Sovereignty is generally held to be the ability of a nation to decide how it is to be governed and encapsulates the ability for the people of that nation to decide the laws by which it wishes how, for example, to progress financially and socially.
It should be recalled that one of the central planks of the Conservative Party at the last election, in 2010, was for the creation of a “Green Bank” – remember that? Also bear in mind that the Lib/Lab/Con would have us believe that which ever party among them that is elected as our government, governs us.
In the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the 2010 general election (page 31) was the intention to create said “Green Investment Bank”, yet they did not inform us, or were not aware that, to create such a bank would require the approval of the European Union. And we in the UK are a self-governing nation in which our Parliament is supreme and can govern us?
Now let us refer to a question posed by Lord Stoddart, in the House of Lords, in relation to the creation of this “Green Bank”, from which the record of Hansard:
“Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Marland on 30 October (WS 51) concerning the Green Investment Bank, (7 Nov 2012 : Column WA202) why they needed the approval of the European Commission to commence operation of the bank; and what would have been the consequences if the Commission’s approval had not been given?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The European Commission must approve all state subsidies provided by member states. In assessing the Green Investment Bank case, the European Commission had to satisfy itself that the impact of the measure on competition in relevant markets was justified by its contribution to achieving green policy objectives. Without state aid approval the bank would not have been cleared to start making investments. Had the bank made investments without receipt of the Commission’s approval, there would have been a high risk that the Commission would order the investments to be unwound.”
I mentioned earlier that “sovereignty” was the ability of the people of a nation to decide the future of their country and what laws by which it should live. The fact that, presently, the electorate do not possess the ability to hold the government that they elect to account, within the period of a parliamentary term, is one of the deficits of representative democracy – but I digress.
That a political party, asking for our approval to be subject to their government of our nation, does so while knowing that they have to seek approval of a foreign body to implement a manifesto intention, can but show that either (a) they know not what they can or cannot do within the confines of EU membership, or (b) they intentionally intended to mislead those to whom they are appealing for a mandate; or (c) they are just incompetent and know not what they are proposing – beggars belief.
And on such “sleight of hand” do opinion polls seek the views of the electorate; on such “sleight of hand” do a misinformed electorate respond to said opinion polls; on such “sleight of hand” are we prompted to elect a government; on such “sleight of hand” are political manifestos composed?
On such “sleight of hand” is our country being sold “down the river” by our political class.