Bill Cash and his contradictory ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ bill.
Bill Cash MP introduces a UK Parliament Sovereignty Bill today to the house.
I don’t believe in National referendums, because amongst other things it undermines the responsibility of the elected government and parliament for its legislative programme, creates a two-tier legal system and – and I’ll admit this isn’t strictly an issue of democracy – creates a system of populist legislating rather than a considered, debated and accountable one.
I include the third of my objections because democracy, to me at least, means more than giving people the say on issues. Take the medical world: consent is not enough, what is required is informed consent. I believe referendums, particularly on such a complex issue, lack the ‘informed’ aspect required to make something democratic.
Treaties like Lisbon have been passed in a democratic fashion, having been debated by both houses for a long period of time and given assent by the monarch. Is it not a contratiction in terms to try and retain parliamentry sovereignty by arguing for a referendum?
There is a reason why we have proportionality. Is Bill Cash seriously suggesting every British county become independent (Considering he is a part of ‘Better Off Out) or at the very least have have a referendum every time Westminister embarks constitutional reform? Because unless he concede that other principles are at work here, that’s exactly what the argument implies.
Conservatives and the EU.
David Cameron has managed created a real opposition within the European Parliament before even before becoming PM, quite the amazing feat, and one of the promises he has been able to deliver on. An anti federalist solution that the Eurosceptics and the few Europhiles within the party (Yes, Daniel Hannan we still exist.) can rally around and fly the flag for – localism and free trade within the European Union, we don’t need Nationalist claptrap to achieve that, we need to put our opposition into action so that we can achieve the change we want
I am firmly of the belief that many with the party are not true Eurosceptics, just anti-Brussels, by that I mean against the policies of the EU rather than the idea of a European union itself. The EUSSR meme is in full flow, I’m not even sure if the people who use it actually do wear timn foil hats or whether they actually people it’s an effective way to make people anti EU. Cameron and his team are not Euro-secessionists, and will never cave into pressure from that fringe of the party.
What we should be doing is working constructively with the EU, not giving into pressure from other member states like the current Government have done for the past 12 years. It’s funny that we have jibes from the Labour benches that our so called ‘isolation’ within Europe will hinder us from having any influence, considering that the only thing that springs to my mind about what they have done in the EU is to release Britains rebate, and for what exactly? That’s where that sort of ‘influence’ gets us.A conservative government must stand up for the interests of Britain, as well as the EU as a whole.
But to have that the party must engage. We already have hard working MEP’s like Charles Tannock that attempt to follow the party policy of a European Union that devolves as much power as possible, but when they go to the grassroots to draw from them they’re met with this sort of drivel.
“Charles let me direct. You are a hardline europhile. You are advocating, indeed exhorting submission to the undemocratic EU.
You must know as well as the rest of us that our ability to ‘influence the Union’s policy in our national interest as much as possible’ is minimal. Minimal.
You write ‘in recent months William Hague has put more flesh on the bones of Conservative foreign policy’ and then admit that there are 26 other countries contributing to the EU’s foreign policy.
We all admire your stamina in returning time after time to ConHome and taking these brickbats but …and it is a big but…when will reality hit?”
I could ask (If I were to be so rude): When will the reality hit that you’re talking out of your arse?
If we’re going to win the election, the Conservative party need to stop whining about Lisbon,(When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I usually find there’s few things they would object to and the EU seccessionalists must admit to themselves it is never going to happe.n I don’t much like how many Eurosceptics use the referendum campaign just to try and stuff the EU altogether, and frankly neither does the electorate.
Clearing up the Conservative Position on the Human Rights Act
International law binds us to our treaty commitments – and that includes the ECHR. We cannot simply go back on that and “withdraw” from that Convention. If we were to remove the ECHR from our domestic law by repealing the HRA, then the effect would not be greatly different: we would still be bound to the European Court of Human Rights, and would thus have to act in accordance with the ECHR anyway.
A lot of the justice and home affairs ‘pillar’ is dependent on a mutual recognition of rights and liberties between member-states, and this is effectively what the ECHR has become – a minimum standard for all member states. To withdraw would create, effectively, a constitutional crisis in the EU. (Not that the ECHR orginates from the EU, it comes from the Council of Europe)
I don’t think that anyone representing the Conservative Party position correctly here, a British Bill of Rights has been suggested for a long time, and even when the European Convention on Human Rights was being made it was suggested as a possability for the future. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights have been considering this issue at length, Gordon Brown has expressed interest in this policy – indeed, it was accepted by the Labour Party back in 1997 that the Human Rights Act was not the final word when it came to rights in the UK.
It was accepted therein as clear that any British Bill of Rights would have to build on the ECHR, and could not be a step backwards in that regard. That is probably what will happen, not necessarily even to give us new rights, but simply to make the whole thing more palatable to the public, which is why Cameron wants to create a British Bill of Rights to legitimate the culture of human rights in the UK and to build upon it, probably replacing the HRA as redundant.
If anyone, including Cameron, ever suggested (and some of the grassroots of the party have sadly) that taking away ECHR rights was a realistic possibility, then they’ve either not considered it properly are or talking rubbish. People have either fallen into this trap, or are purposely exploiting the publics ignorance on the matter in the name of political gain, surely not something a highly educated paper like the Guardian would do right?
The ECHR is one of the greatest documents on freedom ever written, now it’s time to make it legitimate, and even more refined.
Rompuy Pumpuy becomes President of the European Council.
Some people seem to be of the opinion that Van Rompuy will hold the same sway over Europe as Obama does over America, which is what we get for having newspapers so illiterate — or perhaps even purposely lying on matters to do with the EU.
He is a Chairman (or spokesperson) for the collective leaders of the EU member countries (the Council), and will have virtually no influence over policy. Hell, he already sits on the Council as PM of Belgium.
Very little will change. In the grand scheme of things, this is relatively minor — the fact that it is splashed across newspapers doesn’t change that.
For Belgium however it could be a return to worse times. Think of those who may have to endure yet another period of political instability while a new prime minister is chosen. There is the known 2008 crisis, and in the last six years relatively little stability for the country echoed by the polls carried in Belgium.
But in the end the leaders sitting in the Council (and the public) didn’t want somebody to impose their will on the leaders of the member states, which could be a wise decision. If a high profile candidate like Blair were to have got the position, it would have only served to have set Eurosceptic flame in the Conservative Party — and with an emerging consensus around the issue of the EU with the forming of the ECR something the Europhiles like myself amongst us cannot risk fanning, for now at least.
Just to make sure this is clear, I have prepared him a brief speech:
“Delegates, Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, peoples of Europe. Let me begin by stating I am not Tony Blair. I hope to continue not to be Tony Blair, and I assume this dignity with the firm intent, to work with you, on behalf of Europe and the world, in creating a European Union based upon the principles of freedom, justice, community, and the absence of Tony Blair. Thank you.”