I was brought up, long ago, with the constant admonition: 'do not mock the afflicted!'
I usually avoid doing so; but sometimes it seems that a voluntarily-adopted affliction makes an important point about the person who has adopted it. I increasingly feel this about the prime minister's selection of clothes. I recognise that she is tall and slim: as many leading models are, so there is an amplitude of clothing for women of means who are of those dimensions to choose from. Mrs May's choices vary between the odd and the wildly eccentric; and yesterday at the Cenotaph I thought that she established a new, abnormal norm. The black bonnet that she had selected - possibly it was even designed for her - looked like something that a war widow of 100 years ago would have dressed her teenage daughter in for a remembrance event: yet it was also vaguely reminiscent of a German army helmet. Yesterday it simply looked anachronistic on a grown woman.
But for me it also epitomised her situation. She gambled on winning enough seats in the Commons for the Conservative Party so that she could discount the ten-to-twenty headbanging Brexiteers who for various reasons - including pure stupidity - want to risk national economic ruin by interpreting the referendum result of 2016 as authorising the government to leave the European Economic Area altogether, on a cliff-edge date at the end of March 2019. As she totally misjudged the one-woman campaign that she ran, she lost her majority; since when the headbangers [and the DUP] have dominated her field for policy options. She has retreated into a psychological bunker, from which - so it is rumoured - she continues to radiate confidence that all will become well in the best of all possible worlds: sometime. And meanwhile, as M Barnier has said, the clock on the exit door is ticking.
Yesterday the Sunday Times - never known as a Labour-supporting vehicle - gave a prominent page to an article in the name of Jeremy Corbyn [which was, therefore, at least authorised by him]. In it he presaged a shift of parliamentary arithmetic, implying his recognition of the fact that while virtually all members of the Commons accept that the referendum result [though many of them think it unfortunate] must - at least, minimally - be implemented. But he also accepts that an overwhelming majority of members have come to recognise that to leave the Common Market and the European Union in a simple step would be a calamity for the country.
To demand a general election - which may become necessary if Mrs May is defeated by the defection of any section of her party - would mean that the current crop of MPs have abdicated all responsibility. It is deeply unclear what the result of a general election would be: but the most probable outcome would be a small renaissance for the LibDems, the Scots Tories at least holding their position, no change in Ulster, Labour gains in Scotland [but the Nats still in the lead] and no clear result from England. Labour might just be the biggest party, though the Tories have an equal chance of that; so the construction of a coalition would be a slow and painful business: while the Europeans could fold their arms and enjoy the British discomfiture and the tick of the clock.
The last time when Britain was in a comparable situation was in June, 1940; when a paralysis of government [albeit, with a strong Conservative majority] faced an existential threat. Talk of coalition was in the air; and Labour had already made clear that they could not support a Chamberlain-led government: though they also accepted that the Tory majority required that any coalition was led by a Conservative. In the crucial debate, as a government supporter spoke for the government, a fellow member challenged him to "speak for England". The government left the debate with a clear majority, but the loss of confidence in them was equally clear. Chamberlain - a sick man - resigned, and the amazing, anachronistic career of Winston Churchill reached its apogee.
Corbyn is no Churchill: he is no patriot, he has supported obnoxious alien regimes acting on the lines of the traduced anti-patriots of whom W S Gilbert wrote they admire "all centuries but this one, and all countries but their own". Corbyn's recent adoption of statesmanlike utterances - at odds with his career-long posturing - is utterly unconvincing: but if he were to prove capable of keeping to manifesto promises [and capable of keeping his close associates within those bounds] he might be useful in the hour of crisis.
Showing posts with label Common Market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Market. Show all posts
Monday, 13 November 2017
Tuesday, 24 October 2017
Concorde: A Retrospect
On this date in 2003 the last flight by a British Airways Concorde carrying paying passengers flew in to Heathrow. Hundreds of Thousands of people made sure that they could see - and hear - this spectacular aircraft for a last time. There were a few more final flourishes, including one in which half a dozen of the 'planes flew up the Thames estuary towards the airport; then that unique sound vanished from the skies. A few of the aircraft have been kept as museum pieces, but they are naturally regarded as relics rather than as harbingers of great things to come.
