Dr Frank Ellis' response to Cameron's EU referendum
by The Editor
Open Letter to the Prime Minister Concerning his Speech delivered on 23rd January 2013 on the United Kingdom’s Continuing Membership of the European Union (EU) and on the Possibility of a Referendum after 2015.
By Dr Frank Ellis
Dear Mr Cameron
History is the sole guide we have to the future and so it is right and proper that in your preamble you cast a backwards glance, in this case to the devastation and suffering caused by World War II. Unfortunately, 70 years offer an insufficient time frame in which to grasp the fundamental forces that have acted upon us and that have shaped us. These forces cannot easily be denied. Churchill’s refusal to bargain with Hitler after the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in the summer of 1940 was not just a decision based on the options then available to Britain but one based on the deep understanding of English history. Churchill grasped that it would have been not only morally and politically perverse to have concluded some kind of alliance with Hitler but, more importantly in my opinion, that it would have violated the essence of England, her spiritual and historical being. The sacrifices made by the generation of my mother and father are therefore not the sole sacrifices that must be borne in mind when debating England’s destiny. They go back to the very founding of the English state itself.
Quite clearly, and I trust the reasons are obvious, among the constituent nations of what is for the moment still the United Kingdom, England is primus inter pares. However, I make no claims here for English moral superiority but what I do assert is that each nation – certainly any nation such as England – that has endured the hurts and humiliations of the long centuries and enjoyed the triumphs must be the repository of vital forces and strengths, nurtured and refined, without which she would not have survived, without which she could not have survived. The same is true of France, China, Japan, Russia and Germany (even if late to statehood). And on this day it is fitting to remember the triumph of the people of Israel over the many persecutions visited upon them in their long history. These qualities – you refer to some of them – mean that England has nothing to fear from leaving the EU. The people who fear leaving the EU are the professional caste of bureaucrats, failed politicians and demented One-World utopians. The Conservative Party has spawned more than its fair share of these would-be nation killers and betrayers over the last 50 years. They are the enemies within ruthlessly and treacherously pursuing their self-interest at the expense of our country. Their propaganda arm is the BBC.
Your view of contemporary Europe is too rooted in the EU narrative. For example, you claim that: “What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean”. There are a number of qualifications that need to be made here. First, you can reasonably claim that war has been temporarily banished. You cannot claim, given the nature of states and their interests, that war has been permanently banished from this region. It has not. At the moment it may seem inconceivable that any members of the EU would ever go to war with one another again: but only at the moment. History clearly, consistently and unequivocally shows that states when necessary will resort to war to achieve goals that cannot be achieved by diplomacy. Nothing has changed. Second, there is the question of tyranny. I reject your claim that tyranny has been banished even temporarily. All over Western Europe the indigenous populations are threatened with sanctions – from loss of employment, imprisonment and fines – if they violate the hideous cult of multiculturalism and its politically correct zealots. Gauleiters and commissars have been replaced by a new caste of poisonous and noisome Marxist One-World ideologues.
Mass immigration from the Third World with all its psychological, economic and physical stresses is part of the same tyranny of cultural, intellectual and physical dispossession being deliberately and malevolently inflicted on Europe’s indigenous populations by Europe’s politicians. In October 2010 Frau Merkel admitted – at long last – that multiculturalism had failed in Germany. This obscene distemper has also miserably failed in Britain. Yet I have seen or heard no public acknowledgement from you. Third, your view of Europe and its freedom conspicuously excludes Russia. How can the nation of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pasternak, Grossman and Solzhenitsyn, whose Stalingrad agony was finally coming to end 70 years ago this month, be excluded from Europe? And if the Russian view of freedom as it exists under President Putin is one that offends you then bear in mind that Russia, like England, has the right to insist on her own political evolution and to pursue vital interests.
For the first time in any speech delivered by you I detect an understanding of the role played by geography in creating and forming the character of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. You say that “geography has shaped our psychology”; that “we have the character of an island nation” and that “we can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel”. All of these observations, Mr Cameron, with which I agree, are simply a way of saying that a people is emphatically not some wretched Marxist political or social construct; that the millions of immigrants that have been permitted to enter and to settle here are not the same as the indigenous people and, more importantly, for the survival of our people, never can be. These observations amount to a complete rejection of the multicultural, diversity narrative of the Marxist Left. People – in this case the indigenous people of the British Isles – are a combination of genetic, mental, psychological, racial, geographical and physical forces, and the product of a long, unforgiving evolutionary history. This long process of winnowing and selecting that led to the emergence of our people means that there are very definite and low limits to the number of immigrants that can be permitted to live here permanently and, in any case, on our terms. Once you accept that specific evolutionary pressures – the circumstances of the island nation – have created a distinctive indigenous psychology and much else besides, demonstrably the case, it is then quite clear that permitting millions of diverse aliens, all with their own distinctive, evolutionary-specific psychology (and the rest), to enter Britain, will lead to a complete collapse of social cohesion and trust. Then it is the war of all against all: Britain then ceases to be Britain, resembling Somalia or Yugoslavia. Indeed, many of our cities do indeed resemble parts of the Third World. Do not forget the displays of Third World savagery that struck English cities in August 2011. Diversity is emphatically not strength.
