The “old proverb”, “Forewarned is forearmed” dates from the 16th century. It is not just an English proverb but European with the Latin saying “Praemonitus, praemunitus” which loosely translates the same.
It is possible that Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, the Spanish novelist, poet and playwright coined the proverb or merely extended it as part of his famous quote above.
Whatever it’s origins, the proverb is very true and particularly so in terms of the “Patriotic Alliance” – the name we should give to the “Out” campaign.
We know where our opponents are going to attack us:
1. Employment and job losses: The Europhiles will trot out the bullshit that our trade with the EU will drop and with it employment. That firms will relocate from the UK to the EU.
This is nonsense.
Our problem on this issue is twofold as there will be two post withdrawal strategies being put forward and not one. The Euroseptic (sorry Eurosceptic) Tories will be advocating EU withdrawal but continued membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). This is the so-called “Norway option.” The Europhiles will point out (correctly) that this option causes the UK to retain much of the costs of EU membership without the advantage of being able to influence affairs; our influence dropping from not much to none at all. They may also point out (again, correctly) that the freedom of movement (aka unlimited entry into the UK) will remain.
Therefore it is necessary for us to advocate withdrawal from the EEA as well as the EU. The Europehiles will counter with the claim that the loss of the single market will mean the loss of the EU markets to British firms and consequent mass unemployment. This of course is complete and utter bullshit!
Take for instance the example of Jaguar-Land Rover. Now this motor manufacturer makes cars that are reliable and whose panels actually fit and are no longer rusting in the showroom, people are actually buying them! These include many happy customers in China and the USA. These cars have to jump over the tariff barriers set by the WTO. These are quite modest. In fact the biggest influence nowadays are the currency fluctuations. Thus Jaguar-Land Rover should have no difficulties in keeping their markets in the EU.
Then there is the other angle of attack: Our suggestion that we want to erect immigration controls over and above what are presently in place. This will be declared to be RACIST. This of course is complete and utter bullshit! However, this attack WILL be effective unless we counter it. It DOES NOT MATTER that the attack is complete and utter bullshit. The trouble is that many voters will believe that we are racist.
Therefore, we HAVE to counter this. If we don’t we will loose.
We have to counter this attack in three ways:
We have to put the message across that the UK with it’s present high population density cannot continue to accept a quarter of a million new arrivals every year as the pressure on the infrastructure: water provision, sewerage provision, housing provision, school place provision – plus the strains on roads, rail and public transport generally. That it DOES NOT MATTER what a person’s skin pigmentation or hair colour is, what language they speak or what God they worship – they all drink and eat and move around and want their children educated and provided with healthcare.
Stating this will bring about the charge of racism. This has to be tackled in the last two ways referred to above.
The first way is in substance: UKIP must abandon its policy of cutting back foreign aid and state that the government’s policy should be maintained in this regard but that the money should be primarily directed to helping the millions of refugees and migrants fleeing Africa and the Middle East stay within reasonable distance of their homelands in refugee camps erected in safe countries. Such camps will require resources such as tents, water and food. These cost money. This is where the UK’s aid should be going to. You see Dear Reader, there is a basic MORALAITY here; One cannot simply pull up one’s drawbridge to these millions of desperate people and say “We are full. You can’t come in!” We HAVE to provide an alternative.
The second way is in form: To answer the charge of racism one has to be racist – we have to employ ethnic minority persons to put the message over. The plain simple fact of the matter is this: If a “white” person talks about immigration controls it is regarded as racist. If a “black” person talks about immigration controls it is far harder to label them as racist.
If you doubt this Dear Reader, seek the advice of an advertising professional. They will confirm this.