EU and Globalism: Facts denied to the public | Euro-federalists financed by US Spy Chiefs | UKIP Party Conference 2004 | EU Arrests Journalist | Brussels Quango Explained | EU Exit Strategy | EU Constitution: Blueprint for The New World Order | The United States of Europe | EUSSR Dissident | ECJ Takeover
EU Exit Strategy
Fitting the Spear-head to the Shaft
By Steve Reed
United Kingdom Independence Party, County-Chairman, Somerset
December 2004
How often has it been remarked that the inaction of good men is the only requirement for the triumph of evil; and yet how easily we assume, nowadays, that seeking a quiet life, and pursuing immediate gratification, are just as legitimate as - if not more legitimate than - tackling the problems, which politics and religion inevitably pose?
Peace and prosperity always provoke this short-sighted assumption, which amounts to a denial of individual responsibility and leads inevitably to political and religious conflict and economic collapse; but the lessons of history need not go quite unheeded: we can observe the signs of increasing tension, raise the alarm and take action before atrocious, social breakdown commences; and the sooner we act, the less atrocious and complete that social breakdown will be.
Many are now conscious of increasing tension, are raising the alarm and are taking action, but they are still a minority, and unless such people form the majority before the main-beams of society give way, their efforts will be largely wasted. Indeed, in the wider world, the peace has already been broken, and prosperity is becoming precarious. "Now is the time, for all good men, to come to the aid of the Party!"
Where war and penury are not openly stalking the world, the signs of their approach are visible as the discrepancies between public policies and their designated effects: most significantly, policies, supposedly for the enhancement of democracy, are producing unaccountable, supranational elites, which control, at national and local levels, impotent, naïve or hypocritical, functionaries. This discrepancy arises, because all of the incumbent, establishment-supported, political parties are colluding in a scheme to perpetuate their dominance by relegating democracy to a merely consultative role. In other words, a scheme in which there are free and fair elections to posts, which confer no real power.
The other discrepancies follow inevitably from this: anti-narcotics policies, which increase the use of narcotics; health policies, which undermine medical services; transport policies, which are throttling communications; economic policies, which are destroying productive activity; environmental policies, which hamper conservation, and anti-discrimination policies, which elevate the discrimination of arbitrarily chosen groups to the level of a faith - to name but a few. The general effect is one by which regulation supplants, and destroys, courtesy, morality and common sense.
What, then, is this minority doing - and what must we do - to head off impending disaster? I suggest that counter-measures consist of four steps, none of which is effective on its own and, therefore, that we must beware, in particular, of those who advocate some of these steps, but not all; for such people are more obstructive to a solution than those who dismiss the need for action completely.
The first step is to establish the reality of the situation - to recognise the signs of tension in the discrepancy between the stated purpose of policies and their actual effect. Secondly, we must identify necessary change; thirdly, we must agree a strategy for bringing about this change and, fourthly, we must proceed with the implementation of this strategy.
I have indicated where, in my view, the heart of the problem lies - in the avoidance, by those in power, of direct, democratic accountability. The way in which this is being done is as follows. With the collusion of national, political cartels, law is now proposed, approved and enforced by bodies of appointees - especially the Brussels-Commission - and these bodies, in turn, support and defend the cartels (i.e. the groups of pro-EU parties) which are colluding with them. The necessary change, which I advocate, and the UK Independence Party proposes, therefore, is the restoration of sovereign powers to Members of Parliament.
Many observers recognise this need, but some attempt to stop the remedial process, at this point, by claiming that "subsidiarity", within the Brussels-system, is sufficient - as though this collusion between appointees and cartels, which have freed themselves from the need to comply with the wishes of the electorate, were capable of self-regulation and better results! "Subsidiarity", I believe, has been shown to be a hollow deception. We must reject it and proceed to agree a genuinely effective strategy.
Indeed, having seen the dangers of our situation and identified the need for representative government, agreeing an effective strategy is easy. It is clear that we must elect Members of Parliament, who are prepared to abolish the Brussels-system in Britain.
At this point, the remedial process I am describing, is still supported by a majority of the electorate - at least 52% - but the spear-shaft, as it were, consisting of the three stages I have mentioned, still lacks a head.
The question, which now divides the electorate and halts the remedial process, is how the election of such Members of Parliament is to be achieved. A majority (about 40%) still cling desperately to the belief that MP's, belonging to one of the parties in the colluding cartel, are secretly ready to restore sovereignty to Westminster.
Naturally, the electorate is being encouraged, in this view, by promises of "re-negotiation" - albeit from a position of utter weakness - of the terms of Brussels' dominance, and by assurances of "resistance to further loss of sovereignty", even though such promises and assurances have been made for more than thirty years and have always proved empty; but what really keeps 40% of the electorate from fitting the spearhead to the spear, I believe, is a lack of faith that MP's, other than those of the cartel, can be elected.
This is where the mass-media and politically-interested opinion pollsters make an enormous contribution to supporting the supranational appointees, preserving the collusive cartel and halting the restoration of sovereignty and democracy. They refuse to recognise the abolition of Brussels-control as a legitimate, political aim, and they avoid reference to the Party, which proposes it. Many strike a "Eurosceptic" pose and moan endlessly about the faults of the Brussels-system, but they are careful never to admit that voting for the non-collusive Party is the solution to the problem.
Nevertheless, the electorate's self-confidence is growing. Against the united powers of the EU, the Lib/Lab/Con-cartel and the mass-media, it cast more votes for the UKIP, last June, than for the LibDems. In September, it put the Tories in 4th place, behind UKIP, in the Hartlepool by-election; and, in October, it rejected Prescott's elected regional assembly, in Northumberland and Durham, by 78%. Just compare that with the BBC's prediction of 72% in favour!
For this reason, in my view, we now see feverish activity by the cartel and a renewed media black-out regarding UKIP - except where the party-splitting activities of Robert Kilroy-Silk are concerned; but the electorate is getting wise to such tricks: UKIP-membership is still rising steeply. More and more people are fitting the head to the spear. If enough of them do so before the next election, they will send MP's to Westminster with the necessary weapons and the will to use them. We must make every effort to ensure that they do. No other option is of any value.