Cameron’s use of the Veto did Britain Proud

If you have read Bill Cawley’s article on the site about David Cameron’s
use of the veto at EU negotiations last week, you’d be forgiven for
thinking that the city might cease to exist as a viable entity at any
moment solely as a result of Mr Cameron’s actions. I’m afraid that Bill’s
piece was of course entirely wrong, biased and misleading-and deliberately
so, as he openly admits in the first paragraph, he has been an apologist
for the EU since the project was first devised in the backrooms by
politicians with a plan to create a new superstate all those many years
ago.

It’s not going to do anyone any good for me to start having a go at Bill
for his support of the EU project because we all know the arguments, we
all have out views and I doubt anything we say here will change them on
either side of the debate. Neither am going to get into his absurd talk
about the dangers of withdrawal because-much as many of us might like it,
and much as we know it would benefit the country-that was not on the
agenda at this summit.

So what does it boil down to? EU nations-excluding Britain-will be able to
hold secret meetings on how to prop up their all or nothing Euro project.
Not exactly the biggest disaster to have befallen our country I’d have
thought, since as one of the few country’s to have taken the very wise
decision to stay OUTSIDE the Euro we had little or no real influence on
the development of that particular folly anyway.

Second, EU countries-excluding Britain-will now have to submit their
budgets to the approval of unelected EU beaurocrats and face tough
controls on their debt and public spending plans. As was pointed out in
the House of Commons on Monday, if Britain had signed up to such an
arrangement it would actually render the policies of the Labour Party here
in the UK completely illegal as the bonkers plans of Miliband and Balls is
to further increase the debt and spend even more public money to boost the
economy. Presumably, Bill Cawley and all the other socialists that have
cheered him would think such an arrangement intolerable. Indeed,
Stoke-on-Trent would have been very hard and very directly hit if David
Cameron HAD signed up to such an agreement last week. perhaps that’s why
behind the public protests, even Mr Miliband is now accepting that he
would have done precisely the same thing and used the veto in Mr Cameron’s
place.

Third, the EU wanted to put regulations and restrictions onto financial
transactions 80% of which take place in the City of London. It would
effectively have been a special City of London tax designed to EXPORT jobs
and business from the UK to the continent, propping up their Eurozone
project but hitting the UK economy very hard indeed. Bill Cawley gives us
all the usual socialist propaganda about banker bashing and City of London
spivs receiving unfair protection, but lets be quite clear that the City
of London creates jobs and creates wealth that all of us mere mortals rely
upon for our country’s economic stability and well-being. Cameron would
have been an absolute fool to have agreed to the sort of regulations that
the EU were proposing.

Bill talks a good talk about the plight of the ordinary person who is
already hurting thanks to the economic catastrophe that we inherited from
Gordon Brown. But will Bill do more than offer tea and sympathy to those
people who would be made unemployed here in Stoke-on-Trent if the very
regulations he has written in defence of had been agreed by David Cameron
last week? I think not.

At the end of the day, the most important thing that a British Prime
Minister is charged with is defending the British national interest and
security. We must not allow swivel-eyed Euro obsessive’s across all
parties and none to mesmerize us into agreeing to everything the EU
demands even if it is against our own national interest. To be honest, not
many of us give a damn about the well-being of France and Germany when it
is our own people who are hurting. They look after themselves and so must
we.

We cannot sacrifice our national interest on the alter of Europeanism just
so that our leaders can say that they are at the heart of the EU project
and exercise some mythical ‘influence’ that cannot really be defined. And
ANY politician or activist who says otherwise should condemn themselves.

Have Your Say