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.

 

Advertisements

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.

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.

oh dear, oh dear.

David Cameron’s “calm down, dear” performance yesterday at PMQ’s in the HoC was I believe nothing much but a joke, which the Labour party has used as an excuse to gain a bit of media attention, which they are struggling to achieve- what with no policy or anything representing an alternative to the coalition government.

But Cameron’s recent performances in the House of Commons have proven to be of the flashman type, he is often accused of.

When Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, the arrogance of David Cameron was plain to see, only now that he is the Prime Minister, he has an authority and powers which are unsuited to the attitude he has. I would not call it bullying, but given the nature of his title and the office he holds, it would be a good idea if he toned down the pretentious act.

Camerons performance has been portrayed as arrogant, watching it again, it is clear to see that the ‘most annoying’ politician Ed Balls is egging him on, even so, Cameron is starting to gain a reputation of a flashman type, exactly what he seems not to want to portray to the public. His insistence on trying to hide his background; the bullingdon club photo’s, his attire, are some of the reasons for  his ‘detoxification’ project of the conservative party, it is coming undone. Cameron speaks before he thinks, not only in his put-downs, but policy announcements and in interviews. he is an accident waiting to happen.