The infamous 'Sun Pledge' by David Cameron is, by now, well known and does not require repetition. What appears less well-known is a speech he gave just before the European elections held last year. On 26th May, in a speech entitled 'Fixing Broken Politics', David Cameron said:
“A progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people. We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.”
That was a statement with no 'wriggle-room', to the extent that Mark Mardell, then BBC European Editor, remarked on his blog that “... Whether he meant it or not, it is now on the record: in government the Conservatives will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, no 'ifs', no 'buts'.”
David Cameron has made what can only be described as a classic mistake for any negotiator, in that he has laid his cards on the table prior to any negotiations taking place. It hardly strengthens one's hand to inform those with whom you seek to negotiate that you will “not rush into some massive Euro bust-up", nor "frustrate or sabotage the operations of the European Union". It is a well-known fact also, that the agreement of the other 26 member states would be required for Cameron to succeed with his renegotiation. After thirty odd years, fighting to arrive at the present stage, is it likely that the other members would effectively agree to renegotiating all the treaties that have gone before? It is also obvious that, in the unlikely event that, were Cameron to succeed, other states would be queuing up to do likewise. That would result in the EU's reverting to an earlier stage of its evolution, which, it need scarcely be said, the federalists in the EU will never allow to happen.
The illogicality of David Cameron's policy and statement beggars belief. Take his Sovereignty Bill, which he asserts would: “make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament” - yet the Lisbon Treaty includes a Declaration confirming the primacy of EU law over national law! In any dispute arising between the EU and member states, it is the European Court of Justice, whose obligations include the promotion of European political integration, whose rulings prevail. This makes Cameron's Sovereignty Bill if possible more meaningless. David Cameron stands further condemned by his claim that 'ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament'. In that case, how can he claim that membership of the European Union benefits our country?
Another contradictory aspect of David Cameron's statement is his evasive insistence that there are more pressing matters requiring his attention, in particular the economic state of Britain. It seems to have escaped his attention that, since so much of our economic policy is compelled to comply with EU regulations, regardless of whether they are beneficial to Britain's interests,he is severely constrained in what he can and cannot do. If he wishes to exceed those constricted parameters, he has no choice but to ask the EU's 'permission'. A humilating position in which to place our country – a Prime Minister happy to be denied free governance of his own sovereign nation.
The fact is, Cameron always lacked the courage to remain firm on this question. Like William Hague, he may make witty comments at the expense of the corruption and incompetence of the EU leadership in after-dinner speeches, but when push comes to shove the weakness of the man becomes all too apparent.
Further pretexts are sought in the reluctant capitulation of the Czech President, and the Irish vote in favour of the Treaty. It is hard not to believe that Cameron was throughout keeping his fingers crossed that these events would happen, providing him with the pretext for not honouring a pledge so glibly given, and so blithely discarded.
Had Cameron been a man of his word, and firmly reasserted his intention of sticking to it, the likelihood is that President Klaus would have felt in a strong enough position to continue intransigent. As in 1938, the Czechs were abandoned by a Tory leader. Similarly, knowledge that the likely next Prime Minister of Britain would call a referendum almost certain to result in a resounding ‘No’ vote would have given our bullied Irish neighbours room for manoeuvre.
The fact is that the Conservative leadership is profoundly uneasy about the whole concept of democracy. The people of this country have not been allowed a voice over signing away our independence and freedom since 1975, and then only in respect of the apparently innocuous issue of remaining in the Common Market. No mention was made of the plan to construct an unelected superstate, whose aim is extinction of the sovereignty of this country. Why is Cameron so hostile to the British people having a say in this most essential matter of their governance? His contempt for the electorate is patent.
In the eyes of Cameron, Clarke, Hague, Heseltine, and the rest of the Tory leadership, the people of this country are not to be trusted to decide their own destiny, nor even permitted formally to express a view on the matter. “We know better, proles, so shut up and accept what we tell you!”
Cameron seeks to cloud his betrayal by asserting, with a weak man’s parade of boldness, that he will henceforward stand firm over issues where the EU acts contrary to British interests, and seek the return of powers surrendered by our Socialist Government. He is well aware that both they and their Conservative predecessors have eagerly signed away the power to do anything of the sort. Besides, why should we believe him, now that we know just what his word is worth?
It was Cameron who brought the ludicrously overrated Kenneth Clarke into his shadow cabinet, in full knowledge that he would work flat out for a total surrender of British interests. Indeed, Clarke is at present engaged in secret negotiations with the EU, whose express purpose (we are not allowed to learn more) is to reassure the Brussels oligarchy that a Conservative Government will collaborate to the full.
A great deal of nonsense is talked in pro-Tory circles about the impossibility of disavowing the Treaty, which has now become absorbed into the superstate’s constitution. The fact is that ours is a sovereign state, whose governments may enter into whatever treaties they choose. At the same time, no government may bind its successor. In 1896 a great Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, pointed out to chancelleries in Europe that no British government could make an agreement with a foreign power so binding that it might not be disowned at any time by a sovereign parliament. Clearly, times have changed for the Tories. Cameron has renounced, without discussion or explanation, Britain’s age-old right to abrogate a treaty.
Finally, every voter must consider the wisdom of voting for a candidate prepared to issue a solemn pledge, which in the event he discards with the ease of a Zsa Zsa Gabor moving on to a new husband. To mask his easy abandonment of one pledge, he issues a flurry of new ones. When the independence of his country means so little to him, what value can be placed on his assurances regarding mere local matters? Fortunately, the electorate of Witney is not foolish, and will see the danger of voting for a man whose word is demonstrably worthless. The world of PR is a world away from that of statesmanship.
STOP PRESS!
On 12 April Cameron provided this response to a voter's enquiry:
'I know that people feel rather cheated that they did not have a referendum [on the Lisbon Treaty], and I am determined that we never let that happen again'. (Daily Telegraph, 13 April)
You can always trust truthful Dave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/05/cameron_tougher_on_lisbon.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment