Home > The Magazine > The Week

Saturday 22 November 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Letters to the Editor

Wednesday, 3rd October 2007

Sir: Nigel Lawson is wrong to claim that the Reform Treaty will abolish the need for parliamentary approval of changes to the EU treaties (‘Sorry, minister’, 29 September). The Reform Treaty will introduce a new, general ‘passerelle’ that provides for simplified treaty revision procedures. Its use will still need to be agreed unanimously by all national governments and all national parliaments. So MPs and peers at Westminster will retain a veto. It should also be noted that ‘passerelle clauses’ were first introduced by the Single European Act under Margaret Thatcher.

Jim Murphy MP
Minister for Europe, London SW1

Sir: Nigel Lawson is absolutely right. Here in Holland the Dutch government has also decided to dodge the thorny subject of a referendum on the Reform Treaty in exactly the same way — by pretending it isn’t another EU constitution.

The administration here knows full well that, as in 2005, the people would once again vote a resounding ‘no’ to a European Union that has doubled their cost of living, has no democratically elected government, has a parliament that rubberstamps its every decision, and has backtracked on most important commitments it made.

Most notably it betrayed the Stability Pact that was to safeguard the Union’s healthy economies against overspending by weaker member states. Net contributors such as Holland and Britain are now effectively subsidising the budget deficits of the usual suspects: Italy, Greece and Portugal.

Only last May Wouter Bos, the Dutch Labour finance minister, stated that, in view of the earlier rejection of the constitution, a referendum would be a logical step. Now, with a steely mendacity that matches Mr Jim Murphy’s, he tells the nation the current Reform Treaty is an entirely different proposition.

The parliamentary faction of Dutch Labour, in government coalition with the Christian Democrats, has just decided to back the Cabinet’s decision. In joining this political con game, it has torpedoed not only the chance of a parliamentary referendum initiative, but also what little trust citizens had in mainstream politics.

Bart Roozendaal
Amsterdam

Rommel’s beating

Sir: Taki writes with his usual humour and light touch (High life, 22 September). On the subject of Rommel, however, he is wrong to state that no British general ‘could match (him) in panache and military acumen’. In fact, two British generals gave him a beating at the First Battle of El Alamein in June–July 1942 and, on all fronts, out-generalled him to such an extent that on 17 July Rommel wrote to his wife:
Dearest Lu,

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

A child of our time

From the economic and psychological bedlam of the global downturn has emerged a particularly dangerous false dichotomy: namely, that there is somehow a choice for ministers over the next few years between economic reconstruction and the repair of Britain’s broken society, and that the government (whether Labour or Conservative) must prioritise the former at the expense of the latter.

Diary

Anne Robinson

The daughter and I spent the last few days before the American election in Arizona.

Politics

Fraser Nelson

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

The Spectator's Notes

Charles Moore

‘A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous “helicopter drop” of money.’ So said Ben Bernanke, now the chairman of the Fed, in a speech about how to ward off the ‘extremely small’ chance of deflation, which he delivered in 2002.