Only a fool could write such as this: "When David Cameron was elected as Conservative leader, it seemed as if the party's 20-year civil war over Europe had been resolved. Cameron's own Eurosceptic credentials were irreproachable ... ".
Now, faced with a conflict between his belief that the Boy Cameron is a Eurosceptic, and the reality – that he is (and always has been) a rabid Europhile, that fool. Peter Oborne writes a piece trying to reconcile his delusion with the reality. Thus he blandly informs us:
Newly elected ministers have a choice of two methods when they deal with Brussels: they either fight in a bloody-minded way for British interests, as Margaret Thatcher or Nicholas Ridley did, or they join the club. Osborne's decision set the tone: without exception, Cameron's ministers have joined the club.This, of course, is ex post facto rationalisation. Cameron was always "in the club", so the current outcome was inevitable – and predictable. Oborne's piece, therefore, continues his own delusion, that Cameron was a Eurosceptic. He has to go with that delusion, otherwise he has to admit that, for years, he got it wrong. That would never do.
His stance, though, is almost as delusional as Tim Montgomerie "revealing" what Conservative Party members "really think" of David Cameron and his Cabinet. If the members could actually think, they would have run the Boy out of town and elected a Conservative.
But, "Scratch the surface, and they are disappointed that Cameron isn't being more robust about crime, eurozone bail-outs and the tax burden... ", the Montgomerie tells us. Oh, dearie, dearie me. The little Tories are "disappointed". I weep for them.
COMMENT THREAD
