We pay but have no say

Paraphrasing David Cameron’s views on Norway and their participation in matters EU, that argument of his leads onto another very important matter.

During PMQs today David Cameron said, in answer to a question from Kevin Holinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con):

……obviously, the term “access to the single market” has many potential meanings. Countries that are outside the EU have access to the single market, some through a trade deal and others through World Trade Organisation rules. Obviously the best access is through membership of the single market. What the country will have to decide—and what the next Prime Minister will have to decide—is what sort of access we want, and what are the costs and benefits of that access…….

Later, during the Q&A session following his statement on the EU Council meeting he attended yesterday, he said in response to a question from Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con):

………I am not saying that there are only four or five blueprints and that Britain has to follow any one of those. Obviously, we can try to amend blueprints and have Norway-plus or Norway-minus or a better trade deal than Canada………..

The point to be made here is that it will be the decision of the new Prime Minister – whoever he or she is – that decides which path we follow when negotiating our future relationship with the European Union.

In that decision we, the people, will have no voice. Yet if the decision to leave the European Union was felt to be one that only the British electorate should decide, then should not the decision about the content of any future relationship also be a decision that the British people should decide?

If we had true democracy, then that decision would be one that the people would decide – unfortunately as we do not have true democracy, but a democratised dictatorship, it means that an unelected Prime Minister will make said decision for us.

The political class pontificate about democracy – just where is democracy when an unelected politician can make a decision without consulting we, the people?

Is not the reason we voted to leave the European Union because we do not – and are unable to – elect those that govern us?

Just asking…………………..

Afterthought: Listening to PMQs I was struck by all the questions about our need to stay in the Single Market – yet not one of these numpties had the gumption to suggest how this might be accomplished and put that idea forward; probably because not one of them have any knowledge of ‘matters EU’.

We pay them how much a year – plus, of course, expenses which far exceed their salaries. Why??????

 

 

 

6 thoughts on “We pay but have no say

  1. “why????”……indeed,why do we pay them.I didnt see PMQs however i did watch the session after,what struck me was how few MPs stayed,hardly any Conservatives,what acactly is it they do? what is so much more important than the current situation?and why do they,the Conservatives,seem so relaxed? i sense a stitch up.

    1. I agree. Amidst the desire for leave we have had a PM strongly argue remain. Then with a small majority in favour of leave, the towel has been thrown in so readily, so completely, and with Theresa May – a remainer – announcing Brexit is Brexit – we are out – no second referendum. There’s more to this than meets the eye.

        1. There has been much written not just by the SLOG but others about how the “Fully Integration “date in March 2017 would make it impossible or at least more difficult to exit the EU.
          Having now done my own research I have to say I don’t think that this is the case, in fact QMV may actually make it easier for the EU to get an agreement with the remaining 27 States to the negotiated terms of separation.
          Bear in mind that once Article 50 is triggered a process of negotiation is entered into on the terms of the separation in our case we would be looking at trying to have some kind of agreement on access to the single market.
          On our side the ratification of the terms of that agreement would be down to Parliament, on the EU side currently that would require ratification by all the 27 remaining member states, after March 2017 on the EU side the ratification process would be under QMV rules.

          In theory it seems to me that if on the EU side there were some “awkward players” QMV should make it easier for the EU to ratify the agreement.

      1. “and with Theresa May – a remainer……”

        Indeed, first a Leaver, of sorts, then a Remainer. Then hidden away during the campaign finally to emerge when the coast is clear a Leaver once more and the ‘best of a bad bunch’. And funny how part time Leavers like Boris Johnson annoy but May does not. The mono-topical Flexciteers should realise May has form gained from some diabolical decisions. Also that getting a good deal is only part of the PMs job. I think May will be very high risk. If only we had THA.

        1. We’re stuck in a hegelian dialectic loop…..thesis…antithesis….thesis….antithesis….repeat,repeat,repeat….. will we ever achieve synthesis?

Comments are closed.