Even The Telegraph Has Berated David Cameron & Remainers


Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com



To Quote The Daily Telegraph:

We have often commended David Cameron for staging the referendum but have been dismayed with the way his campaign has been conducted, especially in besmirching his opponents and impugning their motives.

That David Cameron represented Her Majesty’s Government the continuous dishonesty of many of his claims based upon spin and opinion yet presented as fact has been shamefull to watch. That he claimed to have achieved some sort of wonder deal with the EU was, as shown by the comments of many EU leaders, a deceiptfull fantasy presented as an absolute fact in the most duplicitous manner.

David Cameron and his Remain cronies based the entirety of their propaganda on assumptions and opinions of the economic outlook for Britain based upon the most negative achievable options related to the EU!

Much of the propaganda from Remain has been based upon talking down Britain and quoting from the interests of foreign owned company bosses rather than the interests of the peoples of these Uniuted Kingdoms whom they were elected to represent and protect!

Perhaps you, like me, feel we should learn from others and from those of proven historic wisdom.

It is very clear that David Cameron and the Remainers overlook the views of Thomas Jefferson – sadly not at their peril but indubitably at the peril of Britain its citizens and alies.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
In its propagandising based only on economics David Cameron and Remainers seem only too happy to risk, indeed abandon, our liberty for their gain!
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Despite Benjamin Franklin’s warnings we are expected to listen to non doms, off shore tax evaders, foreign company owners even including Richard Branson whose belief in the EU is shown by his having relocated his corporate HQ to Switzerland which has after many years withdrawn its application to join the EU.
On the 24th. June you will find, whether Remain or Leave, the professional gamblers in pin stripe suits gambling against and in favour of currencies whilst others will be only too happy to use other peoples’ money to invest and disinvest in shares and bonds across the markets for short term gain.
Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants.
Benjamin Franklin
Again and again we are admonished to learn from history yet Remain campaigners have clearly given no thought either to the past or the long term future of these United Kingdoms, to listen to their biased and highly spun propaganda.

Vote leave to benefit from a world of opportunity 

Christian Adams Cartoon


Telegraph Logo

On the day the United Kingdom joined the Common Market on Jan 1, 1973, the editorial in this newspaper captured the views of much of the country. We wrote: “Whether or not this is to be regarded as a sunshine day for the British people will depend largely on how they react to the opportunities which now beckon. Enlargement of the community from six to nine members could spell the final atrophy of a once great nation; or, more probably, it could mark a new and splendid chapter in our long history.”

There is no doubt that since 1973, the country has prospered. Indeed, we joined the Common Market because we thought it was the answer to the economic malaise that had led to Britain being dubbed “the sick man of Europe”.

But all industrialised countries are wealthier than they were then, not just those in Europe. Arguably, the economic and financial changes wrought during the 1980s, together with the decline of trade union power, contributed far more to our GDP growth than membership of the Common Market.

Is it seriously being suggested that had we continued to function as an independent nation for the past 43 years like, say, Australia or Japan, we would today be the impoverished off-shore neighbour of a continental powerhouse? We cannot be sure; but there is no reason to believe so.

A world of opportunity is waiting for a fully independent Britain

The Remainers have sought to scare the nation into believing that calamity lies in wait for an independent Britain. They imply that our trade would collapse even though we import far more from the EU than they buy from us and our biggest markets are outside the EU.

We are told membership is essential because it provides access to a market of 500 million people; yet there is a market of six billion people beyond its borders and nothing would stop us continuing to trade with Europe anyway. Other non-EU countries trade more with the single market than we do but don’t have to pay into the EU budget for the privilege of doing so.

A world of opportunity is waiting for a fully independent Britain. This country is a leading economic power, its language is global, its laws are trusted and its reputation for fair dealing is second to none. To say we cannot thrive free of the EU’s constraints is defeatist and flies in the face of this country’s great mercantile traditions.

