Copyright © 2015 - 18 euexit.com. All rights reserved.

30th July 2018

The Phoney 2nd EU Referendum Bid

​For the EU the most desired outcome for any EU Referendum by any Member State is to be in favour of staying in the EU and doing as they are told - they are one and the same. The EU is prepared to throw money together with "any and all assets" to back any support to overturn any alternative outcome - money that was originally given to the EU by its Member States.


Such money and other EU "assets" including celebrity endorsements (supporters) and "gravy train" politicians has already been given to influential organisation on an on-going basis to garner support for the EU - For example: "The CBI Guido’s data bods have crunched the numbers and worked out the Europhile CBI took yet more money from the EU while ‘unofficially’ campaigning for Remain. The big business Brexit scaremongers took £1,092,135 from the European Commission between 2009 and 2016 – £455,448 since Cameron announced he would hold a referendum." see (Euro Guido 22nd November, 2016: order-order.com)


The EU has shown in the past that if it can get away with it - it will just ignore any adverse result (e.g. against EU expansion) and proceed as if nothing had happened; for example, when the Dutch voted against giving visa-free access to the Ukrainian population it was just ignored and Poland took advantage to employ Ukrainian workers to fill-in the roles of Polish workers who had left.


If an adverse result for the EU cannot be ignored - because it is so important to the increased integration of Member States (ever closer union) within the EU - as was the case with the Constitution for Europe (2004) - which was defeated by the French and Dutch in 2005 - on the grounds of loss of National sovereignty and for other reasons.


In this latter case the EU simply re-wrote the Constitution for Europe (2004) in such a way as to distribute it within the Lisbon Treaty (2007) and the earlier treaties; removed all reference to the word "Constitution" and the paraphernalia of State - so as not to alert the public to the facts.  


To avoid any Referendums (apart from in Eire) the Lisbon Treaty (2007) was called a "Reform Treaty" - Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson commented that:

  • "If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty." Gordon Brown The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007
  • "There is no constitutional change that would justify holding a referendum‟. - Peter Mandelson, Trade Commissioner, 2007


this was after having overturned a Conservative proposal to hold a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (2007)

  • "Despite a rebellion by 29 of its own backbenchers, the Labour-led government defeated a Conservative proposal to hold a popular vote on the Lisbon Treaty by 311 votes to 248 in the House of Commons on March 5. Brown's refusal to support a referendum represented a stunning reversal of the government's 2005 manifesto pledge to hold a plebiscite on the European Constitution." ("The EU Lisbon Treaty: Gordon Brown Surrenders Britain’s Sovereignty." Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., and Sally McNamara, The Heritage Foundation, 7th March 2008) 


Other Comments on the Lisbon Treaty

The comments made by our politicians were deceptive and malign as they sold out their own countrymen - whilst those comments from European politicians were far more honest; even boastful as they sold out out their own countrymen viz:-

  • "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." V.Giscard D'Estaing, Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution - Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007


  • "The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." Angela Merkel, German Chancellor at European Parliament 27 June 2007


  • "The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left." Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister - Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007


  • "The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'." Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister - Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007


  • ​​"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."Giuliano Amato, - speech at London School of Economics, 21 February 2007


  • "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimension of empire. "José Manuel Barroso President of the European, Commission, EU observer, 10 July 2007


Clearly, in Britain we are dealing with Treachery against British people on a massive scale 56% of our MP's - roughly evenly distributed between the Conservative and Labour with majority support from the minor parties - taking turns to sell the UK into abject subjugation to the EU behind the backs of the British people. The present Conservative and Labour party have recently joined that Treason with the "Chequers Bill".


Their actions are treason under English Common Law - which is our birthright - given to us to protect us from Tyranny: our forefathers fought and died during WWI and WWII to ensure that those rights were bequeathed to us - to protect us from being ruled by foreign courts, jurisdictions or foreign powers - The Lisbon Treaty (2007) gave the EU primacy over our Common Law and its hard fought for protections - which do not exist under EU Corpus Juris.


The Danish and Irish (Eire) Referendums

Just a short section on the reversals of Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (2007); the Dutch and the Maastricht Treaty (1992) which is probably the most relevant to any possible new 2nd EU Referendum. The Irish people initially rejected the Lisbon Treaty (2007) and Michael O'Leary called the Lisbon Treaty (2007) "unreadable" (as it was designed) and so he supported the NO Campaign - however, after the result - which rejected the Treaty - Mr Leahy changed his mind after chatting with the EU (or he went to "SpecSavers") and he then supported the Yes Campaign to accept the Treaty - which succeeded.


The two camps in each case analysed the reasons for the resulting vote and constructed strategies to overcome their objections as described by Ece Özlem Atikcan on: blogs.ise.ac.uk "Asking the public twice: why do voters change their minds in second referendums on EU treaties?"


  • "In Denmark, the No side argued that the Maastricht Treaty would lead to loss of Danish sovereignty in a new United States of Europe, which would undermine or abolish the Danish currency and Danish citizenship. In Ireland during both the Nice and Lisbon referendums, the No campaigners repeatedly argued that the treaties would change Irish laws on abortion, lead to a loss of sovereignty, undermine Ireland’s military neutrality, and remove its permanent EU Commissioner."


