A Question:

There has been much ‘discussion’ about the fact that David Cameron has ‘ruled’ that those members of the Cabinet who are agin membership of the EU in the forthcoming referendum should not be allowed access to government papers to further their case.

 Leaving to one side that they are also members of the electorate, this begs the question why should those who, whilst being members of the government, be denied the information that is available to those who agree with him?

Just where is the difference twixt the two if democracy is to mean owt? Come to that, why should ‘we plebs’ also be denied that information if we are to make an informed decision?

If ever any one subject demanded the introduction of The Harrogate Agenda, is this not surely it; because does not Cameron’s decision mean that we do indeed live under democratised dictatorship?

Cameron is not ‘rigging’ the referendum? Oh yes he is!

Just saying/asking………….



5 thoughts on “A Question:

  1. I thought the Prime Minister was just Primus inter pares. My understanding of that term is that he’s just another Minister even if he leads the pack. Therefore on that basis he has no greater authority than any other Minister. If I’m right then the leaver side should tell him and his pet Civil Servants to stop leading beyond authority.

  2. In which case what is the point of the Cabinet discussing any change of policy on any subject because presumably the same argument could apply to any government policy.

    Beyond devious madness lurks.

  3. So no government papers and other help to eurosceptics, but I wonder if the civil service would help the BBC?

Comments are closed.