It is odd how people can make an assertion which is total tosh but highlights something else, or can make a statement which is perfectly correct but which hides another aspect about which they speak or write.
Exhibit 1: Frederick Forsyth writes in the Daily Express; a piece headlined: “For the sake of Britain, grow up”:
“It would be nice if Cameron and Farage could stop faffing around with mutual insults and work out how to unite the entire EU-sceptic majority into an election-winning bloc.”
Having only just returned home I have not had the chance to view, first hand, the news and specifically what Cameron is saying following the EU Budget meeting. However, it appears that Martin Schultz wishes the EU Parliament vote on the budget to be secret, which according to Guido Fawkes has prompted this response from Cameron:
“I find it baffling. You send members to parliament, they vote, you see how they vote. I think that’s what parliaments are all about. When it comes to money it’s even more important to see how people are voting…I don’t understand secret ballots, parliaments should be open and transparent and people should be held accountable for how they vote.“
Forsyth wants two parties with completely differing agendas to unite in order to unify the Eurosceptic majority when (a) neither party leader appears to have the slightest understanding of how an exit from the EU can be achieved, nor the mechanics involved; (b) totally ignores the fact the two men hate each other with a passion; and (c) Forsyth himself totally misunderstands the accepted definition of eurosceptic.
What he has unintentionally highlighted is the need for all the eurosceptic groups to forego their egos and unite in order to present a coherent, factual and effective ‘No’ campaign – and that they should be working to achieve that effective grouping now.
Cameron is arguing for transparency and openness in the voting procedure of the EU Parliament as he is fully aware that that body could well torpedo the agreement reached by the Heads of State. If we are to have transparency and openness in the voting procedure, should we not have that same transparency and openness in the pre-voting procedure? Should we not be told how many MPs have had their arms twisted by party whips and who said MPs were?
In any event it would appear that there is another reason for Schultz’s wanting to torpedo the budget deal – at least according to Mary Ellen Synon. One can but hope Cameron can return to the House of Commons to be greeted by his puppet supporters with their cheers and waving of order papers before Herr Schultz tells his underling in the torpedo room to press the fire button.
Update: I see the “All Hail Cameron” brigade are quick of the blocks with, not surprisingly, Benedict Brogan to the fore – which includes a plug for Cameron’s non-achievable strategy.