Over the last few days David Cameron appears to be giving the impression of digging his own grave knowing that he will shortly be forced to occupy it before he has taken his last breath. This frenzied activity is undertaken by Cameron with the assistance of an additional shovel, namely his mouth.
Four years ago he talked about a referendum - dropped. Then about two years ago he talked about the repatriation of powers - dropped. He has also stated that there would be no need for a referendum - dropped. In fact this man drops more things than a trainee juggler! More recently he talks about using the veto if a new treaty is a requested, yet it is his avowed intention to help bring stability to the eurozone so how can he contemplate using the veto option? He talks about 'leverage' - the more the eurozone countries want, the more he will want in return - yet just what 'leverage' does he have? Moreover if the other Member States say 'No', just what the hell can Cameron do? He has boxed himself into a corner from which there appears no escape.
At Prime Ministers Questions, in answer to Steve Baker proposing that the UK would be better leaving the European Union, David Cameron maintained that it is in Britains interest to have access to the single market; that we are a trading nation; that there are opportunities for Britain in Europe. The obvious answer to that would be: right, take us out, we can still have access to the single market; we can still make use of the opportunities that exist; after all, are we not a trading nation?
Of course, the 'bravado' that Cameron exhibits is the same as all British Prime Ministers before him when about to attend a Heads of State meeting. It is for public consumption, yet history shows us that what transpires behind the 'locked doors' is invariably not 'bravado' but 'surrender'. In fact it is what transpires behind the scenes, prior to the Heads of State meeting, that is important - and as Mary Ellen Synon reports, one nameless diplomat informed her that the British are being 'much more conciliatory behind closed doors.' The reported hope of Van Rompuy that something could be done 'on the quiet' with a revision of Protocol 12 appears not to be possible, at least where the United Kingdom is concerned - as Richard North explains here. Also, on the repatriation of powers thingy, Helen over at Your Freedom and Ours weighs in with two well-crafted posts, the second here.
Afterthought: Richard North has a copy of the letter Merkozy sent to Van Rompuy ahead of tomorrow's meeting.
Afterthought (2): And here is Van Rompuys letter to the Heads of States.
17 comments:
Problem is, the politicians are no longer in control of the situation (though they don't seem to realise it) it's the markets running the show and every announcement the politicians make is based on false premise as the situation has usually moved on before the actions they demand are in place.
QM: There is that and how long has this been the case? Still the politicians haven't realized it......
Well I forced myself to listen to several Cameron clips and it seemed to me he never actually said he was prepared to veto any plan that did not meet his criteria, or quid his pros or whatever. As far as I could see, he was playing the Blair shuffle, using all the right words and phrases that seemed to support, well whatever position the listener wanted or hoped it would do, without committing him to anything. For some it seemed to say he would use a veto, for others that it was a useful bargaining chip that could be usefully employed, for yet others that it was available as a last resort and even that a veto was possible but he wouldn't stoop so low as to use it.
This is a difficult technique involving not just the words but the tone and delivery, borrowed I suspect from the world of barristers, and which is a bit like some early consonantal languages where only the consonants were written down and the vowels were added by the reader on the basis of context, innuendo and expectation to make the appropriate word.
There are two things:
The nature of Cameron who wants to be PM but doesn't have any ideas about where to lead us. He's a manager who wants to keep things ticking over quietly. That means drifting along with the EU while making gestures to suggest he somehow might not be. He'd rather not think about the EU at all and his main interest is not rocking the boat. Even discussing the EU rocks the boat.
The Conservatives, whose policy rules out leaving the EU and also the other two parties and the political and administrative establishment, which absolutely do not wish to leave the EU, come what may.
So, Cameron doesn't care what he gives away, as long as he can keep the boat steady. He has no intention of allowing a referendum or attempting to negotiate for anything of significance because that would rock the boat.
At least Chamberlain was only willing to surrender Poland to the Germans. What are the appropriate charges for a Prime Minister who surrenders your very own nation, not only to the Germans but to the French as well? And what punishment fits THAT crime?
Or could it be that Cameron's surrender to the Germans is purely coincidental, and he is merely trying to make amends to the French for what your ancestors did to Napoleon all those years ago? After all, isn't that the same PC mentality your government is applying to the Religion of Peace these days?
Mark, I think it was Czechoslovakia that Chamberlain surrendered to the Germans. It was over Poland we went to war.
I stand corrected, and apologize for my error.
I think it was Czechoslovakia that Chamberlain surrendered to the Germans
Actually it was German-populated Bohemia transferred to Czechoslovakia in 1919 where the majority was German. It was actually Daladier that agreed to it, Britain was only there as a Locarno Power and had NO treaty with Czechoslovakia - only USSR and France did.
As for Cameron, he is simply out of his depth. He has no history, no economics; he is simply a poorly educated rich boy who has bought his way out of problems through family connections - now it is Big Boys' Rules
Max Keiser has nailed this . Look at you tube.
:-)
Without predudice
:-P
he is merely trying to make amends to the French for what your ancestors did to Napoleon
Two-Thirds of Wellingtons Army was Dutch or German at Waterloo, and that excludes the 53,000 Prussians under Bluecher
Mark,
It's nothing as crude as 'remember Waterloo'.
All these national governments see themselves as part of a wider EU government which they don't want to fail. This is the main motivation. There are also national outlooks and positions for which they are partly fighting in shaping what comes, and domestic audiences (voters) to play to.
Cameron and the Conservatives have a particularly difficult audience to jolly along, in that a lot of them want him to throw a spanner in the works, which he absolutely will not do, although he's happy to pick up the spanner and brandish it and may even throw it, scrupulously ensuring it misses the works.
Hey guys, I didn't say it had to make sense. I just said that with the PC mindset of British leadership...
"At least Chamberlain was only willing to surrender Poland to the German"
Of course he went to war to defend it. Churchill by contrast handed the luckless Poles over to Stalin.
Mark,
Do you mean PC as in various species of silliness we've seen in recent years such as apologies for all sorts of things such as the slave trade?
I don't think so. You can see the EU as a benefit machine for the political and administrative classes, and I suggest that explains much more.
Jellyfish.
"At least Chamberlain was only willing to surrender Poland to the German"
Germany invaded Poland 1 September 1939. 2 September 1939 USA declared neutrality. 3 September 1939 11am Britain declared War. 5pm France declared war. 17 September USSR invaded Poland and deported 2 million to Gulags.
1941 Germany attacked USSR and Churchill declared Stalin an ally. Churchill gave Stalin everything Hitler had occupied in the East as a present at Tehran, Yalta.
Ergo Churchill hated Hitler but admired Stalin
Post a Comment