THERE IS A PROPOSAL BY the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy to create a financial centre either in Berlin or Paris which would effectively mean monetary union involving those 17 European nations who are members of the euro zone.
The debt crises within the euro zone, has brought forward, by several decades, the full reality of monetary union followed, no doubt in tandem, by its sibling – political union.
For the political elites like Van Rompuy and Barroso, the debt crises represents an opportunity to effectively frighten Europe into a federal union without the need for any democratic debate or any national referendums. They believe they can steamroller, at least the 17 members of the euro zone into what Barroso has described as a “European empire”; but what we know as Federal Union, or…a United States of Europe.
Tomorrow the House of Commons will debate and vote upon the need for a referendum over the depth of our continuing relationship with the continent, or whether we should leave the EU altogether.
The time for such debate was never better chosen, as Herman Van Rompuy’s intervention testifies. We as a nation should be demanding, as any democratic country should, the chance to determine our nation’s future, while it still remains one. We cannot hand over such a decision to the latte filled rooms of Downing Street.
Our elected leaders have no authority to give away our nationhood independently of the people’s approval. No election has bestowed them that right, and no election will bestow them the right. If we, as a free people, cannot be allowed to determine our own future, but have it determined for us by people without the authority to do so; then I call this a betrayal of democracy; a betrayal which gives every citizen the right to flout the very authority they gave to their elected representatives, and, if need be, take to the streets if our politicians refuse us a referendum.
I CAN REMEMBER during the Major government when the Tories were constantly at war over Europe; any warning by a Eurosceptic about European Federalism was greeted at best with condescension; while at worst a sceptics sanity could be brought into question. They were either humoured, or despised for upsetting the apple cart of government unity.
Then, European Federalism was treated, publicly at least, as if it were a work of fiction by “xenophobic” Tories. No such blue print ever existed; it was the Little England mentality that had constructed it from nothing more than a psychological aversion to all things foreign.
We were told, that from Maastricht to Lisbon, such these treaties were mere technical adjustment with no need of a referendum; and if the sceptics suggested otherwise…well, let’s face it; they have a screw loose, don’t they?
But when it came to the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron promised us, before the General Election, a referendum on its implementation if he were elected to office. But his rowing back since has only damaged the reputation of our law makers, himself included; which I hope his back benchers take cognisance of during tomorrow’s debate.
What Herman Van Rompuy has done, is to help rehabilitate those Eurosceptics in their recovery from what were once deemed “demented” offerings, to the European debate. From 1990-1997 the Tory Eurosceptics, with a few Labour sympathisers, were eventually drowned out of the European debate. The public believed that their leaders would not entertain any change to our status of nationhood and so the sceptics were neutralised and other issues became more important than Europe; and this is the argument that the Tory leadership hopes to put forward in tomorrow’s debate.
They hope that the country’s own debt crises will count more than that of Europe’s and will suggest that parliament’s time should not even be used to consider such an eventuality as European Federalism. The British economy, they will demand, should be the
priority, and anything to do with Europe should be put on the back burner; and the proposer of such an motion should feel ashamed of himself for wasting parliamentary time over this issue. The government is trying wholeheartedly to bring the country’s finances under control; yet they have to waste valuable time in batting away the proposer of this motions’ absurdities.
DO NOT BE FOOLED. This debate is as well timed as it is much needed. The debate for a referendum on our future within Europe, will no doubt be lost. But it will allow the British public to see just how much their views are distanced from the people they elect to represent them on the issue of Europe.
In all parties; the conjurers art has been to neuter Europe as an issue for MP’s constituencies; especially among Tories and working class Labour voters; and this is what will be attempted in the debate tomorrow by, sadly, William Hague, who is set to open the debate for the government and will no doubt press for more important national issues to be considered; and will no doubt document the perilous predicament surrounding our country.
It was, if you remember, William Hague who in March 2001, who said in delivering a party conference speech:
“We have a Government that has contempt for the views of the people it governs.
“There is nothing that the British people can talk about that this Labour Government doesn't deride.
“Talk about Europe and they call you extreme. Talk about tax and they call you greedy. Talk about crime and they call you reactionary. Talk about immigration and they call you racist; talk about your nation and they call you Little Englanders ... This government thinks Britain would be all right if we had a different people. I think Britain would be all right, if only we had a different Government…”
IN OTHER WORDS, at the time, William Hague expressed succinctly what the majority of the British people believed regarding the European Union. But he now serves a Conservative/lite government sharing power with a liberal rival. Mr Hague’s words then are as relevant today(even more so), considering Herman Van Rompuy’s reported ambitions for Europe than they were then.
Over 100,000 people signed an e-partition…the number David Cameron believed would be sufficient to trigger a parliamentary debate. The whole idea for an e-petition was Cameron’s; yet he now enforces a three line whip on his own backbenchers to prevent them voting with their consciences.
All the prime minister has succeeded in doing through this folly, is to make his profession seem even more contemptible to the public than it already is. To promise the public that they can create a debate in the House, and then effectively try to gag such a debate by using an option that is more usually enforced when there is to be a vote of confidence, will prove counter-productive in the long run. I hope that the Tory benches ignore their whips threats and help give the people what they want…a chance to have a say on our relationship with Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment