• If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is!

      0 comments

    British Gazette readers will be very familiar with the popular wisdom used in the title for today’s article. In all probability they will have applied it from time to time throughout their lives.

    The forthcoming EU Referendum is one such occasion to apply this particular wisdom.

    To the message that Nigel Farage and the rest of the Leave campaign are putting out about the UK’s future outside the EU.

    Many Eurorealist’s, only too aware of the gigantic cost of the UK’s membership and knowing just how much the direction of trade between the EU and the UK favours the EU’s exporters are only too keen to expostulate the positives about UK withdrawal.

    But they make a fundamental mistake: They fail to mention the pitfalls!

    How many times Dear Reader have you listened to a very convincing salesman make a pitch for the product he is selling. It is something that you are interested in and all of what he says seems to indicate that this is something you want to buy. But you have a question don’t you? And you know what that question is don’t you? What’s the catch?

    In our article yesterday we drew your attention to the FACT that the British People do not spend a lot of time dissecting the minutiae of political arguments. They leave that to you! But the British People are not fools! Just like you, they want to know where is the catch?

    And believe this: There is one!

    At this point some readers may feel a little downcast and have thoughts along the lines of: “Oh golly! Is Mr Nick Clegg right when he talks of thousands of job losses?”

    NO! The economic arguments for leaving the EU are overwhelming.

    The “catch” lies in the very nature of the European Project itself. You will know of course Dear reader that the European Project is not so much an economic project but a POLITICAL project. And as with the nature of the project, the “catch” is likewise of a political nature!

    You will recall Dear Reader that recently Our Dearly Beloved Prime Minister, Mr Chameleon entertained with due pomp and ceremony the President of Communist China, Mr Xi Jinping. You may remember that the Brussels Brainwashing Commissariat reported that President Jinping had suggested that the UK should remain in the EU as he left. You will also recall that before this visit, President Barack Obama had stated the same thing. Is it not interesting then that all the four gentlemen below are on record as stating that the UK is better off in the EU?You will note Dear Reader that we have included the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Mr Tim Farron. Now you will know that Mr Farron views on a whole gamut of policies differs from Mr Chameleon’s, and yet on the desirability of the UK’s membership of the EU, he agrees with Mr Chameleon. So, just WHAT is going on?

    In yesterday’s article we also stressed that the Leave Campaign will have to use our opponent’s strength against them – as in judo.

    OK then: What is going on?

    You will recall Dear Reader that from time to time Mr Chameleon and other Europhiles have talked about the UK loosing influence if it leaves the EU. But they don’t go on to point out how and why.

    You will of course know Dear Reader that basic fact of political life: That if a politician does not want to answer a question or give an explanation it is because they know the answer and/or explanation will not to be their advantage! So they keep quiet or obfuscate!

    This is why Mr Chameleon and other the other Europhiles will not want to elaborate on just what form this “loss of influence” will take.

    So it will be OUR TASK to inform the British People what Mr Chameleon means by “loss of influence!”

    This Dear Reader will have TWO crucial benefits for us:

    1. It will expose an objection that will need to be countered.

    2. It will enhance our credibility at the expense of Mr Chameleon’s.

    So, first things first: What is this “loss of influence?”
    It takes the form of the UK’s Permanent Seat on the UN’s Security Council.
    The UN Security Council is composed of 15 Members: Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly currently (with end of term date):
    Angola (2016)
    Chad (2015)
    Chile (2015)
    Jordan (2015)
    Lithuania (2015)
    Malaysia (2016)
    New Zealand (2016)
    Nigeria (2015)
    Spain (2016)
    Venezuela (2016)

    The die for this was cast in 1945 when the world was a very different place. Britain had an Empire and China was represented by the Nationalist Government in Taiwan. Things have changed radically since 1945 and the structure of the Security Council is as anachronistic, outdated and outmoded as the British House of Lords! And yet both institutions persist! And for the same reason: Because it is in the interests of it’s members!

    Now of course, there have been repeated suggestions from other states about reform of the UN Security Council and who should have PM status with power of veto. This article is not about the history of such discussions but suffice it to say that Brazil, Germany, India and Japan are unhappy with this state of affairs.