The aircraft were first mooted in the nineteen fifties, and a joint venture was sealed with France; long before Britain was admitted to the Common Market that was to mutate into the European Union. Harold Wilson's Labour government strongly considered aborting the project, on cost grounds; but it was decided that this joint exercise with France, that would put Europe ahead of the USA and the USSR, was too important to abandon. Tony Benn, in a short episode of ministerial office, returned from conversations in Paris to report that the project would definitely go ahead: and that the name of the craft would be spelt in the French way - with an e on the end - to stand for Europe, enterprise and a whole string of other e-words that I cannot remember [and it is not worth looking them up].
To fly in Concorde was a very special experience. It was all-first-class [except on specially booked flights] and the space in the cabin was extremely limited. There were four carefully-designed small seats in each row, with a relatively narrow aisle and a low ceiling. Takeoff was spectacular and the craft quickly got to supersonic speed, which was shown on an indicator at the front of the cabin. The westbound journey to New York took almost four hours: which meant that the 'plane arrived in America a little earlier [on the clock] than its takeoff time from London. I was intrigued to find that a lot of people booked westbound flights on Concorde to enjoy the experience of 'beating time'; then they traveled eastbound on less cramped aircraft.
Some people became inter-continental commuters - a few, mostly media figures, on a weekly basis - and claimed to feel no ill-effects from the experience.
The venture was demonstrated soon to be uneconomic. It became a flag-flying exercise for British Airways, Air France and their sponsoring governments. There were no orders from alien airlines, and while the USA and USSR developed and even tested supersonic passenger jets there was no marketed competitor to Concorde.
The context in which this happened was that of the cold war. With the development of nuclear weapons, the competing powers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact needed aircraft that could deliver such weapons with minimum chance of being intercepted before they got over their target. The development of fast fighter 'planes reduced the chances of even supersonic bombers being successful; so began the concentration on inter-continental ballistic missiles. The British and French governments decided jointly to try to create a market for supersonic aircraft in commercial use: and Concorde was the spectacular result. But it was never cost effective. The amount of the most highly-refined fuel needed to get it [and keep it] airborne, in ratio to the number of passengers who could be carried, was never going to be economically efficient. Commercial aircraft constructors saw the future in large-bodied, relatively economical sub-sonic 'planes: of which the Boeing 747 and the European Airbus became the best-known workhorses.
Some of the technology that was developed for supersonic flights was of use generally in the aircraft industry: but that knowledge was mostly acquired from the bomber programmes; Concorde was not needed from that point of view.
As the small stock of planes aged, so maintenance costs increased, fuel efficiency declined and it became clear that passengers in general preferred the relative economy and comfort of wide-bodied aircraft in which first-class passengers could have beds, business class could have comfortable divans, and everybody had space to move around. The British and the French had proved what could be done. Tens of thousands of people had enjoyed the unique experience. But that was that.
Was it sad? Not particularly. It was they way of the world: 'how the cookie crumbles'.
Was it wasteful? Yes, but nobody much minded.
National pride was enhanced.
France was helped to develop the capability to build big, twenty-first century aircraft for which the Brits made some of the parts.
France can still design and build fighters: Britain has surrendered that capability.
The relative efficiency of the bureaucracies of the two states was sharply differentiated by the whole venture. The French remain focused, chauvinistic and effective. The British have remained indecisive and have continued to axe promising projects every time austerity is called. The British are probably the better engineers: but that fact is always eclipsed by political reality.
The aircraft were first mooted in the nineteen fifties, and a joint venture was sealed with France; long before Britain was admitted to the Common Market that was to mutate into the European Union. Harold Wilson's Labour government strongly considered aborting the project, on cost grounds; but it was decided that this joint exercise with France, that would put Europe ahead of the USA and the USSR, was too important to abandon. Tony Benn, in a short episode of ministerial office, returned from conversations in Paris to report that the project would definitely go ahead: and that the name of the craft would be spelt in the French way - with an e on the end - to stand for Europe, enterprise and a whole string of other e-words that I cannot remember [and it is not worth looking them up].
To fly in Concorde was a very special experience. It was all-first-class [except on specially booked flights] and the space in the cabin was extremely limited. There were four carefully-designed small seats in each row, with a relatively narrow aisle and a low ceiling. Takeoff was spectacular and the craft quickly got to supersonic speed, which was shown on an indicator at the front of the cabin. The westbound journey to New York took almost four hours: which meant that the 'plane arrived in America a little earlier [on the clock] than its takeoff time from London. I was intrigued to find that a lot of people booked westbound flights on Concorde to enjoy the experience of 'beating time'; then they traveled eastbound on less cramped aircraft.
