Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The people (and Peter Bone's wife) vs. Mr Cameron

On 9th March 2011, Peter Bone MP used Prime Minister's Questions to ask a serious question in an amusing way.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)

Mr Speaker, 373,000 Daily Express readers want it, 80% of Conservative Members support it, the Deputy Prime Minister would love it, and my wife demands it. The British people, Conservative supporters, the leader of the Liberal party and especially Mrs Bone cannot all be wrong. Prime Minister: may we have a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union?

Note, please, that Peter Bone invoked a number of entities in support of his question. And what was the Prime Minister's answer? [Emphasis mine.]
David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative)

I wish that my wife were as easy to please. I was worried about where that question was going.

I am afraid that I must disappoint my hon. Friend and Mrs Bone. I think that we are better off inside the EU but making changes to it, in the way that we are setting out.

So, whilst Peter Bone pointed out that the majority of the Conservative Party are for a referendum, as are a relatively large number of Daily Express readers (let alone everyone else in the country), Cameron replies purely in the first person.

Obviously, this massively-foreheaded cunt thinks that his opinion trumps that of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of the people that he is supposed to serve. Could this bastard be any more arrogant and conceited?

Almost certainly, but then he'd be Ed Balls.

The fact is that neither Cameron nor Head of Policy Oliver Letwin have been able to articulate precisely why we are so well off in the European Union; indeed, as regular readers will know, Letwin bunnied out of a debate with your humble Devil, even though he is apparently starting to doubt the wisdom of his opinion.

It is hardly coincidence, then, that both Dan Hannan MEP and Douglas Carswell MP are trailing the launch of The People's Pledge—a campaign to hold a referendum on the EU.

Obviously, I would urge you all to go and sign up but, whilst a campaign probably needs to start now, I do not support a referendum right now—as I have told the Albion Alliance a number of times.

Why?

Quite simply because it would be too close: I want a referendum that we—that is, the EUsceptics—will definitely win. And I do not think that the numbers support that at this present moment.

Especially since the EU is busy amending laws to enable them to pour millions of pounds into the pro-EU side [the link to England Expects seems to be dodgy—firing up tens of windows with "page not found". I shall restore it when the problem—or hack—is fixed].
Today a report was passed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Parliament which now moves up to the plenary. The report, called the the Giannakou Report after its draftswoman Marietta Giannakou... who was on the Convention which drew up the European Constitution, is titled,
A Draft Report [PDF] on the application of Regulation 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding

In it we see this,
  1. Points out that since 2008 European political parties have been entitled to use sums received as grants for ‘financing campaigns conducted ... in the context of the elections to the European Parliament ...’ (Article 8, third paragraph, of the Funding Regulation); further points out, however, that they are prohibited from using these sums for financing ‘referenda campaigns’; considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States; believes, however that, if European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union;

Thus they would be able to shovel taxpayers money to the pro-EU side, indeed that would be the express purpose of the change in the law.
What is more this recital was amended as it went through the Committee. Amendment 95 [PDF] by one Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP for the Eastern Counties and federast supreme. What did the Duffer succeed in doing, well he removed this sentence,
considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States

In other words he whitewashed any suggestion that the EU at one time recognised that there are some aspect of national democracy where it shouldn't interfere.

This is a direct attempt to find extra taxpayer funding for the Yes side in any forthcoming EU referendum in the UK. They are as aware of the liklihood of an In/Out referendum in the UK sooner or later and have every intention of loading the dice with taxpayer's money. As things stand the UK is affected in the sense that of the parties elected to the European Parliament and that have Political Parties at a European Level, that is the Tories, the Greens, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems are all formally partisans of an 'In'.

Think about all this. What this means is that money donated to the Lib Dem Euro political party, by someone living in France, could be used to fund a pro-European referendum campaign in the UK by washing it through the European Poltical Party. Neat eh?

In direct contravension of British electoral law, but so be it.

The EU federasts have been able to do immense damage and to hammer through enormous changes to our laws and constitution in the few decades since the last referendum: we simply cannot afford to lose this one.

As such, I am in favour of waiting a couple of years, until the colossal interference that EU undertakes through laws that we have never voted for becomes so onerous and so obvious that the British people will—for an absolute certainty—vote to leave this piece of shit federal union.

Can we leave yet? Yes.

Will people vote to do so? No.

Not yet.

But soon...

11 comments:

john b said...

Obviously, this massively-foreheaded cunt thinks that his opinion trumps that of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of the people that he is supposed to serve.

Erm, the UK is a representative democracy. It's his *job* to have an opinion that trumps that of a random selection of the people that he is supposed to serve.

Now, we could change the UK's constitution to be like that of Switzerland. But it isn't at the moment - and it's ridiculous to personally criticise the PM for following constitutional conventions.

Lady Virginia Droit de Seigneur said...

Membership of the EU is only one of a number of issues where our politicians think they know better than the general population - immigration, the death penalty, treatment of paedophiles, benefits - the list is quite long.

Mr Ecks said...

See EU Referendum blog. The danger pointed out there is, if we get an "Irish"-type situation, with billions going to the "Yes to EU tyranny" vote and the Bolshievik Broadcasting Corp on the side of evil, we could lose and that would be that as far as the UK is concerned. The NO campaign can't be half-arsed, we will have to win or die. A Referendum right now on the above terms would be vry dangerous. A year or two more to let the stink of Europe percolate a while longer.

Anonymous said...

There will never be another referendum unless you give those in power no choice.

Little is ever achieved just by talk. They need to be scared of losing everything. A police demo could be such fun!

Dunelmian said...

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Pledge. They are asking people to pledge not to vote for a candidate who won't support a referendum at the next election, so under their plan we wouldn't have a referendum until after the next election. Hence, by your own arguments, DK, you ought to support it. Unless I have misunderstood you?

Blue Eyes said...

Then why did he allow a referendum on AV? HE doesn't want AV, after all.

The Tories are in a tight spot. If people voted to say "IN" - which they probably would - then for the next thirty years the pro-integration crowd would point to their "victory" and snuff out any eurosceptic noises from the eurosceptic right.

Nigel Sedgwick said...

http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/11/the-birth-of-the-albion-alliance/#comment-1847

Best regards

Mark M said...

I don't actually object to the response. It's his prerogative to decide how he thinks the country is best run. It's an argument against referendums in general.

However, and this is where my problem is, we ARE having a referendum on the Alternative Vote. Why does Cameron not similarly put his foot down and say "No referendum because I think first past the post is best"?

It's exactly the same thing (i.e. Cameron prefers the status quo) but on one issue we're voting, on the other we aren't. It's the hypocrisy that so grates me.

Anonymous said...

"Are we Blair yet?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BcpWeFBOOU

Martin C said...

I hope you are right, but I fear you are wrong. As time passes, so the EU becomes more entrenched, the laws and constitution changes more pernicious, and the concept of the EU more 'comfortable' in people's minds.
If it is to be won, I think it should be held soon.

Hugo said...

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-YouGov-EURef-100910.pdf

September 2010
47% leave
33% stay
5% would not vote
14% don't know