Behind the Words.

Normally, in everyday conversation, we have no reason to believe that the people we are talking to are trying to hoodwink us, or “put one over” on us. When it comes to politicians, however, and the statements they make that are reported in the media, we have every reason to suspect that the exact opposite is true.

A recent example of this really stuck in my craw!

Syria: MPs might not get a vote before any military intervention, says David Cameron

Lets take a little time to analyse that statement in detail. What is Cameron NOT saying?

Military intervention is tantamount to declaring war on another country, and is not a decision to be taken by one man alone – even if he is Prime Minister. It is the action of a dictator, and not the leader of a democratic society.

“MPs want any vote to be on a substantive motion over military intervention, which in theory could bind the Government to the decision taken in the Commons.”

“Mr Cameron said he stood by a “big commitment” to allow the House of Commons to vote on whether Britain should use military intervention. But he added that if necessary he reserved the ability to act without the say-so of MPs.”

The phrase “reserved the ability” is highly suspect! What it means is that Cameron will ignore the very Parliamentary authority that enables the system to function at all – when it suits him – and act as a dictator.

This could only legally happen if Parliament had thoroughly debated the matter, and agreed that under certain circumstances the Prime Minister could reserve such rights to himself. Such debates are only held in cases of real emergency, and there is no sign of any such thing at present.

As there is no present emergency, it would be perfectly possible to preempt such a situation by taking appropriate action in advance. This would entail rescheduling debates in Parliament to push items with a lower priority to a later date. Extra sessions at weekends could be called if necessary. Parliament is sometimes recalled from a break in times of emergency. This is nothing new, but none of these options are being even mentioned, let alone taken. Strange how eager they are to take preemptive action in another country, which results in mayhem and slaughter, but are unwilling to do the same within Parliament itself, to smooth the path of Democracy, and to make good on promises to MP’s.

But these options are not mentioned, and it seems obvious that Cameron hopes that nobody will realise that they exist.

The conclusion must be that they are not wanted1

What I see as being most likely, is that Cameron will prevaricate until the shit really hits the fan, and then jump up and say-
“Sorry, no time for a debate!!”

You can expect another U-turn from “Turn-again Cameron” very soon!