This renegotiation 'thingy'

During the debate yesterday - and previously - Cameron, Hague and their acolytes - were all proposing that renegotiation to enable the clawing back of powers was the course of action to take in order to resolve the admitted difficulties created by our membership of the EU. Likewise there was mention during the debate - and in other debates - of the fact that Parliament was the sole arbiter in matters of sovereignty.

The questions I would wish to pose to those believers of an unattainable dream is just how they propose clawing back powers without renegotiation; what procedures exist to do just that; just what would be offered, during the necessary renegotiation process, in return for those powers; which powers, specifically, should be returned and what would be conceded, coupled with just who would make those decisions?

How can those who believe in continued membership of the EU on their terms, ones that would result in only partial self-governance, maintain that Parliament can still be the sole arbiter in matters of sovereignty? That position is completely indefensible and illogical - therefore those that propose that should have no place in the House of Commons. The illogicality of allowing those who created a Gordian Knot being entrusted with untangling it cannot be allowed.

That those 'renegiotiators' and 'claw-backers' have another 3½ years in which to create yet more havoc, to enmesh this country even deeper in a federalist state, means that the people of this country, if they are to preserve their country and it's independence, have only one option - and that is to copy the Libyan method of regime change. If that means we too have a few secret and therefore unmarked graves, so be it.*

Just saying.....................

* Afterthought: It would also relieve us of the necessity to read such journalist outpourings of crap such as this, this and this.