But while the economic rationale for membership was the key argument behind the movement to take us into the Common Market, there were other motivations, too. After the Second World War and the end of Britain’s role as a colonial power, the country was politically and diplomatically adrift. Its predicament was summed up by the US secretary of state Dean Acheson with the phrase: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”

In the early 1960s, the Macmillan government thought to plug that gap by joining what was then a community of six countries, but his overtures were rebuffed by the French president Charles de Gaulle. Our eventual accession, together with Ireland and Denmark, increased the number to nine. Today there are 28. So how do we answer the question implied in that editorial 43 years ago? Can history regard it as a “sunshine day”?

Within a few years of joining, our ambivalence to Europe was already apparent when the Labour government, for internal political reasons, called a referendum on our continued membership in 1975. The result was an overwhelming vote to remain – by 2:1 – and this seemed to put paid to any lingering doubts. The country wanted to stay; so let’s get on with it.

Few people, however, fully appreciated the extent to which the EEC was less the benign economic arrangement they imagined and much more a political project. True, there were those during the 1975 referendum campaign who made this point; but they went largely unheeded. The national sense was that we were in a free trading area of independent nation states that would help our exporters, create jobs and allow everyone to get richer.

There were early difficulties, not least British objections to the terms on which we joined, which Mrs Thatcher sought to rectify by demanding and securing a rebate on the UK’s excessive contribution. But, by and large, the relationship worked well. If anything, the British took the lead in seeking to turn the EU into a proper trading area by championing the single market, even if Mrs Thatcher later regretted the way this was done.

EU referendum: how the Remain campaign has forced some unholy alliancesPlay!02:08


Everything changed in 1992, however, with the Maastricht Treaty. Now, the political nature of the project took over. The Common Market became the European Union and its people citizens of the EU; timetables were set for economic and monetary union and the introduction of a single currency; areas of policy-making that had previously been agreed among member states were brought within the competence of the European Commission, which became a supercharged administration-cum-government.

We did not like this development but were not given the opportunity to stop it. John Major, then prime minister, obtained an opt-out from the single currency. But it went ahead with all the safeguards to prevent economic disparities abandoned, with disastrous consequences.

Subsequent treaties signed at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, together with a string of political protocols, have further aggrandised the EU into a supra-national body within which the interests of individual states are secondary to the greater good of the overall Union.

It now has the trappings of the nation state that we were always assured it would not become: a single currency; a central bank; no frontiers (even if these have been going up again recently in response to the migration crisis); a supreme court; a police force and judicial system (Europol and Eurojust); an embryonic gendarmerie; its own foreign policy; and, if some in the Commission get their way, it will have a European army.

Nor will it stop there. The report of the EU’s Five Presidents published last year in response to the eurozone’s deep problems charts the way forward to a fully integrated EU, a superstate in all but name. The fact that Britain does not participate in some of its component parts, notably the euro or the borderless Schengen area, makes no difference since they have an impact upon us.

It is suggested by those wanting to stay in the EU that this somehow gives us “the best of both worlds”. In truth it gives us the worst of a bad job: half in and half out of something we do not really wish to be part of but feel we cannot leave for fear of wrecking it.

Indeed, so fragile is this political construct that the departure of one of its members, and especially one as big as the UK, threatens to trigger terminal instability. And why is that? If this were a robust democratic institution, underpinned by a thriving economy and a content and happy citizenry then Britain’s withdrawal should have no impact at all. Of course, if it were such a utopia then we wouldn’t be having a discussion about leaving in the first place; but it isn’t.

Across Europe, disenchantment with Brussels is growing. A recent poll in Italy showed 48 per cent would vote to leave, an astonishing figure in the spiritual home of the EU. The MORI poll also suggested that 58 per cent of the French want their own referendum, and 41 per cent say they would vote to leave. Those who dismiss the referendum here as some British eccentricity whipped up by Little Englander Europhobes need to ask why the EU is so unpopular elsewhere.

