John McTernan, who we are informed is a commentator and political strategist, working internationally. We are also informed that he was Political Secretary to Tony Blair (hardly something about which to boast - but I digress) so it is no wonder that his article in the Telegraph today is so Europhile in content. As I have alluded to in the heading to this post, McTernan makes many statements without once linking to a source for those statements.
McTernan does not believe the need for a referendum is a pressing issue; neither does he does he like to see the House of Commons weakening its own authority and points out that the Europe we joined in 1975 was and remains a trading bloc. He raises the question why should we need to reaffirm membership of the EU any more than we should reconfirm membership of NATO and balances the argument that no one under the age of 55 has had a chance to vote on the EU any more than no one under the age of 87 voted for the NHS. Where does one start to counter McTernan's article when it is obvious that he so fundamentally does not understand the basic problems with membership of an odious body that is the EU?
To write that he does not like to see the House of Commons authority weakened by a referendum is a statement that stretches incredulity to an extreme. Does this idiot not realise that the House of Commons weakened its authority the minute it signed the Treaty of Rome? Can this idiot not see that what we joined in 1975 - and the concept that was sold to us then - is totally different to what we have at present? To compare a vote on EU membership with a vote on the NHS is disingenuous to say the least.
He complains that were the referendum to be held and the Eurosceptics lost, it would merely be the beginning of the battle for the next vote and writes "Not a referendum but a neverendum". FFS McTernan - is that not exactly what the EU did with France, Germany and the Netherlands - made them vote again? So it is alright that countries have to vote again when the result is not what the EU want, but not right if the result is not what the people want?
McTernan also writes that the last Labour government resisted directives that would place onerous costs on business. Methinks McTernan needs to proof read what he writes - no government can resist a directive, as once passed it has to be implemented.
He does not mention the fact that we are no longer a self-governing nation and if that is to be the case, that it should be the decision of the British people and not that of a political minority. But then this man is so obviously a socialist, so would not accept that it is the people who should decide what happens to their country - but then for a socialist people don't matter, they are just voting fodder.
As an aside, what is even more surprising is that the Telegraph, which prides itself on being a quality newspaper, should publish crap such as that written by McTernan. Having said that, it is, once again, obvious that the Telegraph does at least have something in common with our political elite - they both have a mistaken opinion of their own importance!
Two posts also worth reading on the subject of the call for a referendum are on Richard North's EU Referendum and The Anger of A Quiet Man who also comments on McTernan