Will the real Wayne David please step forward

Before moving on from the debate surrounding recent EU budget negotiations, it's worth taking a moment to scrutinise the quite breathtaking hypocrisy exhibited on the subject by Labour's new shadow Europe minister Wayne David MP.

In various reports about David Cameron's (increasingly dubious) efforts to reign in the EU's ever-expanding budget, Mr David offered quotes suggesting that a "sizeable" rise in the EU budget would be "against the national interest", saying: "I think we should dig our heels in and say that we want a freeze in the European Union [budget]."

Really? That's a turn up for the books.

Contradictions

Because not only did Mr David vote in November 2007 in favour of the European Union Finance Bill that approved the last EU budget deal increasing Britain's contributions by an extraordinary 60% through to 2013.

But the former MEP and leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament also in early 2008 voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty (and against the referendum his party promised voters), which is how Brussels is now attempting to justify the EU's need for yet more billions.

In particular, on 20 February 2008, Mr David voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty's foreign, security and defence policy provisions that authorised the creation of the vastly expensive EU European External Action Service.

This is the new £5.8bn-a-year EU agency headed by the unelected Baroness Catherine Ashton that will be housed in a £10.5 million-a-year building, staffed in Brussels and worldwide by thousands of expensively-salaried EU officials, some of whom will enjoy being ferried about in one of the shiny new bullet-proof limos that will set back Europe's taxpayers £32m.

Regrets?

So for Mr David to turn around now and posture in favour of 'digging in our heels' and freezing Britain's contributions to the EU is all very well, so far as it goes.

But if he wants his apparent conversion to be taken seriously, Mr David first needs to express regret for his poor voting decisions in the past that have ccontributed to the situation Mr Cameron is today having to deal with.

Because if actions speak louder than words, Mr David's very evident past enthusiasm for gifting the EU large amounts of extra cash and voting EU institutions more powers will indicate to most that he's merely playing the sort of low-grade, party-political games that make the public very cynical about politicians and that ultimately only degrade our democracy.

So how about those regrets, Mr David? According to his website, he can be contacted at davidw@parliament.uk. Why not drop him a line and ask him? Especially if you live in his Caerphilly constituency.

The confused Norman Baker

The Daily Mail today shouts from its front page that the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, is spearheading a campaign for MPs to ditch their traditional oath of allegiance.

Supporting the campaign purportedly on the grounds that their 'principal duty' should be allegiance to the people who voted for them rather than the Queen are 22 MPs from all three main parties, but reportedly including only a single Conservative.

A full list of these supporting MPs isn't given. Yet what's the betting that most of these sudden adherents to representing their constituents and 'swearing allegiance to the nation' both didn't keep their manifesto promises to support a referendum on the EU Constitution and voted to approve that transfer of more decision-making powers to the EU?

At that time, countless polls showed that a large majority of people wanted a say on the treaty and opposed the transfer of more decision-making to the EU. How many of these MPs were so interested in representing their constituents then?

Norman "it's a matter of democracy" Baker himself certainly wasn't. In line with the instructions of his party leader, Nick Clegg, he didn't bother to vote in support of a referendum on the EU Constitution's "substantially equivalent" successor, the Lisbon Treaty, but he did vote to approve the treaty.

Wouldn't MPs keeping clear promises on which they were elected and taking their own manifestos seriously be a far greater contribution to improving democracy than gimmicky campaigns to tinker with oaths?

Clegg's hypocrisy over weakness of Parliament

Writing in The Independent today, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg returns to the theme of the quality of our democratic system, in particular the weakness of Parliament to hold the government to account.

Clegg argues that Parliament has been 'castrated' and is virtually powerless to influence government decisions, pointing out that "in 11 years, there have been only three defeats for the Government in votes by MPs."

Talking of this being "the record of a system in crisis" in which "the legislature dances to the tune of the executive", Clegg laments "a spineless abdication of scrutiny and accountability at the heart of our Government."

"The mother of all Parliaments has become the eunuch of all Parliaments," he concludes.

Important themes indeed. And in many ways what he says is true. But coming from Nick Clegg, such complaints amount to massive hypocrisy.

Accountability squandered

A mere two months ago, Clegg had an opportunity to defeat a government plan to ditch their clear manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution - recently revived and re-named as the Lisbon Treaty.

By voting in Parliament in support of a referendum along with the Conservatives, and ensuring Parliament held the government to their manifesto promise, Clegg would also have been upholding an identical promise made at the last election by his own party.

So did he take this opportunity? No. In fact, he deliberately fluffed it.

Instructing his MPs to abtain at the crucial vote on the question of a referendum, he allowed the government to get away with it.

Despite apparently being concerned that voters are losing faith with a system that doesn't represent them, he didn't just fail to represent those who voted for his own party, but also those Labour voters whose expectations of a referendum were being thwarted by the government.

And now that the treaty has moved on to the House of Lords, Lib Dem peers are actually planning to vote with the government against the referendum that both parties promised.

Taking people for fools

So who does Nick Clegg now think he's fooling by rather tragically trying to re-invent himself and his party as a champion of Parliament and of holding the government to account?

One of the biggest problems afflicting faith in our democracy today arises from politicians imagining that people have no memory beyond what they happen to be saying that particular day.

Hypocrisy - taking people for fools - is fast becoming the norm, whether politicians are talking about post offices, NHS service closures or the EU. Just like The Independent in their accompanying report about Clegg's article, the national media seem almost too embarrassed to point out the increasingly glaring inconsistencies between the words and actions of our politicians.

Or if the media's problem is not embarrassment, then it is more serious - one of competence.

If actions really do speak louder than words, then far from being likely to offer a solution, Nick Clegg has so recently and so clearly shown himself to be one of the main causes of the problem.

More government hypocrisy

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears was on Newsnight tonight to defend Wendy Alexander's U-turn to support an independence referendum in Scotland.

Stressing that the government was not afraid to put the issue to the people, in the context of the government's refusal to hold the promised referendum on the EU Constitution Ms Blears exhibited hypocrisy of monumental proportions. Not exactly a new trait for her, either.

She said: "If Alex Salmond is going to bang on about having a referendum then actually he should put his money where is mouth is and be prepared to have that vote. We are not afraid of the argument with the people...

"We are not afraid to have a political argument with our opponents whether it's the referendum in Scotland or the Tories in Crewe and Nantwich."

Oh really? So where's our EU Constitution referendum then Hazel?

More EU hypocrisy

"The European Union is watching closely the discussion concerning the revision of the Constitution, while noting that any changes to the Constitution have to be decided by the people and the institutions of Cameroon."

So says a declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union in relation to the situation in Cameroon, 27 March 2008

Yet how strange that "decided by the people" doesn't apply when it comes to the EU revising its own constitutional treaties.

In fact, leading EU figures like Jose Manuel Barroso have been actively discouraging EU member countries from consulting their peoples over the re-named EU Constitution Treaty.

How is anyone supposed to take seriously a body that behaves on the basis of 'do what I say, not what I do'?