Monthly Archives: June 2015

‘Matters EU’

For readers awaiting news of my email to David Cameron I have to admit that after writing of my intentions I realised that a Prime Ministerial statement on the recent EU Council was due; so consequently decided to wait for this; which I need not have done – but I digress, to a certain extent. Anyway, my intention to email David Cameron remains, but requires a tad more thought than originally envisaged in that I hope the response that I will receive will result in him digging a bigger pit for himself  – bigger to that he dug in response to my dossier.

When we read the Hansard report, we find that ‘matters Tunisia’ occupied most of Cameron’s statement – that is not to say that that is not important nor that events there were not terrible, however it is my contention that so are ‘matters EU’ just as important. According to Speaker Bercow there were 70 questions to Cameron, yet there were only, to my count, 6 on ‘matters EU.

William Cash (col 1187): I join the Prime Minister in expressing strong words in condemnation of the evil slaughter of British citizens and others in Tunisia and in condolence for the bereaved. At the European Council meeting, today and recently my right hon. Friend rightly reaffirmed the Common Market, British courts for British laws, the sovereignty and accountability of our national Parliament and the fundamental change in our relationship with the EU and the eurozone to which many will say yes, yes, yes. He has been buffeted by criticism from other European leaders, who are clearly not listening and who are demanding more integration rather than less. Hope springs eternal, but given his firm objectives in our vital national interests and the EU leaders’ constant criticism of them, what would it take for my right hon. Friend to recommend a no vote?

Batted away by Cameron.

Philip Davies (col 1194): Every year the EU is a smaller and smaller part of the world’s economy, its currency is a basket case, it is undemocratic and its free movement of people makes it easier for terrorists and other criminals to enter the UK from other parts of the EU. Rather than faffing about with a renegotiation when we know the Prime Minister is going to get next to nothing but dress it up as a great triumph, may I suggest that he would be better employed negotiating the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union?

Batted away by Cameron.

Bernard Jenkin (col 1195): Will the Prime Minister explain how a mere promise of treaty change can be made legally binding? (background to this question here)

Batted away by Cameron.

David Nuttall (col 1197): Will the Prime Minister please pass on my thanks to his fellow European Union leaders? Every time one of them refuses to agree to one of his very modest requests in the renegotiation process, they make the task of those of us who argue this country would be better off outside the EU just that very little bit easier.

Batted away by  Cameron.

Graham Stringer (col 1197): Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said he wanted proper, full-on treaty change. How can we take his negotiations seriously when he has dropped this reasonable demand in the first round of negotiations?

Batted away by Cameron.

Peter Bone (col 1200): Today, the Prime Minister has said that he will put the common market at the heart of our EU membership. I am sure that the British people—and myself—will be shoulder to shoulder with him on that. Why do the British media say that he cannot do this, when I know that he will not accept anything less than fundamental reform and a common market?

Batted away by Cameron.

It would seem that events handed Cameron a ”heaven sent’ opportunity to divert the attention of MPs from a subject on which he would rather not face questions  and that when he did it also allowed him to ‘bat them away’ as not worthy when considering the events in Tunisia. This begs the question: was his statement not so designed?

Another point to consider: Why were the questions on ‘matters EU’ so framed? The questions posed must have meant that those asking knew damn well they would not be answered – so why ask them in the form they were? (mind you, ‘homing in’ on that from Philip Davies – is ‘faffing about’ ‘parliamentary language’?

Cynic? Mais oui, c’est moi!

I note that in his statement Cameron yet again repeated that he had cut the EU budget, refraining from his other boast that he had vetoed a treaty.  I await with rising excitement for the day when Cameron mentions once again that he vetoed a treaty; and for an MP to rise and ask: The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated he vetoed a [EU} treaty. For this to have happened, there would have had to be a treaty ‘on the table’. If this is correct, perhaps the Prime Minister would enlighten the House with the venue and dates the Convention and Inter-Governmental Conference, that would have both been necessary, took place – but I digress as it becomes increasingly obvious that such a question is above the pay-grade of those that sit on the Green Benches.

In common with the rest of his political class, Daniel Hannan seems to be another asking purile questions, for he writesBecause the word “sovereignty” has slightly fusty connotations, many British Eurosceptics prefer to speak of “democratic control” or “democratic accountability”. But it’s sovereignty we mean. We want, for example, to be able to determine who can enter our country and on what terms. But if MPs legislated to create an Australian-style points-based system, in which EU nationals were no longer privileged over Commonwealth citizens, Brussels wouldn’t have to take Britain to court. The legislation would simply be disapplied by our own courts the moment an EU citizen who had been denied entry claimed the right to reside here.

Just who is this ‘We’, Mr. Hannan – the ‘select’ 650, or those that actually own this country? Hannan stands further condemned when he writes:

How would the recovery of sovereignty practically change things? It would mean that EU legal acts would come into effect in the UK only following specific implementing legislation by Parliament – something that is currently the case in some instances, but not all. This change may seem technical, but it would almost certainly curb the judicial activism of the ECJ and the power-hunger of the European Commission. More to the point, it would formally recognise that the United Kingdom’s relationship to the EU was that of a sovereign nation in voluntary association with others, not that of a province within a European polity. Would such a change be enough to convince me to stay in the EU? Potentially, yes; especially if it were part of the wider reform package outlined by the PM in his Prague and Bloomberg speeches, involving the repatriation of significant powers.

So Hannan, having prattled away about  ‘sovereignty’, wants a ‘repatriation of significant powers’; appearing content that by leaving just a few of our powers still with Brussels, the UK regains its sovereignty? The boy needs to grow up, while relearning the meaning of ‘sovereignty’.

An interesting article has appeared from Norman Tebbitt, one in which he opines that there appears little chance of one organisation campagning for ‘Out’ while also saying that to bring all the disparate groups together would be harder than herding cats. This, I and others, know only too well – however, attempts to so do, continue.

It is also noted that Mark Elborne, head of General Electric for the UK and Ireland, has joined David Frost, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association in regard to the confusion between Single Market participation and EU membership.

The merry-go-round continues in respect of this country’s membership of the EU, with claim and counter claim among the political class and their media friends, all of which just scratches the surface thus being superficial in content. In this context I can but repeat my views made here – which attracted no comments whatsoever.

Norman Tebbitt may well be right when he writes that the political pot is not yet simmering but will surely come to the boil over the next couple of years, perhaps with results surprising us all. Hopefully in the not too distant future a rod will be inserted into the cogs of the merry-go-round mechanism which will bring that to a grinding halt and cause the pot to boil – and that could well be not that far away.

 

A political fairy tale

So David Cameron has ‘laid down the law’, informing his EU fellow Heads of State just what and what is not acceptable to the United Kingdom where our membership of the European Union is concerned – well, that is what he said he would do, many moons ago.

As with ‘everything Cameron’, there is a vast difference in what he says he will do and what he eventually does. We had a demand for ‘full-on’ treaty change; now we now learn that we can’t have ‘full-on’ treaty change prior to ‘his referendum’. We now find that what we are likely to get is a ‘promise’ that his demands will be incorporated into the process of a future treaty change, something that will be legally binding – as and when that may happen. On this point of a promise, one can but refer to Richard North’s point (in the comments section) that there is a vast difference twixt legally binding and politically binding.

Not only the foregoing, but we have been told that some of Cameron’s demands will not be countenanced (freedom of movement for example) – which only highlights the point that renegotiation of the non-negotiable is just not ‘on the table’; as those of us with a brain knew only too well. This – and the result of the recent meeting of the European Council held this week – rather places those Conservative MPs, who were content to ‘wait and see’the results of Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’, in a rather awkward position – besides making them look niaive and gullible (what say you, Paterson, Redwood, Baker, et all?).

We now find, according to the Guardian, that Cameron intends to hold the referendum on a ‘risk basis’; namely a strategy of informing the electorate of the ‘risks’ should we reject his recommendation that we remain a member of the EU.  The question that then arises is why the hell should we trust a man who has repeatedly lied and misled us in the past on ‘matters EU” and who, do not forget, refused to answer my detailed questions about his stance where membership of the EU is concerned.

