Britannia Radio

WHY WON’T DAVID CAMERON SPEAK FOR THE UK?

Why is David Cameron only ruthless to loyal Britishers?

Friday October 28,2011

By Frederick Forsyth

The EU-sceptics were foolish to table a request for a three-option referendum.THE debate and vote in Parliament last Monday was a complete fi asco for both sides of the argument.

Such a plebiscite would be a disaster for their cause. Why? Because it would be extremely unlikely that any one of the three choices would achieve the 51 per cent needed to be accepted as the settled will of the British people. It would be far more likely to end up one third, one third and one third.

Who would then make the choice of which two to amalgamate into a commanding victory? Why, the Government. And they would pick the vote to stay in the EU plus the vote for reforms. The requests (only) for a claw-back of British sovereignty would be promptly rebuffed by Brussels, the Cameron Government would capitulate on Foreign Offi ce advice and that would be that. It would be over and over for ever because we will never under any circumstances get a second referendum.

David Cameron HAS a big stick: the British people.

Therefore the one we clamour for must be quite clear: two options, one verdict. We want to transfer from the European Union to the European Free Trade Area. (All the return of our national sovereignty then follows as night the day.)

YET the Government showed ineptitude of breathtaking proportions by insisting on a three-line whip when none was needed. On a free vote the “no referendum” camp would still have won because (and let us not forget this) Labour and the Lib Dems also imposed threeline whips and the two of them outnumber the 80 per cent of Tories who would have voted for letting the British people speak. It would have been clear that Labour and the Lib Dems were the ones spitting on democracy and the Tories would have had the moral high ground by a mile. As it is all three have come out looking like shysters.

Long-dead US president Teddy Roosevelt got it right. He said: in power politics the trick is to speak soft but carry a big stick. For 20 years since Maastricht four British premiers have whinged, whined, complained and grizzled on the
sidelines as noisily as they could but never had a big stick. Result? They have been defeated and have capitulated on everything. That is what Sarkozy of France was complaining about when he snapped at David Cameron: shut up, we are all sick and tired of the UK. And he was right. David Cameron HAS a big stick: the British people.

If he simply said, “Look, in 12 months if our just demands on the return of national competences are not met I shall have no choice but to give the British people a referendum” he would be the most infl uential man in Europe. It’s because of the British cheque book. If that ever closes the mandarins of Brussels will be reduced to paupers.

But without the big stick Clegg will continue to dictate the odds to a man with six times more MPs than the Lib Dems and the mandarins of Brussels will throw out his repatriation requests with hoots of derisive laughter.

I actually approve of a premier being ruthless. It is necessary. In power politics nice guys equal weak guys and they get kicked in the butt the whole time. But why is Cameron concessive to our enemies, opponents and rivals and only ruthless to loyal Britishers?