Over the Centuries
Relations with Great Britain have been subject to great confusion and misunderstanding
as all aspects of previous are laid bare in wikipedia -
But regrettably: people with vested interest are attempting to muddy the waters for Therese our new PM in reviewing the Hinkley Point decision. This is disingenuous to the extent that any incoming PM with reservations should be able to express concerns and review decisions to which they may have taken exception when agreements were originally signed-off.
However enshrined in the English Parliamentary system is the understanding that any new government is not bound by decisions of a previous incumbent and in that spirit it may be that certain aspects of a controversial deal should be re-examined in the light of this principal. How far this concept goes as regards a general rule of thumb may be open to consideration, but it should be inviolable amongst the rights of any new PM without let or hindrance.
Admittedly Opium Wars were a feature of centuries past and the world has moved-on, though whether this moving-on is completely agreed by all as Edward 1st's Maxim 'That which concerns all should be agreed by all' applies specifically in this case is an open question. But one cannot disagree with this concept if parliamentary approval has been given.
However as the political world veers towards government by referendum, the idea that the end result should await a General Election transfer of power would in a way be self-defeating and so long as the majority voting system 51%/49% prevails that should be sufficient after due consideration.
Please feel free to comment :
No comments:
Post a Comment