  • "In all three of the second referendums, the Yes campaigners used two new strategies to tie the hands of No campaigners."


The second campaigns adopted a two tier approach - one to directly address concerns by offering "guarantees" in the form of opt-outs and a second more, sinister methods (Project Fear) - "potential exclusion from the EU and economic costs." 


The Campaign slogans were also changed: In Denmark from "Vote Yes!" to "Go for a safe choice, you will not get a second chance"; and in Ireland they changed from "Europe: Let's be at the the heart of it" to "Ruin or Recovery". 


So basically the de rigueur scaremongering and threats from the EU played a significant role in those Referendum reversals.


The Latest attempt to overturn the EU Referendum Result

The latest attempts to overturn the 23rd June 2016 result stem from the inappropriately named "Best for Britain" set up by Gina Miller - who claims to be no longer involved with the organisation - which is funded to the tune of some £500,000? by George Soros.


The very same Soros who notably tried to destroy the UK's currency and "Break the Bank of England" by speculating against the pound on "Black Wednesday" (16 Sept 1992) and who reputedly made $1billion profit - allegedly with the help of the German Bundesbank which ignored Britain's requests for help to stabilise the currency. Soros's profits were made on the backs of the misery of a large number of British households whose mortgage costs rose dramatically due to the interest rate rises of up to 15% as the British government attempted to defend the pound at a cost of £3.3 billion.


The avowed intent of the Soros campaign, using the British front organisation led by George Malloch-Brown (vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management) who was ennobled by Blair is to bring about a phoney second EU Referendum to overturn the first genuine one of the 23rd June 2016 - on behalf of the Brussels (Berlin) and of course more importantly for Tony Blair - whose lust for personal power as Emperor of the EU (and then the World --> Universe) knows no bounds. 


With money flowing in from the EU as well as Soros the intent is to attempt to force the - ever so willing UK government / parliament (Commons and Lords) / Judiciary - to revoke Article 50 and thereby keep Britain in the EU under the original Lisbon Treaty (2007) terms - though that would almost certainly come with caveats related to full integration into the EU.


These would include accepting the (Communist) Spinelli Group inspired new EU Constitution "The Fundamental Law of the EU" which was designed to replace the Lisbon Treaty (2007) or at least serve as the de facto EU Constitution replacing the one hidden the Treaties and ensure the development of the EU to that of a fully-fledged Totalitarian, Militarised, European Police "Superstate".


That development would come through direct taxation of all EU citizens with money collected directly through their bank accounts whenever the EU needed more cash for its objectives and ambitions - taken without a by-your-leave. The ambitions of the EU have been elucidated by Angela Merkel in some of her comments:-


  • I have always said that economic governance for all 27 Member States is what we are after. German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Daily Telegraph 27.3.10)


  • "We want more Europe and stronger powers to intervene. Treaty changes for that should not be taboo" Chancellor Angela Merkel - Irish Times Monday 24 October 2011  


In fact, Jean Monnet, one of the architects of the EEC(EU) in the 1950's actually devised a method for Merkel to achieve her goal viz.


  • "Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."   In other words Colonisation of the Member States by stealth - through economic means.


In order to bring about a 2nd Referendum - the UK and the EU (Merkel) are working together to prepare three options for any new Referendum vote (a) No Deal (b) the EU's worst possible deal offer ever or (c) revoke Article 50 - but this new vote has to come before the 29th March 2019 (assuming we weren't lied to about the invocation of Article 50 in the first place)


But any new vote would be a phoney Referendum vote because it would be based upon a part-done deal - since the full extent of any deal would not be known until after the "Transition Period" in December 2020 - simply because during the "Transition Period" the EU will be able to enact any new laws and terms and conditions it likes - since we will have no say and we would not have repealed the European Communities Act (1972) until after 2020 (courtesy of Chequers "deal" and the Implementation plan)


The real reason for any 2nd EU Referendum vote before 29th March 2019 is quite simply to stop Article 50 in its tracks or delay its completion. It has nothing to do with the quality or lack of quality of any deal - even the horrendous deal contained in the Chequers Bill "cooked-up" between Merkel and May - which must be binned, viz...


As Martin Howe QC of Lawyers for Britain concludes from his analysis of the ECJ's authority as provided for in the Chequers Bill:

  • "The Chequers White Paper does not end the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK. The ECJ will have direct jurisdiction to bind the UK to make its law comply with the EU rulebook as interpreted by the ECJ via the Ukraine/Moldova/Georgia joint reference procedure. The ECJ will be able to make binding rulings which control the activities of UK businesses on British soil via its jurisdiction over the EU agencies to which the UK will submit under the Chequers plan. In the Prime Minister’s terminology, this amounts to ending its jurisdiction “in” the UK.  This is sophistry at best. It is unlikely to convince any of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union that their vote is being respected."

 

Next time we will take a look at Mrs Merkel's background.

 


Home