«

»

Revealed: David Cameron’s threat to Europe over NSA spying

ikYfyDhQHruM

 

 By Simon Davies

 

24th October 2013

 

The Honorable José Manuel Barroso

President, European Commission

1049 Brussels, Belgium

 

Dear President Barroso,

I am writing to express my government’s disappointment over certain aspects of the inquiry into global national security arrangements which is currently being conducted by factions of the European Parliament.

As you will be aware, there has been a historic understanding that the European Parliament will not unnecessarily interfere in sovereign arrangements by EU member states – even if those sovereign arrangements are subordinate to the authority of larger non-EU nations.

The United Kingdom has traditionally supported the European Commission’s mandate to temper the excesses of the European Parliament. 

That is to say, EU states should be free to cut whatever deals they see fit, with whomsoever they see fit, without interference by bodies that justify their narrow self interest in the name of specious democracy. Britain of course applauds the idea of a democratically elected European body, but has always believed that the members of that body should be democratically appointed by member states

I need not remind you that the basis of the our founding document, the Treaty of Rome, was to permit nations to unilaterally stitch up the market to their benefit. It goes without saying that a morally defensible position to protect the redundant coal and steel industries should apply even more so to the buoyant national security market.

The United Kingdom has traditionally supported the European Commission’s mandate to temper the excesses of the European Parliament. Indeed we provided the template for mature management of irresponsible parliamentary decisions that threaten constructive governance. We gutted the Maastricht Treaty to rightfully ensure that member states could enjoy the sort of autonomy that a European Parliament bloated with power would have compromised. On this matter, the verdict of history is well on our side – or it will be soon enough.

With this background in mind we find it regrettable that this latest inquiry by leftist agitators of the EP seeks to destabilise much that we have sought to achieve in Europe. National security sits at the heart of regional and global stability. Subversive efforts by this inquiry to raise matters of fact as if they were “in the public interest” flies in the face of the foundations of Europe’s viability. 

We cannot indefinitely keep the lid on our own secret arrangements with the US while an inquiry – enabled by your own unfortunate managerial lapse – is allowed to publicise the fact of our relationship with our friend and ally.

In 1999, on the last occasion that the Parliament launched an inquiry into national security, we and your predecessor made a deal. Britain would keep its mouth shut about the spying arrangements that Denmark, France and Germany had secretly made with the United States, and in return you would ensure that no action was taken as a result of the inquiry’s findings. This was an honourable arrangement that worked well for Europe and which has permitted business as usual ever since.

However we now find that the current inquiry is allowed to run free with oblique disclosures about Britain’s hosting of the NSA Menwith Hill spy base on our soil – matters that are entirely private and which should have no business in a public forum. We’ve managed to harangue the media into temporary silence over this facility, but we do feel this issue is a breach of trust between us. We cannot indefinitely keep the lid on our own secret arrangements with the US while an inquiry – enabled by your own unfortunate managerial lapse – is allowed to publicise the fact of our relationship with our friend and ally.

I would also remind you that national security – whether based on fact or imagery – is a core device to ensure that the EU Council retains control over the EP. The Council’s partnership with the Commission against the occasional lunacy of the Parliament is squarely in both our interests. However there are limited tools at our disposal to ensure that the recently expanded Council retains its loyalty to member states against the temptation to cave in to the sort of public opinion circus that so infects the European Parliament. One of the pillars of Europe is strategic long-term planning, and this could never be achieved were we to be held hostage to fortune by an arbitrary five year cycle of uncertainty. Global national security arrangements are a means to keep the thumb on new members of the EU who, let’s face it, have a disproportionately big say in the Council.

Our authority and our security are being undermined by people wearing beards and t-shirts who have been elected by hysterical paranoid minorities. I believe you should reverse this unfortunate haemorrhage by invoking one of your countless procedures, or, more effectively, doing what we have engineered before by threatening to introduce a market test on parliamentary processes. That’ll end things swiftly enough.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Cameron

Prime Minister