Questioning David Cameron's decision-making skills (abolishing House of Lords; European Referendum; EU and identity)

Ex-Soviet nations are keen to join the EU. Baring in mind they fought for independence and their own identity from the Soviet Union and then from each other (e.g. Yugoslavia), why would they even consider joining the EU if it put restrictions on their identity? They wouldn’t. So why some British people feel that Brussels restricts their right to be British I cannot fathom. The benefits for their economies, welfare and protection would not be enough incentive to join an identity-repressing state. If these were an incentive, then they wouldn’t have left the Soviet Union in the first place!

The House of Lords vetoed a bill of welfare cuts because it was to be detrimental to the UK. Prime Minister David Cameron got really angry and responded that he would curtail the powers of the House of Lords.

My instant reaction was wondering how the PM could act like a toddler having a tantrum! Labour had it right that the proposed reform was ‘a ‘massive over-reaction’ to the government defeat.

I found it interested that the unelected House is better at representing the public than the elected MPs of the House of Commons. Cameron is meant to represent the national interests yet got angry when something was done for national interests?

Then there was the mess of the reason behind why David Cameron arranged the European Referendum: to appease members of his own party. Why on Earth would anyone risk such massive upheaval based only on the threat that a few MPs would leave the Conservative and Unionist Party? Absolutely insane.

            Though to be fair, Cameron got a lot of stick for him arranging for Britain to have a privileged position in the EU, such as not being part of the ‘ever-closer union’ (which is the whole point of the EU*). Britain already had many privileges, such as 10% of the European Parliament are from Britain! Thus it confused me why people thought he ‘lied’ about what he could achieve: I was surprised he managed anything considering our already privileged place in the European Union.

*An ‘ever-closer union’. The main goal of the EU was to create the United European States’: explaining why Europe encourages the single currency; explaining why welfare benefits can go to outside states; explaining why there is free migration for Europeans (just like you can go between different states of America if you are American); explaining why Brussels holds much control over domestic policy and law (just like Washington, being the head of a centralised state).