October 24th, 2011 22:01
Was there ever any point in the idea?
- Lord Palmerston:- 1784 -1865 who said:- “Only three men in Europe understand the Schleswig Holstein question, (aka - West Lothian question) and of these, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s Consort is dead, a Danish Statesman unnamed is in an asylum ‘and I myself”‘ confessed Lord Palmerston, “have forgotten.”
- Jean Monnet:- 1888 – 1979 who said:- “All Europe’s nations should be guided towards a super-state, without people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
- Mr Peter Thorneycroft MP:- 1909 – 1994 who said:- “No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices an adequate European Plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously, into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, ‘not asked,” he insisted, “for it involves changes, which they may not at first be capable of recognising the advantages of - themselves.”
With a three party whip ranged against the motion, the outcome was always going to be what the politicians had decided. It is quite clear they have little regard for what the people have to say on the matter of EU interference in our internal affairs.
Can we really afford to wait for them to re-negotiate the terms of our involvement? Can we really believe there will be a better time to listen to what the people wish to say on the matter as prescribed by most who spoke against the motion before the house? At the rate of £25mn per day till they decide it is impossible to continue or the whole ridiculous charade implodes.
Can we really believe that those who voted to deny the people the opportunity to express their angst understood the depth of feeling at large in the general population? Or indeed ever understood themselves, what they had been forced into imposing as they wriggled and squirmed trying to explain, things they never fully understood themselves, in respect of the actual proposition before them.
Yes we realise that the politicians can and do have one eye on their own position in respect of advancement through the party ranks, to office of one kind or another. But to deny the prospect of expression to the public by refusing to grant a referendum on the EU was both mean spirited and short-sighted.
No doubt candidates at the next general election whenever it comes will use this as an opportunity to challenge opponents on their record of anti-democracy voting on the back of the ePetition legislation. And to determine if there was ever any purpose in introducing it, other than to use it put the electorate in their place, as voting fodder with no real voice.
Watch this space I’ll be back!
Tom.