A voice from Dave’s back yard

Readers may be interested to read this letter which appeared in the Witney Gazette earlier this week. How power corrupts! Whatever Dave really believes about sovereignty, he said something very different when first seeking election as an MP to what he is saying now. Can we trust this man?

Sir, Watching the BBC Andrew Marr Show a couple of weeks back, I was perplexed to hear David Cameron, our Witney MP and Prime Minister, dismiss the return of sovereignty to the people of this country as being inconsequential, or words to that effect.

Sovereignty means the recognition that a people actually count and in the same way that we have district councils and county councils to create a degree of order and to avoid anarchy, so we need sovereignty at a higher level for the same thing. Perhaps Mr Cameron thinks that we would be better off with a sovereign EU, but experience has shown that that entity is, apart from being unlovable, puts accountability and understanding out of reach of we ordinary citizens because of its sheer mass and the fact we cannot get rid of those who run it, – the larger the size, the more remote it becomes.

Anyway, apart from the philosophical argument, my bewilderment arises from what it was that prompted Mr Cameron’s epiphany conversion, for when first seeking the Conservative Party candidature for Witney in early 2000, he had a very different view of sovereignty, regarding it as a major issue in Britain ’s relationship with the EU. Then he publicly declared that he opposed any further transfer of sovereignty from the UK to the EU.

In fact Mr Cameron went further than that complaining that ‘politicians have given up far too much sovereignty’ and wanted no further transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels and went so far as to say ‘If that’s being a Europhile, then I’m a banana’.

Well it could be that Mr Cameron now has a much deeper understanding of the issue, and that in spite of the transfer of huge swathes of the people’s power (and we are ultimately talking about the power of you and I through the ballot box to influence things for the better) since millennium year, he has something to tell us that we should all know about.

I believe it is the duty of our elected representatives to explain the thinking that lies behind their decision making, especially on an issue which I know to be dear to most people in this constituency and in the country in general.

Shall we be enlightened? Well let’s wait and see.

Photo by bazzadaramblerimages

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Geoffrey BastinReply

    It’s not that Cameron was concerned that we had given away too much sovereignty because in fact we had given it all away. The ECA 1972 is very clear and there have been several challenges over the years all resulting in the UK high court ruling in favour of the ECJ because there was no other option. EU law over rides UK law and that is how the ECA 1972 was worded. This not necessarily the case with all member states because they all have given their approval to allow EU law to dominate but in the case of Germany they have not given it all away in the same way as the British.
    Our sovereignty is probably the most important of all the considerations in this referendum and over rides any other scare stories concerning immigrations at Calais, consequences from Hollande, foreign holiday rising costs from Thomas Cook or any other silly scare story you can mention.
    Our biggest fear is that if we vote to remain we will soon be required to join the single currency and embrace tax harmonisation. I can see the new European Finance Minister just over the horizon waiting to set our budget. Now that is scary.

  2. Will PodmoreReply

    Yes, indeed, this is a debate over whether the British people are to make our own decisions or have those decisions made for us. It is about sovereignty, which is also democracy. The EU says TINA, there is no alternative. Its Treaties, not its peoples, bind EU policies. The EU is not under any democratic control. European Commission President Juncker said, “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.” Within the EU, there can be no reform, no progress, no democracy. The EU can only get more unpopular, as the euro and the EU’s ‘free movement of labour’ policy prove ever more disastrous.

  3. Gordon WebsterReply

    Absolute Sovereignty of Britain lies solely in the hands of the people, according to Dicey. We can remove the current government and replace it with another, at an election. As has been pointed out before, Treaties are Gentlemen’s Agreements between countries, and have no force in International Law because there is no such thing. That our Politicians choose to comply with Brussels should not disguise the fact, that as Temporary Legal Sovereign they can amend the European Communities Act, and The Single European Act at any time of their choosing. The Electorate do not have to obey any Law which is against the General Will, and against the Greater Good of the Country – again according to Dicey, disobedience to Acts of Parliament is not knew, even in 1914 when he wrote on The Constitution.
    Our Politicians willingly choose to follow Brussels Dictat, making all who took the Oath of a Privy Councillor guilty of Treason against Her Majesty and the British People.

Leave a comment