Pot, Kettle, Black

Over at ConservativeHome, William Hague accuses Gordon Brown of having lost his moral compass over IRA Families and Libya.

It may be a justifiable argument that there is a difference between the matter of the IRA and Libya and Britain's membership of the European Union, however both are important and can therefore be treated as equal where the subject of 'principles' are concerned.

In a Times article of April 29th, 2009 Hague is quoted as saying " that a Tory government would be “active, energetic and engaged members of the EU”,

yet at the same time it is also reported in the same article that:

"He also said that if the treaty were ratified in the run-up to the election or soon afterwards it would not have democratic legitimacy, implying that the British vote would still go ahead. And for the first time he hinted that a referendum could still be promised in the Tory manifesto, even if the treaty had been ratified."

Now far be it for anyone to suggest that a contradiction - even a loss of moral compass - exists here!

Maybe one could go further and remind William Hague of his words to the Conservative Party Conference in 1999? Amongst other things, he said:

"We believe in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Really, Mr Hague? Then should not the United Kingdom come first in your priorities?

"when we're in government the next new EU Treaty must contain a flexibility clause or else I tell you there will be no new Treaty."

Don't see any 'flexibility clause' in the Lisbon Treaty, Mr. Hague so, ratification or not, in your own words we will get a referendum then?

"if you believe in Britain as a country that will work with its neighbours but never submit to being governed by anyone else; if you believe in an independent Britain.Then come with me, and I will give you back your country."

The majority of people do not wish to be governed by anyone else and do still believe in an independent Britain, Mr. Hague - so why should we come with you, as you won't give us back our country, will you?

Coupled with this is the question that if, ten years ago, one believed in one's country, had an aversion to rule from abroad and, as a result, felt that without a 'flexibility clause' there could be no new Treaty, a change of heart cannot just surely be 'opportunism', can it - the prospect of a nice well-paid job, with position, power, status and perks - because it is hard to think of any other reason!

Oops, sorry - forgot we are talking about a Conservative politician here, discussing the EU!