Friday, 28 October 2011

The penny appears to have dropped with Cameron

if this report is to be believed as from the tone it appears David Cameron has ceased 'demanding' and now appears to be 'pleading' to be heard. The irony of Cameron now pleading with the 17 eurozone countries is delicious when one realises that this entire problem is one he and Osborne helped create with his insistence that the eurozone countries sort themselves out. How he intends fighting to prevent closer integration of the Eurozone countries leading to anti-competitive regulations when he is now one of the minority countries remains to be seen. If he believes he can pull that off, then I would like to see him walk on water first.

"Stormin' Norman" posts a question I have previously raised:
"Last Monday, I asked in the House of Lords whether an agreement by the seventeen eurozone member states to make agreements outside the Council of Ministers and then to vote in the Council as a bloc for such agreements would constitute a transfer of powers sufficient to trigger a referendum here. Lord Strathclyde, the Government Leader in the Lords, understood my point clearly enough. That was that the eurozone group can always outvote the remaining member states. What we said or how we voted would have no effect on the decisions which they reached.
Tom Strathclyde confirmed that as no treaty amendment was involved, no referendum would be triggered. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has understood the problem. We and the other nine states outside the eurozone have been disfranchised on many of the key questions of taxation and commercial regulation."
Any loss of ability by a country to set it's own taxation and economic policies constitutes a loss of power, treaty change or no treaty change.

One point that I fail to understand in Norman Tebbit's post is his referral to a possible 'third way'. If we are one of the countries forming a minority group within the 27, just how do we try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest? Off with your head is correct when she writes that the European Union has consistently tried to solve the eurozone crisis by making small and insignificant gestures, which quickly crumble under scrutiny.

Interestingly one of the aims of the European Union, in their wish to create a United States of Europe, has been their attempts to 'kill' any sense of nationalism, yet is that not the card Merkel and Sarkozy are playing in their desire to be 'top dog'? It is, in my view, nationalism that will contribute to the downfall of the EU and I can but echo Fausty:
"There's nothing inherently wrong with nationalism. Countries are nations. Countries' leaders used to act in the national interest, but now work for globalism, even if that works against the national interest.
Corporations write our laws - be they from the EU or from our own government. They write them to reduce competition from the little guy and to garner tax favours or waivers for immigration/settlement laws. These global entities have become too big to fail, and yet they themselves represent the very antithesis of the free market economy.

Your homework for tonight: Explore the true meaning of nationalism and discuss its use as a firewall in a global system.
Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. First though we leave and when Europe has 'gone up in flames' (be that literal or metaphorical matters not) then once again we can indeed go in and try and set them on the path of recovery (again!). 


PeterCharles said...

"Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies."

I don't see how declaring war (which is how we used to intervene) is going to help. It would get us out pretty damned quick though.

He is only another posturing fool in this instance (I normally have a genuine respect for his views, even if I don't always agree) claiming we can take advantage of the situation to shape events and repatriate powers, etc. Arrant nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for linking, Mr W.

I believe that Cameron always "got it", but chose to ignore it, hoping to get away with it.

He gambled and lost. Big time.

The CP MPs are now acutely aware that UKIP could cost them their seats. More of them will be affected by this than by any constituency boundary changes.

They are less concerned by loss of governmental preferment than they otherwise would have been because preferment will mean sweet bugger all if they fail to win back their seats at the next election.

I believe the tipping point has been reached.

graham wood said...

Peter, I strongly disagree with your view that Tebbit is a "posturing fool". He is anything but......
I agree with you however that he, or anybody else, arguing for a repatriation of powers back from the EU is naive and must be ignorant of the EU's aquis communitaire doctrine.
This in effect prevents any member state "repatriating" powers from the EU on the "occupied ground" principle. We know therefore that not one single EU directive has ever been reversed, and not one single power repatriated over the past 35 years or so of our membership.
But the other point raised by Tebbitis important. Is he not absolutely right to point out that any EU member state outside the 17 eurozone countries in a two tier system now being discussed would in effect be disenfranchised?
Of course! That must be obvious, and he tella us that both Lord Strathclyde and Cameron must know already the implications of that, namely that any "two tier" arrangement would constitute a major shift of powers in favour of the Eurozone members, and therefore a definite change in our relationship with the EU.

In turn that would initiate treaty changes which must be agreed by all 27 member states and thereby triggering a referendum under the so called "referendum lock".
Tebbit has seen this. All credit to him. This likely scenario and problem ain't going away, and thus Cameron is caught in a new trap which he did not anticipate!
Treaty change = referendum for the UK.

PeterCharles said...

