Responding to Donald Tusk’s letter to EU heads of government, Vote Leave Ltd. CEO, Matthew Elliott, said:
In an effort to secure a deal at any cost, David Cameron is only asking for trivial things, not the “fundamental change” he used to say we need.
That sound you can hear is the point, flying over Mr Elliott’s head. David Cameron is certainly determined to secure a deal to keep Britain in a “reformed EU”, as he has repeated several times since the start of the “renegotiation” process. However, the changes that Mr Cameron hopes to present to British voters as “a British model of membership” are not “trivial”. David Cameron is giving a nod to the European Commission that he is willing to accept a “reform” package that places Britain in such a weak position that the same idea was previously rejected by Edward Heath.
The move to a two-tier/two-speed EU outlined in the Bertelsmann/Spinelli, A Fundamental Law for the European Union, gestured towards in the Five President’s Report and in Jean-Claude Junker’s most recent State of the Union address, represent a “fundamental change”. That much was recently explained by “EU federalist”, Guy Verhofstadt, to an uncomprehending Jon Snow, when he appeared on Channel Four News, having earlier that day met with David Cameron.
There is little indication that the legacy journos understand what Mr Verhofstadt means when he talks, with commendable candour, about “two types of membership”. In that sense, the bloggers with no budget are putting the well-financed campaign groups to shame and are, as usual, leading the debate.
The best summary of the “Cameron deception” to date is probably the Bruges Group EU Renegotiation Briefing, which explains that the Prime Minister is engaging in “renegotiation theatre” in an attempt to save face and make his total acquiesence to a pre-existing EU plan look even half-way respectable.
While Vote Leave and Leave.EU have mistaken Mr Cameron’s call for “fundamental reform” for “trivial” “fudge”, EUReferendum.com and LeaveHQ have busied themselves putting together a comprehensive and compelling response to British Influence’s list of questions that “all supporters of Brexit” must answer.
Even so, there is a strong likelihood that British Influence, which has so far completely failed to make the case for supranationalism and the surrender of the British peoples’ sovereign power to undemocratic EU institutions, will attempt to ignore the progressive case for Brexit articulated with considerable intellectual and moral force by these groups.
For the time being, these endeavours may only be evident among a small but growing online community, but as more people make themselves aware of the fact that leaving the EU is not only preferable, but possible and safe, the ranks of those who support the case for Brexit put forward by EUReferendum.com and LeaveHQ will swell. If for no other reason than the fact that the quality of argumentation on those sites gives Brexiteers the ammunition necessary to take the fight to the opposition.
If you want to whinge but ultimately achieve nothing then the established “leaver” groups may be for you. If you want to make a real contribution towards Britain leaving the EU and agreeing a new relationship with our continental allies based on intergovernmental co-operation and not supranational subordination then LeaveHQ and EUReferendum.com should be your first port of call.