Much to the chagrin of David Cameron, the one subject he wishes to avoid has been dominating the political scene and consequently the media - namely, 'Europe'. Setting to one side Cameron's use of a veto - and whether it was a veto, but I digress - a number of events have happened, which prompts the question raised in the heading to this post. Richard North, EU Referendum, penned a resumé of events leading up to 'Events Bruxelles' at the end of last week and also linked to an article by Peter Hitchens, writing in the Mail, said article being well worth reading.
We read today that Van Rompuy wants a new fiscal treaty in place by March; Olli Rehn insists that the UK's excessive deficit and debt will still be the subject of surveillance like other member states; from EUobserver we learn that the IMF euro rescue is stating to unravel and that Britain's annual rebate is to be called into question, whilst the same source reports that contrary to Cameron's initial claim (another 'U' turn?) the UK will not prevent the use of EU institutions for fiscal compact.
Various theories have been put forward for the reason David Cameron exercised his 'veto', one of which is that he was adamant that no referendum would be held in the UK on Britain's membership of the EU. It is worth mentioning that, in actual fact, he would have been ceding the power to decide the economic method of conducting such business had the 26 accepted his 'requirements' - a result which, if not in his eyes, would most definitely been seen as a loss of power in the eyes of the electorate. However, Ian Parker-Joseph has put forward an alternative reason why Cameron did that which he did; and having spoken to him I know that he stands by every word he wrote, although there would seem to be a 'twist' to the entire question. One needs to revert to IPJ's post on the ESM - to which he links - and read the comments from Denis Cooper which are extremely pertinent. It was originally thought that this link, which it was intimated formed Cameron's 'objections' - and which referred to the recent EU Heads of State meeting - would appear to refer to the ESM treaty.
Some may consider what follows a digression - it is however, relevant - but I wish to refer to the debate that took place this evening on Nigel Dodd's motion on the UK's relationship with theEU - a debate which can be seen here (starts at 16:48:15), the Hansard report to which I will link once it is available. In that debate David Lidington agreed the Common Agricultural Policy CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) had had detrimental effects for the UK - so why the hell do we continue to belong to a 'club' whose rules harm us? Lidington also made derogatory remarks about the centralisation of the EU - but where does that differ to the practises of our own government? Emma Reynolds, speaking for the opposition, stated that the UK was in a minority of 26-1 - really, when the actual facts are different? She made mention of the fact that millions of jobs are being created by Indian investment in this country - but what, exactly, does that have to do with our membership of the EU? Mark Durkan made an interesting comment which was that the 'Eurosceptics' in the debate were most noticeable by their absence but, like me, he digressed. It was also regrettable that the leaders of the three parties, who believe in this nation's membership of the EU, failed to make an appearance - yet as the 'drivers' of this policy one has to question their absence. Democracy? A further point has to be that a subject, one that is at the heart of democracy - ie, governance of this country - was 'constrained' by time limits? Democracy? Nigel Dodd's motion was 'carried' by 278-200, yet at any one time there was only about 50/60 MPs in the chamber, taking part in the debate - democracy? No; more likely the modern day version of the 'charge of the 600 - well it would have been had the remainder bothered.*
What passed at the 'Events Bruxelles' - and in the House of Commons this evening - is but a travesty of democracy. This also begs the question of what do the people matter when democracy is based on the system of 'representation'? It also begs the question whether we would, indeed, be better were a system involving 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' introduced. At least, we would only have ourselves to blame...........
I can but repeat the heading to this post - or would the EU just expel us? We don't really mind, either way, providing the outcome is just that: OUT! Of course, if we had politicians with 'cojones'.............
Update: The Hansard report can be read here. It will be noticed the Liberal Democrats appear to have abstained en-masse*. Ana the Imp has two posts on the subject of the European Union here and here, from the second of which I reproduce a cartoon which seems to encapsulate all that is wrong with the euro and the european union.
I can but repeat the heading to this post - or would the EU just expel us? We don't really mind, either way, providing the outcome is just that: OUT! Of course, if we had politicians with 'cojones'.............
Update: The Hansard report can be read here. It will be noticed the Liberal Democrats appear to have abstained en-masse*. Ana the Imp has two posts on the subject of the European Union here and here, from the second of which I reproduce a cartoon which seems to encapsulate all that is wrong with the euro and the european union.
