Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Yesterday Mark Reckless brought up the radical EU treaty change ALREADY AGREED by EU leaders on March 25th.
"The Prime Minister tells The Daily Telegraph today that we should use any treaty change to shore up the euro to get powers over employment and social policy back, yet on 25 March, he agreed to precisely such a treaty change, but did not ask for anything in return."
Cameron's answer:
"The very limited treaty change that is about to be debated in, and hopefully passed by, the House of Commons, gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that the previous Government got us into. I thought, and I still think as Prime Minister, that that was the single most important price that we could exact for that treaty change - that was the biggest concern of the British public. The point I made yesterday and that I will make again today is that I believe that huge changes will take place in the EU and the eurozone. That will give us opportunities to maximise the national interest ... "
Firstly, it isn't a "very limited treaty change" - it's a radical, and for the UK a potentially very dangerous, treaty change.
It is also the EU treaty change which is necessary to allow the governments of the eurozone states to proceed with their vile ESM treaty, so it is also dangerous for the peoples of those countries.
Secondly, there's nothing at all in that EU treaty change which "gets us out of the bail-out mechanism".
That would necessarily mean that it included at least one provision which applied to the UK, and if that was the case Hague could not invoke Section 4(4)(b) of his "referendum block" law to deny us a referendum:
Thirdly, all the eurozone bail-out mechanisms breach one or more parts of the EU treaties, as openly admitted by Christine Lagarde among others.
There was no need for Cameron to hand over anything, let alone such a radical and dangerous EU treaty change, in exchange for being excused further participation in illegal eurozone bail-outs; it would have been enough for him to point out that in all matters he was bound by UK law, including the EU treaties which had been incorporated into UK law through Acts of Parliament.
Fourthly, I hope that when MPs come to debate this EU treaty change they will decide that it was a mistake to pre-authorise Cameron to agree to it and refuse to pass the Bill, although on the basis of yesterday's vote there seems little prospect that they'll do so.
Fifthly, while Cameron is certainly correct to "believe that huge changes will take place in the EU and the eurozone", there is no certainty that those "huge changes" will actually require any further EU treaty changes - EU treaty changes which other EU leaders will be extra keen to avoid, if they know that the UK is going to start making any significant demands - and even if there are further EU treaty changes it's a pretty fair bet that Hague would invoke his "referendum block" law to stop us having a vote on them.
As he said during yesterday's debate, this afternoon Bill Cash is having another go about this:
"EUROPEAN UNION ACT 2011 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL"
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply the terms of the European Union Act 2011 such as to require approval by Act of Parliament and by referendum of provisions for the creation of a fiscal union or economic governance amongst those Member States of the European Union which comprise the Eurozone; and for connected purposes."
-------------------------------
Posts