Reverting to the earlier link to Richard North’s article, we are not only ‘being played [with]’, we are also being taken for fools; plus we also find ourselves in the position of having our minds being made up for us by our political class through their manipulation of the information that their cohorts in the media feed us.

And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship? Of course we do – and so we will remain; until we are able to enjoy the benefits of The Harrogate Agenda. 

For all Cameron’s ‘bustering’ prior to the European Council this week – and the ‘hype’ that preceded it by him and the Foreign Office – if we look at the Conclusions issued by the European Union to said meeting, we find that Cameron was but a ‘footnote’ in the agenda, warranting but a  one-and-a-half-line paragraph at the end. So much for the UK ‘having ‘influence’ at the, supposedly, table that matters?

Just what the hell is this all about – other than Cameron attempting to secure his place in history as a total idiot?

While no longer a constituent of David Cameron, I do have a direct email contact with him; consequently it is my intention over this weekend to take him to task over his latest ‘ploy’ – not that I expect a response other than the standard ploy of his refusing to respond, based on the fact I have moved. Notwithstanding that, he is still, unfortunately, my prime minister and as such he owes me  as a member of the electorate – if we have any vestige of democracy left in this country – a response.

Stay tuned, do………………………..

 

 

 

 

 

How ‘green’ can one be?

Not in the sense of being an environmental advocate ‘nut’, but in the sense of knowing nothing, thus being naive – leaving aside the colour aspect, it being a mixture of blue and yellow; which in what follows begs the question whether Damian Green is in the right party.

Damian Green has an article on the Speccie Coffee House blog extolling the virtues to be gained by continuing this country’s membership of the European Union. As with all such articles it is full of holes and repeats well-worn propaganda such as 3 million jobs depend on such membership; not forgetting of course that British people can work and study anywhere in the EU, buy second homes or retire in France or Spain, and establish businesses and bid for contracts on a level playing field. What Green forgets is that all of the benefits arising from our membership of the European Union could have been negotiated without the loss of our sovereignty.

Damian Green believes that David Cameron can renegotiate the non-negotiable – now we all know that Cameron believes he is a ‘god’ and can walk on water;  but there are limits to the incredulity of us mere mortals

The article ends with the promise that he and those of his belief will put their case calmly and strongly – most notable from that statement is the omission of the word ‘truthfully’, which so many of these europhile articles lack.

Either, like other europhile politicians, Green knows nowt about ‘matters EU’ or he deliberately sets out to mislead and thus lie to us. In which case, in either event, just what the hell is he doing in politics; an area where truth, honesty and integrity are of the utmost importance? Mind you, where that last question is concerned, it is my believe it could justifiably be posed, where ‘matters EU’ are concerned, to all the other MPs (no exclusions either).

One big deficit in our current system of representative democracy is that a Member of Parliament can ‘shoot off his mouth’ via the media – and as such address the electorate in general – yet when a member of the electorate wishes to take him/her to task, if that person is not a constituent of the MP in question said complainant promptly gets the ‘brush off’.

Nonetheless, a link to this article has been ‘tweeted’ to Damian Green – for what it is worth – along the lines that he is a disgrace to politics. Mind you, at least he can pride himself that he has managed to join a club to which the leader of his party is also a member.

 

 

Global Council

Global Council, whose chairman is Lord Mandelson, informs us that they: produce detailed research and analysis that informs our clients’ strategic decisions and directions. This includes market studies, reviews of global economic and political trends and assessments of policy and regulation.

Council they may be, but counsel they most definitely do not – at least it seems not in a balanced way, which considering Mandelson is an acknowledged Europhile becomes hardly surprising ‘where matters’ EU are concerned.

Global Councii have produced a paper authored by Gregor Irwin, a former UK Foreign Office chief economist and claims to be one of the first to look at the broader EU political risks of the UK referendum on membership to be held by 2017. This paper is no more than another attempt to spread the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (or to coin the acronym of Richard North: FUD) among the British electorate; and a paper from which the media and europhiles will no doubt be quoting twixt now and the referendum.

When one reads in the Executive Summary: The Norwegian model, involving membership of the European Economic Area, would not give the UK the political flexibility required to justify Brexit, it does nothing to justify confidence in whatever may follow – a feeling fully justified by the time one has reached the end.

It has obviously escaped the great mind of Irwin that the Norway Option is not intended to justify Brexit, but it is a means whereby access to the Single Market can be retained, while immediately reclaiming some aspects of our sovereignty as the EEA Agreement does not include the following EU policies: • Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies • Customs Union • Common Trade Policy • Common Foreign and Security Policy • Justice and Home Affairs (the EFTA States are, however, part of the Schengen area) • Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Much is made in Irwins paper about the problems with access to the Single Market should Brexit occur; but then the Norway Option would allow a virtually seamless change of status viz-a-viz the EU thus negating the fears of the business world.

Still on the Norway option, or what he terms a Norwegian-style EEA agreement, Irwin states: The UK joins the European Economic Area and maintains full access to the single market, but must adopt EU standards and regulations with little influence over these…….. Here we go again: repetition of that old myth about little influence over EU standards and regulations. This  great man obviously has no idea about the origin of standards, nor the fact that Norway sits on over 200 EU committees dealing with the introduction of EU law – and this man was a senior official of the Foreign Office?

Irwin’s paper also envisages that it would take a decade to negotiate Brexit while causing protracted uncertainty. A decade – and the rest; consider how long it took Switzerand to reach the stage it has today and consider the probems that that country now has with its relationship with the EU.

The whole point of the Norway Option is that it negates that protracted uncertainty, allowing British business to continue their trade with the EU as now; but by allowing a ‘sideways move’ to EFTA/EEA it means that serious negotiations can then begin to unravel 40+ years of involvement with the EU, which can be conducted with no adverse effects.

Never mind a ‘free and fair’ referendum on our EU membership – can we have a ‘free and fair’ discussion about the benefits of our leaving this odious organisation?

 

 

 

 

Asking the impossible

Andrew Lilico, writing on Conservative Home, argues that David Cameron may well end up campaigning on the ‘No’ side – on the basis he has stated that: ‘he rules nothing out‘.

Lilico ends his article thus: The Prime Minister has secured a majority, is delivering the referendum and will now seek a renegotiation. Whilst he’s doing that we should give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his sincerity over the need to secure significant concessions if he is to campaign for us to stay In.

If one ‘googles’ the word ‘sincerity‘ it is found the definition given is: the absence of pretence, deceit, or hypocrisy. As a result exception can be taken to Liico’s use of the word ‘sincerity’ for Cameron is guilty of pretence, deceit and hyrocrisy.

It is necessary, at this point, to remind readers of this article, one in which I repudiated what Lilico refers to as sincerity. Cameron is guilty of pretence, deceit and hyprocrisy; there was no treaty, there was no reduction in the EU budget; and there was no ‘bail-out’ per se.

Relating still to the dossier, if Cameron maintains that ‘ever closer union’ has been negated where the United Kingdom is concerned, why does he still maintain that that is one of his demands?

If Cameron truly believed of what the United Kingdom, as a nation, can achieve; If he believed in ‘sovereignty’; if he believed in the words he spoke on the steps of Downing Street in May 2010, he would not be attempting a renegotiation of the non-negotiable, he would not be attempting to interfere and influence the result of the forthcoming referendum, neither would he continue with his faux ‘sincerity’.

A further point needs raising: should Cameron return with his ‘Chamberlain’ piece of paper, one which contains a promise of acceptance for his demands and which will be incorporated in the next ‘treaty change’ – and if the fine print of said ‘treaty change’ does not deliver that which he had been promised, does this not warrant another referendum; and does he intend enshrining this in another Act of Parliament? This is a point not covered by Dominic Cummings in his article: Exit plans and a second referendum.

On the point raised in the preceding paragraph, should that scenario arise; how do we force the politicians to agree? The plain fact is that we cannot as the people are not ‘sovereign’ under our current system of representative democracy. Now, if we had the system of direct democracy as encapsulated in The Harrogate Agenda, it would be a ‘different story’, would it not?