Some people became inter-continental commuters - a few, mostly media figures, on a weekly basis - and claimed to feel no ill-effects from the experience.
The venture was demonstrated soon to be uneconomic. It became a flag-flying exercise for British Airways, Air France and their sponsoring governments. There were no orders from alien airlines, and while the USA and USSR developed and even tested supersonic passenger jets there was no marketed competitor to Concorde.
The context in which this happened was that of the cold war. With the development of nuclear weapons, the competing powers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact needed aircraft that could deliver such weapons with minimum chance of being intercepted before they got over their target. The development of fast fighter 'planes reduced the chances of even supersonic bombers being successful; so began the concentration on inter-continental ballistic missiles. The British and French governments decided jointly to try to create a market for supersonic aircraft in commercial use: and Concorde was the spectacular result. But it was never cost effective. The amount of the most highly-refined fuel needed to get it [and keep it] airborne, in ratio to the number of passengers who could be carried, was never going to be economically efficient. Commercial aircraft constructors saw the future in large-bodied, relatively economical sub-sonic 'planes: of which the Boeing 747 and the European Airbus became the best-known workhorses.
Some of the technology that was developed for supersonic flights was of use generally in the aircraft industry: but that knowledge was mostly acquired from the bomber programmes; Concorde was not needed from that point of view.
As the small stock of planes aged, so maintenance costs increased, fuel efficiency declined and it became clear that passengers in general preferred the relative economy and comfort of wide-bodied aircraft in which first-class passengers could have beds, business class could have comfortable divans, and everybody had space to move around. The British and the French had proved what could be done. Tens of thousands of people had enjoyed the unique experience. But that was that.
Was it sad? Not particularly. It was they way of the world: 'how the cookie crumbles'.
Was it wasteful? Yes, but nobody much minded.
National pride was enhanced.
France was helped to develop the capability to build big, twenty-first century aircraft for which the Brits made some of the parts.
France can still design and build fighters: Britain has surrendered that capability.
The relative efficiency of the bureaucracies of the two states was sharply differentiated by the whole venture. The French remain focused, chauvinistic and effective. The British have remained indecisive and have continued to axe promising projects every time austerity is called. The British are probably the better engineers: but that fact is always eclipsed by political reality.
Monday, 9 January 2012
The Paradox of Sovereignty
Today's news media carry strangely contrasting stories. The UK Cabinet is to discuss terms on which the people of Scotland should vote in a referendum on independence for their country, while President Sarkozy will be in Berlin plotting with Chancellor Merkel how to reduce the sovereign powers of states in the eurozone so that they are less able to decide on their own taxation and spending. Some stories refer to the situation in Canada where two referenda have been held on the independence of Quebec which have been challenged, after the event, as to what the question actually meant.
There was little doubt about the question in Sudan last year, when the south of the country voted very strongly in favour of independence from the north; which was then granted: now the world's newest country is torn by tribal conflict which its security systems are ill prepared to deal with, even though the problem was highly predictable. In other parts of Africa, from Nigeria to Kenya, religious affiliation has transcended tribalism as a cause of conflict which includes a tendency towards political separation. Campaigners for autonomy in Tibet and other Chinese regions occasionally get their message into the global news nexus; while the continued separation of the two Koreas is widely deplored. The ambiguous suzerainty of China over Taiwan is a constant problem, while the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was the start point for a massive success story. The saga of separation of the Faeroe Islands from Denmark is worthy of Nordic myth, while the needs of 'homeland security' have given a renewed emphasis to the ambiguities of the residual sovereign territories of Native Peoples in the USA. The collapse of communism in Europe led to reunification of Germany which was more than counterbalanced by the separation of more than a dozen ethnic groups into sovereign states.
Globally there is still a momentum, originating from the nineteen fifties, for states to coalesce in continental common markets even while more and more ethnic groups and geographic regions seek independence as internationally-recognised sovereign states; which could then take their own decisions on how far they commit to their regional common market and any other regional treaties [such as NATO]. Especially in the eurozone, key powers of sovereign states are being surrendered to the community while newly-independent states stand patiently in the queue to be admitted to the common currency. The dichotomous tendency of new states surrendering portions of their sovereignty will continue intermittently through this century.In several ways, sovereignty for new states is much more restricted than it was in the post-second-world-war period when India, Indonesia, and scores of other states emerged in full sovereignty.
It is not likely that the trading blocs will make warlike preparations against each other, as such: the EU is not likely to mutate into an armed alliance against North America or ASEAN [the Association of South-East Asian Nations]. It is long established states, notably the USA and China, that seem currently to be shaping-up in a way that is reminiscent of an early twentieth-century arms race. It is against the interests of neighbouring states who form a free trade association to extend their partnership into a regional miltary alliance with their partners that is hostile to some of their trading partners in a global economy. Economic unions and free trade areas are essentially pacific structures: they reduce the risk of war between the members of the union; and the different global trading interests of the member states in any such community are antithetical to collective chauvinism directed against states on other continents.
The creation of new sovereign states and the consolidation of economic communities of states alike create a massive number of well-paid jobs as ambassadors and representatives. It is simply daft that the United Kingdom maintains twenty-six embassies in European Union countries. It has become clear that no UK government could pull out of the EU, even though there might be more political separation within a 'two speed' Union; so the need for representation in the EU countries is going to be at the consular rather than the ambassadorial level, in perpetuity. So Britain [and all the other EU states] should downgrade their internal embassies immediately, save a massive amount of money [and even more flummery] ,and allocate the reduced number of diplomats to the posts where they could be more useful.
There was little doubt about the question in Sudan last year, when the south of the country voted very strongly in favour of independence from the north; which was then granted: now the world's newest country is torn by tribal conflict which its security systems are ill prepared to deal with, even though the problem was highly predictable. In other parts of Africa, from Nigeria to Kenya, religious affiliation has transcended tribalism as a cause of conflict which includes a tendency towards political separation. Campaigners for autonomy in Tibet and other Chinese regions occasionally get their message into the global news nexus; while the continued separation of the two Koreas is widely deplored. The ambiguous suzerainty of China over Taiwan is a constant problem, while the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was the start point for a massive success story. The saga of separation of the Faeroe Islands from Denmark is worthy of Nordic myth, while the needs of 'homeland security' have given a renewed emphasis to the ambiguities of the residual sovereign territories of Native Peoples in the USA. The collapse of communism in Europe led to reunification of Germany which was more than counterbalanced by the separation of more than a dozen ethnic groups into sovereign states.
Globally there is still a momentum, originating from the nineteen fifties, for states to coalesce in continental common markets even while more and more ethnic groups and geographic regions seek independence as internationally-recognised sovereign states; which could then take their own decisions on how far they commit to their regional common market and any other regional treaties [such as NATO]. Especially in the eurozone, key powers of sovereign states are being surrendered to the community while newly-independent states stand patiently in the queue to be admitted to the common currency. The dichotomous tendency of new states surrendering portions of their sovereignty will continue intermittently through this century.In several ways, sovereignty for new states is much more restricted than it was in the post-second-world-war period when India, Indonesia, and scores of other states emerged in full sovereignty.
It is not likely that the trading blocs will make warlike preparations against each other, as such: the EU is not likely to mutate into an armed alliance against North America or ASEAN [the Association of South-East Asian Nations]. It is long established states, notably the USA and China, that seem currently to be shaping-up in a way that is reminiscent of an early twentieth-century arms race. It is against the interests of neighbouring states who form a free trade association to extend their partnership into a regional miltary alliance with their partners that is hostile to some of their trading partners in a global economy. Economic unions and free trade areas are essentially pacific structures: they reduce the risk of war between the members of the union; and the different global trading interests of the member states in any such community are antithetical to collective chauvinism directed against states on other continents.
The creation of new sovereign states and the consolidation of economic communities of states alike create a massive number of well-paid jobs as ambassadors and representatives. It is simply daft that the United Kingdom maintains twenty-six embassies in European Union countries. It has become clear that no UK government could pull out of the EU, even though there might be more political separation within a 'two speed' Union; so the need for representation in the EU countries is going to be at the consular rather than the ambassadorial level, in perpetuity. So Britain [and all the other EU states] should downgrade their internal embassies immediately, save a massive amount of money [and even more flummery] ,and allocate the reduced number of diplomats to the posts where they could be more useful.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
One Day to Go
President Sarkozy missed the birth of his daughter yesterday in order to try again to persuade Chancellor Merkel to release German wealth to support something close to the present situation in the eurozone. All the signs are that he has failed: though Mrs Merkel again said that they would reach an agreement by Friday evening; which is likely to mean that the French will have to accept something close to the German position.
Meanwhile the streets of Greek cities have been defaced by increasingly violent protests against the relatively low-key measures that the Greek government has so far announced to meet some of the demands that have been made by their partners as the price of subsidising them. Many Greeks have already experienced real hardship, and the idea that the worst they have experienced is just a first tranche of the misery to come is infuriating.
Germans who read about it in the papers or watch the television pictures of the Greek riots could well feel that the Greek situation is irresolvable on the terms that have been offered by the eurozone countries, and that a more draconian solution - Greek default on their debts, probably accompanied by their withdrawal from the euro - is the only available resort.So the Germans' position could well harden against any thought of compromise.
The French and the Germans have promised to bring proposals for consideration by the other EU Finance Ministers [not just the eurozone seventeen] this weekend. The portents as to what they will agree upon are doom-laden; which scares the US Administration and has caused the Chinese to make it clear that they would be unwilling to contribute to any bail-out in Europe in the absence of some credible comprehensive provision [with the implication that China's Sovereign Wealth Fund would buy EU bonds if the context had been stabilised]. The overwhelming probability is that there will be a blatant fudge, followed by panic-as-usual. The medium-term outlook is stormy.
In the distant background to the Grand Continental Eurodrama is a delightful vignette of the fundamental rottenness of British politics. The 2010 intake of Conservative MPs are predominantly 'Eurosceptic' to various degrees, meaning that a majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party is now of that mindset. They have used some of the Commons timetable that is allocated for Members' own motions [as distinct from Government time and time granted for formal Opposition motions] to propose that there should be a Referendum in the UK offering people various options. First, do they want Britain to stay in the EU, or to leave it? Second, should there not be a total breach with the EU, would they want Britain to be able to re-negotiate its relationship with the EU, including the repatriation of significant powers that have been ceded to
or arrogated by EU institutions? Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have in the past indicated that they favour renegotiation; but in the Coalition agreement the Tories were committed to keep the issue off the agenda because their Lib-Dem partners are abjectly pro-EU. The vote has been brought forward to Monday so that the Prime Minister can quell the 'revolt' himself before he flies off to Perth [Western Australia] for the Commonwealth Summit Meeting. If he succeeds in whipping the great majority of the Tories into betrayal of a strong and often fervently-held position the shredded credibility of the political class will be further damaged; and Cameron's chances of winning a majority of seats in the next General Election will recede even further.
The Lib-Dems' treachery on student fees, and the Tories' betrayal of their Eurosceptic rhetoric will not be forgotten: and so the puerile Labour Party could form a government by default, in or before 2015. So much for integrity. 'Democracy' entails no integrity. Millions will see their options as lying between support for minority parties or abstention - staying away from the poll.
The next election will, however, be the occasion when millions of voters could bestir themselves to go to their Polling Stations, get their ballot forms and mark them with bold writing 'NONE OF THESE'. If the 'spoilt' forms represent an overall majority of all the votes cast, the knell of the stinking corpse will at last be sounded.
Meanwhile the streets of Greek cities have been defaced by increasingly violent protests against the relatively low-key measures that the Greek government has so far announced to meet some of the demands that have been made by their partners as the price of subsidising them. Many Greeks have already experienced real hardship, and the idea that the worst they have experienced is just a first tranche of the misery to come is infuriating.
Germans who read about it in the papers or watch the television pictures of the Greek riots could well feel that the Greek situation is irresolvable on the terms that have been offered by the eurozone countries, and that a more draconian solution - Greek default on their debts, probably accompanied by their withdrawal from the euro - is the only available resort.So the Germans' position could well harden against any thought of compromise.
The French and the Germans have promised to bring proposals for consideration by the other EU Finance Ministers [not just the eurozone seventeen] this weekend. The portents as to what they will agree upon are doom-laden; which scares the US Administration and has caused the Chinese to make it clear that they would be unwilling to contribute to any bail-out in Europe in the absence of some credible comprehensive provision [with the implication that China's Sovereign Wealth Fund would buy EU bonds if the context had been stabilised]. The overwhelming probability is that there will be a blatant fudge, followed by panic-as-usual. The medium-term outlook is stormy.
In the distant background to the Grand Continental Eurodrama is a delightful vignette of the fundamental rottenness of British politics. The 2010 intake of Conservative MPs are predominantly 'Eurosceptic' to various degrees, meaning that a majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party is now of that mindset. They have used some of the Commons timetable that is allocated for Members' own motions [as distinct from Government time and time granted for formal Opposition motions] to propose that there should be a Referendum in the UK offering people various options. First, do they want Britain to stay in the EU, or to leave it? Second, should there not be a total breach with the EU, would they want Britain to be able to re-negotiate its relationship with the EU, including the repatriation of significant powers that have been ceded to
or arrogated by EU institutions? Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have in the past indicated that they favour renegotiation; but in the Coalition agreement the Tories were committed to keep the issue off the agenda because their Lib-Dem partners are abjectly pro-EU. The vote has been brought forward to Monday so that the Prime Minister can quell the 'revolt' himself before he flies off to Perth [Western Australia] for the Commonwealth Summit Meeting. If he succeeds in whipping the great majority of the Tories into betrayal of a strong and often fervently-held position the shredded credibility of the political class will be further damaged; and Cameron's chances of winning a majority of seats in the next General Election will recede even further.
The Lib-Dems' treachery on student fees, and the Tories' betrayal of their Eurosceptic rhetoric will not be forgotten: and so the puerile Labour Party could form a government by default, in or before 2015. So much for integrity. 'Democracy' entails no integrity. Millions will see their options as lying between support for minority parties or abstention - staying away from the poll.
The next election will, however, be the occasion when millions of voters could bestir themselves to go to their Polling Stations, get their ballot forms and mark them with bold writing 'NONE OF THESE'. If the 'spoilt' forms represent an overall majority of all the votes cast, the knell of the stinking corpse will at last be sounded.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Cameron's constitutionality
In quashing the members of his Party Conference who want to challenge Britain's status in the European Union David Cameron is bang in line with his predecessors.
Prime Minsters and their Cabinets have their massive power because they are the active members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. After each election the Queen is advised whom to ask to be Prime Minister: that Privy Councillor then invites members and candidate members of the Council to come to Cabinet meetings, and all the other Councillors stand aside. Some Councillors in 'loyal opposition' parties speak against individual proposals to change, or even to keep, policies that they enacted when in government; but the underlying reality is the commitment of all Privy Councillors to the continuity of Her Majesty's Government.
Cameron is resisting a challenge to that continuity.
This position is reinforced by the fact that the United Kingdom's immersion is Europe has been made by a succession of Conservative Prime Ministers:
Treaty of Rome - Heath;
change from Economic Community to European Union - Thatcher;
Maastricht - Major.
No Labour Prime Minister has such explicit responsibility [or culpability]. The EU is essentially a Tory gift to the British people, and to turn away from it would be a denial of the past that it would be extremely hard for any Conservative Leader to risk.
As to the democratic wish of the people: when has that really mattered?
Prime Minsters and their Cabinets have their massive power because they are the active members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. After each election the Queen is advised whom to ask to be Prime Minister: that Privy Councillor then invites members and candidate members of the Council to come to Cabinet meetings, and all the other Councillors stand aside. Some Councillors in 'loyal opposition' parties speak against individual proposals to change, or even to keep, policies that they enacted when in government; but the underlying reality is the commitment of all Privy Councillors to the continuity of Her Majesty's Government.
Cameron is resisting a challenge to that continuity.
This position is reinforced by the fact that the United Kingdom's immersion is Europe has been made by a succession of Conservative Prime Ministers:
Treaty of Rome - Heath;
change from Economic Community to European Union - Thatcher;
Maastricht - Major.
No Labour Prime Minister has such explicit responsibility [or culpability]. The EU is essentially a Tory gift to the British people, and to turn away from it would be a denial of the past that it would be extremely hard for any Conservative Leader to risk.
As to the democratic wish of the people: when has that really mattered?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)