Disinformation (lies and statistics)
The main goal is in plain sight and yet it is mendaciously obscured. Voters are confused: what they can plainly see is different from what they are told so they lose confidence in their ability to understand and many would rather leave the decision to better-qualified people, such as the mandarins in Brussels, and London.
Why and how have reasonably honourable people, like David Cameron and previous Prime Ministers, deceived us? It’s because they are patricians who believe they are acting for our good, in spite of our narrow mindedness. This is true of EU leaders in general, as their high-handedness often demonstrates, even overriding national referendums that counter their plans. British politicians are not immune to this disdainful attitude:
The British people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked. Peter Thorneycroft, former UK government minister.
From the pens of the EU’s five Presidents (References *1) it is clear that the interests of member states are subservient to the Project as a whole:
“Today’s divergence creates fragility for the whole Union … We must correct this divergence and embark on a new convergence process … [which] would be made more binding through a set of commonly agreed benchmarks for convergence that could be given a legal nature… This report puts forward ideas which … can be translated into laws and institutions”.
The sleight of hand, revealing the true agenda through implausible claims, is evident here (References *1):
“This longer-term vision needs [to] prepare the ground for a complete architecture in the medium term. This will inevitably involve sharing more sovereignty over time … [T]his would require Member States to accept increasingly joint decision-making on elements of their respective national budgets”.
Note the implausible claims in this section of the Report, signalled by: “ensures”, “guarantees”, “delivers” and “provides the foundation”. Not one of these is founded on theoretical or empirical evidence; each is used to justify ever closer union.
It is not true that the current purpose of the EU and EMU is to improve economic, political and social development among their members. On the contrary, such developments are promoted to support the “deepening” of the EU and the “completion” of EMU (*1), so strategy and tactics are reversed. The founders assumed that European countries could not be trusted to keep the peace without a supervisor. Now they cannot even be trusted to run their own economies. Member states are obliged to hand over ever more responsibilities in order to promote ever-closer union. The argument that this union promotes development is stated often but never substantiated. Why should we believe that merely creating a supra-national power can create conditions that would summon up the forces needed to produce growth and reduce unemployment? It isn’t happening.