David Cameron is not the only politician ‘misleading’ the electorate – they are all at it, using ‘resources’ and ‘information’ that suits their own arguments. In this regard I would point readers to this article by Richard North, one in which he quite correctly castigates those ‘leading lights of political eurosceptism’, namely William Cash, John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin. Presumably they are also ‘sincere’ in that which they profer for public consumption? Plus the point needs to be made that the media faithfully repeat that which we are told, due to the fact that they have not the slightest knowledge on that which they supposedly report. A further question: if ‘the trio’ truly wanted the British people to be sovereign should they not have adopted the aims of The Harrogate Agenda?

One can but repeat: with the misinformation and the lies that are being put out by various factions on  both sides of the argument: we will still have a free and fair referendum?

Of course we will – and the moon is made of cheese, which we know damn well it is not!

 

 

Of course, if we had…….

If Britain, a nuclear power with a seat on the United Nations Security Council and with an economy outperforming the Eurozone, seriously threatened Brexit, the EU would be in blind panic. A genuinely Eurosceptic prime minister could exact any price, including treaty change, from imperialists terrified of losing their prize colony. It is Britain’s tragedy that much of its political class is in hock to the European Union myth, otherwise Brussels’ difficulty would be Britain’s opportunity.

Gerald Warner

Of course if we had a prime minister, worthy of his name and position and who believed in democracy, he would not even be contemplating renegotiation – would he?

From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Ronald Reagan

Of course, if the majority of the people had one brain cell between them, they would be fully behind The Harrogate Agenda.

Unfortunately, the UK is lumbered with career politicians , both national and local, who are dictatorial by nature; who have misled those that elected them; who have brainwashed those they are meant to serve with political correctness, multiculturalism; and many other of the ills that beset their society, aided and abetted by fake charities.

And the people of the Uniited Kingdom wonder why the country is in the mess it is; why the society in which they live is so divisive; why their vote counts for nothing; why, whatever the hue of government they elect, nothing changes?

But then had we not been ‘multiculturalized’; had we not been ‘PCized’; had we taken an interest in our nation, then possibly none of these ills would have occured?

Ye Gods, we really are doomed to a future of serfdom and thus servitude – and it is all by our own hand – so perhaps we deserve the future that beckons.

 

But where’s the ‘how’ and the ‘thereafter’?

We appear to be inundated with articles in the media, authored by the ‘knowing great and good’ about why the UK should leave the European Union. Unfortunately there is little, if no, mention on how this is to be accomplished and what happens when we have.

One of the latest such ‘output’ has been a pamphlet authored by Bill Cash, John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin (of which, todate, I have been unable to find any textual copy on-line* other than the text of the latter’s speech at the launch); and again there is little in this speech which touches on the important matters of the ‘how’ or the ‘thereafter’.

Today we do see the launch of a Business for Britain (BfB) report: ‘Change, or Go‘ which is being serialised in the Telegraph, with publication of the entire document at the end of the week. In his daily summary Matthew Elliott states that this 1,000 page report is ‘fact-based’, something on which judgement should be reserved until the entire report has been read; bearing in mind that so much of the previous output from BfB has been questionable, to say the least.

The ‘news du jour’, where ‘matters EU’ are concerned, is the report in the Sunday Times (£), as yet unconfirmed, that David Cameron is favouring ‘associate membership’ – a subject discussed by Richard North, on his blog, here; and in the comments appended thereto. This artice notes that in the Bertelsmann draft, the possibility of an associate having voting rights in common areas is not ruled out and that as such, Cameron would [……..]  be offering a better deal than the Norway option. The point about voting rights is correct but what is also correct is that the power of veto (which Norway currently enjoys) would, it seems, no longer exist.

There is also a further point to consider where the proposed referendum on membership of the European Union is concerned ; and that is the eternal question of who governs us. Those on the ‘Out’ side fervently believe that while we remain a member of the EU, the UK cannot govern itself (witness Cash/Redwood/Jenkin et others). Where governance of the UK is concerned, the oft-argued point is worth repeating: that there is little to be gained in retrieving the ability of self-governance from one set of unelected dictators only to hand said governance to another set of dictators, albeit ones elected. This begats another question, namely: is it the people who are sovereign or an elected few who consider they are sovereign and thus can dictate to those that elect and fund them?

If the question to be answered in this referendum is who governs us, then the subject of The Harrogate Agenda enters the equation – and if so, a further question: the group Conservatives for Britain includes Owen Paterson. Now,  because of the association with others that Paterson enjoys, he can not be unaware of The Harrogate Agenda – yet I have yet to see any ackowledgement from him of its existence. If this forthoming referendum is to be ‘free and fair’ then should not Paterson make mention of THA – if only to offer a balanced view – especially as CfB is all about ‘democracy’?

In one respect Richard North is correct: all Cameron has to do is offer a form of ‘asscociate membership’ as reverting to a trade-only agreement to the British people and it will be ‘game-over’. Mind you, with the half-hearted – and some might say half-arsed – attempts so far by the ‘Out’ side, perhaps it is already ‘game-over’.

Update: Courtesy Richard North, here link to this paper which was not available the day before yesterday when this piece was actualy written.

 

 

 

 

Some (belated) comments

Where the title to this post is concerned, readers need to refer to the preceding article.

There has been much in the media – and in the blogosphere – regarding the subject of ‘purdah’ in regard to the Government’s intentions of how the forthcoming, promised, referendum of this country’s membership of the European Union is to be conducted. Of course, had The Harrogate Agenda been the ‘norm’, we the electorate would not have to suffer what amounts to the ‘shenanigans’ of our political class.

It is also noted that the European Commission is taking aim at corporate tax avoidance in the EU with a politically ambitious set of proposals it says would make it tougher for multinational companies to take advantage of legal loopholes.

This is presented to we, the people, as a European Commission ‘initiative’ – but wait one moment. Further investigation reveals that the United Nations Economic Council Europe (UNECE) already has a ‘finger in the pie’. From this we learn: One essential step is that all governments should require companies to publicly report financial and non-financial data on a country-by-country basis so that governments and companies can be held to account regarding the payment, collection and, in the case of governments, the spending of revenues.

Leaving aside the point that what the European Union is doing is but following UNECE ‘guidance’, what is noteworthy in the foregoing extract, are the words: governments and companies can be held to account regarding the payment, collection and,in the case of governments, the spending of revenues.

If only our government cooud be held to account. Once again, we come back to the point that were The Harrogate Agenda (THA) ‘the norm’ where our system of democracy is concerned, the idea of ‘Referism‘ – which is incorporated in THA (point 5) – would ensure that the ‘payment’ of taxes; and the collection and spending of said taxes, would be under the control of those doing the paying. What is not to like?

According to the Press Association the Conservative rebels during the Committee Stage of the Government’s Referendum Bill, were: Adam Afriyie (Windsor), Richard Bacon (Norfolk South), John Baron (Basildon & Billericay), Bill Cash (Stone), Philip Davies (Shipley), Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid), Richard Drax (Dorset South), Dr Liam Fox (Somerset North), Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham), Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park), Philip Hollobone (Kettering), Gerald Howarth (Aldershot), Stewart Jackson (Peterborough), Bernard Jenkin (Harwich & Essex North), David Jones (Clwyd West), Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough), Tim Loughton (Worthing East & Shoreham), Stephen McPartland (Stevenage), Anne Main (St Albans), David Nuttall (Bury North), Owen Paterson (Shropshire North), John Redwood (Wokingham), Andrew Rosindell (Romford), Bob Stewart (Beckenham) and Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight). Does this not make a mockery of ‘Conservatives for Britain’, in view of the fact that we were informed that over 100  Conservative MPs backed, or had signed up to, this organisation? Coupled with this, I believe it correct that not one of the 2015 intake of Conservative MPs rebelled against the Government Whip.

This last fact leads one to believe that not only are we the people without a voice, but that those who are elected to be ‘our voice’ prefer to ‘mute’ their voice, presumably in the hope of personal advancement up the political ladder – cynic: moi?

