British Prime Minister David Cameron is coming in for a lot of criticism for his uncompromising stance during the 'save the euro' summit in Brussels. But is he really so culpable? For instance, if Cameron had gone along with the Franco-German steamroller at the summit, as the Irish leader did, would he be fulfilling the democratic wishes of the British people? Hardly. The last time they were asked a specific question about the EU was in the referendum on whether they should join it, back in the early '70s, and even then it was sold to them as a free-trading common market and nothing more. And does anyone stop to ask whether one of the Allied victors in the struggle for democracy *should* be signing away unilateral decision-making rights to a union that includes countries like Hungary, which is now led by gerrymandering, right-wing reactionaries? Sure, the euro's in trouble, but Britain never wanted it in the first place and warned of its dangers from the start. Are they now to be vilified for not enthusiastically going-along with the latest half-baked plan to save it? Is it not possible that Cameron sees the good ship 'euro' about to sink and doesn't want his leg tied to the anchor chain? I think time will tell if Cameron has made the right choice or not. What is clear is that our own leader is not leading. At least Cameron was brave enough to make a decision instead of meekly going along with the crowd. That's something!
No comments:
Post a Comment