Courtesy of Open Europe I have come across an article by Andrew Grice in Saturday's Independent.
Recalling Cameron's statement that he did not want to say "one thing in London and another in Brussels", it is interesting to note that the eurocrats, with whom Cameron has held talks, believe "his bite would be less strong than his bark, that he would prove a constructive European".
The eurocrat's belief completely undermines Cameron's statement about not saying "one thing in London and another in Brussels".
Perhaps Mr. Cameron would clarify how he intends being "a constructive European" - and all that that entails - at the same time complying with his Privy Councillor Oath?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This concept also applies to Mandelson's EU pension, where any criticism of the EU means he loses it, and his oath of allegiance as a peer.
The conflict of interest throughout the system is glaring.
The EU oaths and contract terms should be subservient to national ones. But I suspect they are not.
Post a Comment