Responses to Articles and Further Thoughts on the EU Vote

 

Andy Thomas’s two recent articles on the EU seem to have gone far and wide and have provoked quite a few interesting and informative responses. Together with additional remarks by Andy, some of the comments are reproduced here, as other readers may benefit from seeing them…

UPDATE NOTE: This article was written in the run-up to the British vote on whether to leave the EU. In the end, as we know, Britain did make the decision to do so. Whether it was implemented correctly in the way that was promised, with honesty, common sense or any real vision, is something that can be debated elsewhere, but this article and its companion piece (see below) remains available as a rare nuanced attempt to focus on the real issues and dilemmas that were – or should have been – concerning the nation back in 2016 when people were still making their minds up. 

My two recent articles on the EU seem to have gone far and wide and provoked quite a few responses. Happily, they seem to have had the effect I was hoping for, which is to help bring some clarity to what has been a very poor debate in the mainstream. We have been failed by both the ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ camps, which have left many of the key issues unilluminated, resorting instead to cheap point scoring around areas of wide uncertainty. There are so many important nuances and deeper considerations being left untouched, that the public is only hearing the top surface being scratched.

Interestingly, the responses I have received thus far have been overwhelmingly supportive of the stance I explore in the second article, where I give my balanced reasons as to why I will be voting to leave the EU. I accept that this might have something to say about the general biases of those who read my kind of material, yet many of the people on my emailing lists are simply everyday folk and not ‘alternative’ types. I was expecting at least some feedback to say why I might be wrong, but to date I have not received – truly – a single communication from anyone definitely wanting to remain in the EU.

I was impressed by some of the responses and further information I received and I am reproducing some of the comments below, as I feel other readers will benefit from seeing them. If you have not seen my original articles, read them first at:

http://truthagenda.org/2016/05/23/eu-or-not-eu-deciding-with-the-inner-voice/

and

http://truthagenda.org/2016/05/23/new-article-eu-or-not-eu-reasoning-the-issues/

There is another article I would also strongly suggest reading; I recently attended a breathtakingly sharp talk by the historian and Rudolf Steiner scholar Terry Boardman, who is expert at touching into some of the deeper layers on European matters (his book Mapping the Millennium is required reading). Terry has written an article on the EU vote which I recommend. It is dense and detailed, but gives strong historical context and adds the key angle that the EU project is very much a product of US manipulation, keen to have a controlled superstate to lean on rather than a trickier collective of individual nations. Read Terry’s article, 2016: Britain’s Year of Decision at:

http://threeman.org/?p=2304

I should add here that I do have friends and people I respect who wish to remain in the EU, but much as I love them I remain unconvinced thus far by their arguments or material supporting that view! A recent radio interview I gave on Bristol Community FM, in which a lively debate between the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ camp ensues, mirrored with concerns over the worryingly manipulative ‘Bilderberg’ group, is also worth a listen and can be heard at:

http://bcfmradio.com/podcasts/20160603180002.mp3

To conclude this introduction to the comments below, as my personal stance is now well known I will speak plainly here: the high idealism heard from many remain supporters, however well meant, is not matched, in my analysis, by the cold reality of the anti-democratic and corrupt system that is the EU, aside from any of the other many problems discussed in my articles. I know that our own system has much to improve on, but its deficiencies are more correctable – and accountable – than the dangers of sinking further into a spiralling federal trap that will never truly serve Britain or its people.

It is heartening to see pro-EU figures beginning to speak about reforming the EU at last, but these ideas are too primordial and too late in the day to be of any help in the short-term. The fact is that the questionable system we are being asked to commit to permanently NOW is currently deficient in too many areas, and shows little indication of changing any time soon. We would do better to show the EU that it is not attractive or reliable enough to warrant our faith by voting to leave it, giving our country breathing space, whatever the financial sacrifice needed (or not), to create a better system while the EU decides what it really wants to be; a federal controlling superstate run by faceless elitists with dubious agendas or a genuinely free and democratic collective. If it ever starts to show signs of becoming the latter, then, and only then, should we consider drawing closer again, and I will be happy to reconsider my views in that event.

When David Cameron has to resort to the the threat of more expensive holidays on the continent as a weapon against ‘leavers’, there is something very wrong with the system he is supposedly trying to sell. Gaining cheaper holidays may in the long run be very expensive in other ways if the ultimate cost is our freedom.

Here, then, are a few of the very interesting responses I received:

*

From Marcus Allen of Nexus Magazine:

Many thanks for sending your new articles about the EU Referendum. Excellent information. It was especially interesting to have our history put into the context of what we have achieved – both good and not so good.

Whatever the driving force behind the Empire, be it trade or religion, our attitudes and outlook have been formed by those world-wide connections. We look to the world, not to Europe.

For me that old, possibly apocryphal, newspaper headline – ‘Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated’ – says it all.

As the debate has taken off and more people have been exposed to the advantages, or not, of both camps, there may well be a dawning realisation that Remain do not have a particularly strong case, nor is it one which anyone who has weighed the options is prepared to support to the extent of denying us the option of making our own way in the world.  It’s what we have done since Magna Carta with varying degrees of success. When we made a bad choice it was at least our choice, over which we took responsibility. If we did not like those who chose badly we sacked them at the first opportunity.

One point which, so far as I can see, has not been made yet, is that in Britain we have a Head of State, who has no politic role, yet is highly regarded for exactly that position – The Queen. The three main constitutional groups all offer their allegiance to The Queen – Parliament, The Military and the Judiciary – which is one of the main reasons why this country has had no revolutions nor a civil war for nearly 400 years, since the days of Cromwell. The population would not tolerate any one of the three groups turning against our Head of State.

There are now five Presidents in the EU. Other than the ‘low grade bank clerk’ (N. Farage description) of Jean-Claude Junker, can you name any of the others? I cannot. They are not elected nor are they hereditary appointments, but we cannot get rid of them. That is not democracy, it is tantamount to dictatorship. The last time that was tried in Europe it ended very badly. When will they learn?

I voted to stay out in 1975; I have not changed my stance since.

Meanwhile, I thought you might like to see this – Brexit: The Movie – if you’ve not done so already…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

*

From Richard Smith, author of A Future World Vision

It occurs to me that much of the current debate is focused on push-pull short termism… if we go, if we stay, etc. Small wonder the voter is confused. Hard data is available but interpreting it for the average voter is very difficult. Much depends on where we want to be as a society in 40 years’ time. I take this as a bi-generational long-term period which many could accept as a reasonable time period to envisage. One of our problems of late, which devalues the political process, is short termism; the acquisition of power is all, to the detriment of the voters, folk like you and me. (This chimes with my 43-year periodical study in A Future World Vision.)

This then calls for some serious forecasting on global geopolitical considerations, population movements, industrial activity, and political liaisons. Do we see the future based on amalgamations of nations, such as Europe, Asea, the Americas, the Middle East, etc., or do we see the restoration of the Nation State, as I think is inevitable? It is massively difficult to overcome individual national interest and culture. To group these together without federal organisation is a fake construct, and the EU is a classic illustration of this. So what direction will the world community take, and where do we see our position in that vision?

This might seem to be an impossible ask, but I think not. Approaching the question from the endpoint direction in which we seem to be headed, that of nations grouping together such as those mentioned above, we already see the weaknesses of such groupings, which defend the vested interest of big business. Big business now crosses national borders (the nation groups support this unwittingly) and takes advantage of the management weaknesses of politicians to further corporate interests. Big business is essentially hard to control. Google is a fine example. They break no laws, but whilst they seem to fail to act in the spirit of the law, they are legitimately many steps ahead of the lawmakers. This will backfire when the populace finally get what is going on, and they will demand action which will only be available from a nationally elected government able and capable of keeping up with the zeitgeist. Ignore the national mood at your peril.

I don’t think the English will co-operate with fake groupings that eventually fail to accommodate their views and interests. If, by chance, they vote to Remain, there will be gnashings of the teeth of regret when the penny drops.

This, in my view, is the long-term question. In the short-term nobody really knows; what we are really being asked to vote on is the long-term direction of our society. To let the New World Order govern the world (called upon publicly on TV by Clinton, Bushes Senior and Junior, Brown, etc.), which is meaningfully the Big Corporations paying for the maintenance of the status quo, is dangerous and removes power from the people. Look what happened in France in 1789…

*

From Eddy:

Something that you may not yet be aware of yet, Andy, is that Britain does have written Common Law Constitutional Law, including Magna Carta 1215, The Declaration of Rights and The Coronation Oath… The Security Clause, Article 61 of our 1215 Magna Carta Peace Treaty, was invoked in March 2001 having previously been invoked in 1688. Please search, ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ or check out the Daily Telegraph article:

‘Peers petition Queen on Europe: FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.’  View at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

It is unconstitutional and therefore a crime of treason or sedition that anyone should recognise that the EU or any other organisation such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, WTO, NATO, USA, China, Israel, Switzerland, Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Banks, Corporations, Freemasons, Jesuits, Nazis or Zionists have any authority over the Sovereign people of Britain.

