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?
Just saying.........
13 comments:
A Comment I have left to Mr Redwood's post is waiting moderation but is as follows:
Martin Cole
Posted August 30, 2011 at 10:22 am | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This debate seems to assume that the objectives of the EU, post Lisbon, are being achieved with popular support continuing all across mainland Europe, and none of the elected leaders of the former nation states are at any risk, whatsoever, at their next elections, on the topic of the EU. This is entirely false, political careers are in the gravest danger all across the Euro Zone!
I regularly post on my blog Ironies Too, sometimes even hour by hour detail of the signs of collapse of the EU, now appearing on every side.
The Coalition Government, prodded by the few Conservative backbenchers, such as Mr Redwood, who retain a clear view of the true workings of the monster the whole of Western Europe has created, should be preparing for how Britain may best weather the coming turmoil.
If my blog does not provide enough facts on what is taking place, try this dose of pure opinion:
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/crash-2-give-credit-where-its-due/
Yes but the same problem is encountered when commenting on Hannan's blog on the DT, there is a cognitive dissonance - say one thing on the EU but mean: total subservience.
Is this not evident when Camoron goes off to Brussels? - Talks big in Britain - then is all fawning lapdog in Angie and Sarko's company.
This is the Tory default position, all of them are fanatical EU supporters to a man and woman. OUT of Europe? Fat chance! - They soil their beds with just the merest hint of it.
Leaving the EU most obviously involves a majority in Westminster voting for it, but clearly, Westminster sees no alternative to the EU which wouldn't make life hard for it.
Our problem is not the EU, it's Westminster and Whitehall.
As for Mr. Redwood and Mr. Carswell, if you want something such as leaving the EU, the most obviously serviceable of a number of very poor tools is the Conservative Party. In any case, they are Conservatives first. There is an argument that external events will force the Conservatives to a more hostile stance on the EU and they will be there to lead it in that direction.
My guess is that Mr. Redwood understands very well that the EU is an all or nothing question, however, to most people in the CP and in the HoC in general, the idea that it can't be reformed and must be left, is an extreme and dangerous one, hence his going to all lengths to avoid using the word 'withdrawal'.
However, as far as voting in GEs can be expected to change things concerning the EU, the presence of a few people such as Messrs Carswell and Redwood, gives no particular incentive to vote Conservative, as the Tories have a long track record on dragging us further in, pretending they are doing nothing of the sort.
Ha ha hello Spambot, I wonder if Mr Redwood owns shares in Greene King :-)
Seriously I can't believe (well I can) he's editing comments (unless for bad language). This internet malarkey, i.e. answering them back, has got 'em rattled hasn't it?
I think you lot - and Richard North - are getting this wrong. I want out as much as any of you. I believe that Redwood wants out as much as any of you. I also know that many eurosceptics (Richard North and Helen S. included) do not believe that to call an in-out referendum is to win it. In fact I suspect that we would all be very nervous that the combined weight of the EU/BBC/CBI/NGOs plus most of the media and the political parties would make a tough opponent to beat in an in/out campaign. Redwood is doing nothing more than acknowledging what many prominent 'real' eurosceptics have been saying for years. So, if we can't be sure of winning the referendum to get out, how should we proceed? Perhaps by exploiting what could be a unique opportunity to renegotiate? We can all go back to maximum purity later and revert to wanting to leave but not wanting to risk a public vote on it, or whatever the gameplan is. Redwood isn't saying that Dave is interested or that MPs will risk losing the jobs they made a major gamble to win in some sort of Charge of the Right Brigade. He is saying that if Tory MPs are Eurosceptic then they should be pushing the leadership to exploit this unique position of strength. I would rather we left and the EU failed but if the UK is the engine of that can we afford to lose up to 13% of our GDP on exports to the EU27? Is now the right moment to risk up to £188 billion? This is the question that should be asked. Because in any effort to get us out, this is the question that must be answered. If you guys don't have any better then why not just put a fucking cork in it?
MC: Reasonable comment - and thanks for the link.
Anon Fair comment.
c: In totall agremeent!
TBF: On the GK thingy, heard nowt, chased and told my email had been 'missed' but still waiting for a reply
As to Redwood editing - those were the accusations made.
And yes this internet thingy does seem to have annoyed one or two....
CV: Firstly, bad language is not wanted on this blog, so perhaps if you visit again you might bear that in mind, please?
Yes no doubt Redwood does want out - only problem is he is going an odd way about showing it.
Yes I totally agree with North and Helen on holding a referendum now and had you read my posts earlier you would have seen my arguing along the same lines as that of North and Helen.
It would appear that even you do not understand the basic problem - renegotiation and repatriation are just not on the EU's agenda and never will be.
As to your arguments based on economic reasons, our trade deficit with the EU since 1972 runs into £billions. The UK would NOT lose out financially as they would still require to trade with us and they will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
I'm sorry for swearing. Frustration gets the better of me at times. I think we are talking past each other. My view is that Redwood is talking about forcing the EU to do the opposite of what it wants to do (i.e. to allow the UK to free itself of EU law). I agree and understand the purpose of the EU. I have read The Great Deception, I am an admirer of North, AM and your blog. But you are not giving Redwood's intervention its due. It may be as much a challenge to Chris Heaton-Harris' leadership-friendly dissimulation as anything else. A way of trying to redeem this new grouping which may be intended to be a forum for blunting and diffusing backbench rebelliousness before it extends beyond the 30 or so MPs who do put career on the line. And you did not read my economic question closely enough. The £188 billion is our export revenue from the EU 27. Nothing to do with imports. I will assume that we would be sensible and not actually retaliate in any post-exit trade dispute with a furious Commission and/or Council. If we leave unilaterally then we will be punished, pour encourager les autres. If it were possible to leave consensually then we would be milked, pour encourager les autres. You may depend on that. You need to factor in the price.
Main point stands: what precisely should we do if we wish to leave but fear a referendum too much to campaign for one?
Redwood is right. You don't have any alternatives.
CV: Apology accepted and subject closed.
Thank you for your kind comment...
I understand the reasoning behind the points you make - re Redwood: you may well be right, but then why does he not spell it out and maybe use plain, simple English? Why wrap it up in what is a convoluted explanation?
Regardless of how we view the figures (and again I accept the point you make) I do not believe we would lose out - they need us far more than we need them, from a trade angle.
As to fines if we just walked away: yes, they probably would impose fines - so we say we ain't paying, actually what could they do in retaliation? Get us 'blacklisted' both commercially and financially? Can't see other countries agreeing to that as those countries would have too much to lose themselves.
Your main point is though an extremly good one. Any referendum would need to be held on a level playing field - and that ain't going to happen, I believe I am correct in saying we could not prevent the EU sticking its oar and money into the mix. I appreciate none of the foregoing answers your point, however......
An alternative does exist but it requires all the supposed anti-eu MPs and anti-eu parties to actually start talking about and campaigning on reasons to get out - ergo they need to educate the public. Once the public is fully made aware of the deficits involved, social and economic, public opinion would be so opposed to membership that any referendum would be won - or MPs of the Lib/Lab/Con and pro-eu would not get elected.
I can but repeat that, in my opinion Redwood is wrong. This repatriation and renegotiation thingy is a non-starter because of 'ever closer union'. The EU cannot, nor ever will, agree to that. I view such talk as mere PR to make the people think something is being done, when in fact nowt is, or will, happen. Yet another reason to think that Redwood may have been 'turned' - and before dismissing that idea, remember they are all 'career politicians' - if they weren't they would have "crossed the floor" of the HoC and that goes for Labour politicians also. For all the talk about change from within, it hasn't worked in Brussels and it won't work within the Tory party.
Perhaps the likes of Redwood and his ilk need to start a new party or join another - assuming they are men and women of principle of course.
Things are never changed successfully from within. They are always changed from without. Ergo every politician be they in Westminster or Brussels are on the inside, even the truly excellent Philip Davies, and as such they are part of the problem that will be solved by those on the outside, US. Me, you and everyone else in this country who cares enough to act.
bill: Agreed. Re last sentence: And that is what I believe it will come down to - a rebellion.
There will be [and soon] such a venting of a collective frustration, fuelled by a grinding sense of injustice and geyser like it will sear and scald all who stand in the way. The anger, a white hot hatred towards the EU and our EU doting political class, is tangible.
The problem is when? When will it 'boil over'?
They, [Cameron et al + all the Westminster bubble] were genuinely shocked by the recent civil unrest, the thin blue line is thin indeed, it sent a shudder down all their spines [if they had one of course] amoebas do not however.
It is coming.
On the question of trade, WFW, I am in total agreement, they absolutely need us more than we need them. Further, they need our tax monies, fish, markets, Army, 'bottle' = NO Britain = the EU goes down the tubes.
Their [the EU's] need is far greater than ours.
If we left, so too would Poland, Czechia, Sweden, Finland and then, others would follow.
Let the fun commence and soon.
People will smash things for iPhones but not for freedom I am afraid. We are reliant on our political process to enact political reform. Politicians have to play their game by its rules, those rules are not the same as the rules of the blogosphere. If Cameron is placed under backbench pressure to use the power of veto to our national advantage but refuses to do so then backbench dissatisfaction with him will increase and, hopefully, once the Boundary Commission has done its work, so will the rebellions. If the chance to create additional pressure is lost (and with it the chance to disillusion additional new MPs) then that represents an opportunity wasted. There isn't going to be a popular uprising. Right now this is the only game in town. We ought to support it while it plays out and then look for the next one. Incremental progress rather than Big Bang.
Anon & CV: forgive me for combining my response to you both.....
There will be a 'boiling over' but I agree what will cause that or when. It could be somethin in another country - say Germany unable to keep the lights on, relying on importing electricity from France due their having decomissioned nuclear and other plants and then France not being ale to meet demand - it could be something so stupid as our not being able to get incandescent light bulbs, but something will trigger the uprising.
Thanks Anon on the trade question and yes, we have saved Europe so many times before - were we to leave it would start an avalanche of others and that is the Erophiles fear!
CV: That I think answers your point about people not rebelling.....?
We cannot afford to wait for 'politicans rules' - it is not the only game in town!
People do need to be informed and blogs are the only way at present, even if they have limited coverage. The MSM won't provide that coverage - hey, perhaps we should organise a demo against the MSM as they and the polies are in each others pockets as they so dependent on each other.
Whilst we obviously disagree CV, I trust when we do retake Westminster you wil be with us?
Post a Comment