- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

‘Brexit’ and Cameron’s Desperate Fear-mongering

Sebastian Payne notes [1] that David Cameron’s fear-mongering over “Brexit” is getting worse:

Mr Johnson’s rhetoric was more measured than Mr Cameron’s, who warned in his speech that voting to leave the bloc could lead to war. “Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash as to make that assumption,” he said. The government’s “Project Fear” is turning into “Project Terror”.

It’s possible that the Remain camp could win using these scare tactics, but it seems more likely that Cameron is making opposition to “Brexit” appear more risible and unhinged with such claims. “Brexit” isn’t going to lead to armed conflict in Europe, and it’s absurd to think that it would. This not only gives the EU too much credit for peace in Europe, but it grossly exaggerates the danger that British exit poses to regional security.

The side in any debate that resorts to the greatest threat inflation is typically the side that doesn’t have much of an argument. The Remain campaign’s greatest difficulty is that it has to make a positive case for a resented, dysfunctional, unaccountable institution, and there simply isn’t much of a case to be made. So they are stuck issuing increasingly deranged warnings of what will happen if Britain votes to leave. Contrary to what Payne says, the arguments for remaining in the EU can’t be so “clear and powerful” if the leading advocate for it isn’t making them.

7 Comments (Open | Close)

7 Comments To "‘Brexit’ and Cameron’s Desperate Fear-mongering"

#1 Comment By Dominique On May 9, 2016 @ 12:15 pm

Perhaps this is fear mongering -well, I’m quite sure-, but I do think that European integration, political as well as economic, is one of the most important reasons for the extraordinary era if post-war peace. If course, the UK joined the EU in the seventies and that itself did not in- or decrease peace or threat of conflict.

By the way, if leaving the EU is such a threat, why did he bring it up during the earlier negotiations? His actions do not back up his words.

(I by the way think they should remain in the EU and think it foolish to leave.)

#2 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 9, 2016 @ 1:02 pm

Are there any UK polls yet showing any impact of the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London on the Brexit debate?

Khan, of course, like most of Labour, is in favor of remaining in the EU, but his opinion is not the possible “Khan impact” that I’m wondering about.

#3 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On May 9, 2016 @ 1:37 pm

The most important question still: what prevents Cameron from ignoring the results of the referendum so long they are undesirable? His Dutch colleagues have recently dealt with the problem right that way.

#4 Comment By Yorkie On May 9, 2016 @ 2:25 pm

Yes, they don’t have much of an argument, they never have.

But they have a large number of younger people who can’t remember what the UK was like before joining (ie that we managed to trade and operate independently fairly well), the younger generation also aren’t the ones who were mislead by Heath into joining so they don’t remember this.

Meanwhile they’ve been fed a diet of nonsense through the media and schools, in particular the BBC over the years.

Under freedom of information it becomes clear that Heath knew exactly what the EU was and what it would become, it has never been an economic project, the institution itself is economically illiterate (see the Euro, or the CAP, or the levels of Bureaucracy) it is solely ideological.

Anyone who has actually looked at the trends since the EU’s creation in the fifties would see the growth and centralisation of power over time.

So yes, fear is used, the other favoured approach would be smears against detractors. As though wanting your nation to be independent and act in its own interests and to its own strengths (which aren’t universal) boils down to some sort of pathological hatred of foreigners.

It also assumes another nonsense, that nations can’t co-operate, trade for mutual benefit and support each other unless they’re tied together in a customs union (ie protectionist racket) and operating under a bloated supranational institution.

Cameron is also becoming desperate because of all of the media coverage Turkey imminent membership is causing. Even your typical uneducated Joe Soap knows that Turkey in the single market (ie free movement, entitlement to benefits etc) isn’t a great idea…

Turkey:- Human rights abuses, suppression of the media, majority Islamic, despotic government, corrupt…..what’s not to like?

Incidentally, if the EU keeps expanding into Eastern Europe (which they intend to do) to the point we further threaten Russia that “European peace in our time” notion may be tested.

#5 Comment By Yorkie On May 9, 2016 @ 2:57 pm

Oh, and if I may add. Since this is an american website and I don’t want to be accused of not giving credit where it’s due.

The EU isn’t what has prevented war, look at the pathetic EU army which they claim doesn’t exist, or the pitiful state of the armed forces in Britain, France or whichever European country you’d care to pick.

NATO maintained peace in Europe. Not least because NATO has historically had a member who’s got aeroplanes to fly off their aircraft carriers…..

We’ve just got the aircraft carriers.

So, while a lot of you can’t talk properly, thanks very much anyway.

#6 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 10, 2016 @ 1:28 am

“EU keeps expanding into Eastern Europe (which they intend to do)”

I think it is the encouragement to violent uprisings that concerns Russia and gives excuse for an aggressive response.

“So, while a lot of you can’t talk properly, thanks very much anyway.”

if ya was talkin’ ’bout my righten that would be one thawng. but critterzizin my spewch is fighten’ yamer.

by da way

– yur welcome .

#7 Comment By Dominique On May 10, 2016 @ 2:02 am

Of course NATO contributed much to peace. Maybe the biggest contributor.

1. American military dominance in NATO Europe prevented and made unnecessary the rise of a major European power.
2. It provided and needed political and military cooperation.
3. It allowed European countries to invest in civil programs, which, having its own positive effects, prevented military competition.
4. It, in a way, demilitarized any potential Soviet threat.