Words, once written, cannot be erased

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Omar Khayyám

Someone of my acquaintance produced a cd entitled "Shore-horned into the EU....swallow it whole, swallow it now". This cd documented events leading up to Britain's entry into the Common Market in the early 1970s. He sent a copy of this cd to every Member of Parliament, some of whom are now no longer in office, however, and needless to say, the majority of MPs refused to take any further action, citing 'Parliamentary Protocol', due to the fact that as he did not live in their constituency they were unable to progress his letter further.

Bearing in mind events since May 2010 and more recently the last two days, two of the replies are most illuminating:

William Hague - 23rd September 2007:

"It has been David Cameron's view for a long time that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives, to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy, it is the right that Parliament decides how we are governed on issues such as healthcare, education and policing. But Parliament should not be able to give up the powers it has been granted by the British people without their consent."

David Cameron - 13th December 2007:

"I agree that the EEC people voted for in 1975 was different from the EU we have today. We believe political integration has gone too far and people do feel that Brussels' power has grown without their consent. It is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them."

Let me say at the outset that much as I would like a referendum, I don't want one as I believe an 'In/Out' Referendum would be lost to the 'In' vote for the same reasons as was the referendum in1975, namely the power, money and 'brain-washing' that was used by those supporting the 'In' decision. 

However, when discussing the principles of democracy, if one believes that to deny a referendum is a denial of democracy the question has to be asked of William Hague: why has no referendum been granted the people, especially when, as David Cameron states, the EEC that the people voted for bears no relation to the EU of 2011;  that Brussels' power has grown without the people's consent? William Hague should remember that it is only those who practise the art of dictatorship that deny democracy to their people - and Cameron's denial of that referendum is just that: dictatorship.

If Cameron truly does believe that it is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them, then the question arises why he does not take action to rectify the grievous wrong that has been done? More recently what, exactly, was he doing in Brussels if he was prepared to barter changes within the eurozone in return for concessions that would benefit a small section of our nation?

The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2010 general election spoke about protecting our national sovereignty, yet when a nation is unable, as is the case for this nation at present, to act in the best interests of its people; to decide its own future; to decide the laws by which its people live; it can no longer be regarded as sovereign. Only today Cameron is quoted by Bloomberg stating that Britain refused to sacrifice sovereignty to save the euro - err, what sovereignty is that, Mr. Cameron? The minute the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the last vestiges of sovereignty this nation possessed, disappeared.

I am firmly of the opinion that the next politician who utters the words 'sovereignty', in respect of this nation, or 'sovereignty' in respect of parliament, deserves a smack in the mouth!

Cameron 'negotiating' Cameron's future?

Yes Minister, Series 1, Episode 6: The Right To Know:
Hacker: Humphrey, do you see it as part of your job to help ministers make fools of themselves?
Sir Humphrey: Well, I never met one that needed any help.

It would seem that David Cameron has no need to ask the question of his 'Sir Humphrey' as the fictious reply is all too true when one considers the mess in which Cameron now finds himself on the possibility that a two-speed Europe is now more likely.

Richard North, EU Referendum, has three articles of a 'must read' category, here, here and here, coupled with an article by Iain Martin in the Daily Telegraph - on which Delingpole adds his 'unique' slant - and another from the same source by Janet Daley. Martin makes the point that all Cameron is really interested in is Cameron when he writes that Cameron wants to remain Prime Minister for the next six or seven years. This is underlined when it is reported that Cameron, in a Cabinet meeting, stated that a referendum would tear the Coalition apart and couldn't be countenanced. Janet Daley, with a similar observation, writes that Cameron's dilemma is a much more traditional one that is not unconnected to his personal inclinations and his background. He has discovered the age-old joys of being part of a world power elite: he is now a member of the international diplomatic club whose priorities and etiquette must be respected if one is not to be regarded as a rogue figure. He sees (and Daley is sure he has had it put to him) that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are truly desperate to resolve the existential threat to the euro and to the EU itself. She continues that Cameron knows that if he tries to hold them to ransom on Britain's behalf, for what Lord Lamont has described as "some political factor to do with (Britain's) own domestic politics" at this critical historical moment, he will be forever branded an outlaw in European power circles - in other words, echoing Martins assertion that all Cameron is interested in is Cameron.

Whilst Cameron would obviously like to discuss any subject other than that of the European Union and our membership he has been unable to avoid that today, featuring on news reports virtually continuously. He makes much of 'safeguarding', 'protecting' and 'defending and promoting' Britain's interests, yet without actually stating what these are. He makes much play that any agreement affecting just the 17 eurozone member states does not affect the UK, yet a worrying aspect is news of a confidential paper, one which has been circulated to all 27 EU leaders by the EU council president, Herman Van Rompuy, who will chair the summit on Thursday and Friday that states, according to the Guardian, Van Rompuy is discussing the 'potential for harmonising pension reforms, social security systems, labour market policy, and financial regulation". It is difficult to envisage that where 17 member states agree on a certain labour market policy or even budgetary discipline, for example, that they would not want that policy implemented across the board in the name of harmonization and in the interests of the single market. It should also be remembered that whilst any decisions the eurozone members may take now might not affect us, this all changes in 2014 (or possibly in 2017) as the following shows:

 

It is worth, at this point, mentioning the European Union Act 2011, under which the 'conditions/terms' for the holding of a referendum are set out. As with a politician's use of words, so with the use of words in an Act of Parliament. In both cases I am reminded of the passage in Alice in Wonderland where Humpty Dumpty states, in a rather scornful tone, that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less".

In any event, until the outcome of the EU Heads of State meeting at the end of this week is known, any comment is but 'speculation'. If the method chosen to resolve the 'euro problem' is that of 'treaty change' then perhaps, as Richard North suggests, all Cameron has to do is employ that most effective of French words: 'Non'. Unfortunately, as stated above in respect of what is Cameron's main 'interest', that looks unlikely - even though failure to solve the euro crisis this weekend would surely hasten the end of the euro and thereby the European Union. It is recalled that the Treasury stated (sorry, unable to find the link at the moment) that planning was in hand should the euro/EU fail, then it is surely right that that information should also be made public in order that the electorate have all the relevant information available should, in the unlikely event they were asked, they be able to voice an opinion on the future direction this country takes.

Just a few thoughts.................