THE OUTBURST BY KENETH CLARKE, the Justice Secretary, over the need for an in/out referendum over Europe reminds me of the superciliousness of Charles I whose insistence upon ruling by Divine Right, eventually cost him his head.
One can imagine a bewigged Ken Clarke sputtering and spitting at the suggestion that democracy should take a hand and be allowed to decide upon whether we continue or not within the European Union: ‘I cannot think of anything sillier’, he fulminates, ‘to do than hold a referendum. I’m not keen on referendums, I see no case for this referendum.' Blood pressure rising and cigar smoke billowing from his lips, he defies all challenges to the ancient regime of European bureaucracy, with its political appointments to high office within the European Super State, like those wretched all powerful, all knowing, and all seeing unelected commissioners and the token EU president - as well as a lamentable corruption and abuse of financial privileges given to EMPs. Indeed, one would scratch his or her head to answer a pub quiz question about the last time the EU finances were signed off by their accountants.
Describing his opponents as just ‘frenzied eurosceptics’, he suggests that calls for such a referendum simply represents; ‘the demand of a few right-wing journalists and a few extreme nationalist politicians’. But as today’s crop of newspapers point out, this is not the case. The latest polling suggests that 70 per cent of the population wish for such a referendum – are such quantities of the electorate to be called Right-wing and to be dismissed as ‘frenzied eurosceptics’?
According to Adrian Hilton writing in the Daily Mail; ‘Kenneth Clarke should keep his extreme pro-European, pro-State, anti-individualist, socialist, federalist Bilderberg beliefs to himself. There are very many intelligent, reasoned and discerning people who want a referendum because we’ve never been asked. And those of us who were asked were manifestly lied to’
Mr Hilton sums it up succinctly. It is, on the other hand, easy to see why our latter day Charles Stewart is ‘… not keen on referendums’. For such a voice to be given to the people over an issue that Mr Clarke holds so dearly to his breast would no doubt, like the Divine Right of Kings in earlier times, have been purged – that is if the popular will had been allowed its say.
KEN CLARKE’S somewhat aristocratic dismissal of a referendum follows his earlier wisdom of supporting our joining the euro. Democratic politicians of all major parties have no sense of shame or inhibition, and why should they? They do not, after all, suffer the same retribution as a dictator might after being overthrown by the people. They, in a democratic society, continue to be listened too and reward by appearances on the media, no matter how great their ill-performed governance of the nation.
Ken Clarke has long since passed his sell-by date. He should not have been given a position in the Cameron government. His political career has extended itself beyond John Major’s somewhat brief reign. He should have been gotten rid of on the 28th November 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was overthrown by the party’s Left-wing (which included Michael Heseltine).
But to such people as Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke; they were determined to remain to try and guide Mrs Thatcher’s successor toward a pro-European destiny for these historical isles; and they almost succeeded with John Major.
AN IN/OUT REFERENDUM has become more important today than at any other time or chapter in our relationship with the continent of Europe. Clarke’s exuberant dismissal of such a prospect merely reflects his fear of the result. He knows all too well where the British people stand on the prospect of a United States of Europe; which is, after all, where political and monetary union leads.
Clarke can no longer dismiss a referendum as representing a minority of ‘extremists’ on this issue. On the question off Europe; the position no doubt taken by Ken Clarke on the subject of a United States of Europe is still to disabuse the right-wing of such a project.
He is behind the times; he is a steam engine struggling against the tide of electricity. Yet he wistfully believes he can manufacture a mainstream in support of a United States of Europe. But this support negates any kind of vote and relies upon the wisdom of Mr Clarke, above which (including God) there appears to be no equal.
The British people must have a say on their country’s destiny. If they are not, in accordance with Mr Clarkes wishes, to have such a voice, then voting in a general election becomes nothing more than a sterile exercise in rubberstamping. Already our politicians promise us to implement on our behalf those things close to our hearts in their manifestoes, only to backtrack once in power.
It is a shameful disgrace, and an abuse of democracy to suggest that we should not be allowed to have any kind of say on the dismantling of our nation - which is effectively what monetary and political union means for us.
The hushpuppied, cigar puffing, and haughty Europhile, is thankfully no longer on the rise politically, having done his worse for the country by cheerfully encouraging our membership of the euro, while demonising those who warned against such a foolish venture.
Now he once more advises his own peculiar brand of lunacy by suggesting that we forgo our nation state without ever having a say on its avoidable death. If this does not meet the description of a politician with the political instincts of a dictator, then I know not what would.
Clarke should be treated as an elder ‘statesman’ now embarking upon his dotage and contender for a place in the upper house, where Cameron should immediately dispatch him – unless, that is, Cameron seeks the same end, but through a different means to the justice secretary.
No comments:
Post a Comment