I've blogged more extensively here about how Dave's renegotiations are a complete con.
However I was perhaps too gentle on him in that blog and wanted to cut to the chase just a little more forcefully.
Because here's the reality we're facing: Dave - and indeed all 'serious' political commentators from all political parties (hence the ' ' ) including Miliband, Clegg, Farron, Bliar, even Nuttily Bennett - have said we need a reform of the EU and our relationship with it if we are to remain 'in'.
Of course they have all conveniently forgotten having said this now that the battle lines are being drawn and are instead urging us to stay in regardless of any reforms. A stance which fundamentally undermines our negotiating position. Which tells you all you need to know about how honest or serious they were when talking about the need for reforms.
So off Dave toddles with his new satchel and shiny shoes to try and negotiate some changes. But these changes are about what he can get away with, what he can claim as being 'success' (without, you'll have noticed, first telling us what his 'red lines' for renegotiations are). They are about Europe agreeing the minimal, peripheral, window-dressing changes that will allow Dave to campaign for 'in'. They are simply not about what is best for the UK now and, more importantly, in the future. Despite what Dave will tell us.
On the other side of the 'debate' we have the EU saying that there is no possibility - no time - for them to enact treaty changes in time for the proposed UK referendum. So even if reforms are 'agreed' in principle, there can be absolutely no guarantee that the EU will enact them because the treaty changes upon which these reforms rely, will not be possible in the time-frame.
So the EU could tell us what we want to hear, Dave could then bring the full weight of the British establishment to bear, secure an 'in' vote at the referendum based on 'agreed proposals' and then the EU could simply chuck out our concessions when treaty changes are voted on by the EU at some point in the future.
And if this happens (which seems very likely to me given how the EU machinery works) will we then get another referendum? Because what we voted on didn't happen?
Will we fuck.
And here is the future of the EU mapped out in its own document. If we vote to remain 'in' we will not get another chance. In ten years' time we will have given up the Pound. And along with it any possibility of Britain remaining as a nation state able to govern itself.
Which is why the 'in-crowd' have jettisoned their previously stated case of needing reforms in Britain's interests.
The thing is, when Greece encountered its German-designed and infinitely recurring 5-year financial crisis earlier this year, the EU was able to change its rules, almost overnight. Not to help Greece you understand but to help the German and French banks (and the IMF) who were exposed to Greek debt. Little 'net recipient' Greece was able to motivate the EU to change its rules very quickly in order to protect itself.
Just imagine if the third biggest contributor to the EU threatened to leave unless it (the EU) enacted or legally guaranteed treaty changes in line with our requirements? Do you really think Mr Juncker would say 'sorry we can't do it in the time-frame'? Do you really think he'd gamble with the very existence of the EU going forward (because if we leave it is utterly doomed to fail) on this basis?
Of course he wouldn't. If push came to shove, the EU would have no option but to accede to our demands for the reform of our relationship with it. And it would, if Dave threatened to campaign for Brexit without these reforms being cast in stone, do anything to ensure that we stay in and that the Eurocrats' cushy lifestyles and solid gold pension pots are maintained.
Dave must know that he is holding all the cards in this high stakes game of brag. And he tells us, almost daily that he will fight for EU reforms in Britain's best interests.
So why isn't he doing so?
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment