional regime was perceived as less removed from the people it rules — everything would work itself out. "If more competences are transferred to the EU, then its democratic legitimacy must be built up too," the controversial former Prime Minster was quoted as saying. "Britain must play a strong role in this because we need a balance between European institutions and the nation states."

Having recently indicated that he would like to be “President” of “Europe” one day, Blair also urged caution as EU leaders exploit the ongoing crisis to strip the remaining vestiges of national sovereignty in the region. "If this is done wrongly, we could create a political crisis that could become just as a big as the euro crisis,” he was quoted as saying. “People will not go along with the abolishment of the nation state" — at least not if it is done all at once, a fact the establishment has long known as it sought to attack national sovereignty piece by piece.

Current Prime Minister Cameron recently told lawmakers that the first priority should be dealing with ongoing instability and the financial crisis wreaking havoc throughout the region. Then, Britain could seek to advance its “national interest” through the EU, perhaps by renegotiating some aspects and returning some of the powers seized by regional institutions to London.

"That should mean ... less Europe not more Europe. Less cost, less bureaucracy, less meddling in issues that belong to nation states,” Cameron said. "It follows from my argument that far from ruling out a referendum for the future as a fresh deal in Europe becomes clear, we should consider how best to get the full consent of the British people."

With pressure to ditch the costly, bureaucratic EU boiling over, however, a referendum may come sooner than Cameron would like. According to analysts, voters in the U.K. know their interests are not being served by allowing out-of-touch unelected bureaucrats — or “eurocrats,” as EU functionaries are known — to devour billions in British taxpayer money every year while dictating a never-ending avalanche of half-baked laws and regulations. And that will eventually have to come to an end, at least if authorities hope to maintain even a semblance of respect for the will of the people.

So-called “euro-skeptics” often point to Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU yet has among the highest GDP per capita and the lowest unemployment rates in the region. Despite tremendous bullying by European officials, Swiss voters have consistently and overwhelmingly rejected the EU. Increasingly popular political leaders in the U.K. say the tiny alpine nation is far better off because of it — and that the British people, like the rest of Europe, would benefit from a similar arrangement, too.  

Related articles:   

Europe Must Further Centralize Fiscal Power, Claims Fed Boss Bernanke

EU Creates "Dictatorship" Under Guise of Financial Stability

The Collectivized Train Wreck in Europe

Lisbon Treaty Builds EU Super-state

UK Leader in European Parliament Says EU on the Verge of Cataclysm

EU Threatens Tiny Switzerland Over Low Taxes


  • Comment Link Barbara Wednesday, 15 August 2012 11:58 posted by Barbara

    The UK was coaxed into the EU but wisely retained their currency as a pre-requisite condition of their membership. Globalization is failing because it destroys democracy. The only reason the "bailouts" continue to flow to EU members is to keep the treaties intact since they are all contingent upon all 27 EU nations commitment.

    When Clinton failed to achieve the required Senate majority approval of NAFTA, he simply declared that NAFTA was an agreement rather than a treaty which enabled him to declare victory based on majority approval, rather than the 2/3 senate majority approval required by the U.S. contstitution for all treaties. There is no definable difference in the definitions of treaty and/or agreement,

    Globalists are aware that globalization is failing. They will promote all propaganda that assists efforts to eliminate national sovereignty both here and abroad. Joblessness in the U.S. is directly related to the "security" provided for corporate relocation to foreign nations that didn't exist prior to NAFTA. Yet, none of the candidates point to the root cause of our joblessness and failing economy.

    The national debt is blamed on entitlement programs while our government's agenda includes elimination of those programs as "austerity" measures that will decrease the deficit. The debt we've incurred is designed to undermine the economic strength of the U.S. and it cannot be repaid. But nothing is done to eliminate the true source of our debt. Fractional reserve lending employed by the FEDERAL RESERVE constitutes never-ending debt based on its own principles. Since the FED was established in violation of the constitution, the only solution lies in declaring a moratorium on debt that has been accrued in violation of the supreme law of this land, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and a return to constitutional provisions that restrict the issue and control of U.S. currency to the U.S. government. Barring that, we will join the EU nations in the loss of our sovereignty, due to the destruction of our economy caused by the FEDERAL RESERVE. Few Americans are aware that the FED is only one of 55 central banks who are controlled by the Bank For International Settlements located in Basel, Switzerland. Through those 55 central banks who have complete control of their respective sovereign nations, the wealth of the world is being systematically extracted. In Alan Greenspan's own words, nothing supercedes the power of the FED. That holds true for the rest of the central member banks.

    As this nation continues to be dvided by the propaganda of corporate controlled media, encouraging issues of race, creed, color and wealth, it's only a matter of time before that division forces the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the complete control of that NEW WORLD ORDER's success so voiciferously predicted by Bush '41.

    An accurate verifiable history of the Bush family involvement (combined with many familiar names such as Rockerfeller, Harriman etc.) in the financing of Hitler's war macine and the attempted military overthrow of the U.S. government in the 1930s is available in Webster Tarpley's "Unauthorized Biography of George H.W. Bush". The U.S. Senate investigation findings declared the participants in that attempted coupe "Merchants of Death" and Grandpappy Prescott Bush was stripped of his wealth for his role in it. The power behind such effort continues in the Council on Foreign Relations' ongoing control over U.S. government policy.

    Seeking world domination, through world-wide economic collapse and degradation of sovereignty will accomplish their goal. Any who still believe that financing by the FED of U.S. military intervention in foreign affairs "spreading democracy" need only to consider the results of that intervention in the mideast. As our exalted leader has sought and gained tyrannical power and control over this nation in the 2012 NDAA and the executive order signed and issued on March 16th, 2012, look for the origination of those powers in the 2007 executive order signed by Bush '43. The gratitude for cooperation of main stream media in their effort was expressed by David Rockerfeller in a speech before the CFR now available on video. The "proof is in the pudding."

  • Comment Link REMant Monday, 13 August 2012 17:27 posted by REMant

    I think the EU would be glad to be rid of the UK actually, and rightly so.

  • Comment Link Daryl Davis Sunday, 12 August 2012 16:43 posted by Daryl Davis

    It's marginally understandable that the nations of Europe would contemplate ceding some part of their sovereignty for the sake of establishing a common market to compete with ours. Our own move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was of a similar nature.

    But this isn't the eighteenth century. And they aren't America.

    Had even the Articles of Confederation persisted among the states for centuries, no Union would likely have ever been formed. The old sovereign states of Europe surely could preserve their proud self-determination and yet accept trade and regulatory standards, all without submitting to a centralized regime--just as the countries of North America have done with NAFTA.

    They ought further follow the example set by Switzerland and move toward true direct democracy. Devolve autonomy as nearly as possible to the smallest local political jurisdiction, even as a commitment to cooperation with neighboring countries enhances trade and travel.

    That would also improve things here in the States:

Please Log In To Comment
Log in