Wednesday 4 November 2009

David's Dilemma

There are two points that I would like to drag up from my previous blogs: first, that Czech resistance to the Lisbon Treaty was likely to be no more than a mirage, and second, that David Cameron would not hold a referendum on the ratified Treaty, because that would turn in to a plebiscite on British membership of the European Union itself.

It’s a pity that this Treaty has been forced through in the way it has; it’s a pity that the contempt that has been shown for democracy, inconvenient democracy, all along the crooked way. It’s a pity that we, the British people, were promised a referendum on the European Constitution, and then denied this referendum because a magic waned was waved which turned the Constitution into the Treaty, a fraud by any other name would smell as rank.

But here we are; the Treaty is with us; Klaus has capitulated. We wake to hard realities, to David’s Dilemma. He faced up to this with commendable speed and has quite rightly, in my view, announced that there will be no referendum if the Tories win the next election. The alternative was to let the issue fester on for months, giving ammunition to our enemies. Yes, I know it will cause a lot of upset and also know that it may put some marginal seats at risks if Euro sceptics drift towards UKIP. Still, it’s a bold move, one that had to be taken.

I personally did not want us to advance one step further along the road to integration and I never want to see a European super state. The very idea of a President Blair absolutely sickens me, and I do not exaggerate. Take a dog from the streets of Paris rather than have this man, this warmonger and hypocrite, have any future leverage over our affairs.

Having said this Europe itself, the European Union, is our destiny. Departure, which I have never argued for, would be disastrous in simple economic term. I could never vote, moreover, for an organisation like UKIP, that collection of geriatric schoolboys. I’m a Tory by instinct, by upbringing and by intellect, and while I have had serious reservations over the general direction of the party in the recent past, I want to see a Tory victory in the next election; I want to see the end of this Labour government; how badly I want to see the end of Brown and Lord Rumba. That’s all that matters now. It does for me; not Europe and not a chimerical referendum.


  1. I dislike all this referendum stuff. Dan Hannan wants referenda on everything; he says. Giving democracy to individuals, but it doesn't do that; it stops a government following an accepted agenda. I think it would simply create confusion and is not democracy in my way of thinking. Democracy is electing a leader and a manifesto. Then these people, a government, have to lead and act and plan for the future. You are stuck with them for five years but without that kind of span how do they achieve anything? Rather; to give the democracy to individuals it would be better to have more of it at the general election stage and making it actually illegal to default from clear manifesto pledges: that kind of thing.

    Local democracy is another question and there could be much more of that, but getting people interested and off their bums to do anything is the next problem.

  2. That picture of Dave by the way looks as though he is trying not to fart and follow through. (If you bin this comment I won't mind!)

  3. So are you in favour of Mandelson's "post-democratic age"? I ask, because I would have thought an historian of all people would recognise the lessons of history.

    We Yorkshire folk have a saying, "Fine Words Butter No Parsnips". The EU is full of fine words and lofty ideals. But look at the reality. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions are all about ignoring the wishes of ordinary people whilst ratcheting up the power of unelected elites. It's a modern, updated feudalism - and hereditary as well, just look at the rampant nepotism not only on the Continent but here in the UK as well.

    In simple economic terms leaving the EU would be the complete opposite of a disaster. They would not be able to levy economic sanctions without exposing the organisation for what it is. World Trade Rules will mean that there are no costs to our continuing trade with the EU. And we would also be free to take up the offer to join the North American Free Trade Agreement if we so wished.

    In other words, Win, Win.

  4. ''Sdeath, I'll print it,' I am in total and absolute agreement with you, being a staunch Tory myself I believe Mr Cameron has undermined himself. I will not accept anything other than a Tory government at the next election. The party has, I acknowledge been through difficult trasitional periods in recent years but a certain rigidity of principles and unshakable resolve on issues in the interests of the British public needs to be kept up.

  5. The lesson of history, Wildgoose, is that nobody ever learns the lesson of hisory, least of all a historian. :-)

    Oh, you don't need to argue that anti-EU case with me. It has become a bureaucratic monster, following the pattern Robert Michels outlined in Political Parties, following the Iron Law of Oligarchy. But withdrawal would, I think, cause huge economic dislocation, long in to the future, at a time when we simply can't afford to take a gamble. Besides, I really don't want this issue, the isue of a referendum, to get in the way of defeating this dreadful Labour government.

    All the best people, the most thoughtful people, are Tories, Rehan. :-)