Johnson’s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. It’s time to be brave, he says.

Boris Johnson exclusive: There is only one way to get the change we want – vote to leave the EU

David Cameron has done his very best, but a vote to Remain will be taken in Brussels as a green light for the further erosion of democracy

Boris Johnson accused of trying to hide pollution levels before Olympics

Mayor of London Boris Johnson Photo: GETTY IMAGES

I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe – the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor – with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23.

And it is important to remember: it isn’t we in this country who have changed. It is the European Union. In the 28 years since I first started writing for this paper about the Common Market – as it was then still known – the project has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisable, rather as the vast new Euro palaces of glass and steel now lour over the little cobbled streets in the heart of the Belgian capital.

When I went to Brussels in 1989, I found well-meaning officials (many of them British) trying to break down barriers to trade with a new procedure – agreed by Margaret Thatcher – called Qualified Majority Voting. The efforts at harmonisation were occasionally comical, and I informed readers about euro-condoms and the great war against the British prawn cocktail flavour crisp. And then came German reunification, and the panicked efforts of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand to “lock” Germany into Europe with the euro; and since then the pace of integration has never really slackened.

As new countries have joined, we have seen a hurried expansion in the areas for Qualified Majority Voting, so that Britain can be overruled more and more often (as has happened in the past five years). We have had not just the Maastricht Treaty, but Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon, every one of them representing an extension of EU authority and a centralisation in Brussels. According to the House of Commons library, anything between 15 and 50 per cent of UK legislation now comes from the EU; and remember that this type of legislation is very special.

It is unstoppable, and it is irreversible – since it can only be repealed by the EU itself. Ask how much EU legislation the Commission has actually taken back under its various programmes for streamlining bureaucracy. The answer is none. That is why EU law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards. We are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy. Then – and this is the key point – the EU acquires supremacy in any field that it touches; because it is one of the planks of Britain’s membership, agreed in 1972, that any question involving the EU must go to Luxembourg, to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.

It was one thing when that court contented itself with the single market, and ensuring that there was free and fair trade across the EU. We are now way beyond that stage. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the court has taken on the ability to vindicate people’s rights under the 55-clause “Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”, including such peculiar entitlements as the right to found a school, or the right to “pursue a freely chosen occupation” anywhere in the EU, or the right to start a business.

These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced. Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter.

Alas, that opt-out has not proved legally durable, and there are real fears among British jurists about the activism of the court. The more the EU does, the less room there is for national decision-making. Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.

Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians – as with immigration. That enrages them; not so much the numbers as the lack of control. That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty – the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives. We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are “all the same” and can change nothing, and to the rise of extremist parties.

Democracy matters; and I find it deeply worrying that the Greeks are effectively being told what to do with their budgets and public spending, in spite of huge suffering among the population. And now the EU wants to go further. There is a document floating around Brussels called “The Five Presidents Report”, in which the leaders of the various EU institutions map out ways to save the euro. It all involves more integration: a social union, a political union, a budgetary union. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected.

David Cameron has done his very best, and he has achieved more than many expected. There is some useful language about stopping “ever-closer union” from applying to the UK, about protecting the euro outs from the euro ins, and about competition and deregulation.

There is an excellent forthcoming Bill that will assert the sovereignty of Parliament, the fruit of heroic intellectual labour by Oliver Letwin, which may well exercise a chilling effect on some of the more federalist flights of fancy of the court and the Commission. It is good, and right, but it cannot stop the machine; at best it can put a temporary and occasional spoke in the ratchet.

There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share. They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not.

It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.

I also accept there is a risk that a vote to Leave the EU, as it currently stands, will cause fresh tensions in the union between England and Scotland. On the other hand, most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the Scots will vote on roughly the same lines as the English.

We will be told that a Brexit would embolden Putin, though it seems to me he is more likely to be emboldened, for instance, by the West’s relative passivity in Syria.

Above all, we will be told that whatever the democratic deficiencies, we would be better off remaining in because of the “influence” we have. This is less and less persuasive to me. Only 4 per cent of people running the Commission are UK nationals, when Britain contains 12 per cent of the EU population. It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service. Are we really unable to do trade deals? We will have at least two years in which the existing treaties will be in force.

The real risk is to the general morale of Europe, and to the prestige of the EU project. We should take that seriously.

