Sunday, 3 April 2011

What the *&^%?

"The Coalition government has rightly taken the UK out of any future bail outs of Euro states in the new regime after 2013. That leaves the issue of bail outs under the current system, where the UK was opted in during the transition post election in May 2010.

Mr Darling tells us he did accept the need for the UK to be part of the rescue parties. He also says he told Mr Osborne and Dr Cable, and they allowed him to make the decision. Mr Osborne implies he did not feel he could override Mr Darling but agrees he did let him make the decision. The Coalition government de facto underwrote the arrangement when they got into office and did not resile from Mr Darling’s consent. Some of us wanted them to notify our EU partners that we do not agree with what they are doing or the way they are doing it, but we lost that argument.
 The question of who was told what, where and when just will not go away, will it?

There is something distinctly 'CFP' 'fishy' here, because:

(a) Who gave authority for Osborne and Cable to make the decision? Cameron? If so, on what basis?
(b) As one parliament cannot bind its successor, of course Osborne could override Darling - if he so chose. So why didn't he?
(c) As Osborne now admits that he knew of the decision then he was complicit in that decision and cannot, surely, blame Darling - as he has publicly done in Parliament.
(d) On what basis did Darling believe the need to partake in the bail-out? If Osborne agreed to allow Darling to make the decision, then he must have agreed with it, presumably having received permission from "on high" (Cameron)?
(e) If as Redwood maintains, some did attempt to show opposition but lost the argument; then one can only say they did not make their case loud enough and with sufficient publicity. Also, if this decision was one taken by QMV, then (i) they were wasting their time; (ii) it must amount to a loss of power, something that the so-called opposition should have made more of; and (iii) it is duplicious of Cameron to pretend that he knew nothing of it and further demonstrates his impotency as Prime Minister of this country.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!


Sue said...

Have you posted those queries on Mr Redwoods Blog?

I post on there sometimes but more often than not, they're not printed :)

I wonder why???

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Sue, I have linked to my past and asked for his comment.

paulsc said...

WfW, that is a cracking typo, made me laugh.

Sue said...



WfW is angry.. I can tell :)

Woodsy42 said...

I see no way Osbourne, Cable, Clegg or Cameron had any authority beyond the polite 'to be consulted' tradition. They had won the election vote but they were not in government at the time, thus they had no more power than you or I to make treaty decisions.

Woodsy42 said...

"As one parliament cannot bind its successor,"

But they can. External treaties like Lisbon are held up all the time as being binding. Treaties don't die with the government of the day. So maybe they can't bind a successor with home made rope, but they can arrange to borrow some from elsewhere!

Sue said...

I don't think he printed your comment, nor mine :)

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Sue: As at 1947 they are both printed!

Blue Eyes said...

Well it seems obvious to me that Darling agreed because he thought that Britain might need to be bailed out at some point in future. Remember Mandy's little campaign in favour of making IMF bailouts more palatable?

I suppose we remain part of these bailout systems because we think it is better for our trading partners to decline in an orderly fashion than to implode dramatically.