    Nothing has been done because not only does it require the existing PM states to agree but it also requires the agreement of all other member states of the UN – to borrow a phrase from the current EU debate, this requires “treaty change.”
    Officially France and the UK declare that they would very much like to see an enlarged Security Council and state that they would of course like to see Brazil, Germany, India and Japan join them on the SC.

    Well to paraphrase the late Mandy Rice-Davies – they would say that wouldn’t they!

    They could hardly say otherwise!

    However reform is possible without “treaty change” if one or more permanent members “voluntarily” hand their permanent seat to another UN member. This could be done by a simple majority vote in the Security Council but would be subject to a veto from one of the other PM members.

    This, Dear Reader will be the inevitable consequence of the UK leaving the EU.

    Why?

    Because it goes to the very core of the reason that the UK joined the then European Community in the first place!

    Many of the General Public of the USA are famously ignorant about the going’s on outside the borders of the USA. Many have been the comical instances of members of the US public displaying monumental ignorance.

    This ignorance however does not cross the threshold of the Harry S Truman Building located at 2201 C Street, NW, Washington DC – the HQ of the United States State Department.

    The US State Department is one of the largest, best funded foreign affairs ministries in the world. Their professional staff do know things about foreign countries that most ordinary US Citizens do not. When the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1952 the US State Dept watched it’s development closely. In the 1960s it was clear to these professional diplomats that the European Community had all the hallmarks of a embryonic supra national federal state. At the time the “Cold War” was in full spate and the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s could not be foreseen.

    These professional diplomats came to a (correct) conclusion: If the integration process of the six founding EC members continued unchecked then the USA would be faced with a democratic, later day version of the Holy Roman Empire in Western Europe. Furthermore, since all but France were NATO members this would challenge US hegemony in NATO.

    To borrow from the comedy Blackadder: they needed a “cunning plan!”

    They came up with one!

    Have the UK join! This would slow down the process of integration. At the same time, enlarge the EC/EEC/EU. This too would result in a less cohesive organisation – the larger the organisation, the more difficult it is to achieve a consensus on controversial and difficult issues.

    Of course the USA will have applied pressure to those British politicians reluctant to go down this path. They would have been told that if the UK wanted to continue is PM status on the Security Council it would do what the USA wanted.

    Since that time the UK sought and secured entry into the EC and has maintained it as British governments have not wanted to be humiliated into giving up their PM status.

    Now of course we have to address the question of France giving up her seat. This for France would not be a problem as the EU would take over and without UK membership the Franco-Germany ascendency would be strengthened.

    In theory, the UK would of course be free to choose which other country to give up it’s seat to. However it would be subject to confirming vote of the SC and any PM could veto a choice. This would preclude the UK offering Japan her seat for instance as China would veto this. The most obvious choice would be India.

    This then is the irony of the EU Referendum. It will be held seventy years after Indian Independence and will be marked by the UK handing it’s “Great Power” status to that country.

    The effect of loss of PM status for the UK will be profound. It will “pull the rug” from under the feet of British politicians who desire to grandstand on the world stage. It will – or should – free the UK from having to join the USA on every foreign adventure, thus saving the lives of British servicemen and women. It will also enable the country to reduce it’s foreign aid budget – as this is yet another of the “Quid Pro Quos” the UK has been forced into.

    Since Scotland will have seceded, the pressure for renewal of Trident will dissipate and the USA may well advise England that they are no longer prepared to supply it.

    Another consequence will likely be a renewed effort by Argentina to have the status of the Falkland Islands discussed at the SC. It is likely that England will be pressured into negotiating over the future of these islands.

    Whilst these many appear to many patriots dark clouds they do have silver linings!

    “Coming clean” will embarrass and wrong foot Mr Chameleon. It will also be popular with many non UKIP voters who would be happy to see their country retire from accompanying US forces in foreign wars. This together with Nicola Sturgeon’s contribution could provide the vital votes to restore Sovereignty in England and Wales at least!
    There will of course be many members of UKIP who will wish to persist in the pleasant thoughts that Nigel will be able to win the referendum and to see that the UK can have all good things – namely the continuance of the UK with Scotland attached and continued PM status at the SC and continued possession of the Falkland Islands. To which the British Gazette would reply: Dream On!

    Write a comment