2013
02/08

Category:
David's Musings

COMMENTS:
14 Comments »

Unintentional hidden truths

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.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

14 Responses

  1. Antisthenes says:

    I am just as frequently puzzled by you, EUreferendum and Your freedom as to what it is exactly that you want on matters EU. I note much criticism of yours aimed at other euro-sceptics but have as yet failed to note a coherent agenda or strategy of your making on how to address the UK’s membership of the EU. Do you want in-out or shake it all about and when you have decided on which of these options you want how do you propose that we should proceed to achieve it? Criticism is untenable without it being constructive.

    • Nick says:

      This has been answered several (hundred) times, and discussed in considerable detail. For you to have ‘missed’ it is hilarious.

      We all want to leave the EU under article 50, negotiating the laws we wish and removing those we do not. Quite simple. Very straightforward.

      • Antisthenes says:

        Crystal clear now. Thank you. Just asking…..

        • cosmic says:

          There was some discussion about cutting the Gordian Knot and repealing the ECA 1972 – The Big Bang – or taking the more controlled route of invoking Art 50 of the TEU.

          I suspect most people have come round to the idea that we’d need to invoke Art 50, to sell the idea of severance from the EU in the first place as involving no more disruption than necessary, and to allow the practical problems to be worked through without each appearing as a surprise. Repealing the ECA 1972 would be a part of the process.

    • david says:

      I think you have been provided with the answer you seek?

      What EURef, TBF, I and others seek is a divorce from the EU, trading agreements to be put in place and for a complete rethink on how democracy is done in this country.

      Without the latter even were we to leave the EU and gain independence we would be in effect transferring from one set of dictators to another – and the point of that is?

      • cosmic says:

        “… and for a complete rethink on how democracy is done in this country.”

        That has to be the other part of it. However irksome the EU is, there’s no doubt that a lot of the problems are home grown in a system of government which has no proper democratic control and the three main parties define an artificial middle ground e.g. mass, uncontrolled immigration. It’s a government system which is naturally in sympathy with the EU way of doing things, with the administrative establishment having immense power and politicians there for show.

        It follows that merely leaving the EU would not automatically solve every problem.

      • Antisthenes says:

        Nothing I can disagree with you on that. The dictator problem is I fear one of our own making perhaps more accurately of the lefts making. We now have because of the culture of dependency and entitlement that dominates our Western societies made it in the vested interest of a large majority of the population to want to perpetuate large and authoritarian government. The reason being is that such an arrangement ensures the continuance of large scale wealth distribution without which pubic services and benefits would be drastically slashed. This is a mountainous hurdle for libertarians and those who have the best interest of the state at heart to negotiate. Only when the dependency culture is addressed and reversed will can power be wrestled away form the politicia

      • Antisthenes says:

        I did not complete my reply due to a finger slip on my keyboard but I am sure you understand that which I am trying to say. Perhaps a quote from Ludwig Von Mises will explain it better; “A system in which a majority of the population is dependent on the government [public sector employment, welfare benefits etc.,] leads to an unstable political and economic situation, since a majority of the population then has a vested interest in increasing the power of government to redistribute wealth.”

  2. john in cheshire says:

    And d). One of them doesn’t want to exit the EU.

    Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall there are processes the EC can use that bypass all of this showcase faux democracy and allow them to raise additional funds from member states, regardless of what the member states say or do. Which is what I expect will actually happen.

    • cosmic says:

      It’s something of a Holy Grail for the EU to raise taxes directly. There’s been talk of an email tax and so on.

      I have the vague idea that the legal framework is there (it wouldn’t be illegal) but they are still quite a way from managing to achieve it, even as the thin end of the wedge.

  3. cosmic says:

    I find Forsyth’s view of the Conservatives extraordinary. They have always had a pro-EU ruling core and a large eurosceptic segment to keep quiet, which they’ve done by hints, evasions and the impossible dream of reform of the EU from within. On all the evidence, the Conservatives are not eurosceptic, but they have to put up a bit of a show from time to time, as they are doing now.

    Their position on the EU has always been complete dishonesty.

  4. Robin says:

    You must have seen a campaign like this before .
    It`s not so much as setting out your stall in the debate , but getting the debate going .

  5. Robin says:

    It` a campaign strategy .
    Not so much to set out your stall in the debate , but to get the debate going and keep it alive .

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012