Britain will vote to leave the EU if the public message is right

Robert  Henderson

One thing about the coming EU referendum is certain: it will be a much fairer fight than that which occurred in 1975 when  the  stay-in camp had captured most leading politicians including all the party leaders,  all  the mainstream media and most of big business . In addition, the stay-in side then had funding which utterly dwarfed that of the get-out campaign and, not content with that advantage,  used the  government machine to  produce its own pamphlet on the renegotiations to go alongside  those of the stay-in and leave campaigns.  Perhaps most damaging was a lack of preparation for the vote by those who wanted to leave the EEC.

Today we have an established mainstream party  Ukip  unequivocally urging a vote to leave,  substantial support within  both the Tory and Labour parliamentary parties, including frontbenchers  and senior backbenchers. In addition influential business voices such as Lord Bamford of JCB Ltd and business groups  such as Business for Britain are raising their voice to both allay fears that  the British economy  would collapse  in a heap if we left the EU and advertise  the considerable  costs,  both economic and political,  which membership of the EU entails. There are even signs that the unions may be turning against the EU with the leader of Britain’s largest union Unit, Len McCluskey, suggesting that Britain might have to pull out if the EU’s labour  legislation is watered down as a result of Cameron’s renegotiation.

There is a further  important difference between 1975 and now.  In 1975 Britain had been in what was then the European Economic Community (EEC)for  less than three  years.  There was little for voters to go on to say  whether the EEC was going to be a good or bad thing.  Nor was the EEC anything like as intrusive as the EU is now.  Today the British people  know that the EU has not turned out to be the  driver of economic growth that was promised in the 1970s,  but a supranational  entity in  which the Europhile  political elites  are willing to ruthlessly enforce their will to achieve their end of a United States of Europe (is the only honest interpretation of the Treaty of Rome) regardless of the effects this has on  ordinary people, something of  which  the people of Greece are now only too savagely aware.

It is true that David  Cameron is  doing his best to fix the result. His government has announced that the civil service will not have to cease publicly commenting on the referendum  for the last four weeks of campaigning before the referendum  and the proposed referendum question  –Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? –  is clearly biased because it emphasises  membership as the status quo  and gifts the YES vote to those who want to remain in the EU..  Perhaps most importantly, the spending rules in the referendum are slanted to favour those parties which will be likely to support a vote to stay in. But none  of these disadvantages are set in stone and   could be challenged  as the European Referendum Bill makes its way through Parliament or  by judicial review.  Moreover,  even if  all these pro-stay-in pieces of jigger-pokery remain unchanged  they will not be insuperable obstacles to a vote to leave because our circumstances are so  very  different  from those of 1975. .  There is also a possibility that Cameron will carry through his threat to insist that  all  those in his government  must  support whatever terms he decides to put to the country or resign. However, that would backfire if many did leave the government or  Cameron backed  down on his threat.   Either way he  would look weak and  strengthen the impression that leading  politicians are increasingly wanting to leave the  EU.

It is vital not to panic over polls which show that a majority will vote to stay in the EU.  Since Britain joined the EEC the polls have  regularly swung violently. The determining factor will be  political leadership or perhaps more exactly what the British elite – politicians, mediafolk, businessmen, academics –  say in public .  The vast majority of electors do not make their decisions by careful unemotional analysis of abstruse economic data or ideological belief, but on basic emotional responses such as fear and hope.   If there is support for leaving the EU, or even just an acknowledgement that leaving would not be a disaster for Britain,  from a broad swathe of those with a public voice,   enough of  the general public are likely to be persuaded to vote to leave to  win the referendum.

At the heart of the OUT campaign  must be Britain’s  complete inability to control her  borders while we remain in the EU.  Polls consistently show that immigration is one of the  major concerns of the British public and,  when the politically correct inspired terror of speaking honestly about race and immigration is taken into account, it is odds on that immigration is the number one issue by a wide margin.  A British Future report in 2014 found that 25% of those included in the research wanted not only an end to immigration but the removal of all immigrants already in the UK and a YouGov poll commissioned by  Channel 5  in 2014 found that 70% of those questioned wanted an end to mass immigration.  If  Britain leaves the EU it will not only allow the legal control of EU migrants but also removes from  British politicians any excuse for not controlling immigration generally.

Putting immigration at the heart of the OUT campaign would also have the bonus of appealing to the Scots through  a subject on which they feel  much the same as the rest of the UK, that is they are   opposed to mass immigration.  That is important because the SNP are trying to establish grounds for Scotland having a veto over the UK leaving the EU if Scotland votes to stay in the EU and either England  or England, Wales and Northern Ireland  vote to leave.  The larger the vote to leave the EU in Scotland is, the less moral  leverage they will have for  either a veto over Britain leaving  the EU or another independence referendum.