Well, Graham, I do not dispute Lord Tebbit's general perspicacity, indeed I applaud it, but in this instance I'm afraid I do see him as a posturing fool.

He is of course perfectly correct that an 'inner circle' of Eurozone members would stitch up us lesser members outside of the zone, even unintentionally, and we would be disenfranchised which would equate to a substantial transfer of power away from us.

You say any one arguing for a repatriation of powers must be naive and ignorant, well, Lord Tebbit is neither naive nor ignorant in matters EU. That is why I say his comment is foolish posturing. He knows there can be no meaningful repatriation of powers, that's the posturing part.

He then goes on to say: "The [way to resolve the matter] is to at least try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest, ready for when even the eurocrats are compelled to face reality." He knows that is also an impossibility, the EU is not about trade, they don't care about trade, they don't want to get involved in trade other than as a tool in the creation of ever closer union. And even if it does all come unravelled there will be so much blame laying, finger pointing and sour grapes especially from France that nothing constructive would probably be possible for a decade. That's another posturing part.

Then he follows it up with the truly foolish part, ".... the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. So now once again it may be our future." First I cannot see the UK having any continental influence post an EU implosion, in fact we will be high on the blame list for never having been really committed, undermining all their attempts, undermining the Euro by standing on the sidelines making snide remarks, etc etc. Second can you see Cameron, Clegg or any of the idiots in charge here coming up with a 'Marshall' plan for a post implosion Europe?

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC: A slight misunderstanding, methinks, and probably due to my bad composition of that which I wrote.

I never said and did not mean to intimate we went to war. What I meant was that having left, watched while the EU imploded, we might then renter the fray, so to speak, and assist with the regeneration of that continent.

In respect of your comment regarding NT's belief in possible renegotiation - yes it rather surprised me to and I thought I had managed to convey that.

Mind you, if in the process we got the opportunity to bang a few heads together.........

Fausty: My pleasure, I assure you.

gw: PC appears to have taken the words out from my keyboard......

Having said that and see my response to PC above, I still believe it would 'fall to us' to sort them out again - one way or another.

Lynn Atkinson said...

Stop worrying about an inner and outer EU bloc. The Political Economy (and we have 'got it right David Cameron, see Fascist Europe Rising printed 2001, Chapter 3 point 10, 'The Euro Disaster') decrees that there is not enough money in creation to support the Euro.

It will fail as surely as night follows day, and as Merkle says, the EU will follow suit.

This has always been the case, the only question was one of collateral damage.

Thank God the continent will be bankrupted for decades, and we will just about survive, no thanks to those who occupy that place in Westminster from whence will once again rule ourselves!

The question to be addressed is this: How do we upgrade the personnel so that they are fit to represent The British People? 'Prepare for the post-Cameron Era' and stop worrying about that which is over, i.e. the EU.

No good Norman T and other late-commers who said we were the head-bangers, trying to get on the band wagon now. The wagon is way over the hill.

Lynn Atkinson

PeterCharles said...

WfW Gotcha back to and too ;-}

I do realise neither you nor Lord Tebbit was advocating war, I just don't think we are likely to have any particular influence post a Euro implosion. Indeed Germany as by far the strongest European economy will have that role, if it wishes to take it on, and would brook no interference from us. Even if there was no German involvement France certainly would not accept any British input unless it was us acquiescing to French demands.

There is also the little problem that our own economy is so fragile thanks to Brown's incompetence in particular and current political incompetence in general, a Euro implosion would also wreck our own economy, even if the rest of the world manages to avoid contagion which is itself unlikely.

I am afraid we will be among the buried, to battered and bruised to be among the rescuers after that kind of earthquake. I've just realised that sounds very insensitive given the recent Turkish events, I apologise if I have distressed anyone.

PeterCharles said...

Blast, I did a to and too of my own. That should stop me crowing.

graham wood said...

Lynn. Agree 100% with your post -

"It will fail as surely as night follows day, and as Merkle says, the EU will follow suit."

Of course and what a wonderful consolation to see the tiny light at the end of the tunnel growing larger by the day.

I am not overly concerned about the "two tier" EU idea with 'inners' and outers etc.
It is interesting to discuss and speculate because it is being raised on some blogs, but it may well be of academic interest as we could well be overtaken by events in the form of the now expected Euro collapse.
We know that both the Greek and Italian problems will not be going away and so there is the certainty of a denounment soon - probably when the markets begin to search the small print of the latest agreement - if and when these appear that is!.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

LA: Good points and agree.

PC: Nice to know that you too (note the double 'o'!) can trip up... :)

gw: the stupidity of this bail out is that after Greece and then Italy, it will more than likely start all over again with Portugal...