The Europlastics have been too clever by half

Let us set aside for one moment whether the House of Commons debate scheduled for Monday will actually achieve anything other than confirming MPs are a craven bunch of lying hypocrites, whether or not this is the right time and for an In/Out referendum on the EU, or if the Westminster Parliament has enough competence to resume powers that have been given away.  There is some good news amongst the mess.

The amendment tabled by George EUstice to this Monday’s debate on a Motion relating to the holding of a national referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, and Bernard Jenkin’s subsequent letter to EUstice which was copied to all backbench Conservative MPs (reproduced below) confirms our argument that EUstice is a Europhile stooge.

With poll after poll showing a majority of people in this country want an In/Out referendum, George EUstice is now doing his level best to subvert the wishes of the people and fulfil the wishes of David Cameron.  EUstice claims to be a Eurosceptic, but the reality is EUstice is pro-EU.  He wants to keep Britain in the EU and arrogantly believes it can be reformed, despite this belief being utterly incompatible with the EU’s definitive aims and conditions of membership.  This letter from Jenkin holes EUstice below his Europhile waterline:

Dear George

Firstly, David Nuttall’s motion sums up the EU question which faces the nation: do we carry on with EU integration on present terms of membership; or get out altogether; or renegotiate revised terms of membership? Your amendment seeks to narrow the terms of the debate by removing reference to one option which is clearly available to this country, which is to leave the EU. I personally don’t agree with an in-out referendum, but I recognise that that it is a legitimate option to be debated. The argument that this was not in our manifesto is irrelevant.I think we all appreciate your and others’ efforts to build bridges here, but I feel I must make it clear to colleagues why I (and probably most colleagues) cannot support the amendment as drafted. I am copying this to backbench colleagues.

Second, you advance your amendment on the basis that it is consistent with the coalition agreement, but this is not relevant either. Both the coalition agreement and our manifesto have both been overtaken by events. Support for fiscal union in the Euro area was not in either – and would have never have been entertained if it had been proposed for either document. It is fiscal union which is leading to a fundamental change in the character of the EU, and which has given rise to the demand for this debate.

Third, as a supporter of renegotiation, why am I not tempted by your amendment? Because any remit for renegotiation must set out the objective of establishing a new relationship with our EU partners. For such a new relationship to be meaningful, there must be a fundamental change in that relationship. It must restore the basic democratic principle that the authority to pass laws should be democratically accountable to those who are affected by them. The powers delegated to the EU (or withdrawn) must in future be determined by Parliament, and not by the EU institutions acting autonomously. Without this, nothing much will change. The difficulty we now face is that the EU Treaties are now so all encompassing, and the institutions so assertive, that the exercise of merely nibbling back powers and competences here and there would not reverse the effect of the Lisbon Treaty on the UK, or Nice, or Amsterdam, or Maastricht, or the Single European Act, or address the fundamental problems which actually arise from the Treaty of Rome.

Finally, there is a great danger that Parliament will emerge from this looking very out of touch if the House is not to debate the original motion or at least something which reflects its spirit. The BBBC adopted this motion in response to the e-petitions which demand an in-out EU referendum. Had the authors of the amendment approached the BBBC with their motion, it would not have been entertained by the BBBC, since there are no e-petitions behind it. If this amendment were to be selected, the debate and the vote which followed would be on the amendment, and not on the main motion – hardly an example of e-petitions working as they were intended!

Yours ever


Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex)
Chairman, PASC (Public Administration Select Committee)

More people will be asking what kind of Eurosceptic would put forward an amendment which attempts to delay a national referendum on EU membership until after the UK had ‘renegotiated its position’ in the EU?  After all, such a call only serves the interests of the EU and those who are pro-EU.  Questions are being asked and the true face of EUstice is being revealed to more of those who have been taken in by his scam.

EUstice, along with fellow unprincipled climber, Chris Heaton-Harris, thought they were merely doing their master’s bidding – and their careers a favour – by forming the Parliamentary group of Europlastics to act as a pressure valve to ease the demands in some Tory party quarters for a straight In/Out referendum concerning our membership of the EU.

But it seems EUstice and Heaton-Harris have been too clever by half.  Their vanity has compounded their stupidity and led them to court so much media attention for their supposedly Eurosceptic club they have painted themselves into a corner.  It appears to be backfiring spectacularly.  With some in the media completely taken in by the EUstice/Heaton-Harris con trick, and others trying to help them in their attempt to undermine genuine Eurosceptics, copious amounts of oxygen have been pumped onto the story with unintended consequences.

Something that was supposed to grow no larger than a small flame to contain those who want Cameron to fulfil his Eurosceptic promises is now burning out of control.  Outside the Westminster bubble ordinary people, campaign groups and some of the useful idiots in the media who were taken in by the EUstice/Heaton-Harris spin and deception have seized the moment and given it a momentum that was never intended.