Please check out www.lawfulrebellion.info or the Facebook Group Page, ‘Practical Lawful Dissent’. It is our constitutional duty to spread the word and stand under Article 61 as there is a clear conspiracy within our media, our government, in the judiciary, in academia and other governments and organisations, to bury and hide the truth about our Common and Constitutional Law.

*

From Stella:

I have read all your articles on the EU Referendum looking for clarity. It is clear that I can follow my heart without doubts and will be voting out. Thank you for that. I shall be forwarding your link to others who are still pondering.

*

From Sally:

Thank you for the insightful articles. Much needed and very helpful. Never in any doubt as to which way I will vote; it is nonetheless refreshing to have both sides of the argument laid out in such concise and clear form.

*

From Tara:

Thanks for the insights… I was leaning towards voting out and it’s still edging that way, but the more I read about animal welfare the more I worry about voting out… Do you have any views on this?

Andy responds:

The animal rights side of things probably isn’t going to be very clear-cut on either side. A feature on the radio recently implied that EU animal welfare is much worse than here and that the more the EU takes over the food market the less competitive our better welfare rules make us, which means that we might have to weaken them to stay in competition and in the EU, which is a sad state of affairs. Animals have a much harder time on the continent in their general treatment, and I would assume that things will only get worse here if we have to adhere to their rules or markets in future.

But at the same time, we do have an influential class in Britain that still insists on keeping fox hunting going, etc., and it may be that outside of the EU this might get worse. I wonder whether the EU would really try to interfere with that, though? I suspect they might just leave our aristocracy alone, even with increased powers. 

My feeling is that whichever way we go on the EU, it will be ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other’ on the animal welfare side of things. Given the complete lack of democratic accountability in the EU, I would think we would at least stand a little more chance in changing things within at least a more democratic Britain which tends to care more about animals. Together with all the other issues, I will be far more worried about being left with the EU, which has a much less good track record.

*

From Mark:

Thanks – very interesting and well written. I found the articles useful.

*

From Katie and Marcus:

HEAR, HEAR AND THREE CHEERS TO YOU!!! Two amazing articles and I shall be sharing them with friends and family. Brilliantly and coherently written. I had already decided with my heart and gut to ‘leave’, but your articles have really cleared up the muddy waters of doubt. My husband Marcus says he’s voting to ‘stay’ but he’s a great believer in the truths you deliver and so I know he will wish to read both articles and I wonder whether you will swing him!

BRAVO!!!

*

From John:

Thanks Andy. Interesting reads.

My concern at the moment is how much Merlin, Arthur and the Spirit of Albion will prevail against evil f***ers rigging the result.  🙂

*

From Kevin:

Dear Andy:  I have already made my mind up to vote to leave the fascist European Union.

*

From Denise:

I liked your articles though it was obvious from the start of both that you were for leaving, although prior to reading them I would not have been sure of your choice. Talking to others, it seems that most people’s reasons for staying is so they can travel without visas and live/work abroad – entirely selfish ones. Probably that’s what the government is hoping to tap into, as they keep trying to scare us with tales of financial woe and disaster. The war thing may be more likely if we stay in, especially if Ukraine joins the EU.

Interestingly, it seems people are waking up to the realisation that the stay/leave parties are just spouting scaremongering rubbish – people interviewed in the street recently seem to have put a little thought for themselves into their choices, even if they are biased in their own favour.

Roll on 23rd June…

*

And finally, this quote, sent to me by a few people…

UK would do okay outside the European Union, David Cameron says:

“Some people seem to say that really Britain couldn’t survive, couldn’t do okay outside the European Union. I don’t think that is true. Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We’ve got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’re a top ten manufacturer. We’ve got incredibly strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here.

Look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating the path to our door to come and see what’s happening with this great country’s economy…  Britain could survive outside the EU. Of course it could.”

David Cameron, quoted from The Independent – 9th Nov 2015

(When he was still hoping he could negotiate promised substantial changes to the terms of our EU membership…)

 

***

 

UPDATE:

In the final days before the EU vote, Andy posted up the following…

With the big EU vote upon us, it is sad to see that the level of debate never rose to what was so vitally needed, on either side. With the key issue of democracy eclipsed by unprovable arguments over the economy and arguments over immigration, we have been neatly distracted from comprehending some of the most important issues. Meanwhile, the reprehensible way the tragic death of MP Jo Cox has been abused by elements of the Remain camp to win votes has seen political propaganda sink to a new and sickening low. There should be NO connection made between the actions of a crazed killer and the EU vote, and anyone deciding on such a basis should think very carefully about how they are being manipulated by people who plainly have no morals.