Sunday, 4 October 2009

Andrew Marr interviews Camoron

Andrew Marr has got the measure of David Camoron and was visibly frustrated at his refusal to answer a simple question with a simple answer.

Over and over again he asked Camoron why he wouldn't commit to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and over and over again Camoron said it was because he didn't want to prejudice the discussions and debates being had in any other country.

He's said this several times now and one question has to be asked - one which Andrew Marr sadly didn't ask - if committing to a retrospective referendum on Lisbon will encourage Poland and the Czech Republic not to ratify it then what's the problem?

The problem, of course, is quite obvious to anyone who understands how deeply and fundamentally dishonest Camoron is. Camoron is a committed eurofederalist and the last thing he wants is to upset his masters in the European Empire. The last thing he wants is to have to go to his masters and tell them that their plan has backfired and he's got to hold a referendum after all and that it's going to be rejected by a massive majority, no matter how many times we are forced to vote (unlike the cowardly Irish traitors). As I said yesterday, Camoron will be happy that the Irish have voted for Lisbon because it means he's unlikely to be the one that has to make the decision to hold a referendum or break yet another promise.

Camoron has been evasive about the Libson Treaty/EU Constitution and the European Empire ever since he won the leadership election for his party. As is so often the case with Tories, he made vaguely eurosceptic noises when he was trying to get elected and as soon as he'd won, he went back to his eurofederalist ways. I've said it before and I'll continue saying it until every single person in this country realises it - Camoron is a fundamentally dishonest man and a traitor.

5 comments:

ukipwebmaster said...

Dave clears things up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6DNzgXAMpw

Tom said...

Once we all appreciate that Call Me Dave has REPEATEDLY said that he does NOT intend leaving the EU, then we know EXACTLY where he stands !

Whether he gives us a Referendum or not, is irrelevant. He is NOT coming out! So there you have it ! Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak !

Steve Halden said...

David Cameron wants to be in Europe, but not this Europe, rather a hypothetical Europe, where free independent nations co-operate with each other.

All this to be brought about by reforming the EU from within.

This sounds a bit like the Common Market that we thought we were joining 40 years ago.

But there never was any Common Market.

That was just a name given to the European Economic Community (EEC)by Edward Heath, so as not to frighten the voters about the thing that we were joining.

Now David Cameron want to get back to something that never existed in the forst place.

ukipwebmaster said...

One wonders if Dave is simply stalling so he won’t have to carry out his half-hearted promise?
This is the legal position taken from Mary Ellen Synon’s blog:

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2009/10/the-legal-position-for-the-tories-on-lisbon.html

‘The legal position is clear. The Lisbon Treaty has to be ratified by all 27 states before it comes into force. Any time up to that point, the instrument of ratification of any state which has ratified can be revoked. If there is a general election before all 27 member states have ratified the treaty, then the United Kingdom can revoke its ratification. The treaty will then be dead unless the UK reinstates its ratification following a “Yes” vote in a referendum.’

‘However, if it is ratified by all 27 member states before the time of the general election, legally it takes effect and supersedes earlier treaties. Then it cannot be amended or revoked except by further treaty or an instrument equivalent to a treaty, such as a protocol. Britain would need to get agreement of all other member states for that.’

Edgar said...

I'm all for your points, here, but the persistent use of Camoron really is irritating and detracts from the power of the argument. It's not that I think Dave isn't intellectually challenged (he certainly is not the brightest of buttons in the political box), it's just stylistically tedious. Sorry!