The real reason that the UK is having an EU in/out referendum

I have been thinking about this for some time now as an in/out referendum in the UK does not make a great deal of sense to me. I will say now that this is nothing but my own personal opinion on the subject, I have to proof, no links, not even a dubious youtube video on which to base my claims.

The EU has been a long time in the making, those involved have a very tong term game plan and are far from stupid. Anyone who really believes that the politicians and financial moguls running the show are genuinley inept are mistaken.

The UK is very important to the EU and the EU is very important to the elite of the UK otherwise it would never been allowed to happen. The EU wants the UK and all political parties(exept UKIP lol) Want to remain in the EU yet we are supposed to believe that things have been allowed to develop in such a way that enough of the UK population is so angered at the situation that a referendum needs to be held so the people of the UK can CHOOSE to either stay in the EU or leave(Just think about that for a moment and decide if you really believe that we will actually be allowed to make that kind of decision).

So the question is why allow things to develop in such a way that a mutually benificial arrangment is put in jepoardy? Is this really down accident or is it by design? If it is by design then there must be a reason, this referendum must be a pre arranged charade in a bigger plan created long ago, maybe even decades.

I will admit that I am not a historian or politician so from here on I may be wrong, if s let me know

Germany made two attempts by force to control Europe and failed, The UK has a long history of conquest but is now sadly in decline. In order to create a European union countries had to willingly agree to join of there own accord and as such there must have been a benificial reason to do so. Now that most of the countries worth having are in then it could be said that it's time to move into phase 2.

The EU has been pushing the limits with the UK for some time now and the media has been allowed to run with this, at the last general election Ukip and there leader Nigel Farage(a former tory and commodity broker) fired up the UK population to such a degree that the Tories were "forced" to promise an in/out referendum.

The Tory party wish to stay in the EU but in order to placate the UK voters certain concessions will need to be made in order to give the UK a better deal and vote to stay in the EU. Our esteemed leader will then DEMAND that if the EU wishes to keep the UK then these demands will have to be met or we will leave.

The EU will initially kick up a big fuss refusing to allow the UK special treatment but will eventually reluctantly agree IF... France and Germany are given the same concessions and privilages.

At this point al the other nations in the EU will also demand the same deal and will be told in no uncertain terms to sod off as they are not important enough to warrent such a deal, that they now need the EU to survive and by the way they owe quite a lt of money so keep it zipped.

So I predict that we will stay in the EU but have greater powers alongside France and Germany, a couple of countries may get the odd pre arranged benifit to placate there own disgruntled populations somewhat and the big shots can then start thinking about moving onto phase 3.

So in simple terms within a European union all countries are equal but some are more equal than others.

Okay, a lot of Tory Backbenchers want out of Europe and many stalwart Tory supporters want out. But the Bilderbergers within Parliament all need us to stay in, ncluding the very man who is affording us the opportunity to partake in a referendum.

Thatcher was a Bilderberger and initially they put her into a position of power and initially she was quite laid back on Europe. She looked enviously at the Germans and their work ethic and believed in it. She supported Europe right up until she felt they had betrayed her and the Maastricht Treaty came about. She could see what the intentions were, a Federal Europe and changed tune over Europe, which eventually led to her downfall.

Major was a Bilderberger, so was Blair, Brown and Cameron. Oh and so is Osborne, Milliband and Balls. Bilderbergers encamped within the Conservative and Labour parties.

Cameron wants to stay in, he has admitted that, and has set the referendum after a time he has managed to secure reforms of certain European laws. There won't be any reforms, with the exception of some employment legislation, giving more powers back to employers.

Of course, the rise of UKIP has escalated this European debate and more power to Farage for doing so. I don't particularly buy into his politics, but I enjoy listening to him talk, as I feel he is a straight talking politician. This has got the Euro sceptics in parliament and the public more importantly debating our membership of club E.U.

Cameron has been promising us a referendum if we voted in him, as at the time of his promise it was very likely the vote would be a resounding 'Yes'. We are now 5 years on from his promise and it's going to be a further 18 months maximum before we get to put a little cross in our box of choice. He squirms every time he is asked about Europe, I personally think he is regretting saying it now, but a promise is a promise.

originally posted by: nonspecific

The EU wants the UK and all political parties(exept UKIP lol) Want to remain in the EU yet we are supposed to believe that things have been allowed to develop in such a way that enough of the UK population is so angered at the situation that a referendum needs to be held so the people of the UK can CHOOSE to either stay in the EU or leave(Just think about that for a moment and decide if you really believe that we will actually be allowed to make that kind of decision).

So the question is why allow things to develop in such a way that a mutually benificial arrangment is put in jepoardy?

.

I agree with your view. Govts in so called demcratic countries do not permit their electors to have referundums unless they are cerrtain of the outcome or they are trying to over comelegal obstacle to their plans.

We are supposed to be pepople are goverend by the people for the people which means that in oder that to be put into effect we must beocme a referundem driven socienty.

Govt of the pople by the people is a lot more than casting a vote every xyz years and then being relegated to a spectator of govt decision making and action.

I cant reember if the brits were permitted to have a referundem on joining the EQ in the first place or not but making a major decision such as joining the EU should be not have been possible without the assent of the people before it can becme law.

Moreovers continued membership should also be asubject to review by the people every so often via a referundem eg 5 years or so. This will enable the brit people to undo the decision if they later feel it was the wrong decision in the first place or that continued membership is no longer appropriate for whatever reason.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

The fundemental issues I have with the referendum are as I said in the OP that the EU/UK governmnt would allow the situation to get to a point where a referendum was needed and that the UK population actually thinks we will be allowed to leave.

Maybe it is just my cynical tinfoin hat illuminati side causing this I don't know.

As I inferred in the OP I am pretty much convinced that UKIP was set up in order to create enough of a buzz to "force" Cameron into a referendum to further the plan and will be richly rewarded, This could explain how as soon as the election was over he tried to resign.

originally posted by: nonspecific

The EU will initially kick up a big fuss refusing to allow the UK special treatment but will eventually reluctantly agree IF... France and Germany are given the same concessions and privilages.

I thought the U.K. already has been given special treatment, allowing them to keep the pound, instead of €uro.
(Which is an economical advantage in my opinion, look at Greece and others)

So in simple terms within a European union all countries are equal but some are more equal than others.

That's right, what countries, other than Germany, France and U.K. have any real say in EU politics?
EU was a nation takeover, without a single weapon fired.
In their point of view, this was a much more efficient way than let's say, start another world war...

a reply to: Tyrion79

Yes the EU already has an elite in the UK France and Germany.

My point was that now it has sucked in all the other nations of Europe and put them in a position were they cannot easily get out because of debt, subsidies and benifits it is now time to take it to the next level.

They cannot simply implement this without reason so by creating a situation where the UK has a referendum these alterations can be contrived via the demands of the UK to remain in the UK and France and Germany can only agree to this if they have the same privaliges.

So in order to keep the UK the EU reluctantly agree to the UK's terms, the French and Germans demand the same rights and something that was decided decades ago comes to fruition.

The other nations may cry and moan but by now are so deep in there is nothing they can do about it.

Another thing, is any referendum in U.K. binding?
Because it's not here in the Netherlands (You can vote all you want, in the end the decision is already made).

On a side note; Whatever happened to the Scots in their centuries old struggle for independance,
when they voted a NO?
Please explain this to me, as I'm an outsider trying to understand this.

a reply to: nonspecific

I agree that EU was already in the making, years before it was implemented for the public. I'll have to do some research to provide any links /info.
I think this was a (experimental?) startup for the NWO, to join nations and centralising power.
Also, how does Agenda 21 fit in all of this.
I'll be back with more info.

The other nations may cry and moan but by now are so deep in there is nothing they can do about it.

That's what politicians keep telling us here in Holland in every public debate, that it's too expensive and complicated to revert back before the Euro.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
Another thing, is any referendum in U.K. binding?
Because it's not here in the Netherlands (You can vote all you want, in the end the decision is already made).

On a side note; Whatever happened to the Scots in their centuries old struggle for independance,
when they voted a NO?
Please explain this to me, as I'm an outsider trying to understand this.

To put it simply people were allowed to put in postal votes which were then taken to Westminster [London ] to be counted

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: nonspecific

I agree that EU was already in the making, years before it was implemented for the public. I'll have to do some research to provide any links /info.
I think this was a (experimental?) startup for the NWO, to join nations and centralising power.
Also, how does Agenda 21 fit in all of this.
I'll be back with more info.

The other nations may cry and moan but by now are so deep in there is nothing they can do about it.

That's what politicians keep telling us here in Holland in every public debate, that it's too expensive and complicated to revert back before the Euro.

Meanwhile it's becoming more expensive and much more complicated to stay in the E.U.

It doesn't matter I guess, because by the time 2017 arrives, if it looks like the U.K will be leaving, the E.U will more than likely introduce a law, banning any in/out referendums.

As you are from Holland, what are your thoughts on the E.U? Are you pro or anti?

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: Tyrion79
Another thing, is any referendum in U.K. binding?
Because it's not here in the Netherlands (You can vote all you want, in the end the decision is already made).

On a side note; Whatever happened to the Scots in their centuries old struggle for independance,
when they voted a NO?
Please explain this to me, as I'm an outsider trying to understand this.

To put it simply people were allowed to put in postal votes which were then taken to Westminster [London ] to be counted

Lol, do you think that was the reason?

I thought the old adage 'better the devil you know', was the reason.

These are some things I came up with, feel free to add some additional input.
Apparently, the precursor of the European Union was, in part, the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, founded in 1948 to help coordinate the Marshall Plan (American initiative to aid Europe in recovery after the war).
Note who the largest recipients of Marshall Plan money (of 13 Billion total) were:
United Kingdom 26%
France 18%
West-Germany 11%
Remarkable, if you compare it to todays influence of these countries in the EU. With Germany having the strongest economy as of 2015.
The United States also directly funded prominent European pro-federalists through the government funded American Committee on United Europe.

Winston Churchill, standing next to Robert Schuman (French Foreign Minister), had called for Franco-German reconciliation in a united Europe in a speech in Metz on 14 July 1946. In Zurich, Churchill later called for a "United States of Europe" and, in the meantime, the formation of a "Council of Europe".

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 was a governmental proposal to create a new form of organisation of states in Europe called a "supranational community".

In speeches before the United Nations, Schuman announced that a revitalized Germany must be placed inside a European democracy.The Council of Europe was duly created to provide the great framework of a European union (as it was originally called) in which the European Communities could be inserted.

It would appear, that U.S. used the rebuilding of Europe and the forming of the European Union aka the “United States of Europe” as a forefront to counter the communist “threat” of the East, while increasing their influence, through centralising power in Europe.
All which will ultimately lead to a one world government, which I would describe as the so-called New World Order.

I'd like to finish with a quote from Churchill, that he made in 1920, recognising the connection between the Illuminati and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extra- ordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
(see A history of the New World Order — Part I)

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
As you are from Holland, what are your thoughts on the E.U? Are you pro or anti?

I'm definately anti.
I voted NO against the Lisbon Treaty, as did most of my people btw, but look where that got us.
They signed an edited version a couple of months later, without a referendum.
Same happened in France and how many times did the Irish vote no, until they scared the people enough with potentially severe economic repercussions, so eventually it turned to a yes.