web analytics

THAT CAMERON SPEECH – ATW TRANSLATES

By David Vance On January 23rd, 2013

So, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has made his much hyped speech about the UK’s future in the EU. The media is full of it.

Here is the redux version, supplied by the White Queen and  through the Looking Glass;

‘You couldn’t have it if you did want it,’ the Queen said. ‘The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday – but never jam today.’

Cameron is posturing to ward off UKIP, that is all there is to it. The rest is detail. He wants to see us subjugated in the EUSSR and all this talk of a referendum in 2017 IF he gets into power and IF he has a majority or IF a coalition partner would accept such a referendum is pure spin, aimed at the gullible, hyped by the media.

66 Responses to “THAT CAMERON SPEECH – ATW TRANSLATES”

  1. Cameron is juggling so many balls in the air right now, at some stage he’s going to make a speech about an in/out referendum on north africa; gay marriage amongst jihadists; and fighting terrorism from the european union.

    I’ll look forward to that one.

  2. It sounds like he is strengthening his hand for negotiations with the EU, and if so he is doing it quite well.

  3. None of this will stop 50,000 Bulgarians and Romanians arriving next year. Freedom of labour movement is not negotiable and Cameron has not even mentioned it.

  4. Laugable rubbish from the Rusty Iron PM.
    1/ The EU rules forbid any watering down of membership. Like the IRA once your in..your in end of.
    2/ Germany / France et all have repeatedly stated ‘no a la carte EU’.
    3/ DC has zero trust with the electorate having lied, U turned ,fudged and evaded the EU issue for years.
    4/ He arguably is the worst negotiator ever (well up to the Gordon Gold seller standards) by announcing in advance that he does not want to leave the EU.
    5/ 100% guaranteed he won’t be in power in 2017. Millibanana will and he’s pro EU as well.. Some choice.

    He has shown he is only motivated by Power and politics and NOT the welfare of the people or the nation. A true heir to Blair if ever there was one – or even any NEED for one.

    This charade of a speech was only intended to curb the rise of UKIP. IMO I think he has done UKIP a great favour as anyone who still nursed a faint hope that underneath his socialist exterior there remained the vestige of an actual Conservative has had their illusions shattered. He gets on so well with the left lib dums because under th epowder blue exterior is a yellow streak a mile wide.

    You can now dump his ass and vote UKIP with a clear conscience.

  5. I don’t think that it is the EU itself that causes aggravation, it is the small print and add-ons that go with it that irritate.

    Things such as the way the Human Rights legislation is interpreted and implemented – that we are unable to extradite criminals back to their origin countries is among the farcical rulings that render the whole package a nonense.

    The border and immigration regulations are another nonsense, and I am sure that it was written with the sole purpose of aggravating the British.

    That we have a double immigration problem with migrants from both the EU and from the Indian subcontinent, seems not to have been addressed.

    Our title of ‘United Kingdom’ has become a misnomer, with Scotland and Wales both champing at the bit for independence, how long before we hear cries of ‘Independence for Bradford’, or maybe even for ‘East London’ – or anywhere else where ghettoes have been established.

    Cameron’s presentation – maybe fine for a salesman, but is rubbish for a statesman. All rather too little, too late, and never once addresses the real problem of excessive immigration. In his efforts to be all things to all men, all he has achieved is to further fracture and disunite us as an independent country and as anything resembling a leading global entity.

  6. “The border and immigration regulations are another nonsense, and I am sure that it was written with the sole purpose of aggravating the British.”

    I think it was done in order to WEAKEN the UK and make it more docile. A gigantic housing estate serviced by a Walmart style supermarket based in Europe.

  7. This arrived as an email.
    Naturellment I support the campaign..

    http://getbritainout.org/2013/01/our-response-to-david-cameron/

    As anticipated, David Cameron has let the British people down by avoiding the best option for our country. All the polls indicate a majority of the Great British Public want an EU Referendum. The people of our country, however, must be given an In/Out referendum before the next General Election.

    Sadly the Prime Minister is showing he is motivated only by power and politics rather than the welfare of the British people. His actions speak louder than words. The cast iron guarantee on a Lisbon Treaty referendum proved rusty. He ordered a 3 line whip against an EU vote earlier in this parliament. He could easily order a 3 line whip for an EU referendum before the election. Like Tony Blair on Iraq, David Cameron has trust issues on the EU. Cameron’s option to wait after the next election, to offer a weak tinkering of our EU membership is unacceptable.

    Britain will be weaker, uncompetitive and less cohesive as a result.

    We face another unsustainable wave of new immigration from Bulgaria and Romania, with a minimum of quarter of a million newcomers expected from 2014. Most will be eligible for jobs, benefits and housing within months of arrival. The effect on unemployment, with few British jobs available, and the current lack of housing will be catastrophic. Yet the government is powerless to do anything about it while we remain inside the EU.

    This month the Eurozone announced record unemployment rates, with the contagion threatening to hinder any British recovery. The longer our whole economy is tied to the EU’s regulatory machine, the slower our growth and exit from economic malaise.

    Years of renegotiation will solve little and cost British taxpayers over £80 billion in membership contributions between now and 2017. In any case, it will not work because other EU member states have already informed the Prime Minister they will not accept his proposals. Our government will squander even more British taxpayers’ money trying to turn the EU into something it is not.

    The EU is only going one way. The current solutions to the economic crisis in the European Parliament and Commission will involve even more integration. Banking and Fiscal Union will be complete by 2017. Article 16 of the Fiscal Compact incorporates Fiscal Union into EU law by 2017 at the latest. We have no choice. We are bound by EU laws, rules, regulations and Directives while we remain inside. There is nothing to stop a future government taking Britain into Fiscal Union.

    EU Treaties were not set up to allow for renegotiation. There is no option for a ‘pick and mix’ EU. They do, however, allow for withdrawal which would give us the ability to negotiate our own free trade agreements. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides for a two-year withdrawal process; Articles 3 and 8 compel the EU to engage in free and fair trade with its neighbours. The EU is constantly engaged in free trade negotiations with non-EU states, so there is no reason why we cannot set up our own deals after we leave.

    The UK could swiftly repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and leave the EU, however, there is more evidence within the EU’s own treaties which would make it more worthwhile for us to negotiate British ‘withdrawal’ than renegotiate ‘different terms of membership’.

    Get Britain Out unswervingly calls for an In/Out EU Referendum now, to leave us free to govern our own country without EU interference, and arrange our own simple trading relationships as we thought we had when we joined the ‘Common Market’ in 1972. Please share our response to David Cameron’s speech with any and all who will be interested.

    Best wishes,

    Tim Aker
    Campaign Director

    P.S. We recently exposed in The Sun how 170,000 British jobs are being advertised to unemployed EU citizens. Let’s remember we also exposed in The Sun how the EU will be paying for EU workers to get interviews and resettle here. British workers should be offered these jobs first! This is yet another reason why we should Get Britain Out.

  8. UKIP must really be eating into Tory votes. Whatever, they’re won’t be a referendum, no way.

  9. Pete,
    I agree.
    What is really sad is that he talks about allowing the British people a say.
    So who represents whom?

  10. It is not within the power of the British Prime Minister to grant the UK a referendum. Cameron can’t do it. It is a power reserved purely for Parliament. And if David Cameron asked Parliament to pass that law allowing an in/out referendum on the EU Parliament would say now.

  11. Yours is a representative democracy.

    Supposedly, you’ve been represented all along by your MP.

    You can’t run your state by means of referendums on all matters. Though one might think that this is the sort of thing – gradual integration of the UK into a federal state and gradual loss of sovereignty to that federal state. —-that you have referendums on.

    I’m not sure that British voters ever consciously signed up to that.

  12. “Yours is a representative democracy.”

    Yeah. It’s representative of political decisions imposed on the people.
    Once this thing goes through – if it goes through, that’s it. No more democracy. We will irrevocably be a part of a Pan European State.

  13. That’s not true. Sovereignty lies with Parliament. And there is nothing the EU can do about that. If Parliament says no to the EU then that is law.

  14. Well, how real is that sovereignty when some other body has a real and loud voice on a whole host of internal issues?

    Theoretically, the Queen rules over the UK.

    Is the sovereignty of Parliament similarly evolving toward a lesser status, akin to the ” sovereignty ” of the legislature of North Dakota?

  15. Well, how real is that sovereignty when some other body has a real and loud voice on a whole host of internal issues?

    Theoretically, the Queen rules over the UK.

    Is the sovereignty of Parliament similarly evolving toward a lesser status, akin to the ” sovereignty ” of the legislature of North Dakota?

  16. Sorry for the double comment here – please remove the second one.

    The site often seems to stall when commenting, making it appear that the comment has not been received. Are others having this issue?

  17. “akin to the ” sovereignty ” of the legislature of North Dakota?”

    Dunno.
    I hain’t got no relatives over there to explain it to me.
    One of the great things we British achieved was to retain our monarchy (point of unity and national identity) whilst also introducing a system which (theoretically) gave voice to the people through elected representatives.
    The Queen is always told what is going on by the Prime Minister of the day. She probably asks questions and perhaps voices concerns, but she doesn’t publicly interfere.
    Thus far, thus good.
    As in all systems things change over time, and in a time of full employment and increasing prosperity most people were content to allow politicians to do their thing.

    The problems start when a) times get harder
    and b)lobbying groups and special interest groups (what Pete referred to as “regulatory capture” in its broadest sense; start to have more say in policy making than the people.
    Thus the politicians start making major decisions without feeling the need to consult the people they theoretically represent,
    and the people give up on politics because they feel politicians ignore their concerns.

    Anyway, you should know all this.
    Your country is in a similar situation.

  18. The EU only has a say because Parliament allows it to (through the 1973 European Communities Act). If Parliament repealed the 1973 European Communities Act the EU would not be able to impose anything on the UK.

    That is different to the situation in the US. North Dakota’s legislature is not sovereign. The US Constitution is sovereign.

    The Queen is also not sovereign (at least not entirely). Parliament is actually sovereign. The Queen technically makes up part of Parliament. Parliament is actually in the Queen-in-Parliament, a meeting of three bodies, the crown, the Commons and the Lords. That is why every law (or most of them anyway) are passed with the words: “Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows”.

    If the Queen-in-Parliament passes a law then nothing can override it. And other bodies (both devolved and supra-national) can only pass laws if they have an enabling law from Parliament (European Communities Act, Scotland Act etc).

  19. Seamus

    Good comment.

  20. Cameron’s speech makes it all the easier to see why older generations here feel a very real sense of betrayal by our elected reprsentatives.

    That Heath was initially involved in the betrayal and is followed it seems, quite enthusastically, by Cameron makes a vote for an alternative ‘right of centre’ party, imperative, whether UKIP is that alternatiive is very debatable.

    That Blair saw his time as PM as an opportunity for self-advancement and thus set the low moral agenda for his sucessors, should also not be forgotten. As things stand we, as a nation, seem to have little choice.

    Perhaps I need to refresh my memory as to the reasons for WWII, I am sure eventual surrender with barely a whimper, was not mentioned at that time.

  21. Yeah because a European wide State with a democratically elected Lower Chamber, and where the individual member states provide the members of the Upper Chamber, and the Executive, is exactly what people fought in World War II to prevent.

    I’m no fan of the EU but enough of the hysterics.

  22. Seamus,
    That’s what I said. And in fewer words! There is no way
    ” If Parliament repealed the 1973 European Communities Act the EU would not be able to impose anything on the UK.”
    is going to happen.

  23. “I am sure eventual surrender with barely a whimper, was not mentioned at that time.”

    It might have saved a lot of lives though..

  24. There is nothing legally stopping it. The democratically elected politicians won’t repeal it. If you don’t like that don’t vote for them in the next election.

  25. ‘Yeah because a European wide State with a democratically elected Lower Chamber, and where the individual member states provide the members of the Upper Chamber, and the Executive, is exactly what people fought in World War II to prevent’

    Such a thing as the EU was never imagined by most countries in the 1930′s and if it had been, do you really think, that the UK and others would have been quite so enthusiastic about going to war? – I don’t think so!

    Gemany probably did have such an idea, but it didn’t involve much of a democratic element, – so maybe that was the reason for WWII, which would suggest that maybe we did go to war to prevent such a monster.

    I’m sure you meant ‘hystorics’, not ‘hysterics’, perhaps if you had a more realistic idea of national sentiment at that time, you might be less dismissive.

    Yes something similar to the EU may well be the way forward, but it certainly wasn’t ‘back then’.

  26. ‘don’t vote for them in the next election.’

    Rather simplistic of you, if I may say so!

    Who would you suggest? a latter day version of Mrs T. perhaps, but I don’t see too many of them on the horizon, do you?

  27. “Yes something similar to the EU may well be the way forward, but it certainly wasn’t ‘back then’.”

    It also wasn’t what people fought against. You make it seem that this is what would have happened if they hadn’t fought World War II. You are wrong in.

  28. “Rather simplistic of you, if I may say so!”

    You get the politicians you vote for. That is what a representative democracy is about. If the people don’t like their representatives or don’t feel they are being adequately represented then they can always change their representative.

  29. ‘You make it seem that this is what would have happened if they hadn’t fought World War II. ‘

    No I didn’t, you said that in a fit of sarcasm.

    Althought the German idea of a united Europe under their control, although some would say ‘under their heel,’ does bear some resmblance to Hitler’s ideas in the late 30′s, – and yes, that was one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for WWII.

  30. From afar…

    The EU may have its negative traits, but its no ” monster “.

    Though from the UK perpective, it may have been better had you never entered it. The UK is still big enough and important enough that the EU would have to deal with it feirly. You could have sidestepped the EU as you did sidestep the mistake that was the Euro.

    But if you were to leave the EU now, many European noses would be out of joint, and they would remain out of joint for a long time.

    Have fun with this one.

  31. Truth be told the Germans didn’t care about a United Europe. Outside of Alsace and Lorraine the Germans didn’t care about the lands west of Germany. Hitler wanted to unite all German speakers (so Austria, Czechoslovakia, parts of Italy, parts of Lithuania) under one banner and conquer Eastern Europe. It was never about a United Europe. That came later, after the war had already started.

  32. ‘they can always change their representative.’

    Of course they can – if they do in fact ‘have a choice’. At present they (we) do not.

    We are in fact, in just as bad a position as all those members of ME countries where the Arab Spring is happening. They had a single leader dictatorship, with little hope of change, the only difference is we have a group dictatorship, – with little hope of change.

    That it has taken so long for people to realise that even a democracy is corruptible, is yet another reason for that ‘feeling of betrayal’.

  33. Sorry just taking off the italics..

  34. Whether he wanted to unite Europe or only some of it, is immaterial, unite or conquer, – surely only a simple difference.

  35. A democratically elected government with democratically elected representatives is not a dictatorship. You may not like the representatives (you have the option of not voting for your current one if you think he or she is doing a bad job) but they are democratically elected.

    How is it corrupted?

  36. The UK wants to unite some of Europe (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). I guess there all Nazis as well?

  37. I am sure there are many who would disagree with the idea that we have a proper democracy, otherwisw why do so any want to change the rules for general elections? The Libs for one.

  38. Because they view it as disproportional. That it favours the two main parties. It comes from competing ideas on what representative democracy should be.

  39. Seamus -

    “The Queen is also not sovereign (at least not entirely). Parliament is actually sovereign. The Queen technically makes up part of Parliament.”

    You put that together wrong.

    The monarch is sovereign because the British people loan their sovereignty to the monarch when he/she is Crowned. Parliament is a part of the monarch’s domain.

    There is no Parliament once the monarch dissolves it, because it is simply an advisory chamber. When it is dissolved it ceases to exist until the monarch opens Parliament again. There is no law unless and until “the sovereign” gives Royal Assent. No-one swears any oath to Parliament because Parliament isn’t sovereign in any way. It is the monarch who is sovereign.

  40. Such a pity she chose celebrity status rather than the role of Leader!

  41. “You get the politicians you vote for.”

    This is only partly true because where does the loyalty of most MPs lie: with their constituency or their party?
    Yes I agree we can’t ever have perfection, but we should have the opportunity to have a say in formulating key policies. For example taxation, defence, local government services, immigration etc.

  42. There is no law until the Queen gives Royal Assent but the Queen can not pass laws without Parliament.

  43. Interesting to see that the latest YOUGOV poll has a majority of people in favour of staying IN the EU.

    All is not lost.

  44. Most sensible comments on this thread have been from Seamus. Ernest’s 6.29pm comment about the Queen was just daft.

  45. Seamus appears to be a bit of a student of the British govt / EU and how they actually work.

  46. Colm,

    Yes I quite agree, not my finest comment, but somehow I find all this celebrity nonsense with all of its backslapping and faux praise just a bit too irritating at times. I’ve just about had my fill of icons, figureheads and the like and this past year, what with the Jubilee and Olympic pantomimes I just flipped!

    So kind of you to bring it to my attention…

  47. Yes, Pete and Ernest with their absurd “The Queen should take control” fantasies could learn a lot from Seamus superior knowledge on this matter.

  48. Ernest

    The Queen has not sought celebrity in any way. I don’t understand, even if you do feel that we live in a media age celebrity circus what that has to do with the Queen. If anything, she has demonstrated the very opposite personal ethos and behaviour.

  49. Colm,

    It was on the Queens insistance that our borders were opened to all comers from the Commonwealth, and in particular from the Indian subcontinent. It seems that she is not quite so powerless as many imagine.

    It seems that he does read a lot on the topic but whether he actually comprehends what he reads is another matter. Too often he makes comments out of context, as he did in the thread above, and as he frequently does on Irish matters.

    To understand you need an open mind as well as open eyes, especially when reading wikipedia!

  50. Ernest

    Where did you get the info that the Queen insisted on opening our borders from the Commonweath/Indian subcontinent ?

  51. I notice those who mock wikipedia here never seem to find any wrong data found therein.

    Used properly, its a really good tool.

    I use it a lot, and I have checked it closely in some matters that I know well, and I found it to be pretty accurate.

  52. It must stick in Ernest’s craw that Seamus is so much more knowledgeable than him on most matters!

    “It was on the Queens insistance[sic] that our borders were opened to all comers from the Commonwealth, and in particular from the Indian subcontinent”

    So you get to colonise their country but they shouldn’t even be allowed come and live in yours? Seems fair enough. . . if you’re a cultural chauvinist.

    “To understand you need an open mind as well as open eyes”

    Hah! That made me laugh. You should try it some time, Ernest. :)

  53. Petr – the Indian subcontinent is not colonised by Britons and neither is Africa. When I posted a link showing Gerry Adams wanting to import Africans into Ireland (a country which has no imperial past), you cheered him on. Why do you (appear to) want the British Isles to be colonised by the 3rd-world?

  54. Ernest was arguing that historically Indians should not have been allowed come and settle in Britain. Bit rich considering what you lot did in their country. They’re ‘over here’ because you lot were ‘over there’!

    PS One imports cargo, not people.

  55. Phantom – it depends upon the sujet matter. If it is of undisputed, non-political fact, then it’s excellent. If it’s something contentious, the kind of stuff which I look at, then it can be downright mendacious. Here’s why:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrFFmLRGHQ0

  56. Yea, I could see that.

    Any ” contentious ” matter will be bombarded by attempted edits by those on the other side of it.

    But there’s a correction process that works pretty well with most mattsrs. I’m quite surprised at how useful it has become, and I think much criticism is made out of prejudice. Wiki isn’t what Encyclopedia Brittanica used to be, but it never claimed to be that.

  57. Petr – why Ireland too? As for importing people, here is somebody admitting to doing exactly that:

    Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

    Barbara Lerner Spectre, IBA-News, 2010

    So Petr – did the 4 million indigenous people of Ireland make it such a hell-hole that Jews have to import masses of Africans in order for it to survive?

  58. Cameron is a liar, and that fact resonates far more deeply with the fools like me who voted for him in 2010, than it ever does with those who would never vote Conservative in the first place. He’s a traitor, a liar, an outright enemy. I’m ashamed for voting for him.
    Cameron does “speeches” very well, it’s his strong point. However, we expect action upon these speeches, and he has totally failed to deliver. What’s the saying, “you fool me once…”. I’m not getting fooled by this charlatan again. He can promise the moon, I don’t believe him, and my vote is going to UKIP, EVEN IF my vote merely helps Labour get into office again. After all, what’s the difference, if the Conservatives won’t deliver? I may as well vote Labour as vote Con. It makes no difference. So I’m voting UKIP, regardless of the consequences. At least that way, I can hold my head up and say I never voted for the Pro-EU parties.

  59. That Barbara Lerner Spectre is so massively powerfull isn’t she. In comparison she knocks the global historic influence of Jesus and Mohamed into a cocked hat doesn’t she ?

  60. Colm – she gave the game away, and zionists have been scrambling to remove the ‘offensive’ video piece from the internet, but I’m happy because I downloaded it before it was wiped.

    This is the background. Spectre worked for a ‘charity’ (Paidaia) based in Sweden whose purpose was to import muslims into Sweden so that Sweden will be more multi-cultural. The funding of Paidaia is found to come from the Israeli government, yet the Israeli government does not want Israel to be ‘multi-cultural’. The Israeli government is for a jews-only Israel and works openly for that aim, yet it seeks to destroy Europe by funding the importation of muslims into Europe when it’s busily kicking muslims out of their own towns and cities in the west bank. Hypocrites and liars – that’s what zios are.

    http://www.paideia-eu.org/

  61. Who told you that about this Jewish group?

    An anti Jewish website of some kind?

  62. Allan

    Why would Israel want Europe to be colonised by anti-Israeli Muslims ?. How on earth does that progress Jewish security ?

  63. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html

    Rabbi Baruch Efrati believes Jews should ‘rejoice at the fact that Europe is paying for what it did to us for hundreds of years by losing its identity.’ He praises Islam for promoting modesty, respect for God

    Efrati ruled, therefore, that “even if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity.”

  64. Allan

    Even if that idiotic Rabbi believes that, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Jewish people wouldn’t.

  65. Allan

    How are the cherries today?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.