It is a well-known fact that, of all the 'problems' facing Britain, the one subject that David Cameron does not wish, publicly, to discuss is that of Britain's membership of the European Union. So much so, that at the launch of his party's manifesto for the European Elections 2009, Cameron openly admitted that the campaign would be turned into a one for a General election - not surely what the European elections were about?
Whilst the Conservative Party's manifesto stated that one of the first goals of a Conservative government would be the return of social and employment matters to British control, it is hard to see the EU agreeing to this or, come to that, the return of any other areas of policy. Whilst a referendum on Lisbon has been promised if the Treaty has not been ratified - something presently remote, if the Irish opinion polls are to be believed and/or are reliable - whether Cameron would morally have to grant a referendum on membership of the EU, if he was unable to achieve his stated goal of the return of social and employment matters, is another interesting scenario and in such a case - even allowing for his avowed wish to remain a member of the EU - Cameron could hardly then campaign for a 'Yes' vote.
The paradox, referred to in the heading of this post, is this: All Cameron's statements - coupled with the Conservative Party manifesto - have reiterated a belief in continued membership of the European Union. Yet today, in an article by Richard Wolffe in today's Daily Telegraph - author of 'Renegade - The Making of Barack Obama' - he states that:
"Cameron will find it far harder to reach anything like consensus on his approach to Europe. According to reports, he has spent precious face-time with Obama attempting to convince him of the perils of the EU project." (my emphasis).
The question is, if Wolffe's statement is correct and Cameron believes that the EU project contains 'perils' why the hell is he such an advocate for our continued membership?