THE SPIN IS DIZZYING

THE WRETCHED COALITION has made the stinker of all decisions by signing a military pact with France, and for no other reason than to save money. The spin however will be more complex and heart-warming (as if centuries of mutual loathing could so easily be swept under the carpet).

            David Cameron , speaking in parliament said that the arrangement was “ in the long-term interests of both our countries.        

“To those who worry that this might in some way lead to sort of European armies - that is not the point. The point is to enhance sovereign capability by two like-minded countries being able to work together.”

            You note the prime minister does not deny that such a military alliance will lead to some “sort of European armies”. He just sweeps such a suggestion aside by telling us it will enhance the sovereign capability of “two like-minded countries able to work together”.

            What would have enhanced the sovereign capability of this nation would have been to  chose the right priorities when making the necessary cuts to our crippling deficit. But instead ring fencing our defence budget, we prioritised both health and the oversees aid budgets, followed by a £425 million yearly increase to our EU contributions.

            If we had chosen the right priorities, this silly arrangement with France would never have been necessary; which leads me to think that it was intended all along. If anyone has been made a fool of by this decision then it is Mr Cameron’s Eurosceptic back-benchers and the Conservative commentators who, since last May’s election, have propped up the Coalition and poured  large quantities of statesmanship over the prime minister’s head.

            I hope the French people will not take this lying down, as the British public certainly will: I hope , as they have done over the past two weeks, they will take to the streets once more. This time for something more important than adding two years to their retirement age.

            The road to  Euro-federalism  has just taken a deliberate turn toward its realisation. The Emerald City is now much closer to becoming a reality thanks to the signing of this historically significant document.

            The Conservative Party (if the name still remains appropriate) has been cheated in the same way as New Labour cheated Old Labour. Desperate for power, the Conservatives, just like Labour in 1997 have taken power by sacrificing all that it once stood for in a desperate need for power after the drought of defeat.

I CAN IMAGINE THE following conversation between Nick Clegg and David Cameron on the subject of Europe:

CAMERON:  “Nick, we both want the same ends, but you must trust me on the best way of attaining them”.

CLEGG: “Dave, you know this county’s best interests are served by being part of Europe. You have to…”

CAMERON: “Remember Nick, I am the leader of the British Conservative Party. It’s like turning an oil tanker around; it may take another generation until all the old farts are six feet under, and a new generation in the party comes round to our way of thinking.

            “Two steps forward and one step back – that’s the Conservative way. This deal with the French can be sold to the party as a means by which we keep a semblance of a navy afloat. They won’t like it…but they will like a Labour government even less”.

CLEGG: “Don’t forget that I’ve also got problems with my lot. They don’t like this business with Housing Benefit for instance. They have the sulks and are raring to deliberate…”

CAMERON: “Surely they can see where this agreement with the French will lead?”

CLEGG: “I’m not so sure it will be enough…but I’ll stand by our promise to each other in May”.

CAMERON: “That’s all I ask Nick”.

BACK ROOM DEALS are often scorned upon, and rightly so. For they seek to finesse a change which the politicians know will result in opposition from the public whom they are supposed to serve.

            This agreement with the French will prove unworkable, especially once Sarkozy leaves the political stage. As opponents of such an arrangement have pointed out, it can only make sense if it is intended to further the cause of federalism. The economic reasons for such a coalition are threadbare.

            The British and the French have always been better off fighting each other than trying to form alliances, which usually lead to tragedy for both nations.

            The apparent eagerness of Sarkozy for such an arrangement tells me something about who got the better deal. Usually our mutual distrust of each other, causes the French to review and analyse every sentence, dot and comma of any document presented to it by the British over many months.

            Then we find that French carrier the Charles de Gaulle, the very ship we would have to depend upon under the arrangement, is in fact unseaworthy: on top of which I read that a leaked French government document of two years standing disclosed that most of France’s tanks, helicopters and jet fighters were unusable and “falling apart”.

            We are assured that our most successful of allies, the United States is happy with this agreement. It may be true that the Democrats have given it the nod, but how will Republican presidents react to it in the future. Will they continue to offer us the latest military technology, as they did in the Falklands, and will we remain, with Israel, the most trusted recipients of such technology as we were with both Trident  and the purchase of cruise missiles.

            We have made, if not a fatal error, then one which will bring us much grief in the future, just as such arrangements with the French have done so in the past.

            The trouble with the current generation of politician, is that they see their historical illiteracy as a bonus in reconnecting with this islands’ ancient enemies.

            The French nation deserves our respect for their determination to hang on to that most vital component of any nation’s culture – its language. While English, either in its pure form or in its American hybrid, dominates the world of business, the French rightly despairs of such an understanding.

            What seems to rile with the British people is that the French are allowed to pick and to chose from those parts of the European menu they wish to partake of, while we in the UK stick to implementing those parts of European legislation, that the British people find unpopular - like for instance the European Human Rights Legislation.

THIS MILITARY PACT WITH the French could have only been conceived of in desperation. The dispiriting fact is, is that it was not a Lib-lab pact, but one involving the Conservative Party.

            The Conservative party must now think seriously about the meaning of the word Conservative; just as, in the past New Labour abandoned Socialism, the Conservative rank and file must now examine their innate traditionalism, and decide whether to abandon it in favour of  becoming another European Christian Democratic party, which is where David Cameron wishes to lead you.

            This military treaty with France represents the outcome of deliberately and irresponsibly abandoning our defence budget. This Coalition comprises Europhiles who would deliberately, in the name cutting the deficit, use it as an excuse in the creation of a Federal Europe; and by abandoning the Defence Budget in favour of ring fencing the Oversees Aid Budget, they have sought to bring European Federalism that bit nearer.