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.

 

 

 

Advertisements

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.

 

leadership… found wanting.

David Cameron said the  word ‘leadership’ 19 times in his conference speech in Manchester titled ‘leadership for a better Britain‘ in an attempt maybe to brainwash the public into believing he actually has the abilities to lead a nation. He does not.

And yet, the G20 has shown that the world over, ‘leaders’ are not leading but limping far behind events that have happened last week; month; year? The Greek tragedy that has consumed the whole event is not the worst of their worries, nor is Italy’s predicament. what are called the Western democracies of the world are suffering a complicated shift in the way the world works and the distribution of power via wealth (of nations) is the central cause.

what the G20 summit has achieved is to present the EU summit of October 27th as a triumph, that created a plan to sort the eurozone crisis out and that must be followed. This is an example of the lack of leadership we have in current politics, the EU summit conclusions were picked apart by markets and analysts within 24hours, and found out to be half measure without structure nor any actual cash to back the plans up. For the G20 to be exclaiming that countries must follow this plan and stick to it, without anything new to fund proposals. Sadly means they have no idea how to solve the current crisis.

Which brings me back to David Cameron, who is stuck in opposition mode. pre-crash 2008 he and boy George were committed to Labour spending plans and only changed course once the election was in sight and they could not any longer persist with the mantra of ‘sunlit uplands’ and ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’, when Lehman’s went down the conservative party was consistently on the backfoot with no ideas let alone a plan to ‘save the world’.

The situation is the same now with the eurozone crisis, the government had no idea what to do, so has decided on the one hand to try to offload the crisis onto the eurozone alone, and push for closer integration of the eurozone countries, whilst at the same time wanting to increase the IMF budget. This is obviously to do with the fact that British banks are more exposed than even the German’s. So why doesn’t the government be straight with the British people and explain the situation instead of trying to cover up their misgivings.

We also have the situation where the eurozone may indeed follow George Osborne’s “remorseless logic” and integrate further, which will inevitably push Britain further away from decision-making, not that Cameron has not done enough already to leave Britain looking like a pathetic bystander while events happen elsewhere. This is one of the main problems, not only are the eurozone nations going to be putting their own interests first but Cameron + co are happy to stand back and watch it happen without the slightest thought about the future consequences.

And yet the conservatives believe they will be able to take back powers ‘repatriate’ ‘renegotiate’ whatever you want to call it, Germany has said nien to the idea, so it seems that even this false scenario is not going to be achieved. Cameron is too weak to even attempt to gain back any meaningful powers for this country . in the event he does make a squeak, the eurozone will agree a new treaty outside the EU involving only eurozone nations, making the veto useless.

Maybe the lacklustre performance is due to Cameron’s own faults; David Cameron edited the Big Issue in the summer he spoke of  his youth and how he “didn’t always put the effort in” and “just went through the motions, drifting along

Some things never change, eh’.

hocus pocus…

It is enough to drive one mad, the Sunday papers are as ever, full of half truths and misinformation. The European Union and Mondays referendum debate receives a lot of attention from all sides of the political spectrum,

All is not well with douglas carswell who today is taking touchy tim’s place , he seems to have lost the plot let alone ‘the plan’, as he does on his own blog he speaks as though he is not part of the “SW1 clique” or “Westminster bubble”, delusional he seems to be publicly leading a double life. Carswell is a conservative MP in the Westminster Parliament, the ‘conservative’ party is leading the government this country has to put up with. In the same vein Carswell pushes the lie that ‘renegotiation’ is possible. One wonders why he does it? Cameron is never going to give him a promotion, so his motives are unclear though I hear that ‘the plan‘ is now an ebook£


Far from the  fight back the government’s press release would lead you to believe matthew d’ancona informs us that

“In private, senior Tories acknowledge that there is no serious prospect of an aggressive programme for the repatriation of powers from Brussels as long as the Coalition exists in its present form”

nick clegg seems to confirm this and has fiercely rebuked the tory ‘eurosceptics’ on the matter, and claims it would be “economic suicide” to try to change Britain relationship with the EU.

Simon Heffer -whose commentary I have to say has deteriorated since moving to the Mail- seems to be naive enough to believe the propaganda as he suggests that we renegotiate or repatriate powers back from Brussels, and then uses David Campbell-Bannerman  and his ‘ultimate plan b’as a source of  astuteness is laughable.

Heffer also pays “a sincere tribute to those who defied the three line whip”, this says it all, the vote on the motion was non-binding: when we see these ‘rebels’ defy the whip on a real in/out referendum debate for a real in/out referendum then they may deserve some sort praise. Peter Hitchens has a half good idea, the problem with it is that, most of those ‘rebels’ in the ‘conservative’ party do not have the guts to do it.

Someone who knows what he is talking about is Christopher Booker with the only article I can find in the msm today of any grasp of the facts and realities of the EU, from his piece:

“because the way Britain is governed has become so inextricably enmeshed with “Europe”. Anyone who thinks we can “renegotiate” has no understanding of what this project is about, or its most sacred principle – that powers, once handed over, can never be given back. So we must stay in, dragged along by a process over which we have no control…”

and

“…the project is slowly heading for very messy and prolonged disintegration. Everyone involved, it seems, is trapped, and the only way Britain will leave the EU is when it falls apart, around us and everyone else…”

No doubt this idea of repatriation or renegotiation of powers will continue to be pushed by the government and its followers, even though the facts say different. As Booker says the process of collapse of the EU has started, it is just a matter of time.

The only thing people who believe that Britain should be out of the European Union can do now is try to speed up the process; getting the facts out there is most important, so that the public is informed  that  is  best way to put pressure on those in power.

withdraw

The backbench debate on an EU referendum has caused much excitement in Westminster, the  motion was ‘negatived on division. (Ayes: 111, Noes: 483)’, the significance of the debate is not as much as the hype being discussed, it will not do what it says on the tin, it was defeated and in any case was not binding on the government. It has though, brought attention to the credibility of Cameron’s leadership and his  preferment for rhetoric over action.

The number of ‘rebels’ was increased by the wording of the motion; including the third option of ‘renegotiation’ allowed the majority who supported the motion a get out clause and a chance to kick Cameron for whatever grievances they may have. Renegotiation is simply not an option, it  needs to be made clear to those suggesting that renegotiation is an option and those that have been naive enough to believe them.

For Britain or any other member state in the European Union decide it would like to withdraw from any policy area signed up to through the various treaties, directives and legislation. Britain or that member state would have to seek agreement from the other 26 member states, and an amendment to the existing treaties would need to take place.

The likelihood of  the 26 member states  agreeing on Britain opting out of policy areas that it does not find favourable, while they themselves remain signed up to it is nil, it is as though those advocating ‘renegotiation’, they seem to think that  EU treaties are  a box of chocolates where you pick out the nice pieces and leaves the rest for the next idiot.

Cameron and co still claim to be eurosceptic, even after all the broken promises and ‘cast iron’ guarantees, some will keep the pretence going – it serves both their interests, others are naive enough to actually believe it. Cameron calls himself a ‘euro-realist’ :read federalist,  he has consistently used the issue of europe as bait to the party using it whenever he needs their support, ignorant when it does not suit his needs.

It has to be asked why those in the party who do not agree with the position of the leadership continue to support the leadership, in the FT today Tristan-Garel-Jones (former minister for europe under Thatcher and Major) another europlast, says those that are “stuck in the 19th century model of the nation-state and who advocate withdrawal from the EU” should withdraw from the party.  it is the obvious suggestion to make while the quisling leadership is so at odds with their views.

pointless posturing

The debate in the House of Commons on Monday put forward by David Nutall MP and granted by the backbench business committee is as follows:

“The House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom

(a) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;

(b) leave the European Union; or

(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.”

The motion for the debate itself is utterly flawed, (a) to remain a member of the EU on current terms, is a scenario no one wants not even the most enthusiastic eurofanatic believes that Britain’s relationship at present is ideal, it is Cameron’s rosy scenario where the issue can be brushed away and people stop ‘banging on’ about europe, however it is not even an option crisis in the euro zone and its spillover effects will not allow for the status quo.

whilst (b) leaving the european union is the favoured option, the fact is a new political arrangement needs to be ready to take its place, those in Westminster are not up to the task of governing without the influence and direction of the EU, were the country to put its fate in the hands of  the party (lib/lab/con), democracy, governance and our politics would indeed worsen.

As wittering witney and autonomous mind point out the country is not even ready to be asked this question in a referendum, with the public so ill-informed on the subject, through obfuscation from our politicians and the media, the whole issue of the European Union is boiled down to headline grabbers such as the infamous straight banana or what the definition of chocolate is.

A comment by don wreford on autonomous mind’ post above makes the point asking if “we may have to have a phd on politics to understand?” a phd may not be needed, but vast amounts of reading and inquiry are, to understand the workings of the EU and the consequences of being a member. Educating the public is not going to be an easy task when the people who gain most from the EU’s very existence rely on misleading the public and keeping them in the dark about the facts, to keep the charade going.
Exit from the EU now or in the forseeable future, is not likely to come from referenda, the only route is the long road through clear information getting through to the wider public, or with self inflicted implosion, which is not as unlikely as once thought.

(c) in the motion to renegotiation  membership to create a relationship based on trade and co-operation; is simply not an option, membership of the  European Union is not a pick and choose situation, the other 26 members would not agree to Britain remaining in the EU on a trade based negotiation, while they remain signed up to the unfavourable arrangements. Those that believe this outcome is possible are on never-never land, there is more chance of us being booted out than this idea.

we wont leave europe, but it wont rule us” is a re-hash of William Hague’s  old “in europe not run by europe”  slogan  the europlasts use for cover,it is not only misleading it defies reality. The 27 nations that are in the EU are run by the EU whether leaders admit it or not. CCHQ  have put out this briefing  going over the same old lines as, ‘blame labour’, ‘we need a majority’, ‘we have a referendum lock’ etc. is a smokescreen to try to hide behind, attempting to keep up the pretence that the conservative really are sceptic.

Even in the event of Westminster initiating such ‘renegotiation’ what could be expected? a few more fish allowed to be kept by fisherman? or no increase in the British contribution to the EU budget? it would be a continuation of bone-throwing to the Conservative party while Cameron tries to keep his position. The sideshow tomorrow in the HoC, will come to nothing, it is not binding and will serve only to detract attention away from the governments incompetence over economic policy and pretty much all else. Britain has signed up to the Treaties, which once signed are simply not up for discussion, with David Cameron speaking for the country in Europe there is even less hope of any good deal arising, unless you are angela merkel treaty change, worthy of the name is not an option.

Cameron + co, are only too pleased with how the debate looks set to go, the ‘rebels’ are unable to force a referendum, and will be made to look supposedly out of touch. Having moved the timetable of debate, Cameron gets to enjoy the sound of his own voice for longer, and will limit time for discussion, so from the backbenchers who do get a say, we will most likely hear them once again speaking to themselves rather than the people they are supposed to represent.

It is pointless posturing, the hype over tomorrows debate is going to leave everyone underwhelmed, whatever is said in the Commons tomorrow is of little importance, compared to whats happening with the euro .

speaking in tongues

Just when you thought the madness of the european integrationists was at a  standstill, they push ahead further and probably faster, the crises of the eurozone, with Greece  particularly in the spotlight. The pursuit of further integration and more europe, still drives the minds of the europhiles, so detached from the realities that europe faces,
they see the only solution to the problems as more and more europe, regardless of what the people of these member states believe, need or want, regardless of economic realities and regardless of democratic legitimacy (lack thereof).

The EU summit last week discussed (mainly) the issue of the Greek economy, the debt ridden -once soveriegn- nation who will sooner or later have to default on its debts (partially or otherwise), nearly every economist predicts a Greek default, one way or another. Europe has few options to choose from, about the way they wish to react to the crises.

george Papandreou the Greek PM, will try on Tuesday to push through the Greek parliament the austerity measures required by the troika, in order for the Greek to receive the next tranch fromthe first bailout last year.
Opposition party New Democracy (apt) maintains they will vote against, the people of Greece, are unlikely to accept more austerity since, thus far the first bailout, austerity measures and reform seem to have had little effect.

eurocrat talk, initiated by one Angela Merkel, proposing that borrowers take ‘volutary’ losses, and an introduction of debt guarantees proposed by Alex Weber , the former Bundesbank chief, Sarkozy\’s ideaof private investment funds helping the bailout, amongst other initiatives coming from euroland are in reality trying ot fiddle the situation, economists and the markets have said many atime that any restructuring of the debt (in whatever form) will be seen as default. Together with the the unlikely event that Greece can reform its finances before 2013 when the EFSM package is intended to be introduced, Greece is not going to repay its debt, full stop.
Over here in blighty we have to witness the ‘\”genuinely eurosceptic\” David Cameron who insists that Britain will not play a part in the bailout, he blatantly forgot to mention our participation through the IMF, and even then as the eu keeps “kicking the can down the road”, making up new rules as we go along _ bailouts are illegal under the ‘constitution’- and as we have in David Cameron a europhile premier of the highest proportions, Britain can expect to be dragged into funding the Greeks further.

You may of noticed the attention theat the new ‘moderate eurosceptics’ have been getting in the prees, after the letter by 14 of them in the FT calling for a change in policy toward Europe. For some time there has been talk of the ’40’ who are of the 2010 general election intake, these are supposedly moderaters and modernisers, but ‘very eurosceptic’. The likes of George Eustice, Priti Patel etc… however looking at their records it can be said that the new intake are simply additions to the cameroon pack, talking the talk, tripping over when they need to walk.

The above link from conhome by Eustice makes patently clear the mirage they have painted themselves, that he says of Cameron that: “We now have a genuinely eurosceptic Prime Minister who is better placed to deliver than any of his predecessors, including Thatcher. He means business,”
is beyond parody, though should not be laughed at, if these are the sorts of people we have in Parliament, -notwithstanding the european union- directing policy then we are in serious trouble, the media are playing along, the opposition is a shambles and most of the country has not woken up to the facts.

who is steve hilton?

David Cameron, is filling out the scroll, of how many (m)uck ups he can make, week after week, day by day more uturns on coalition policy are made.

The person David Cameron, relies on most is steve hilton who is described as the “pint-sized Rasputin”, he is behind the conservative modernisation or ‘detox’ programme, from the beginning of the Cameron leadership, he has played an influential role  getting Dave to ride on his bike to work (with a driver behind him), hugging huskies , right down to the conservative party’s logo change to a type of tree.

he is described as david cameron’s secret weapon (£) , but is he? Hilton has often been called  the backbone of the modern conservative party and the coalitions reforms, directing policy and initiatives in policy areas such as the NHS, the ‘red-tape challenge’ etc. But all his re-branding and decontamination, didn’t help Cameron win a majority, so why is he so influential?

Today in the Mail it is noted that

“One person who works with No10 complains that Hilton ‘doesn’t understand the process you need to go through to make things happen, how to pull the levers of power. Saying stuff doesn’t make it so’.”

Quite, the whole programme for government of the coalition, is based on this pretence, that announcements  are made and therefore implemented when this is and has never been the case. The government governs by headline, by this they create the headline then only afterwards make the plans to implement them, only later realising that the polivy will not work.

In the same article it is said

“Hilton dreams up policy ideas in an instant and wants them implemented immediately.”

such amateur behaviour is not suited to British government, as most people know, but the coalition has not yet grasped.

It is evident Cameron follows where Hilton leads, the fact that steve hilton was reported as threatening to quit his role in government, makes one hope he does, then for Cameron to follow his lead.

such amateur behaviour is not suited to British government, as most people know, but the coalition has not yet grasped.

european disunion

The crisis ongoing in Greece at the moment, the strikes, the riots, the lack of a clear direction for the country, a government in office but without power –over its economy or otherwise-, etc.

Is emblematic of the dilemma facing the entire European union, whilst the media report on the Greeks striking and rioting over austerity measures forced upon the country by the EU, ECB, IMF it is also a case of, nationalism. Like most nation states they believe themselves to be sovereign and therefore see a patriotic duty in fighting off those institutions demanding further austerity, it is debatable as to whose error it is that this is the situation they face (afternoon siesta’s, early retirements and an overblown public sector, are obvious contributers)  though it also clear that the EU and ECB are only out to save their own skins, for fear of contagion across the eurozone and eu member states, with Germans economy likely to take the biggest haircut were Greece to default, exit the euro or both.

