The “Europe” waste of time “debate”

Yesterday a debate, if it can be called that, took place on the vexed question of “Europe”, the content of which if described as vacuous would constitute the understatement of all time. For those interested, the Hansard record is here and the televised version here (starts 12:47).

For those of us who take an interest in politics the sub-mediocrity where the level of debate s concerned is amply demonstrated whereby the situation can occur allowing Andrea Leadsom rising to interrupt John Denham – but I digress. If one was looking for an example of MP’s inability to enthral their listeners then one only has to read the outpourings from Heaton-Harris (Col: 979).

Within the present system of democracy that is perpetrated on this country, Parliament is held to be sovereign and those elected to the House of Commons guardians of said sovereignty. To therefore read Michael Connarty (Col: 987-end) inform us that he sees no inconsistency with his job as an MP and his support for the European Union can but beggar belief.

Members of Parliament would have us believe that because of their superior intellect, decisions on matters EU are best left for them to resolve. That their superior intellect plummets the depths of ignorance is best illustrated by an interruption of Damian Collins by Martin Horwood (Col: 1005):

“Surely one of the most valuable things the EU can do to help business and trade is negotiate free trade agreements? If we were to withdraw from the European Union, would we be guaranteed the same terms with South Korea or north [sic] America? That would pose an enormous risk, would it not?”

Where knowledge is concerned I am reminded of an anonymous rhyme:

He who knows not, but knows not that he knows not, is a fool – shun him

He who knows not, but knows that he knows not, is simple – teach him

He who knows, but knows not that he knows, is asleep – wake him

He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a wise man – follow him

Where Horwood and the majority of those that inhabit Parliament are concerned, there is no need to proceed past line 1.

Where was mention of the Acquis and that repatriating powers was not therefore possible? Where was mention of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty when discussing renegotiation? Where was mention of EFTA/EEA when discussing trade agreements

 And there was I believing that it was only on game shows that idiots get to make fools of themselves on camera.         


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2 Responses

  1. Nick says:

    The real embarrassment is that if they are wilfully ignorant, they shame their constituencies. If they simply do not know, then they are arrogant, and insult their masters – us.

    If they are just towing the party line they should be removed, because that is not in the best interests of their constituents.

    In any case, most are disgustingly stupid. I wrote to the Daily Echo (Soton) about Denham’s ‘performance’ and was told they would not publis my letter as it may offend him. Well, I am offended *by* him. The man is a fool.

  2. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Clearly Article 50 needs some publicity. Short of UKIP TV ads (as if, sigh) time to print up some Article 50 T-shirts with a European star circle and a road sign Prohibit red circle and diaganol on it.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012