You say that: “Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that's been visited on our businesses”. Just so, Mr Cameron and the same applies to the mass invasion of immigrants. This is not some natural disaster over which we can exercise no control. On the contrary, the mass invasion of England by immigrants is deliberate, planned and permitted by those who either benefit from it or who do not have England’s best interests at heart.
I put it to you Mr Cameron that one of the main causes of the visceral hatred of the EU and of the desire to exit this proto-fascist, corporatist monstrosity is the fact that membership of the EU means that we have lost complete control of our borders. In 2004, the Labour government quite deliberately permitted the uncontrolled and accelerated mass entry of Third-World unemployed and unemployable as a way of making multiculturalism irreversible. Add to this demonstrable and calculated treachery the fact that Britain has signed up to various legal instruments that make it impossible to deport illegal immigrants and you have a further cause of the seething resentment and hatred of British politicians and the EU. The generation of my mother and father did not go to war between 1939-1945 in order to save us from Nazi domination only to see Britain invaded by immigrants with the open and aggressive collusion of what is now known as the EU.
You make the following point: “The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point”. So why then Mr Cameron are the justified fears of Europe’s indigenous populations concerning mass immigration not being addressed? Why are those who call for urgent measures to arrest and to reverse the waves of mass immigration treated by their respective governments as if they are undesirables? Why can I not call for my country to be protected from waves of mass immigration without my being denounced as a heretic, a Neo-Nazi, fascist and God knows what else? Who are the real Englishmen and Englishwomen here Mr Cameron, those who clearly see the deadly threat, crying out from the depths or the English bureaucrat-political caste who insist that mass immigration, diversity and EU membership are blessings and that not so long ago that Britain had missed the boat by not ditching Sterling? Does my sense of my Englishness, my love for Mother England disgust you? Why must England and her sons and daughters be treated like lepers and aliens in their own land? Why must I endure England’s being spat at, mocked, derided by the whores of diversity? Tell me Mr Cameron. Tell me.
You say that there are three major changes confronting Britain and the EU: (i) the crisis in the euro zone is causing changes in Europe; (ii). there is the crisis of European competitiveness; and (iii) there is the gap between the EU political-bureaucrat caste and its citizens. The obvious point about the euro zone crisis is that much of this disaster was predicted well before the launch of the single currency and those who warned of what would happen were denounced as renegades, Little Englanders and worse. Working on the assumption that no crisis should ever be wasted, the Franco-German axis is trying to exploit the economic situation to drive – in the jargon – ever closer union. Such measures will pose an existential threat to England’s economic and financial interests. It is not clear to me how the gap between the EU political-bureaucrat caste and the people of Europe can get any worse. This essentially parasitic class, with lots of avaricious English Quislings, draining away the national wealth from the people of Europe, has never had to account for its failings, Soviet-style corruption and mendacity. Every attempt to subject its inner workings to full and open scrutiny has been blocked and the many brave whistle-blowers vilified and broken professionally. That Mr Cameron is the EU sewer of which Britain is a member. It is no wonder that the EU is so often referred to as the Fourth Reich or the Soviet Union II. Like all totally corrupt corporatist bureaucracies with ideological ambitions to exercise unfettered dominion over the people its inner core comprises a mixture of failed national politicians, charlatans, vampire bureaucrats and Marxist froth, and it is driven by ruthless and naked self interest. Such transnational bodies as the EU will always attract the very worst and it is almost impossible to rid ourselves of them or the organisations that protect and nourish them.
If, as you claim, “26 European countries are members of Schengen – including four outside the European Union – Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. 2 EU countries – Britain and Ireland – have retained their border controls”, why is Britain overrun with immigrants, legal or illegal? It is a measure of the enormous gap that separates the people who suffer from mass immigration in Britain and the political-bureaucratic caste that you, Mr Cameron can seriously expect such grotesque claims about British border controls to be believed. What astonishing confirmation of the duplicity and flagrant lying that characterises the EU; what unbridled arrogance is also revealed. A half-competent proof reader would have identified this screaming inconsistency, this jarring dissonance. But no, you do not even care, such is the measure of the contempt and disgust you feel for your own people.
A complicating factor in any referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU is the Scottish independence referendum scheduled for 2014. By the time any referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU takes place, the United Kingdom may well have been terminated by a Scottish vote for independence. This must mean therefore that if the Scots vote for independence, which would be a highly desirable outcome for England, the referendum on EU membership will be essentially about England’s relationship with the EU. Incidentally, on the EU referendum you state that: “If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return”. I suggest Mr Cameron that you make it quite clear to the SNP and indeed Scotland in general that if they vote to leave the United Kingdom in 2014 that, too, is a “one-way ticket”: there is no coming back. There are technical electoral considerations here as well. If Scotland votes for independence in 2014 this can only mean that Scottish voters are automatically excluded from what will be a referendum held in Ulster, Wales and England on membership of the EU.
One cannot know how the decision to hold a referendum on Britain’s (England’s) membership of the EU will influence Scottish voters in the 2014 independence referendum. However, some possibilities do realistically emerge. SNP aspirations to independence based on membership of the EU (if granted) but leaving the UK are nonsensical. To be fully independent Scotland would have to be outside the UK and the EU and with its own currency. The SNP desperately wants to remain in the EU. Does this mean that an English referendum on continuing membership of the EU, which would almost certainly result in England’s leaving the EU will cause something of a crisis for those Scots in favour of independence? If Scotland leaves the UK and the English vote to leave the EU in, say, 2016, the fact that England is now out of the EU and Scotland is now striving to negotiate membership means that Scotland as an eventual EU member will be have to tread very carefully in its dealings with England. Regardless whether Scotland achieves full membership of the EU or not England will remain by far Scotland’s most important market, for practical reasons as much as anything else. If England is targeted with harsh conditions in trying to access any EU markets, Scotland is an obvious soft, vulnerable target for English retaliatory measures. We shall woo them roughly as we have done before.
The SNP therefore has to face four possible outcomes: (i). Scots vote to leave the UK and Scotland is able to make a smooth transition to EU membership and the rest of the UK votes to stay in the EU (ideal); (ii). The SNP loses the independence referendum and a weak government in Westminster anxious not to be seen to be gloating and triumphalist makes a whole raft of concessions to Scotland. In effect, Scotland is now fully independent with all the advantages but the main costs are borne by England (even better); (iii) Scots vote to leave the UK, negotiations to join the EU are complicated and England votes decisively against staying in the EU (not good); (iv). Terms and negotiations for Scotland’s membership of the EU are protracted, onerous and involve a huge and unforeseen loss of sovereignty and resources. England on the other hand secures the necessary guarantees concerning access to the Single European Market. Mindful of the huge contribution to the local economy, the Scottish government offers to allow the English nuclear deterrent of the Royal Navy to remain in Scottish bases. The English government declines the offer and the ships return to their ancient and spiritual home.
There is no requirement for Britain (England) to attempt to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the EU. With or without reforms, with the stunning success of the euro zone or with its eventual collapse, the question of our membership of the EU is a question of our national identity. Britain can easily and profitably enter into all kinds of bilateral and multilateral relationships – NATO is a good example – but we cannot remain in an organization such as the EU whose very existence and ambitions are predicated on the destruction of our national being. The problems which have caused so much unease in England were clearly foreseen by Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom (1944): “To imagine that the economic life of a vast area comprising many different people can be directed or planned by democratic procedure betrays a complete lack of awareness of the problems such planning would raise. Planning on an international scale, even more than is true on a national scale, cannot be anything but a naked rule of force, an imposition by a small group on all the rest of that sort of standard and employment which the planners think suitable for the rest”. Would that some of the more responsible leaders in Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy had reflected on Professor Hayek’s insights before they led their nations like drugged swine to be impaled on swords made in Germany. The same fate awaits Scotland when she goes a begging to the ranks of the EU, grasping and mewing like a spoiled, envious dysfunctional brat in search of what she hopes will be her long-awaited salvation from England. Then Scottish thumbs will start to prick and they will discover the real meaning of economic exploitation and servitude and rule by decree.
This EU-nightmare has gone on for far too long. Further delaying while terms are renegotiated is an attempt either to buy time in the hope that the euro zone crisis will be dealt so weakening the case – it is hoped by some – for withdrawal or evidence of gross wishful thinking and failure to grasp the nature of the beast. Britain should never have ratified the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht) without a referendum. The way forward is clear: we require a referendum on our membership of the EU as soon as possible before 2015. Now, Mr Cameron is the time for you and other politicians to redeem yourselves and do what England expects.
May God protect and bless England