that “veto”

The hyperbole surrounding David Cameron’s use of the British veto, is just that hyperbole. He has said himself he “effectively wielded the veto

David Cameron did nothing of the sort as richard north of eureferendum has been pointing out. Take a step back from what  the msm is churning out on behalf of Downing St, and you will find that the day before the summit the UK sent over protocol demands to the EU, (these regarding financial services and regulations) Cameron surely knew that  asking to ‘repatriate’ these competences some of which this government have themselves handed over jurisdiction to the EU- and insert the protocol into the Treaty would be refused  and so late in the day look unreasonable to his european partners in the council.

As bagehot notes

“What they asked for was a protocol imposing decision-making by unanimity on a number of areas of regulation currently decided by majority voting. (If you want to be really technical, the choice is voting by unanimity or the special Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) used in the EU, which is a sort of super-majority system taking into account a certain number of countries and also their populations).

As my source puts it, this amounted to a big winding-back of the clock for many EU leaders, setting a “horrendous precedent” that could unravel the single market. As they see it, common rules for the common market have been adopted (with few exceptions, such as tax) by QMV ever since the Single European Act approved by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.”

the colleagues were having none of it

“Britain’s request to move to unanimity was taken as a huge ask that had nothing to do with the subject at hand (saving the euro) or was a sign of bad faith (because it is driven by mistrust regarding future legislation). In my source’s view, Britain also tabled its request very late in the day, simply sending a whole draft protocol to the European Council legal service the day before the meeting without talking the ideas through with key allies and national capitals.”

It is becoming apparent through all the smoke and mirrors being deployed from Cameron and his allies that the whole story has been conjured up to present Cameron as some sort of  genius, this fairytale does not stack up to scrutiny. Cameron claims he used the ‘veto’ in the national interest, once again it is worth being clear David Cameron is interested in himself and only himself after Wednesday’s PMQ’s Cameron looked to be facing an onslaught from his backbenchers and more, to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU, he has consistently said a referendum will not be held and for one reason or another is determined not to regain our national sovereignty nor allow a referendum to be held,  that night herman von rumpoy’s interim report was leaked, which set out how the new fiscal “compact” could be set-up (using protocol 12) without the need for parliamentary votes nor referendums, no sooner had this come out than Cameron was on the airwaves threatening to use the veto if he did not get the “safeguards” he wanted in the “national interest”.

It is a shame that 99% of the media are refusing to question the PM’s side of the story. His version of the events suit him quite nicely, thanks very much; no referendum, no repatriation, and a heroes welcome home. this version has also deflected attention away from the problems at hand which was supposed to be about the salvation of the euro. Merkozy have finally come out of a summit without the markets tumbling instantly -It will not last long- the problems of the single currency still remain intact, the agreement reached covers rules for budgetary discipline and is not much more than the SGP (stability and growth pact), the immediate problem of financing the debt of troubled states, lack of competitiveness and fixing the imbalances within the euro area, were not dealt with so unfortunately the summit agreement looks like it won’t even  save them until Christmas.

 

 

 

away.

posting for the next few weeks will be infrequent, due to ‘events’. back soon.

Cameronspeak

Wittering Witney has coined the word Cameronspeak refering to the lack of substance, false arguments and statistics, and the ‘clever’ way he words his sentences. Witney’s post prior to Cameronspeak, roll up roll up points to the many times Cameron tells us he and the coalition are “rolling up our sleeves” , supposedly to do some of the hard work required in the governance of the country.

Cameron is just full of catchphrases, one of his favourites is”let me be clear” which it seems he has been using for years now, it often precedes sentence(s) littered with obfuscations, falsehoods, half-truths and more often lies damned lies. Examples include:  here and  here and here and here, and here and here.

There are more still, though you get the point. In George Orwell’s 1984, newspeak removes all meaning from words, and leaves simple dichotomies, which suits the ‘party’ in the aim to make any alternative thinking (thought-crime) impossible. Cameronspeak, similarly removes all meaning from words and leaves simple dichotomies, but the intention is to beguile and mislead the audience, to confuse and deflect attention away from the issues concerned, and to give off the impression of actual depth to what is being said while saying nothing at all.

 

 

“we sceptics”

David Cameron’s speech at the Lord Mayors banquet has been taken in by the msm as an ‘eurosceptic speech(video here) “a significant moment — the clearest articulation yet of his European Policy” clearly they have been mislead, the section of the speech on Europe was carefully worded by Cameron, so as not to offend anyone (Clegg, Merkel) or give any clear definitions on what he would like British European policy to actually be.

Mr cast-iron could not even bring himself to use the word eurosceptic choosing instead “we sceptics” anyone can be sceptic, of what though? is the pace of integration to slow for Mr Cameron? Is he sceptic of the chances Chancellor Merkel has of changing the basic law in Germany in order to change the Lisbon treaty?

Cameron said “Leaving the EU is not in our national interest. Outside, we would end up like Norway, subject to every rule for the Single Market made in Brussels but unable to shape those rules. And believe me: if we weren’t in there helping write the rules they would be written without us – the biggest supporter of open markets and free trade – and we wouldn’t like the outcome.

We can debate all day about what is in the national interest, but it is obvious that Cameron does not put  the national interest as the number one priority all Prime Ministers should hold. The influence he and this government have in Brussels is limited and ebbing away, any inclination he may or may not have to “refashion” the EU is akin to the “grand plans and utopian visions” europhiles tend to fantasize about. Chimerical.

David Cameron’s Lord Mayors banquet speech, said nothing that he has not already said, he wants Britain to remain IN the European Union; he would like to change a few things about it… but not just now; and he weeelly weeelly is ‘sceptic’!

 

something we don’t know?

For all the recent talk of the rise of the Fourth Reich I am wary of conspiracy type theories, but the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has throughout the crisis invoked the consequence of War, today she called the ongoing euro crisis “maybe Europe’s most difficult hours since world war two”

She also said “That’s why I’m saying over and over again if the euro fails, Europe will fail”  the crisis does not “mean less europe it means more europe”

Merkel stressed the need for tough sanctions against countries who violate the treaties, and “there must be the right to go to the European court against such countries”

Evidently across Europe an anti-EU feeling is emerging and growing stronger, the foundations of the  EU as a union of “solidarity and prosperity” has been tarnished and reversed by the crisis and the measures that the EU elites have been  trying to implement/impose on their neighbours. It cannot be dismissed the possibility that Germany’s Chancellor Merkel is giving people ideas, or maybe she knows something the rest of us don’t.

no way José

of the infamous Frankfurt Group writing in the Guardian intended for a British audience he makes the argument that economics, politics and the idea of globalisation and geopolitics is changing fundamentally he draws five conclusions

Firstly “we either unite or face irrelevance. Our goal must not be to maintain the status quo, but to move on to something new and better.”

secondly “the speed of the European Union and the euro area can no longer be the speed of the slowest or most reluctant member.” Nor “should Europe veer backwards to the 19th-century type of politics when peace and prosperity were supposed to be guaranteed through a precarious balance between a limited numbers of powers

Third “the crisis has shown that we need a deeper integration of policies and governance within the euro area.”

Fourthly, “all member states need to support and trust the common supranational European institutions…to ensure that decisions essential to maintaining economic stability are not held hostage to political bargaining based on narrow national interests.

Lastly, “deepening convergence and integration of the European Union must also involve deeper democracy.” He is “fascinated” by accusations that the EU officials are taking over elected politicians when, “Bodies like the European commission and European Central Bank have a duty to act in the common interest, especially when the political and economic stability of the EU is endangered.  European governments take the final decisions and that national parliaments and the European parliament guarantee democratic legitimacy.

In her article in the telegraph Janet Daley argues“this dream of a “modern” Europe is just the latest model of utopian ideology to leave wreckage in its path”

Her article is quite sound, but the situation we are dealing with as can be seen by Barroso’s op-ed is more  dystopian than utopian,as  the past week testifies. Barroso and his ilk are  culpable of practising what George Orwell termed double-think in the extreme:

“to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic”  

The believers in the  ideology of the EU are like followers of a cult or religion any differing views or divergence from the rule book are seen as treachery, they are like worshipers in adorance to the EU icon and cannot see reality that is staring them in the face.

Janet Daley ends her piece by saying “I doubt that we – or the peoples of Europe – will get any say in it at all.

I disagree, the people will eventually get their says, whether it be through the conventional measures is what is in doubt.

treaty change?

Angela Merkel has accepted that the current situation needs change.

“he debt crisis is not just something unpleasant, it is a turning point, an opportunity to create something new.”

It may be empty rhetoric of old, and she does not say what that “something new” would be. Merkel received a report

from her economic advisers, who suggested various ‘solutions’ to the crisis, all of which Merkel said

“would require a huge number of treaty changes”

It is clear that any plausible solution to the eurozone crisis will require treaty change and fundamental institutional changes to the EU. The British government is still pushing for further integration of the eurozone, whilst insisting that treaty change will be for the countries with the euro, and therefore does not affect Britain nor require treaty change under the referendum lock.

Treaty change proposals have not been precisely outlined but if the eurozone is to carry on they are required, and they will have repercussions for Britain. It is odd that on the one hand George Osborne and David Cameron say that the British economy relies on the euro working and are calling for the “remorseless logic” of full fiscal union, and on the other that treaty change will not necessarily effect Britain.

Angela Merkel seems to acknowledge whats required, she is still yet to act, but while we are waiting to see if the euro is going to be saved, maybe she can tell Gideon and Donald how the EU works.

“euro is the norm”

Apparently “the euro is the norm”, so says Barroso anyway, Nick Robinson of the BBC asked Jose Manuel Barroso

 “If the eurozone nations are to become a much more tightly aligned fiscal and political unit – and that is what most economists think has to happen for the Euro to survive – then what happens to those on the outside, like the UK?”
The idea that “in principle” all members of the european union will eventually be eurozone members, ought to worry everyone looking at the situation as it is.
More to the point Britain seen through the eyes of the EU elites is a laughing-stock:  in the link above  Barroso says, “oh the British” in response to Nick Robinson this morning on radio4 Robinson told of how those in the room of the EPP meeting the room filled with laughter at the mention of the British, this is days after Sarkozy told us we “don’t understand Europe” because we are an island.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that Britain in Europe is not working as it is and that even the EU wants a decision ‘ in or out?’ Britain cannot remain in the EU half heartedly it leaves us in the worst possible position.
The sooner we get out the better, that it is now it is some sort of  trend in the UK to be against Europe, shows that attitudes change dramatically it is not unthinkable that if the  euro survives there would be clamour for the UK to join the euro,instead of being ‘left out’. I do not see anyone in Westminster who is willing to defend our sovereignty against the EU at the moment, why would they in the future? It cannot be left up to the puppet politicians we have, if not the people maybe we’ll have to rely on the markets.

euro-deviants

The truth is now out about who is really running the EU project, the Groupe de Francfort includes only “an unelected cabal made of up eight people: Lagarde; Merkel; Sarkozy; Mario Draghi, the new president of the ECB; José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission; Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of the Eurogroup; Herman van Rompuy, the president of the European Council; and Olli Rehn, Europe’s economic and monetary affairs commissioner.”

I doubt this group is new, it is only now we have found out. Since the rebuttal to ex-Prime Minister George Papandreou’s referendum idea, from Merkel and Sarkozy “we are prepared no matter what response the Greek Parliament or people give” Merkel said of saving the euro. The language used by those in the Francfort Groupe has become increasingly petulant.

It is as though the EU project is now do or die for the FG, they can see the euro is in severe crisis and those in the FG have been consistent in keeping with the mantra that the euro cannot fail or Europe will fail, citing war and social strife etc. The EU ‘elite’ are finding themselves against the markets and economic reality, the people, national parliaments et al. And it seems that it may just be that with this crisis and the attention it is gaining that the real motivations of EU project are getting through to the masses,  when even the Telegraph has taken to calling this set-up the Politburo , one hopes that the  “ignorance is strength” is being diminished.

From the telegraph euro-crisis live blog this morning bruno waterfield posted this:

A new name for the club – “the euro deviants” – has been coined after Jose Manuel Barroso, the commission president, explained that “not belonging is the deviation from the rule” because all EU members, bar Britain, are committed to eventually joining the single currency.

Evidently if you deviate from EU doctrine you get the boot with  George Papandreou and Brlusconi removed and being replaced by the  installed ‘national unity’ governments, national parliaments are now nothing but card-carrying members – an ‘outer party’ to the EU elite, who must stick to the rules or leave.

who will say were better off out of europe?

tim montgomerie has decided to create a new ‘project’ called ‘rebooting project Cameron’ the name itself brings despair, maybe Cameron is some type of defunct robot. the link is 2/10 montgomerie thinks:

“Cameron needs to tell the country where he stands on Europe. He needs to give a big Bruges-style speech (in fact he should go back to the place where Margaret Thatcher made her landmark address) and set out the kind of Europe he envisages”

David Cameron does not have his own vision for Britain in the european union, and will go along with what merkozy dictate. He is unlikely to give a “Bruges-style” speech anyhow. If he did it would be like all his other speeches: lacking any conviction and simply to push an issue of inconvenience off the agenda for a while.

And yesterday John rentatool  put the question: “who will say were better off out of europe?” with the sub-heading: “if the single currency  survives it may not be long before a serious politician calls for Britain to leave the EU”

It is maybe another of his QTWAIN : ‘question to which the answer is n0′-one “serious” currently has the bottle.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.