His masters’ man

Profoundly disappointing, but unsurprising, to see Andrew Gilligan using his platform at the Telegraph to perpetuate a demonstrably untrue assertion about the kind of relationship the UK would have with the European Union if we managed to leave.  Gilligan is, after all, his masters’ man.  He takes the Barclay Brothers’ coin and follows their pro-EU lead, as he shows with the following comment:

Yet the British impetus for full withdrawal may be dangerous: in the modern world, the very idea of “UK independence”, as promoted by the eponymous Eurosceptic party, is surely an illusion. Even if we left, given the amount of trade we do with the EU, we would still have to follow most of its rules – while no longer having any role in setting them.

This is the same fallacious tosh knowingly spun by the Norwegian foreign minister last week in spite of the reality he is completely aware of.

For a journalist who boasts a reputation for ‘investigative’ ability, Gilligan has failed to investigate the truth before doling out the sort of lie that helped Edward Heath Harold Wilson secure his EEC referendum victory (Apologies – in my rush I conflated the 1975 referendum with Heath’s 1973 parliamentary action).  Members of the EEA/EFTA do have a substantial say in the trade rules.  To suggest otherwise is an outrageous lie.

The tactics of the europhiles remain the same.  The truth is not their ally, but something to be concealed from the populace.  Instead of matters of substance on the subject of EU membership we are subjected to a narrative of superfluous nonsense, which Gilligan resorts to at the end of his article to underpin the europhilia that inspired it:

On that day in 1973 when we joined, an opinion poll asked the British people whether they wanted to see in their country Common Market “customs” such as “regular wine with meals”, “more pavement cafes”, “more shops open on Sunday”, “pubs open all day” and “coffee and a roll for breakfast, not bacon and eggs”. The poll respondents said no to all these dangerous foreign innovations (apart from the wine), but now, of course, along with Polish waitresses in London and British pensioners in Spain, they are standard parts of national life. For all our professed hostility to the EU, we are in some ways far more “European” than we were.

To expose how shallow the justifications for EU membership truly are, there’s two questions that eurosceptics should continually keep asking the europhiles to answer:

  • Why does it require the surrender of control of our country, identity, money and self determination to an unelected and unaccountable power overseas to realise any supposed benefits?
  • Why can’t benefits be achieved through cooperation and agreements, without rule from Brussels?

7 Responses to “His masters’ man”

  1. 1 EU Hypocrisy 30/12/2012 at 11:30 am

    All the more strange when you consider that Gilligan is, as this link shows, familiar with the very strong arguments put forward by Christopher Booker in this EU debate which Gilligan chairs.

    Very strange for an investigative journalist!

  2. 2 Steve 30/12/2012 at 12:11 pm

    Another splendid piece, AM. I held some regard for Gilligan during ‘Dossiergate’, but it has since, progressively evaporated.

    How far we have come, as a society, that we can now look back to the opinion poll (that Gilligan refers to in 1973), and see that all those “benefits” have absolutely s*d all to do with Common Market membership, and could have been chosen by us at any time? (I’d love to see the origianl poll results!) Unsurprising and in-keeping with the tradition of propaganda, lies, deceit and betrayal of our people, doubtless with the help of the CIA at the Connaught breakfasts to shoe -horn -and keep – us in.

    A nice reply from EU Hypocrisy; I wasn’t aware of that YouTube video. There is an extremely sinister and insidious piece of supreme propaganda in Gilligan’s opening sentences:

    “….and what neither side disputes is that Lisbon [Treaty] is essentially the same thing as the EU Constitution, so roundly rejected…..”

    Who are the “sides”? As I pointed out at the time within UKIP, they are NOT the same. On the whole, accepting the Constitution – with hindsight – would have been less damaging. They were hotly debated as being different at the time, but not anywhere near broadcast media, only in the more esoteric corners of the internet.

    The EU elites needed a treaty that would allow the imposition of future ghastly legislation without the obstructions of single state vetoes, national referenda, and especially opt-outs, such as we had (many in the Social Chapter of Maastricht).

    So in order to create an “ever closer union”, and remove all of these and other obstacles as enumerated, the Treaty of Lisbon was created. Hence the furore over the Working Time Directive.

    As EU Hyprocrisy says, “Very strange for an investigative journalist!”

  3. 3 Martin Cole 30/12/2012 at 1:08 pm

    Good points well made, but it was Wilson’s later (supposed) re-negotiation referendum not that of Heath, who in true Tory fashion did not give the country any say, relying on his majority in the Commons and Lords to ram it through.

  4. 4 Autonomous Mind 30/12/2012 at 1:51 pm

    You’re right, Martin. My bad. Thanks for the correction. Well, what do you expect from the ‘electronic version of pub gossip’? Leveson doesn’t expect me to be accurate, so what the hell… :) Plus I was only 3 at the time and my memory of it is a little hazy.

  5. 5 permex 30/12/2012 at 3:07 pm

    I think everyone concerned was 3 at the time.

  6. 6 Ironies Too 30/12/2012 at 4:36 pm

    Well unhappily I remember it all only too well. Thanks for the plug for my post of today!

  7. 7 Furor Teutonicus 30/12/2012 at 5:33 pm

    XX given the amount of trade we do with the EU, we would still have to follow most of its rules – while no longer having any role in setting them. XX

    AYE leave!!! I wish Germany would do that!!!

    But my family have been on the revceiving end of this.

    My Grandfather/family had a Norwegian registered and based trawler.

    And I tell you bloody what laddie, we were TOTALY under “E.U” regs, regarding everything from net size, to catch size. And everything in-between!

    I have spoken with Swiss farmers….the same!!

    If it “passes through “E,U” “land….air, or water” it MUST conform to “E.U” regs! (and, of course TAXES)

    It is no use Britain leaving. You must fight to DESTROY the bastard!

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: