Ms Patel, the “acknowledged” Eurosceptic Conservative MP for Witham, has an article on ConservativeHome in which she argues that the recent first tranche that has been released about EU competences does not go far enough – and that her party needs to go much, much further. This article is a classic example of a Conservative MP who wishes to “toe the party line” yet appear a Eurosceptic – while also illustrating that she knows squat-diddly about that on which she pontificates.
Immediately we are presented with the scenario that we need to repatriate more powers than have been envisaged. That we can even repatriate powers shows that Ms Patel understands not the Acquis, something which defines that a power ceded can never be reclaimed.
Leaving that small lack of knowledge to one side, Ms Patel compounds further an even greater lack of her knowledge when she cites the European President of Ford who has claimed that EU regulations add £6,000 to the cost of an average car. As one of those who consider themselves superior to we plebs – and therefore the guardians of our best interests, similar to that of a shepherd and his flock – she exhibits her total ignorance where the derivation of regulations is concerned. It is not EU regulations that add to the cost of an average car but the regulations, which the EU implements, that come from the Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, administered by UNECE.
Ms. Patel further displays a distinct lack of ignorance where “matters EU” are concerned when she maintains that the present Government’s focus should be on the 3 ‘R’s, namely Reform, Repatriation and Renegotiation – rather than withdrawal. First, reform cannot take place without treaty change and second, the latter two cannot be achieved without first invoking Article 50 of the TEU, the basis of which is dependent on notice of withdrawal.
While she also maintains that the review of competences is to further debate, one has to question how debate can take place when it is to be driven by one such as Ms. Patel who obviously knows not about that which she wishes to debate.
In my preceding post I queried whether we should not demand of our political elite proof of their superiority over we plebs where matters political are concerned. Methinks that Ms. Patel has just demonstrated that so to do would be a waste of our time and effort.