Wednesday, 9 March 2011

More on the European Union Bill (2)

As some will know the European Union Bill passed its third reading yesterday and now goes to the House of Lords. For those interested in reading what took place during the debate the Hansard record can be found here (beginning at column 779).

Speaking in the debate William Hague made a couple of interesting statements, the first following an intervention by John Redwood:
"It is already very clear, from our discussions on that treaty, that it will not have the effect on the United Kingdom which my right hon. Friend fears. There is no provision for it to do so; indeed, it is very clear that it should not do so. If any change were to be made to the arrangements of the European Union which imposed significant new sanctions or obligations on the United Kingdom, then of course a referendum would arise under the provisions of the Bill." (Cols: 848/849)
"This Bill is not a panacea for all the problems of the European Union, but it does deal with the biggest challenge that it poses to our democracy: that its development should be linked to popular consent." (Col: 853)
Now where have we heard similar phrases as "There is no provision for it to do so; indeed, it is very clear that it should not do so"? Did we not hear something similar from Edward Heath, at the time of our joining what was the European Economic Community, in respect to our sovereignty? As the proposed EU accession to the European Court of Human Rights would then place the entire body of EU law in the hands of judges at that court, is that not a "transfer of power"? Passing jurisdiction over EU law, which has to be implemented in the UK, to the Strasbourg court must surely qualify as such under the terms of the Bill, albeit that that "transfer of power" is not to Brussels but to Strasbourg. At the present time the European Union Bill only requires the Government to get a Parliamentary resolution to approve the EU’s accession to the ECHR.

If the development of the European Union should be linked to popular consent, then how in the name of all that is holy can it be argued that the initial question of membership of the European Union should not be linked to popular consent? How can Cameron preach "democracy" to the Libyans yet deny that same democracy to his own people, as he did today at PMQs by stating it is his opinion our nation should remain a member of the European Union? If as all politicians maintain they are elected to serve the will of the people, how can Cameron know the will of the people without having asked them?

Courtesy of Richard North, EU Referendum, it is possible to link to this statement by Cameron in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd April last year, prior to the general election:
"I developed a set of beliefs that remain with me to this day. The state is your servant, never your master. It should defend people from every threat – but it should not use that as a premise to infringe unnecessarily on the freedom of the individual. As far as humanly possible, it should crush bureaucracy and hand power to the people."
How kind of Cameron to demonstrate his belief that the state is our servant and never our master with his refusal to allow us a voice on membership of the European Union.

Yet another example of "Democratised Dictatorship"!


James Higham said...

Now where have we heard similar phrases as "There is no provision for it to do so; indeed, it is very clear that it should not do so"? Did we not hear something similar from Edward Heath, at the time of our joining what was the European Economic Community

Precisely - so we know exactly what we have on our hands.

serf on the land of the EU Barons said...

The thing about the commons is that it is full of crooks whose deeds in the interests of their constituents usually coincide with their own, but sufficiently create the benevolent persona. Then there is a bigger bunch of crooks, the executive, who are going to do what they like and will bully and bribe the rest of the legislature. They all put on a good show for the observing electorate and everyone thinks it is a bit of an accident that things don't turn out in the best interests of the nation. But it's ok, because it was all done through the official motions.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

JH: Glad someone sees the light....!

Serf: Cannot disagree with a word of that!

blingperson said...

It is time to make provisions for winning our case with force. Sadly, the peaceful, legal, constitutional means of resisting the progress of the EU are being dismantled piecemeal. We are being given no opportunity to dispute a new de facto government of our country by plebiscite or even open discussion.

I have met may opponents of the EU but I've never met one who wants this quarrel to end in bloodshed. But it has been established by this country's constitutional history and in the philosophies of the world's greatest statesmen that a people has the right to remove by force any government that seeks to impose a tyranny.

If you are a member of the police or the armed forces, if you have private means of securing capital, fuel, or other essential resources, now is the time to consider what you can do to ensure that the outcome of a show of force will result in an independent democratic country. The alternative is that we allow ourselves to by dominated by those who would rule us without our consent.

Let's hope that the politicians get the message before several million in our number - the middle classes, the most energetic independent and resourceful people in this country - become roused for the first time in centuries to open resistance and, if necessary, violence.

William Gruff said...

Don't waste your time blogging about things you cannot change. Dissolve expanded polystyrene in petrol to make poor men's napalm and put it into fragile glass bottles. Then find out where your MP lives and hang the fucking bastard*.

We should not give up trying to change things lawfully but we must understand that we are not to be allowed to change things lawfully.

Violence is inevitable, sadly.

*My apologies to you and your regular readers for the lack of 'language moderation' on my part.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

bling & WG:

Sadly there will be an uprising, similar to the one that took place a few hundred years ago - it won't be pleasant and it will, no doubt, be bloody.

We are a nation of sheep, having been 'trained' that way over the past few years and are therefore unable to think for ourselves.

bling: your comment has been picked up by IPJ here: