Is Hain a europhile worth taking to the gallows?

If Cameron is to decide on whether to completely hang Peter Hain out to dry over elusive and dodgy party funding practices in the House of Commons this week, it is worth asking – is it worth it? I would argue, yes, it most definitely is.

Some ministers inherit bad treacherous governments while others create them. Peter Hain belongs to the latter camp of the current Labour Government. Even when you compare Hain to Margaret Beckett, the previous Foreign Secretary, who saw through all the early 2007 deals on the Lisbon Treaty, Hain comes out worse. When Beckett was formally drilled on Europe, she seemed compelled to remain silent, and even through her silence and confusion, came to reveal the complete deception behind the Brussels negotiations on the Treaty. Beckett seems to be a good case of someone who inherited a bad government.

Hain, like Miliband, on the other hand, has espoused, believed and publicised the New Labour Europhile anti-British philosophy, in which Westminster will (by virtue of the EU Treaties) become a subsidiary council of a European government. So, for the man who called the original EU Constitution "a tidying up exercise" and has been a key founder of Euro-rot, it would not be considered a waste of time for Cameron to hang Hain out to dry on campaign funding.