In 1991, for example, European heads of government met in Maastricht to agree to create the European Union and what later became the euro, thus advancing the cause of the super-state. Britain could have vetoed this, but didn’t. Instead, the then prime minister, John Major, won an opt-out from the new currency. This was certainly a good thing so far as it went, but Britain permitted the disastrous process of Economic and Monetary Union to roll forward and make more than half the European continent the mess it is today.
With one voice, every powerful outlet in the country proclaimed that Maastricht was “game, set and match” to Mr Major. I remember it vividly because it was the only time in my career when my column in this paper was “spiked” (journalese for not printed). It had questioned the idea that Mr Major had to agree the Treaty. By writing thus, I had crossed an invisible line, and the then editor did not want me to do that.
"One just has to remember that the whole process has almost nothing to do with the issue on which we shall be voting in the referendum"
In 2016, similar, artificial importance is being attached to one negotiation. On February 19, government spin doctors suggest, David Cameron will pull off a series of decisive concessions from European partners who have at last come to see the force of his arguments. Then there will be no reason left to vote to leave the EU in the referendum we are promised.
First in the mind of Mr Cameron – as of the Labour PM Harold Wilson in his referendum in 1975 – is how best to secure the unity and continuation of his government. What is going on just now is that ministers and other prominenti who might get uppity on the question are being bound in – or, if they threaten, like Chris Grayling, not to be so bound, marginalised. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond, John Whittingdale. Iain Duncan Smith – even Theresa May or Oliver Letwin – have in the past expressed views consistent with a Leave vote. But every stretch of language is now being made, every benefit of the doubt given to the intentions of the other member states, to make them feel OK about voting to stay. And I bet this is what they will do.
One need not complain about this – governments have to try to stay alive, and ministers want to keep their jobs. But one just has to remember that the whole process has almost nothing to do with the issue on which we shall be voting in the referendum, which concerns not the convenience of the Conservative Party, but the future of this country.
Source: http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/579309/s/4cef2711/sc/13/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Cnews0Cnewstopics0Ceureferendum0C1210A45880CWhy0Eleaders0Erarely0Eside0Ewith0Ethe0EEurosceptics0Bhtml/story01.htm
No comments: