Thursday, November 05, 2009

David Cameron: “Essentially, we will let matters rest there”

When the EU has a de jure Constitution which is self-amending, there is no point in a UK Sovereignty Act. When the EU has everything it requires ‘in order to fulfil its objectives’, there is no point offering the British people a referendum on any future treaties. When the EU has as supreme court to whose judgement all UK law is subject, there is no point having a UK supreme court to pretend the contrary.

Sovereignty has already been removed. Insofar as it has been ‘pooled’, subjected to QMV, dissected, disseminated and meted out to our ‘EU partners’, it is invalidated, negated, nullified, destroyed and snuffed out. There is no sovereign Act of Parliament which can take precedence over EU law, for the Lisbon Treaty states quite clearly that EU law is supreme. A UK Sovereignty Bill will be as ineffectual as Margaret Thatcher’s Merchant Shipping Act of 1988. The moment it was placed before the ECJ, it was ruled to be incompatible with the provisions in the Treaty of Rome, contrary to the founding principle of ‘ever closer union’, and Her Majesty’s Government was obliged to set aside what was believed to be a sovereign Act of Parliament because Parliament no longer had the authority to pass such an act.

In a representative liberal democracy, sovereignty resides with the people: it is they and they alone who may determine which of their powers and liberties may be abrogated in perpetuity. And successive generations of politicians have conspired to deprive them of their birthright.

David Cameron has decided that there will be no referendum, and yet he intends to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to legislate for a referendum ‘lock’ on all future attempts by the British government to transfer power to the European Union. ‘Never again’ is to become an election campaign slogan. Bizarrely, he boasts that this protection will be ‘very similar to that which exists in Ireland’. And a fat lot of good it did them. He refers to this provision as a ‘major constitutional development’: it is nothing of the sort. There is no such thing as an Act of Parliament enacted by a Cameron government which cannot be undone by a future parliament, for Parliament may not bind its successors.

The Conservative Party’s via media on ‘Europe’ is neither conservative nor reformist. Significantly, it has profoundly alienated the thinking ‘sceptics’ like Dan Hannan and Roger Helmer (both have resigned their front bench posts), while the European Movement appears to be delighted.

And yet Mr Cameron says he doesn’t want a ‘massive Euro-bust-up’ to distract him from his primary task.

The argument that the next period of government is too important to be ‘distracted’ by the EU is absurd. Is not the Tory revolution in education too important to be distracted by the economy? Is not tending to the economic morass too important to be distracted by education? Is not the reform needed in health provision too important to be distracted by either education or the economy? Is not our commitment in Afghanistan too important to be distracted by education, the economy or health?

The essence of effective government is the ability to juggle a dozen balls at once. But the EU ball has already been dropped. This should come as no surprise, because it is a weighty spheroid of disproportionate significance: it is the ball of balls; the globe of ubiquity; the balloonistic mother ship from which everything else hangs and by which it ascends or falls.

And yet...

What Mr Cameron has outlined is more ‘Eurosceptic’ than has been set out by any Conservative leader who has either held the office of prime minister or been likely to over the past 30 years. It never really mattered what EU policy was under the leaderships of William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Howard: deep down, we all knew they were never going to become prime minister. Even Margaret Thatcher never set out such a stall while she led her party and the country, and she has lived to regret it.

Cranmer urges his readers and communicants to consider the details of Mr Cameron's speech for just one moment, and then ask if it is not worth a five-year benefit of the doubt.

One may set aside certain cosmetics, like the Sovereignty Bill or the establishment of some sort of Constitutional Court. But Mr Cameron’s assertion that he intends to ‘repatriate’ certain competences marks a profound change in direction, and this change is not without immense significance. The subsidiarity principle, enshrined at Maastricht, has never before been invoked by an EU member state, and yet the Conservative Party is now pledged to reverse the Acquis – i.e., to roll back from ‘ever closer union’. There will be a manifesto commitment to opt out from the Social Chapter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and all matters relating to criminal justice.

This is sovereignty restored. It is unheard of in the UK’s entire 36-year subjection to EEC/EC/EU rule. It is progress. It will not be easy to attain: indeed, the French have already declared their unequivocal opposition to it. Whether Mr Cameron likes it or not, there will be a ‘massive Euro-bust-up’, and it has already begun.

And there is great encouragement in that, for the beast has been stirred, and the prince of the power of the air offended by the presumption and insubordination of the likely next prime minister of the United Kingdom.

And to all those who are thinking about voting UKIP or the BNP in protest, since neither can win the next general election, you simply risk a further five years of Gordon Brown and his deficient, amoral, anti-Christian Labour government. It is a grotesque contemplation; a perverse political strategy.

Please consider that just as we have been ratcheted in to the superstate, almost imperceptibly, so must we be eased out. The Conservatives (and their Tory forebears) have always preferred measured reform over revolution: change implemented piecemeal rather than by seismic upheaval. Burke argued that no political community is a blank slate upon which one can write whatever one wishes on the basis of the latest theory. In order to move a political community in a different direction one has to take account of what it is, where it is, and, above all, the facts of experience. But move it must, because ‘a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve’.

David Cameron has set out a strategy by which the United Kingdom may re-acquire some means of change, and thereby some means of national conservation. It is worth giving him the benefit of the doubt.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, your Grace, ‘it is not worth a five-year benefit of the doubt.’

‘And to all those who are thinking about voting UKIP or the BNP in protest, since neither can win the next general election, you simply risk a further five years of Gordon Brown’

So we’ll just continue to vote for the greedy, lying, old-gang parties shall we, just like we’ve always done? Your Grace, I’ve voted Tory all my life right up to, and including, the last general election, but not this time. I shall vote for a party that I know will honour its pledge to take us out of the European super-state, and it will not be the fake UKIP party!

5 November 2009 at 09:42  
Blogger Gnostic said...

No way will I give this berk the benefit of the doubt. He's capitualated like the lily-livered toad that he is. All that guff about negotiating with the EU and devolving power back to Parliament is precisely that - guff. He has neither initiative nor motivation to do what needs to be done. He's a Euroluvvie through and through.

Come the general election he can go to hell. The EU needs to be told they can get stuffed so I'm voting UKIP!

End of...

5 November 2009 at 10:06  
Anonymous Better Off Out Seadog said...

Your Grace,

‘And to all those who are thinking about voting UKIP or the BNP in protest, since neither can win the next general election, you simply risk a further five years of Gordon Brown'.

If all those who are thinking about voting UKIP or BNP actually do vote UKIP (or BNP) then they CAN (and probably would) win the next election. No risk of 5 more years of Gordo, very little risk of 5 years of Cast-Iron Dave and every possibility of a referendum not on the Constitutional Treaty but on membership of the EU itself.

I am under 52 years of age and have never been given a chance to express my opinion at the ballot box. I am a currently serving elected member of a District and a Town council and I am considering my position carefully - my party has been hijacked.

5 November 2009 at 10:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Country should come before party. I am in a non marginal seat, so it does not matter if I vote UKIP really- the tory will still have a wopping majority .

5 November 2009 at 10:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Cameron has proved himself an inveterate liar. He can't remember if he took cocaine, he doesn't remember smashing up restaurants in a drunken stupor with his Bullingdon mates, he cannot even remember the fake indignation he vomited up after Labour reneged on their election promise to give us a referendum

He made 'cast iron' guarantees, then amended them later to mean absolutely nothing, then abandoned them altogether when it looked like he might be forced to keep his word.

Why on earth should I trust this liar with 5 years of power? You must be as mad as he is arrogant if you think I will.

The 'Never Again' slogan is very apt. Never again will Parliament have ANY say in ANY of our laws. Never again will a free-born Englishman be free. Never again will meaningful elections be held in the UK, this will be the last one.

NEVER AGAIN will I vote Tory.

5 November 2009 at 10:30  
Blogger haddock said...

Your Grace, it is not like you to make such a silly statement as
"voting UKIP or the BNP in protest, since neither can win the next general election"
If you were to get out more perhaps you would hear the rage of ordinary people. If all of those stating they would vote UKIP....if .... actually did vote then they would gain a great many seats.
What to lose by replacing Brown with Cameron? Dave will be a proxy for the EU just as Brown has been.
The best policy would be to vote UKIP....and rely on the back up position that if Labour did get in again they would be put out again by the angry mob.

5 November 2009 at 10:30  
Anonymous Nigel Sedgwick said...

Your Grace argues to trust a politician, that he will sort out the detail later. Well, in my family, we have a saying: never trust anyone who says "trust me". And, as we see with what has just happened, the unexplained detail of that 'cast iron' fragile brittle promise has led to an outcome very different from the expectation of a great many people.

As you argue quite well, before reversing your seeming position, the EU question cannot be judged as less important than the many others facing the next UK government.

In fact, there is a great sickness in UK politics (even in the politics of most of the 'western world'): it is too much government. And the EU is pretty much at the heart of that problem for the UK. The EU is anti-democratic. Along with statutory instruments, and a few other things, it is key to the overruling of the will of the UK people. It must be put to the test: truly; not according to the machinated concoction of someone who is very seemingly one of its own supporters.

Copying from my comment over on A Very British Dude:

Put a referendum on UK membership of the EU and any other sort of 'European Club' firmly into play. I suggest that this is done as follows. There should be a referendum by Single Transferable Vote (STV) with 5 options:

(i) Continue with full EU membership, as at present and given the Lisbon treaty.

(ii) Downgrade UK membership of the 'European Club' to EFTA membership under the EEA agreement (ie like Norway); this requires partial compliance with some EU law above just free trade.

(iii) Downgrade UK membership of the 'European Club' to EFTA membership under a specially negotiated agreement (ie like Switzerland); this would require much less compliance with EU law beyond just free trade.

(iv) Downgrade to special EU membership terms for the UK, that differ from those of all or most other members.

(v) Withdraw totally from the EU, and any other 'European Club' currently existing.

My further suggestion is that such a referendum should be held not more than 2 years after the next general election. Furthermore, the terms concerning options (iii) and (iv) should be established at least 1 year before the referendum; this is to allow sufficient time for the various political cases to be put to the electorate, without yet another round of significant 'trust us' by any political party or political leadership or faction.

Only when the EU situation is fully stabilised will we the UK people have the foundations on which to further improve our democracy and government, including putting the bureaucracy and political parties back into their proper boxes: definitely subordinate to the electorate and far less powerful than at present.

Without a referendum along these rather complicated lines, we will not have that full stability.

--

Adding to that, I see that Your Grace and Mr Cameron wish to limit the options to my (iv) which, when the currently unspecified detail is resolved, will not be tested by referendum against the other options.

Why not make the promise to do what I suggest; it would deal with the matter once and for all: to what extent do the people of the UK wish to be involved with Europe: as part of a European nation state (by whatever the slippery slope delivers), within an agreed form of free-trade block, not at all, or in some individualistic compromise that will probably always irk everyone, not lest through its individuality.

The only reason for not making the pledge to my suggested 5-option STV referendum is that Mr Cameron does not really want to move from the either the status quo or his own unspecified and probably minor variant on that, or that he does not trust his own countrymen and countrywomen, with sufficient preparation and diligent thought, to know what they want - and expect him to operate within that decision.

And Your Grace wants me to vote for this man and his political party!

Best regards

5 November 2009 at 10:35  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Your Grace,

I simply do not understand how you can argue that Cameron has effectively “let matters rest here” and then 'U turn' by asking us to trust him to somehow ease sovereignty back across the channel. He will not do it because it can't legally be done. EU law is paramount. Ever closer Union is its established Creed. He is not tough enough to smash through this prison wall. He could not achieve it by renegotiation unless there was a groundswell of similar repatriation aims by a significant number of member states and he has proposed nothing to actively encourage a rebellion.

There is only one good thing about the Lisbon Treaty and that is the “exit clause” under which a member state is for the first time free to negotiate its withdrawal from the EU. We need enough voters with the guts to vote for outright independence, consign the Lib/Lab/Con troughers to history and get our country back.

5 November 2009 at 10:44  
Blogger TreeSleeper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 November 2009 at 10:53  
Anonymous Bishop Hill said...

My understanding of the British Constitution is different to yours. As I understand it, if a British Parliament decides to make a law that contravenes EU Law, then it can do so provided its intention to contravene EU law is clear. It's just that our politicians don't want to upset the partners.

5 November 2009 at 10:55  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"provided its intention to contravene EU law is clear"

Bishop Hill,

How could a written Act of Parliament not be clear? The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was quite clearly drafted to address an urgent issue relating to the CFP: it was overturned by the ECJ. Ergo, Parliament may not make law that contravenes EU law, whether or not the intention to do so is 'clear'.

5 November 2009 at 11:12  
Blogger moorlandhunter said...

So what do we do, we who want to be part of the EU for trade but not to be governed by them?
I would hate to think that the Labour Party with its trade union backers, once infiltrated with KGB agent like Jack Jones, would ever get in power again, n would I give my vote to UKIP as they will never be in power to haul us out. As for the BNP, well less said the better. The thought of radical violent opposition against the politicians and the EU leaves me cold so just what should we do…those of us who want our rights back?
Any non-violent suggestions would be welcome.

5 November 2009 at 11:17  
Anonymous Bishop Hill said...

Your Grace

I bow to your superior knowledge.

5 November 2009 at 11:23  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
As far as I can see the writing is on the wall for David Cameron & for Gordon Brown, It reads " You have been weighed in the balance & found wanting, your kingdom is divided & given over to UKIP or the BNP." As Belshazzar found to his cost for every action there is a reaction, just when he thought he was untouchable, disaster struck. The anger generated by the sell out of this nation will lead to judgement at the polls on both main political parties, (the Liberals were never in the race anyway) my own disappointment at the lack of guts by Mr Cameron is almost palpable, but I believe in a higher power who will as Belshazzar found, not be mocked. In Him I trust to right the wrong & to bring judgement & justice to His world. The vain plotting of sinful men will be destroyed & righteousness will prevail. On this I stake my all.

5 November 2009 at 11:24  
Anonymous Bethel said...

This is no surprise.
Cameron's previous pledge was always inherently meaningless without an early election, which he ought to have known perfectly well he wasn't going to get.
Why so many declamations of righteous indignation from the populace? ..Unbelievably naive..

5 November 2009 at 11:38  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

Your Grace,
We the people have been betrayed by greedy, lying politicians of all parties. None of the present lot deserve any further trust.

Let's elect a Parliament of lily-whites, political virgins chosen by the people for their integrity, not by party hacks for years of docile brown-nosing.

The first job of a new Parliament should be to give the nation the referendum we are owed, very simply worded:- "In or Out?"

In the event of a massive cry of Out! as seems likely given the public mood, the next necessary steps will rapidly become clear.

5 November 2009 at 11:38  
Blogger mongoose said...

Your Grace, the simple truth is that Parliament cannot give away sovereignty to the EU. It has not the right nor the competence. It can, and does, lend sovereignty to the EU on any number of things but this lending is done by law. It is done by passing an Act in the UK. This Act has legal superiority to the lending. Repeal the Act and the lending stops. That is it. It is over. It does not even matter that the Act might say that it can't be done without agreement. Parliament may just do it tomorrow because it thinks it the thing to do.

"It does not matter that I said that you could choose what we are having for supper, son, nor that I said that you could stay up to watch that drivel on the telly. You have thrown a tantrum and all deals are off. Be off to bed with you. I am master here."

In essence, I think, indeed I hope, this is what Cameron is edging towards.

5 November 2009 at 11:39  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Mongoose's argument makes sense to me ... until he gets to Cameron.

I can't agree that we can risk trusting him. If he were interested in British sovereignty he'd have been fighting for it long ago. Certainly he would have been demanding gordissimo's resignation - after the shameful signing of the lisbo thing.

Instead he just plays along at gordo's game, according to gordo's rules ... week after week after week...

That's his style; that's what he'll do with the euro invaders.

5 November 2009 at 12:04  
Anonymous Laird said...

Thanks to a gutless Tory Party
Gordon Brown will now win the next election.As the Pope is to Williams,Brown is to Cameron...
with gratitude and thanks!

5 November 2009 at 12:10  
Anonymous fair_deal said...

The protestors in Tinanmem square had a nice phrase when liberals pleaded and hardliners threatened to get them to leave the square -

Same rice different chopsticks.

The talk of Labour and Tories is different but the substance is the same.

5 November 2009 at 12:14  
Blogger Alan Douglas said...

How to manipulate public opinion electronically

1. Wait for a big Tory announcement
2. Put up lots of comments on blogs claiming to be from Tories disgusted with it.
3. Perhaps fool some proper Tories into agreeing and adding negative comment.
4. Wait for the MSM to pick up and widely spread the "fact" that Tory grassroots HATE the Tory announcement AND D Cameron.
5. Repair to the Spinner's Arms for a well-earned drink or two.

Alan Douglas

5 November 2009 at 12:18  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I am getting fed up with the whole if you vote UKIP you will get Brown line, which is coming from the Tory leadership. How patronising and insulting.

It does not matter whether or not it is Cameron or Brown now, the real power has now been transferred to the EU.

Also, some other Tories have been saying concentrate on getting labour out to deal with the economic situation.But given Cameron's volt face on Europe can we believe what he and his best buddy Osbourne, are saying what they will do with the economy/taxes/spending ? Can we trust them at their word ? I now have my doubts.

5 November 2009 at 12:20  
Blogger mongoose said...

Mr Churchmouse,

Cameron still has to win his victory. He needs to win it with as great a mandate as possible. He will need two terms to do all this stuff. What did Maggie say in 1978? What did Blair say in 1996? Nobody remembers. Sit quietly and wait for the other guy to fall over.

At least, I hope this is what is happening.

5 November 2009 at 12:25  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

Whilst I agree with your basic premise regarding the futility of such legislation, should we not at least applaud the direction in which Cameron seems to be positioning his European policy? The attempt to reinstate the will of the people as imperative to decisions of a constitutional magnitude?

Granted, it is naive to suppose an Act of Parliament can redress the balance between European and British law. But given these restraints upon any future government this is probably the next best thing.

There may be issues over which (whether or not Cameron pushes through this legislation) we will have no say, but what the Conservatives are saying is that they will ensure that when it can be Britain's decision then it will be. That is seismic when we consider the track record of governments since 1975 with regards to allowing the public to have their say over the issue of ECSC/EEC/EC/EU membership.

Cameron could have gone further and pronounced an intention to repatriate all powers, something nobody would have believed for a second. Alternatively, he could have come out and said that there is nothing we as a nation can do. I think to come out and say that when we can do something we will is a sensible, doable and laudable conclusion.

5 November 2009 at 12:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that Mr Cameron explicitly supports the entry of 75 million Muslim Turks into the E.U., and the consequent speeding up of the Islamisation of Europe (a fact not referred to by your Grace), prohibits me from voting Tory.

5 November 2009 at 12:48  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The deed is done Your Grace. And whilst I do not hold DC to blame for that, the time for giving people 'benefit of the doubt' is - unfortunately for him - over. It's a bit like asking for your virginity back!

I've already been and and made a significant donation to UKIP. I may make a similar one to the BNP (though it will have to be cash somehow so that I'm not tracked and suddenly find myself the victim of spurious allegations).

5 November 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

One word sums up what Cameron has done: betrayal.

5 November 2009 at 13:38  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Europe dont mean nothin' Booze, cheap holidays, TV, sports. That's all that really matters innit?

5 November 2009 at 14:06  
Blogger Carl Gardner, Head of Legal said...

The point about whether Parliament can effectively legislate contrary to EU law with clear words can be argued for ages, but it's all a bit academic. You wouldn't do it that way.

Parliament did something unusual and clever in the ECA 1972: it made provision that all other legislation be subject to itself. And since it brings EU law (including the doctrine of EU law supremacy) into UK law, that means all other legislation is subject to EU law.

The ECA 1972 can simply be repealed of course.

What you can't really do is impliedly repeal it by enacting something else contrary to EU law. What prevents you doing that isn't EU law, though - this is the point almost everyone misunderstands.

What prevents you doing that is the ECA 1972 itself. You would be presenting the courts with two contradictory Acts of Parliament: on the one hand, the 1972 Act, which says all other legislation is contrary to EU law; on the other, your new legislation. How do you expect the courts to resolve the contradiction? It has to give one Act priority over the other; there is no other logical possibility. The traditional method would have been to prefer the later Act, but the ECA 1972 makes it clear that Parliament's intention is that that should not happen. It's not to do with the EU at all.

Ultimately, the judges would be forced to look closely at your words and decide whether Parliament intended to repeal the ECA 1972 to the extent of the conflict, in which case your new legislation stands; or whether you didn't, in which case your new legislation falls.

If you want to make sure the courts do as you want and that your new legislation stands, then it's obviously much more sensible to expressly say you are repealing the ECA 1972 to that extent. That makes your intention clear to the courts, and could work legally in UK law.

As long as we remained signed up to the EU Treaties the UK would still be liable in the ECJ for breaches of obligations under those Treaties, of course. You have to leave the EU to get out of that.

5 November 2009 at 14:48  
Blogger Carl Gardner, Head of Legal said...

Sorry, a confusing slip of my keyboard. In para. 5, "contrary" should be "subject".

5 November 2009 at 14:51  
Anonymous godefroi said...

My (faint) hope, in telling my local association that I cannot continue my membership and that I see no option but to vote UKIP, is that if enough of us do the same the Conservative party will change its ways and actually start representing the majority of its members again.

5 November 2009 at 15:24  
Blogger Weekend Yachtsman said...

"ask if it is not worth a five-year benefit of the doubt"

Excuse me, Your Grace, but they have had a thirty-five year benefit of the doubt, and all they have done is sold us further and further down the river.

I will never vote conservative again. Ever.

So you are worried that this will let Broon back in? And precisely what difference do you think that will make? Do you still not understand that our government will move from London to Brussels on 1st December?

Until that fundamental fact is changed - as it can be and will be in time - nothing else has any significance.

5 November 2009 at 15:36  
Blogger mongoose said...

Mr Gardner,

Indeed. But it doesn't matter what Parliament intended in 1972 if Parliament in 2010 wants to do something different. Parliament in 1972 had no competence to bind the hands of Parliament in 2010. So when push comes to shove it will be: repeal the lot of it at 9am, ditch Lisbon 10am, re-enact what EU stuff you want 11am. Yes, the lawyers will need new lorries to take their money home but it is, to choose a word, doable.

5 November 2009 at 15:46  
Blogger Carl Gardner, Head of Legal said...

Mongoose,

I agree Parliament can repeal the 1972 Act, and I said so in my comment. I have never suggested the 1972 Parliament bound the hands of its successors.

What I disagree with, though, is your comment that "Parliament in 1972 had no competence..."

The idea that Parliament's competence is or has been in any way limited is completely alien to our constitution. The whole point of Parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament's legislative competence is unlimited. Of course the consequence of that is that Parliament can't successfully bind its successors (whatever it might purport to do). I agree with you on that.

So perhaps we're saying the same thing two different ways. I do find it odd that it be expressed in terms of Parliament's competence being limited, though.

I agree that what you say is doable is indeed doable in UK law. I don't think anything I said ever suggested otherwise. It wouldn't affect EU law of course, so as long as we stayed signed up to unamended treaties, we'd be liable internationally for breaches of EU law.

5 November 2009 at 16:06  
Blogger mongoose said...

Mr Gardner,

Yes, we are saying the same thing. I was just saying it that way to make a point. Parliament's sovereignty is completely unconstrained, limitless and universal. The only limit to Parliament's competence to do anything it chooses is that it may not bind the hands of a future limitlessly competent Parliament. That is not to say that it cannot pass an Act that says that it does, merely that a future Parliament can just ignore that. It may not for instance permanently cede sovereignty over any issue to anyone else because a future Parliament could come along and repeal that bit. So EU law is superior to UK law on certain things because UK law says it is. But UK law can be changed unilaterally. Nothing Parliament ever does is irreversible.

So the sky has not fallen in. I think that we agree. The problem the EU has is that the house of cards gets ever higher, power seeps ever farther from electorates. It is a bureaucratic dictatorship. If the USSR and its empire can collapse in a heap, the EU can collapse in a heap. And it will, all of it, come falling down. When it does we will have a costly mess.

5 November 2009 at 16:33  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Godefroi,

Voting UKIP will only serve to heighten the possibility of a fourth Labour term by detracting from the only other party capable of winning office.

If you think the Conservatives' proposals are bad, then you must be despairing with Labour. So don't go and do something stupid.

5 November 2009 at 18:11  
Blogger Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post, Your Grace.

My only fear...will Davie boy deliver?

5 November 2009 at 20:42  
Blogger Chief of men said...

well reasoned and again you have informed my opinion.i must say i often wonder who you really are. your blog is such a well crafted contribution to everyday life.keep up the good work your grace.on a personal note as one of mary's distant cousins can i add a note of disappointment at her anti social behavior towards you(these days you would be burnt by the council using anti terrorist legislation).

5 November 2009 at 22:44  
Blogger Owl said...

Your Grace, I have some difficulty understanding your position. I perceive it as somewhat naieve if that is possible in your elevated state. Dave has reneged, he has shown himself to poccess no backbone and to be an EU muppet. He said that he will do his best to see that this never happens again. He is insulting my (our) intelligence. It has already happened so it won't happen again anyway! Face the truth YG, Dave will do nothing. I will do something as will many (most) of your communicants, withhold our vote from this charlatan.
Please understand, we have had enough of plastic politicians and we are drawing the line quite clearly. If the idiot dowsn't understand that then there is no help for him. Five years? I wouldn't give the incompatent and arrogant waste of space five minutes.

6 November 2009 at 00:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Die EU die! Thou foul fiendish emissary of Belzeebub!

6 November 2009 at 08:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

‘Cranmer urges his readers and communicants to consider the details of Mr Cameron's speech for just one moment, and then ask if it is not worth a five-year benefit of the doubt.’

We the people are caught between a rock and a hard place. How we trusted the socialists manifesto commitment that we would have a referendum. How our fathers trusted Heath (released Cabinet documents now reveal that he knew the truth). How our grandfathers trusted Macmillan.

Your Grace, do you not see that that bond between the British people and their politicians is shatterred? That the bond between the majority of us who sit in the pews and Canterbury is broken? That the bond between the subject and Her Majesty is severed?

Your Grace, how do you not see?

Your Grace, we the people and Cameron have two things in common: eyes to see with and ears to hear.

6 November 2009 at 15:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

One more word on this, if you please.

If Jeremiah’s ’70 year’ prophecy is right, then the ‘tribulation’ period starts in May 2011. Cameron wants five years before he’ll do anything about the EU. That will take us to the year 2014.

Does he not realise that he may not have a people left? For in those days men will be scarce upon the earth.

God’s schedule is in disaccord with Cameron’s schedule.

6 November 2009 at 15:57  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Singh,

His Grace sees.

Mr Cameron is not Heath, Macmillan or Thatcher. He is his own man, and (in His Grace's opinion) deserves a term of office to realise his objectives.

If he fails, then reassessment will be necessary.

As long as the Christian dwells in a representative liberal democracy, he or she is exhorted to vote for the lesser evil. Who is that if it be not David Cameron?

6 November 2009 at 15:57  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Is this French fellow Lelouche or Lebouche (the mouth)? I've seen both versions.

Either way isn't he just splendid!!!

About time someone told it like it is!!!

:D

6 November 2009 at 19:38  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

They are all working towards the New world Order,our political leaders are simply frontmen, Parliament is a charade.

The New World Order for Dummies

15 November 2009 at 20:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older