We should remember that this federalist vision is not an ignoble idea. It was born of the highest motives – to keep the peace in Europe. The people who run the various EU institutions – whom we like to ply with crass abuse – are, in my experience, principled and thoughtful officials. They have done some very good things: I think of the work of Sir Leon Brittan, for instance, as Competition Commissioner, and his fight against state aid.

They just have a different view of the way Europe should be constructed. I would hope they would see a vote to leave as a challenge, not just to strike a new and harmonious relationship with Britain (in which those benefits could be retained) but to recover some of the competitiveness that the continent has lost in the last decades.

Whatever happens, Britain needs to be supportive of its friends and allies – but on the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interested, associated, but not absorbed; with Europe – but not comprised. We have spent 500 years trying to stop continental European powers uniting against us. There is no reason (if everyone is sensible) why that should happen now, and every reason for friendliness.

For many Conservatives, this has already been a pretty agonising business. Many of us are deeply internally divided, and we are divided between us. We know that we do not agree on the substance, but I hope we can all agree to concentrate on the arguments; to play the ball and not the man.

At the end of it all, we want to get a result, and then get on and unite around David Cameron – continuing to deliver better jobs, better housing, better health, education and a better quality of life for our constituents for whom (let’s be frank) the EU is not always the number one issue.

It is entirely thanks to the Prime Minister, his bravery and energy, and the fact that he won a majority Conservative government, that we are having a referendum at all. Never forget that if it were down to Jeremy Corbyn and the so-called People’s Party, the people would be completely frozen out.

This is the right moment to have a referendum, because as Europe changes, Britain is changing too. This is a truly great country that is now going places at extraordinary speed. We are the European, if not the world, leaders in so many sectors of the 21st-century economy; not just financial services, but business services, the media, biosciences, universities, the arts, technology of all kinds (of the 40 EU technology companies worth more than $1 billion, 17 are British); and we still have a dizzyingly fertile manufacturing sector.

Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets beyond. This is a moment to be brave, to reach out – not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else.

We have given so much to the world, in ideas and culture, but the most valuable British export and the one for which we are most famous is the one that is now increasingly in question: parliamentary democracy – the way the people express their power.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote for real change in Britain’s relations with Europe. This is the only opportunity we will ever have to show that we care about self-rule. A vote to Remain will be taken in Brussels as a green light for more federalism, and for the erosion of democracy.

In the next few weeks, the views of people like me will matter less and less, because the choice belongs to those who are really sovereign – the people of the UK. And in the matter of their own sovereignty the people, by definition, will get it right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167643/Boris-Johnson-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change-we-want-vote-to-leave-the-EU.html

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

23 Responses to “Johnson’s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. It’s time to be brave, he says.”

  1. Dublinmick says:

    The time to be brave was right after Robin of Locksley was murdered. Big fail here.

    • The thing that can confuse matters, in some minds when considering the truth and reality of all that’s going on, including haplotypes, of the White Man and the Neadnerthal based Khazars
      You cant get much whiter than him above

    • Dublinmick says:

      If they kick them all out, Lizzie would have leave town also! LOL

      • On yr latest Putin Royal Arch, Valenti and the doubles in NZ. Are they doubles, or clones. Could it mean, if the articles correct, Putin really has broken free of hisRoyal Arch programming. We are witnessing a genuine face off in Syria, not an illuminati pretend theatre? Id like to think so |Dublinmick.
        The fly in the ointment, is how chemtrails are being sprayed over Moscow. This is a concern. Putin wouldn’t allow them, if he was really on the side of good and against the NWO?
        Unless as ive suggested before, Putins not all powerful in Russia, underneath the veneer fabric are different factions, and Putin hasn’t the power to stop a certain Rothschild infiltrated faction of the Russian air force, from spraying chemtrails. What do you think?

        And BTW if the DC, London, and Vatican obelisks all got demolished tomorrow…..Do you think we would see strange noticeable differences in the world around us? Either geopolitically or even visually? Those are not decoration obelisks to look pretty! Theyre doing some kind of job

      • Dublinmick says:

        Adam, sometimes when you don’t know, you just have to say I don’t know. I went searching for something on russia and chemtrails and ran into this!!!!!!!

        I can’t say it is true, but on the other hand I am not position to say nay. If nothing else Preston can be entertaining at times. I will keep looking on the chemtrail matter.

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/02/secret-space-war-xiii-alien-partners-tell-putin-dont-worry-weve-got-your-back/

  2. Tapestry says:

    On the scale of good and evil, where does Boris Johnson lie? He backed David Cameron 100% for the leadership of the Conservative Party, blanking the other candidates entirely in The Spectator, saying blatantly ‘This is Cameron Country’. His reward was to be given a shot for Mayor Of London, an opportunity he converted. Now dumping Cameron suits his interests better. The Parliamentary Party has had enough of Cameron, and Boris sees his chance to strike against both him and his unpopular chosen successor George Osborne. Whether he successfully drags Britain towards an EU exit remains to be seen. He’s seen Trump advancing on the strength of outspoken opposition to the NWO programme in the US. Corbyn nearly went the whole way but stops short of open defiance of the EU. Let’s see. Boris might get an appetite for rebelliousness against the cabal which moves politics away from the endless wars etc. At least it’s something new to hope for.

    • ian says:

      At least it’s something new to hope for………………………………………………..Yes indeed, and boy do we need that.

  3. Dublinmick says:

    I don’t care for RI but this one is not too bad.

    One guy says this:

    Supposedly only very rarely, which may be a drift from sprayings from outside Russia.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/what-does-putin-want-major-analysis-rostislav-ishchenko-must-read/6001

    Putin Accuses U.S. Of Spraying Poisonous Chemtrails Over Syria

    http://yournewswire.com/putin-accuses-u-s-of-spraying-poisonous

    • Dublinmick says:

      Nope found more. Putin does agree with my thesis that global warming is real. He cannot help but as new islands are showing up in the arctic off ice melt.

      Russia is pushing for next week’s landmark UN climate science report to include support for controversial technologies to geoengineer the planet’s climate, according to documents obtained by the Guardian.

      As climate scientists prepare to gather for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Stockholm to present the most authoritative state of climate science to date, it has emerged the Russian government is asking for “planet hacking” to be included in the report. The IPCC has not included geoengineering in its major assessments before.

      The documents seen by the Guardian show Russia is asking for a conclusion of the report to say that a “possible solution of this [climate change] problem can be found in using of [sic] geoengineering methods to stabilise current climate.” Russia also highlighted that its scientists are developing geoengineering technologies.

      Geoengineering aims to cool the Earth by methods including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, or fertilising the oceans with iron to create carbon-capturing algal blooms.

      Such ideas are increasingly being discussed by western scientists and governments as a plan B for addressing climate change, with the new astronomer royal, Professor Sir Martin Rees, calling last week for such methods to buy time to develop sources of clean energy. But the techniques have been criticised as a way for powerful, industrialised nations to dodge their commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

      http://www.hangthebankers.com/russia-urges-un-climate-report-to-include-geoengineering-aka-chemtrails/

      It doesn’t go into haarp technology but perhaps Russia uses the cover of the trails to study the technology. They also have similar technology from what I have read anyway, but who knows.

    • Yes, lets hope its a positive indication of something
      Thanks for the VT link
      Its peripheral clues like chemtrails Dublinmick, that can blow open a major insight to affairs.
      Just like I mentioned a few days ago, asking questions about the real Berezovsky Putin situation looking for clues

      Another peripheral bit of evidence on an unrelated matter…….points us to know, when many Christians say the chakras must remain closed. We know that this cannot be true. Governments want them closed. And the fluoride agenda calcifying the pineal gland is that peripheral clue. And then all other bits of evidence flood into back this line of thinking up, eg vaccines, GMOs, and more

      Oddly just now, windows keeps shutting down, and its due to me opening 3 exorcism websites, including one which is a Vatican run online one, Id never have thought that exorcism could be such a touchy topic for them, I thought it was just Tribe topics

  4. Dublinmick says:

    In fact you induced me to make a new post on this.

    Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering (aka chemtrails) (Trolls can take a break)

    As I have maintained for years we are in the midst of climate change. Not that I personally needed to convince myself. Some very elite Mahatmas from India told me decades ago the coming Yuga would be warm, there would be no ice caps at all.

    That is what the Mayans have been talking about non stop. That is why I am so fond of the saying:

    It is better to know than to believe.

    • I am glad to be a tiny tab on a rudder to help induce changes to turn the oil tanker around:)

    • Does this mean I need to buy a boat? Im being serious.
      Should I advise my dad to buy one?
      This worryingly feels like kevin costners waterwold is on the cards
      I just all us good people are going tobe alright. I don’t like disruption. Just flying abroad next week for a weeks holiday, I don’t want to do, I don’t like the build up, or the disruption
      I wonder how I will adapt to the Kali Yuga breaking loose?