A debate in the House of Commons the Tory high command never wanted is now going to be held.  MPs who were selected for their supposed Eurosceptic credentials are now being called out by the people who were taken in by them and expect them to deliver on their pre-election pledges.  Cameron and Hague are seething with anger and have, with breathtaking arrogance, moved a backbench debate forward so they can personally attend and rein in those who are might go too far in playing to their constituency audiences and the public in general. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

So, on to that good news I referred to.  There are some upsides to all this.

After the debate it is likely that more people will be more aware than ever that all but a single digit number of Tory MPs who profess to be Eurosceptic are anything of the sort.  David Cameron and William Hague’s claims to be Eurosceptic will be finally exposed as utter cant, further eroding their credibility with the less engaged members of the public.  The BBC’s desire to showcase apparent Tory splits in news headlines will awaken resentment of the EU among more people outside the Westminster bubble, making our membership more unpopular and unsustainable.  And the political class will be more marginalised than ever as more people grasp the fact none of the three main parties share our views or interests – and that the idea of representative democracy is an illusion.

Before people can set about fixing something they have to understand exactly what is broken.  At this time not enough people realise what is broken.  This Parliamentary debate and the furore surrounding it will help more people on that journey of understanding.  No matter what the outcome of the debate itself, the charade that brought it about will bring about some positive benefits.

10 Responses to “The Europlastics have been too clever by half”

  1. 1 OF 22/10/2011 at 11:29 am

    Agreed. As I said on Your Freedom and Ours:

    “The good things about Monday’s debate:

    1) There won’t after all be a referendum of any type. Phew. [It would be a huge unforced error: ]
    2) Far fewer people will think of the Tories as “eurosceptic”.
    3) Miliband is also whipping his careerists, so even fewer people will trust Labour.
    4) The handsomely sinecured “referendum at all costs” industry will have seen its fox shot and will then have to devise something useful to do.”

    As for Jenkin. He writes: “Third, as a supporter of renegotiation, why am I not tempted by your amendment?”

    If he supports “renegotiation” then he is unwittingly or worse a europlastic:

    In short: Jenkin is no better than EUstice.

  2. 2 Autonomous Mind 22/10/2011 at 11:46 am

    Jenkin is better than EUstice because he is at least honest about what he stands for. But he is no good to the genuine Eurosceptics.

  3. 3 Julian Williams in Pembrokeshire 22/10/2011 at 12:22 pm

    I find when I am talking about politicians I am using the one word again and again; the word is dishonest. They seem to have lost the ability to tell the truth on all important issues of the day: Climate, the EU, the economic mess we are in. There reflex is always the same; lie about the situation and hope to keep their dirty secrets under wraps.

  4. 4 TheBoilingFrog 22/10/2011 at 12:35 pm

    Very good point AM. It’s why I’m minded to attend on Monday to the mass lobby. Not that I think it will achieve anything regarding the outcome, but thousands of people protesting outside Parliament will help make MPs look more out of touch than ever.

    And this vote will also give us tangible proof that we use again and again against Euro plastics and their supporters when they claim that the Tories want to renegotiate our membership.

  5. 5 ukipwebmaster 22/10/2011 at 6:10 pm

    Lamestream media and straw men:

  6. 6 political outcast 22/10/2011 at 7:25 pm

    I agree with your article. I cancelled my membership of the Conservative Party on Thursday in response to the three-line whip. I am not necessarily sold on UKIP but I will never vote Conservative again unless there is a substantial and explicit shift against the EU and I would never vote LibDem or Labour. So it’s fair to say I am now absolutely opposed to all three major parties.

  7. 7 Brian H 22/10/2011 at 10:20 pm

    The conspiracy is to deprive the voters of any choice that resembles what they actually want.

  8. 8 mfosdb 22/10/2011 at 11:29 pm

    It’s quite likely that next week will see the beginning of the end of the project. The French can’t agree with the Germans, the euro is a busted lowball flush, the peripherals want to keep their EU Sozialversicherung and whatever happens, the markets will probably get all wobbly. Cameron has to leave this weeks EU meetings early in order to ensure he defeats monday’s vote, which he probably brought forward anticipating that this week’s squabbling and the lead up to next months G20 summit is not going to be pretty. Feels almost like a phony war, like in 1939. Which reminds me there is a book coming out soon which is a ‘must read’. Head North for more info…

  9. 9 Mike 23/10/2011 at 11:36 am

    Another good article AM and a lovely use of english… ‘utter cant’; change just one letter and you have a perfect description of the people doing the ‘uttering’…

  1. 1 On the EU Referendum Vote | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG Trackback on 22/10/2011 at 3:17 pm
Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: