It is now clear why Labour does not want a referendum. They haven't read what they want us to sign up to, they don't expect us to read it, and they don't care about this country enough to bother what's in it. They want it passed for political reasons regardless of what it may say (which of course as they admit they don't actually know).
Why is she still in her job? What does she think her job actually is? How did this women get into Parliament? How did she achieve high office? I'm certainly not speechless but I am completely incredulous that this has not caused an absolutely massive outcry.
This seems to me to be shallow political point-scoring. Estelle Morris (this morning on Week in Westminster on Radio 4) made what seemed to me to be a reasonable case for Caroline Flint. I am paraphrasing her: Ministers "read through" critical large reports. They receive a summary from civil servants. They receive a political analysis from a political adviser. They receive press cuttings related to the topic. They attend meetings on the specific detailed issues. They have conversations, briefings, interviews on the given topic.
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame Caroline Flint wasn't asked, "Are you confident in your thorough knowledge of the Lisbon Treaty?" (But that wouldn't elicit a headline-generating response, would it?!) I don't know what Caroline Flint's answer would have been, and I don't know how shallow or deep is her knowledge of an essential part of her portfolio. But I do know that few people could answer in all honesty that they have thoroughly read "all" of any large policy document.
I didn't hear him quoted personally, but apparently Ken Clark has openly said he did not read all of the Maastricht Treaty. Do you want him sacked too?