    • I think you might be wrong on planet X. Right on 995 of things, but not this. Kingel, plus Laura Walker, plus the Hamamein guy, say its a NWO psyop. Apparenty it passed by in 2003

      Ok ill be honest. I am scared
      I think part of the reason I am scared, and ill lay things out on the table here.
      I want to go on a few beautiful dates, with someone im in thrall of, yet im behaving like a man with. Im now at that time of life and development, where I realise past immature mistakes.
      I still eel the same desires as at 16. Although yes, various changes have happened, what I define as beauty, beautiful. Much beauty is a womans inner workings, her mind too. This joins with physical beauty and I think is why I go overboard foir certain ones, when I see and sense that combination of qualities, im looking for.

      So I must gt my finger out in 2016, AND FAST. Because I want some simple romantic pleasures, lovng feelings, loving feelings |Dublinmick where ive been with a woman, and even though sex has been on the mind, far more powerful is her, wanting to be with her, as a person, her mind. Chatting about anything. With that kind of magic. Sex is powerful and wonderful but comes second
      Ive never had this.
      Talk of the kali yuga and planet x creates despair in me, real worry and despair. maybe because ive not had the satisfaction of this.
      (im nit a virgin btw. Ive had plenty of dopamine driven empty interactions)

      The Kali Yuga, Waterworld. Should I try to, and ask my Dad to, buy the best boat we can find? or a farm very inland with good soil? What a hassle and nightmare
      I wish I was a generation before the kali Yuga struck

      • Dublinmick says:

        And I consider Hamamein a NWO psyop. If he had anything to say, he wouldn’t get the press he does.

        Hercolubus is the story of our planet. When I see someone dismiss it, I keep on scrolling. And that is what most writers with very publicity do, dismiss it.

        It is bad for the stock market. It gets the locals to thinking. They don’t want panic in the sheeple at the last minute. It is also proof positive we have been fed a line about the planetary history for quite sometime.

  5. Tapestry says:

    The earth’s climate is an ice age climate. It heads into ice ages that last tens or hundreds of thousands of years. These are followed by interglacial periods. The earth has a 25,000 precession which sees the planet tip the northern hemisphere away from the sun for one quarter of that period, and towards the sun for the opposite quarter of the precession. In the precessionary 6000 approx winter the earth is more likely to be tipped into an ice age. Though there is another factor required. And that is that the build-up of ice knocks down carbon dioxide levels, which fall below 200 ppm and plant life progressively dies off.

    The ice expands as it reflects 95% of the heat of the sun back out into space, and there is no way it can be melted without another change occurring.

    The plants die off to be replaced by dust. The dust whirls and storms for thousands of years eventually depositing enough dust on top of the ice that it starts to reabsorb the heat and light of the sun. Plants recover as carbon dioxide levels rise back up above 300 ppm, and an interglacial period reestablishes.

    The way to stabilise the process is to cover the ice with artificial dust. The more CO2 there is, the healthier the plants are, and the warmth of the planet is preserved. The planet will self regulate its CO2 levels, and the more CO2 there is, the more life there will be on earth.

    • Very interesting Tap
      On on elevel, readiing your words. makes me regret agreeing to incarnate now. Even though im happy with my life up to this point 42
      Yet all this crap ahead, I regret agreeing to incarnate.

      Your words ” The way to stabilise the process is to cover the ice with artificial dust ” makes me wonder Tap, despite our disgust and dislikeof them. Could chemtrails actually be doing a good service? Could chemtrails actually be preserving the present ecosystem wher e we are all alive with our loved ones, engaging in day to day activities, in our own little worlds?
      Maybe we shouldn’t demonise chemtrails like we do. Even though im usre more sinister, bigger picture implications of chemtrails are clear and exist.
      But I hope you get my point

  6. Dublinmick says:

    On the subject of the EU, what kind of structure now calls Germans far right fringe who want to call themselves German.

    The EU now demand everybody be called an EU person, not a German. They want to ban the NPD in Germany and say they are nazis simply because they say German culture has a right to be preserved, they are anti euro currency also. That now is considered far right. These people are crazy.

    You can’t be a German, against mass immigration where the police are told to shut up about crime and rape and the people complaining are far out rightists.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.