If there exist a danger of an 'undemocratic' and dangerous EU........

……..why the hell, exactly, are we still a member? An article has appeared on Conservative Home about statements made by William Cash, John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, during the recent backbench debate on the European Council.


Cash maintains that: “A house divided against itself will fall, and the situation will be worse still if it is built on sand“. Far be it for me to point out to such an august figure as William Cash, but the House of Westminster is divided (albeit by means of a large majority and a small minority) and it matters not whether it is built on sand or mud. Maintaining that the EU is ‘undemocratic’ (which we all knew, but thanks for ‘informing’ us) he also voices his fear that if something is not done to address this deficit in democracy it has the potential to present a breeding ground for the far right. Why only the ‘far right’? Why should the ‘far right’ be the section of society singled out as potential trouble-makers? What, exactly, is it Cash is calling for? Is he in fact saying that making the EU ‘democratic’ is then acceptable and we should remain a member? 


We then have that ‘renowned’ eurosceptic, John Redwood, entering the discussion, stating that the present situation is a crisis of democracy. Err, how can an organisation renowned for being undemocratic have a crisis of democracy? Do we not have a ‘crisis of democracy’ in the UK? He complains, regarding the EU, that: “We see in some of these countries that the electorate change the Government but they do not change the policy“. Has he looked at the UK lately? Did we not change our government and does not the policy remain? So Redwood’s point is?


Last, we have Bernard Jenkin, another supposed eurosceptic, stating that we should ‘divide and rule’ (whatever the hell that means) “because it would be in our interests if the Euro succeeded with a democratic settlement in the European Union“. So by practising ‘divide and rule’ it would be possible for the euro to succeed with a democratic settlement in an undemocratic organisation?


What exactly is it that these three men want? Do they want ‘In’ or ‘Out’? Do they want to waste their time discussing a deficit of democracy in an organisation to which membership is not mandatory? Would they not be better discussing the deficit of democracy in their own country, a deficit compounded by our membership of the aforesaid organisation? 


I believe it was Autonomous Mind (or was it Richard North) who devised the description of ‘plastic’ when describing Conservative sceptic MPs. In these straightened times it behoves us to use our plastic sparingly. I have for some time been of the opinion the account on which these three cards were provided has long been out of credit so their continued availability is pointless – and we all know what to do with worthless cards, don’t we?

Read more at Witterings from Witney