Yesterday I posted a video featuring Nigel Farage rebutting Cameron's Lord Mayor's Banquet speech - and did so deliberately refraining from adding any personal opinion on what Farage said.
As Richard North pointed out in the comment section to that post much of the EEA legislation is agreed initially by bodies such as UNECE, linking to this post in which he made exactly that point. Norway, as a member of the UNECE, therefore does have a voice in the drafting of EU legislation. Cameron was likewise disingenuous when in his speech he said: "Leaving the EU is not in our national interest. Outside, we would end up like Norway, subject to every rule for the Single Market made in Brussels but unable to shape those rules", something which I failed to pick up when I posted on that speech.
For some time it has been obvious that politicians are adept at twisting, or omitting, facts to suit their own argument. That Farage omitted to mention the UNECE factor may have been due to time constraints, however it is such an important matter surely its inclusion should have been mandatory. That Cameron failed to tell the whole truth is, unfortunately, to be expected.
If, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned.
7 comments:
Well that's a vain hope, then.
I mean politicians just don't do truth unless it is advantageous to their argument. Normally politicians seek to hide truth or obfuscate it or downplay its relevance etc.
To expect or even to ask for honesty from politicians only lends credence to the myth that they can be honest.
Well said, PeterCharles. Well said.
Whilst it may be true that, outside the EU, we would have to follow EU standards of construction for goods exported to the EU, the fact remains that, under the current rules, we still have to use alien standards even for goods that are exported world-wide - where most of our exports are sold to countries that understand British standards and prefer to use them. Even firms that do not export are required by law to adopt EU standards. Out of the EU, we could return to our British standards, thereby saving British firms the inordinate expense of introducing the foreign version. If the EU were to be too difficult, could we not require imports to the UK to be based upon British standards.
When things are made to sell abroad they are made the way customers like them or the way customers are required to have them according to the local regulations. So what? Manufacturers have 'no say' at any time regarding what the consumer wants and so have to produce to keep the customer sastisfied.
It would not improve the quality of produce, or of life, if all countries were obliged to have the same regulations and standards - difference and rival experiments in living are fun in themselves but also a means of moving from the better to the better yet.
It would undoubtedly make things 'simpler' if only one model of car was permitted - but the engine of betterment, competition, would stall.
(Incidentally, why in the EU is compulsory uniformity referred to as 'harmonisation'? Harmony results from different parts freely taken and performed.)
PC & MM: I know, I know - however I do expect honesty from politicians. Not too much to ask, surely?
AT & BL: Agree with both comments.
Come on now, WfW. "...honesty from politicians..."????
Surely you can't be serious!
MM: I did say 'expect'......?
Post a Comment