For those of us who keep a ‘close eye’ on ‘developments Brexit’ it will not have escaped the attention of some that amongst all the talk of the United Kingdom ceasing its membership of the European Union – while wishing the European Union no harm, etc, etc- only one voice has asked the question: why do we need the European Union? As an aside there were two voices, but one of them was a politician (of whom more in a minute) who, in the intervening period appears to have changed his tune – presumably because he was handed another ‘hymn sheet’ (you know the one: it contains the phrase: be a good boy, ‘don’t make waves’, following which: behave, ‘fall into line’; and you’ll soon be a Secretary of State again). Oh, how are the mighty fallen – but resurrected once they have had their 15 minutes of ‘rebellious fame’.
Following the recent High Court decision on the ability of the Executive to arbitrarily decide when and how Article 50 notification is given, a court case which our all-knowing executive arm of our Government lost, I am amazed at the number of MPs ‘queuing up to proclaim the ‘Sovereignty of Parliament’.
I have, therefore, to ask those MPs just where were they – and their predecessors – during the last four decades plus – when the sovereignty they so prize has been steadily eroded under their very noses?
An article appeared on Reuters yesterday, mentioned by Richard North in his article, which stated that, in the event of a Leave vote by the electorate of the United Kingdom, the European Union would seek a swift divorce from the United Kingdom, coupled with statements by two EU sources familiar with the bloc’s latest thinking on a possible Brexit telling Reuters on Thursday that there was no appetite to grant any extension of the two years provided by Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty for negotiating a withdrawal, while any new trade partnership would take many more years to conclude. The Reuters article also states that tentative plans exist for the Commission to hold a rare Sunday meeting on June 26 to set its strategy; and that EU leaders would hold a brief summit with Britain two days later, at which London would be expected to give formal notice to quit.
When one looks at the ‘supporting cast’, which culminates with an article by Daniel Hannan on ‘global engagement’; paraphrasing Lee Rotherham, one can only presume that this series will comprise of: from the unaccountable, by the unaccountable*, for the unaccountable – in other words, a perfect example of a vicious circle.
Ending his article on ConHome, Paul Goodman lauds the fact that ConHome (via him) were the first to propose ‘Business for Britain’. All one can say in reply is, to paraphrase Laurel and Hardy: And look at what a fine mess Matthew Elliott has got us into!
Having become a constituent in the constituency of Easington (registered this morning!), I have arranged an appointment this coming Friday afternoon with my new Member of Parliament – with a view to ‘introducing myself’.
Needless to say, besides letting Grahame Morris know where I stand on matters of democracy, Parliamentary sovereignty and the European Union, one of the first things I shall be asking him to do is ascertain from the leader of his political party where and when he mislaid his courtesy – I refer to my email to Ed Miliband at the end of November last year and to which I have not even had an acknowledgement; nor an acknowledgement of the ‘reminder’ I sent in early January this year.