Where the Labour Party ‘leadership’ contest is concerned – leaving aside the race to become the leader – we learn that Ben Bradshaw, Stella Creasey and Anna Eagle have made it onto the ballot for deputy leader. As with the shortlist to become leader of this party, the shortlist for deputy leader matters little; it is similar to the charade of electing local government representatives – it matters not, especially when our sovereignty has been ceded elsewhere and our system of democracy is well past its sell-by-date.

Not only that, to cap all this nonsense, we now learn that Nigel Farage is offering to lead the ‘No’ campaign in the forthcoming referendum on our membership of the European Union. Leaving to one side this would result in the ‘blind leading the blind’ one can only presume this is some sort of journalistic joke where the reporting of this is concerned – has April 1st arrived early?

Heaven help me; if I hear another politician pontificating on sovereignty, the supremacy of Parliament, devolution, the origin of law, or any other subject affecting my life (about which they know nowt), I might just purchase an AK47 – and use the damn thing!

 

 

An apology

I have been a tad lax in output on this blog; however, in mitgation, there is a defense.

Currently, I have Power of Attorney over the affairs of a lady who has achieved ‘centurion status’; plus I have taken on the duties of managing a small portfolio of residential properties, added to which I now have a woman in my life – in respect of the latter, need I say more?

As a result, following this explanation, it is hoped readers will have borne with me. In respect of the PoA, this is now within manageable status, as is the property portfolio where initial steps have been taken to right what amounted to gross negligence on the part of my predecessor. As to the last point, this is still in the ongoing process of being brought under control (grins).

Regular service, where blogging is concerned, can now be recommenced…………….

Come clean & be clear

On ‘Marr’ today was an interview with Owen Paterson, someone who Marr called a ‘leading light’ of the group: Conservatives for Britain.

In this interview Paterson lays great emphasis on the fact that ‘purdah’ means that the Government cannot have the abilitly to influence the referendum by any means – and this is important, especially if the result of said referendum is to be one of  the people.

On this point, how can the any decision of the people hold sway when the government is determined to ‘influence’ the debate? Witness David Cameron, in PMQs last Wednesday, stating that he did not want his government to remain neutral (see from 03:50).

Asked if the Government refused to revert to the the 28 day ‘purdah’ period. Paterson ducked the question. Why? Asked if the result of the forthecoming referendum was a narrow ‘Yes’, what happens then; again Paterson ducked the question. Paterson makes the point, which many others, including John Redwood have made, that the UK cannot make its own laws and that what he wants is a trading relationship with the European Union. Again, asked about the necessity of a ‘Parliamentary Red Card’. ie the ability of the UK Parliament to block European legislation, once again Paterson ducked the question. Paterson echos the call from David Cameron for ‘fundamental change’; yet the ‘fundamental change’ that is envisaged will require treaty change – of that there is no doubt. If ‘treaty change’ cannot be accomplished within Cameron’s’timescale, why is Paterson among those waiting for the result of the renegotiation?

What I find ‘confusing’ with the pubic utterances of Paterson is that, like most politicians, he appears unable to give a simple answer to a simple question. This is a man who gave a speech in America virtually condemning Cameron’s approach to this nations’s current membership of the European Union, yet appears unable to repeat that condemnation in the same words in this country.

One has to asK: just what game is Paterson playing? I ask the question as all politicians ‘play games’; in other words, they all have ‘hidden agendas’ – which begs the question: what is that of Paterson?

The point has to be made that the ‘slavish’ following of a politician who appears not to know what sovereignty means does nothing to ‘educate’ the British electorate; especially where The Harrogate Agenda is concerned. Just what does Paterson mean by ‘sovereignty’, when he mentions the word? Is it his ‘sovereignty’ as a member of the House of Commons and an MP, or that of the British electorate who actually ‘own’ this country’.

In conslusion, it is about time that politicians such as Paterson, ‘come clean and be clear’ about what they actually do mean. If politicians want a ‘fair referendum’ – then they should stop playing ‘word games’ and ‘level with us’.

Just saying…………………………………..

 

 

g