The principal reason is its anti-democratic nature – the dislocation between those who govern and the governed. While people can vote for their national leaders, who then have an input into collective decision-making, they are no longer able to influence events that affect them directly through the ballot box. In any case, by the time many directives that begin life in Brussels have got to the Council of Ministers for a decision it is too late to stop them.

So we are not alone in Britain in feeling irritation with the EU. Most pernicious has been the way in which it has imposed its will on democratically elected governments in indebted eurozone countries in order to bail them out of the economic difficulties brought about by their membership of the single currency. The fact that the EU is a collection of democracies does not detract from the reality that this is a profoundly undemocratic institution. This has nothing to do with being anti-European. It is about the type of institution the EU has become.

The question that arises, therefore, is whether we wish to stay in a club whose rules and membership have changed so markedly since we joined 43 years ago and which no longer delivers the benefits we were promised at the outset.

We are not harking back to a golden age lost in the mists of time but looking forward to a new beginning for our country

We are told by Remain campaigners that we can always occupy an outer ring of countries that do not wish to be part of the integrated eurozone but do not want to leave the EU either.

Is this what we want for our country: peripheral status, an unloved and little-noticed satellite of a Greater EU? Or do we want to be an independent nation once more, free to make our own decisions, forge our own trading relationships and maintain our own strategic and diplomatic partnerships? Those who say that if we vote to stay we can bring about the reforms in the EU that we would like to see are ignoring the evidence of the past 25 years.

In addition, what future does the EU offer as it lurches from one crisis to another? It has shackled itself to a currency union that has wrecked the livelihoods of its southern member states, causing mass unemployment among young people and encouraging the growth of extremist political parties. Its economies have stagnated, other than that of Germany, to whose advantage the system principally works. The only continent with lower growth than Europe is Antarctica.

Had we joined the euro, as many Remainers now warning of catastrophe if we leave wanted us to, then Britain would be in a desperate mess. Why, then, would a country with our history and economic strength want to continue its membership of such a dysfunctional outfit? Ask ourselves this question: if we weren’t in it would we be agitating to join now?

Remainers also claim we would lose influence in the world and deride those wanting to leave as Little Englanders. Yet the opposite is the case: it is the EU which is insular and self-regarding, hemmed in by the narrow confines of dreary summits and endless treaty-making. Britain, by contrast, has always been a global player, with its connections to the Commonwealth, the UN and Nato, and will be again.

We have often commended David Cameron for staging the referendum but have been dismayed with the way his campaign has been conducted, especially in besmirching his opponents and impugning their motives.

In supporting a vote to leave, we are not harking back to a Britannic golden age lost in the mists of time but looking forward to a new beginning for our country. We are told it is a choice between fear and hope. If that is the case, then we choose hope.

In the event, and despite the optimism of our editorial, Jan 1, 1973 turned out not to be a sunshine day for the UK after all. On Thursday, the country has another opportunity to lift the clouds. We must take it.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE



With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet The EU & many of its vassal States are willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose The EU’s chosen brand of democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.

There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU, using a better negotiated & updated version of the ‘Norway Model’ as a stepping stone to becoming a full member of the Eropean Economic Area, where all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU’s vassal regions, with an EFTA style status and can trade and negotiate independently on the global stage, as members of The Commonwealth and the Anglosphere.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats and their ionterpretation of the rules handed down as if they were some great achievement by the EU.
The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.
How we go about the process of disentangling our future wellbeing from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensely tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
>Side Bars<
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocracy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W


Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
Stolen Oyster with links:
Stolen Trust with links:
Stolen Childhood with links:
  • I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  • ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  • I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  • I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  • I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  • I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  • I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  • I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  • I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  • I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  • I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  • I am NOT a WARMIST
  • I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  • I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  • I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  • I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  • I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  • I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  • I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  • I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide