That 'EUnnoying' debate

There is much is being written, in the media, about the forthcoming debate on a motion for a referendum to be debated in the House of Commons, including an article by Graham Brady in today's Daily Telegraph, one that can be accessed via Richard North. Paul Waugh, Politics Home, makes great play of the news that those Conservative MPs who have signed Nuttall's motion has grown to 60 and has also just announced on Twitter that Ed Miliband is instructing his MPs to vote against the motion. Likewise is Guido Fawkes reporting that Nick Clegg is imposing a three-line whip on his MPs.

That a frenzy is being built up over this debate, to the point of being utterly ridiculous, comes with a further posting by Guido Fawkes that upto 15 ministers and whips are prepared to defy the three-line whip that Cameron is reported to be imposing. Everyone seems to have forgotten that as this motion came from the Backbench Business Committee it must be voted on as written and as such the possibility of an amendment, one more favourable to Cameron et all, is not on the table. That is not to say that an alternative motion could not be tabled but then Bercow would be placed in a position of choosing that, when the Backbench Business Committee have in effect stated that they want the existing motion debated. Another point that seems to have escaped the notice of those partaking in this hysteria being built is that if Labour and the Liberal Democrats are whipped to vote against the motion, the motion is as good as lost anyway.

Not wishing to crow, but this latest political shannighan just confirms that which I have been saying for some time now - we do not live in a democracy, but in a democratised dictatorship! Methinks just for once Cameron's advice should be adopted by all and sundry, namely: "Calm down dears"!

As an aside, in the Daily Telegraph letters column today is one from Richard Craven, Pickering, West Yorkshire who writes that Mr. Cameron would do well to rememebr that it is the voters who elect MPs, not the Prime Minister and that those MPs should consider the wishes of their constitutents. He ends by pointing out that MPs should remember that voters have longer memories than they are given credit for.  With no disrespect to Mr. Craven, whose surname would appear to mirror his views, voters do appear to have extremely short memories - why else would Labour be holding an 8% lead in opinion polls?

MPs to debate the referendum question?

The announcement that MPs are to debate whether those they serve should be allowed a referendum on membership of the European Union just illustrates the deficit in our present system of democracy, one whereby the servants decide what their masters can or cannot have. The motion, according to Douglas Carswell, reads:

"This house calls upon the government to introduce a bill in the next session of parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the united kingdom:

A) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
B) leave the european union; or
C) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation"

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posted this before the announcement and followed up with this, as an update, afterwards - the thrust of which I totally agree.

This motion is, in my opinion, designed to cause division in any referendum put to the public vote as option (c) is 'open-ended' in that it can be taken to mean almost anything. In any event were a referendum held with these questions and option (b) gained the majority of votes then surely option (c) would have to follow if we wished to continue trading with the EU - which begs the question why it appears in the first place.

Were that motion to be passed in the HoC, Cameron would have to hold a referendum and abide by its result, as to defy the will of Parliament would place him on extremely dangerous ground. For that reason it can be fairly certain that he will impose a three-line whip on the vote to ensure that the motion is rejected - a decision that will cause those 'careerists' amongst the 120 'Useless Eustice' group of supposed Tory eurosceptics a little problem. Presumably MilibandE will follow suit as he too is adamant that this country should remain a member of the EU - likewise the Liberal Democrats.

I know not what arm-twisting has been done to members of the Backbench Business Committee but the government sure as hell have managed with this motion to ensure they can't lose!

This debate can best be summed up in the words of PC Plod - move along please, nothing to see here.......

A Parlour Game

Mary Riddell's usual Tuesday op-ed in the Daily Telegraph is headlined "The (Liam) Fox hunt is a parlour game compared to the financial crisis". Riddell may be correct; although not for the reasons that she puts forward, she must be slightly confused when she writes:

"Such momentous times demand politicians who can be both masters of the universe and servants of the people. Instead, we are witnessing a re-run of the pygmy politics that brought the system into disrepute and convinced the public that the governing classes are dominated by self-serving figures neglectful of the public good."

One cannot be both master and servant -  politicians are not masters of the universe (although when considering their environmental policies, they think they are) neither are they the servants of the people (although when considering their behaviour and attitude, they seem to have this quaint idea they are). Time, whether momentous or not, does demand individuals who have some element of expertise in their chosen field; and events have shown that where the governance of this country is concerned, unfortunately those that may have any expertise are most prominent by their absence.

It is frequently said by members of the electorate that there is little point in voting and one can see their point when considering we have the situation whereby the choice is between three parties with but one single thought; control of the people they are meant to serve. That they have no intention of controlling themselves is illustrated by their insistence that only they should be able to set the rules governing their remuneration, coupled with the fact that they enagage in sports that are forbidden to us mere mortals - namely that of fox hunting.

Our democracy is a farce, likewise our system of politics - and the sooner both 'farce forwards' to a situation whereby change is introduced, the better for us all.