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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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’.
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.
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).
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).