The other central plank to for the campaign should be the fact that it does not matter what Cameron obtains by his renegotiation, because whilst we remain within the EU any concessions given now may be reversed at a later date by the EU, most probably  in cahoots with a British government consisting of Europhiles. “Legal” guarantees such as Britain’s opt-out for the Social Chapter  were rapidly undermined by using EU workplace health and safety rules to impose much of the Social Chapter.

Nigel Farage does not need to be the campaign’s  sole leader , but he does need to be a very  prominent part of the leadership. If he does not take a lead role the OUT campaign is likely to end up in the hands of people who have bought into the politically correct view of the world. That would mean the immigration card will not be played with the vigour it demands or even played meaningfully  at all.

More generally, what this campaign needs is emphatic, unambiguous and above all honest  unvarnished explanation of what the EU represents,   It needs  Farage at the forefront of the OUT campaign  to set that tone.  No one else will do it.

This entry was posted in Economics, Immigration, Nationhood and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Britain will vote to leave the EU if the public message is right

  1. Peter Brown says:

    One of the big problems is Richard North and the Bruges Group who are advocating the second referendum to decide whether to secede or join a ‘half-way house’ policy of rejoining EFTA or another EEC route. So far, they appear to be gaining some traction with the idiot Boris Johnson postulating that it is a good idea. Others seem to think that a ‘No’ would inevitably lead towards a second referendum.

    The wording of the referendum is quite explicit in that it is a straight IN or OUT referendum with no mandate to muddy the waters with alternative ‘EU Lite’ membership.

    It must be the policy of those such as ourselves to emphasise to the undecided public that anything other than leaving completely will leave us with the ‘Free Movement’ directive which will solve none of our immigration problems. If fact, the EU are actually paying immigrants to move here.

    We are fighting an uphill battle is some respects as no political party or the medial will highlight some of the more frightening moves towards suppression of the population and I am sure that if members of the public, especially those in the North that have moved away from Labour in favour of UKIP were to know some of it, they would see the writing on the wall of how the EU, literally, will control all of our lives. Much of the EU is gearing up both politically and even militarily towards physical suppression. I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory but the ebook available from my website entitled ‘Democracy in a Federalized Europe’ outlines many such moves and all are supported from official EU documents and respected other sources. Anyone that would care to read the ebook can download it free of charge from the website or direct from my dropbox account at

    Keep up the good work Robert, it is invaluable

  2. As long as most people believe Cameron’s hype that the UK economy is doing “very well” it is very unlikely that the “OUT” voters will get even 40% of the vote. If you think the scare stories have already begun – and they have – the lead-up to the referendum will be dominated by “big business” leaders and assorted celebrities warning that a “No” vote will lead to mass unemployment, the collapse of sterling (bye, bye, European holidays), hardship, even starvation, yadda, yadda. The only hope I see for the “No” vote prevailing is that the UK economy – and perhaps the entire world economy – tanks at some time in the next couple of years. Since that is a very realistic likelihood (perhaps a 30% probability) then the No’s might win – but only in that scenario.

  3. Mike Munford says:

    Dear Mr Henderson,

    I’ve just read your devastating critique of Mrs Thatcher, whom I’ve always greatly admired, and it’s very hard to argue with almost everything you say. I shall spend more time reading through some more of your work on this site and your other one, and may if you permit comment.

    I also admire this article on the Referendum. It’s a different slant from my own one and I wonder if I would have written mine in quite the same way if I’d had your comments first. I’d love to hear what you think of it or of any of my other articles. Negative comments, of course – positive comments are nice but not useful.

    I feel the comments function on UKIP Daily is ceasing to be much use and I’d like very much to open up a bit of dialogue with people like yourself and one or two other contributors. Two minds are always better than one.

    • Sadly comment sections generally seem to be losing their popularity. Perhaps it is just a reflection on the immense number of sites offering them today. Even well known sites such as Civitas have next to no comments. For myself I am always happy to engage in discussion and debate.

      Thatcher in a way is a tragic case because she so obviously believed in what she was doing but had no understanding of the consequences of her policies.

  4. W*T H*L*B*T says:

    Reblogged this on Rnm101's Blog and commented:
    Out, Out, Out!

  5. david brown says:

    the not pre- moderated readers comments on this article are interesting given that the Daily Express supports UKIP. Does anyone know if a member state is actually allowed to leave the EU , There is strong evidence to suggest that Greece was not. Maybe the EU had a plan B engineer chaos if they had tried to leave then send in to restore order.

  6. david brown says:

    this is how to damage the in campaign

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s