To paraphrase the words of a song by Phil Lobl, written in 2003*:
"In the HoC there stands a creature
Who he is we know too well,
He wants us to believe he’s truthful
YES or No we have to tell,
Oh, NO John, NO John, NO John, NO."
The problem is that John Redwood obviously does not wish to even hear what some of us have to say. On Twitter yesterday comments were made that when attempting to post on his blog, one on which he uses moderation, when posted they had found their comments had been edited. I have now discovered that when attempting to comment that I am immediately classified as a spambot and no matter that I complete word verification correctly the comment is disallowed.
Hats off then to Dougas Carswell who does post, unedited, comments from me, even when they are of critical content. Reverting to John Redwood and his latest post on solving the EU problem, I can only repeat the comments I made to Douglas Carswell. What is it with Redwood that he appears unable to understand the phrase 'ever closer union'? Why would the EU, having accumulated so many powers that it becomes difficult to think of just one aspect of your life that is not in some way affected by our membership of that body, voluntarily relinquish even one? Why can he not understand that this renegotiation involving repatriation of certain powers is a non-starter? Why can he not understand that for the EU to allow repatriation of just one would open the floodgates for other member states to do the same, thus negating ever closer union?
John Redwood is no fool, being a clever man with a banking background prior to entering Parliament, so one can only assume there are hidden reasons for his 'eurosceptism' being modified somewhat. Has he acquired a few whip marks on his back? Has it been intimated that, come the next general election, candidate selection might be a tad awkward? John Redwood may find such suggestions offensive, but must surely understand they are valid in view of the lack of any other evidence to the contrary.
Carswell rarely answers comments on his bog, a similar failing also of Redwood. If politicians will not debate with the electorate then one can only assume they are unable to answer their critics and thus substantiate their arguments. One can then only pose the question: why are they there?