An interesting comment in the DT on Norman Tebbit’s blog.
A year or more ago, I raised a query with NT regarding the divided loyalties and allegiances of UK citizens who work directly for the EU, and particularly the EU Commissioners and their senior staff. Legally who do they serve, the EU or the UK and what about conflicts? I asked, how could they serve 2 masters? NT ducked the question, and I’m still not certain on this matter!
If, as NT suggests above, there is an oath taken by EU Commissioners et al to the EU this query in present circumstances seems more pertinent, and over and above any personal monetary considerations regarding ongoing EU pensions and perks.
Are UK citizen EU politicians and senior civil servants bound to the EU, or to the UK, or somehow both? Can such EU and ex-EU personnel be liable under British law for using their positions and access to facilitate EU wishes for any policy matters such as a referendum on UK Brexit, or even on Brexit itself, if the electorate and the UK government require such a referendum and/or elect to proceed with Brexit.
Are we, in fact, producing a series of ongoing and former UK citizen EU officials and politicians, still under oath to the UK but who have in fact become UK Quislings, at least partly funded by the EU?
Remember, after WWII both Laval and Quisling went to their executions still professing they were only acting in their countries’ interests!
Now that’s interesting because I have a quote of Tebbit’s in my book of quotations which goes:
The cricket test – which side do they cheer for? Are you still looking back to where you came or where you are? [Tebbitt on on immigrant loyalties, Los Angeles Timnes, reported in Daily Telegraph, 20 April, 1990]
So he queries the immigrants of a certain non-assimilating nature but when it comes to that word EU, he appears to go all soft. This might be wronging the man and I hope so but it’s looking to me that way.
This has been crossposted at the backup nourishing obscurity while the main site is down for rebuild.