Our masters in Brussels, unashamedly require the living standards and livelihoods of those in Europe to diminish for the sake of a united Europe, evidently the peripheral countries in the eurozone or the PIIGS, should not have signed up to such an agreement, the European elite are trapped in the belief that if they wish away the problems it will all work out fine, and the united states of Europe will be on course to true realization, the truth is that the peoples of eu nation states are at odds with their leaders.

British people (a majority) would like a referendum on our membership of the club, the German’s are reluctant to pay for the profligacy of PIIGS, the Finnish recently voted overwhelmingly in favour of the eurosceptic true finns party, the Portuguese, Irish and Greeks are fed up with the eu as are Spain, the majority of EU citizens are unhappy with the institution, the way it works, its leaders, the overall direction and at the top of the list the dictatorial attitudes of the Union in handing down the rules of governance beyond its remit.

In the United Kingdom, we face the farce of a ‘conservative’ prime minister and his foreign secretary posing as eurosceptics, the EU Bill is a case in point the referendum lock, has been voted down by the HoL with Lord’s passing an amendment that will make the lock expire at the end of each parliament, whether or not the commons vetoes this, is no reassurance since no Parliament can bind its successor.

As for the British economy, Europe has plans to interfere in this matter, too. George Osborne and/or treasury minister(s) are to be summoned by Brussels (the commission) to appear before them to explain Britain’s economic policies, and the commission is to scrutinise whether Britain’s economic policies are in accordance with the EUs overall strategy.

Early in David Cameron’s leadership of the conservative party in opposition, he made clear he wanted the issue of Europe -to not be an issue, and for the conservatives to stop “banging on” about Europe. The reality of the situation is Europe is at the forefront of many of the governments’ problems, the PM and those around him must wake up to this fact and act upon it, holding a referendum on our membership is an ideal way of beginning the process. Though, since Cameron+co are reluctant to do this or for that matter to raise the issue, a start would be for Chancellor Osborne and Cameron to renegotiate our contributions not only to the bailouts but the union as a whole.

election 2015?

Only 1423 days to go, until the next general election  (according to the coalition agreement), and from d\’ancona we read that “senior adviser Steve Hilton – often warn him that one term may well be all that this Government gets. Hilton sees it as his responsibility to shake Cameron into acting as if these are the only five years he has: seize the Dave, so to speak.”

Indeed, as has been obvious for some time, Cameron may have the personality of Mr Blair, but he does not have the capability to win an election, it cannot be repeated more often, up against one of the most unpopular Prime Minister’s in recent times Cameron blew his chance, having fixed himself the top job and  fixed the terms (five years), it is most likely he will only have the one term -if that.

With the constant uturns, the failed ‘detoxification process, and his high self regard, Cameron fails to see his faults through his supposed good traits, which even then can often be attributed to luck.

George Osborne was/is campaign manager for general elections, as well as being chancellor D’ancona goes on…

The alternative perspective is one with which we became familiar in the New Labour era – namely, that the fundamental purpose of a government is to get re-elected. This view is increasingly ascribed to George Osborne

He, after all, is personally responsible for the most radical and risky proposals that this Coalition has undertaken, and he is under huge pressure to translate policy boldness into political dividend. It would be absurd to accuse Osborne, of all people, of timidity. At the same time, he is the Government’s key political strategist, as well as its fiscal crusader, the man charged with winning the next election (May 7, 2015, according to the Coalition Agreement) – and with avoiding the misery of a second hung Parliament.

Having set course to wipe out the deficit, Osborne’s eyes are now firmly fixed on election day 2015, the reduction of the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, and the new boundary commission reports due by October 2013.”

The fact that the government and the prospect of an overall majority for the conservatives at the next election, rely on the economy picking up and Osborne being able to tell the country he managed to get the economy back on track. The conservatives under cameron and osborne will require a lot more luck, the way it looks, whilst unemployment is down and the cost of debt are reasonable, it is not guaranteed to last, for if the British economy does not start producing real growth than the deficit will not reduce substantially enough. And with the coalition programme only expected to cut the deficit at a rate of 1% more than the Alistair Darling plan would of, it is not likely that the prosperity envisaged by dave and george will come to fruition,

I suspect that as with most coalition policy it will have to be revised, not due to the usual media or focus group opposition  but through the force of the markets. i also believe that the coalition will split before 2015, leaving “the misery of a second hung parliament” a viable prospect.