Eustice really is useless

Per the Concise Oxford Dictionary - cretin: 1. a person who is mentally retarded as a result of a thyroid deficiency; 2. colloq. a stupid person.

 

George Eustice had an article in the opinion section of the Financial Times yesterday, the beginning of which marks the article as yet another sop to Cameron's brand of eurosceptism. He commences his article by stating that no-one can say Cameron is soft on Europe and that Cameron means what he says, something that other European leaders would do well to remember. Cameron means what he says? This the man who has more policy 'U' turns to his credit in the past few weeks than most people have in one year. Eustice repeats the lie that a treaty was 'on the table' - how many times does it have to be repeated that that was not the case; that the process of drafting it had not even begun. As Richard North noted about Cameron who he stated lived in a fantasy world, one which does not exist, it can only be assumed Eustice has emigrated there also.

Whilst acknowledging that his party is held to be fractous on the question of what he, too, will insist on calling 'Europe', when he means EU membership, he maintains the reality is different. Defining two types of Conservative MP he completely overlooks the fact that too many of those MPs are 'career politicians' - one only has to look at the voting records to see that this is undeniably true, with the majority obediently filing through lobbies in support of the Coalition.

Eustice recognises that the concept of “ever closer union” has been hard wired into previous treaties; that once the EU acquires a new competence or responsibility, it never lets go; and then later waffles on about the repatriation of powers or establishing a relentless process that over time creates a flow of powers back to the UK as part of a new settlement in which a self-confident Britain is a member of an outer tier of the EU. Eustice compounds the stupidity of his article by asking why a referendum is now necessary to reclaim powers when so many have been lost without a referendum.

Eustice undeniably fits the second definition of cretin - and if we add 'or brain' to the end of the first definition, then he most definitely fits that, too!

What a tangled web we weave

when first we practise to deceive.

David Cameron appears to have a small problem with his promise to renegotiate powers from Brussels as it has been confirmed that the Liberal Democrats will not allow that process to be attempted, even were it possible - so the opportunity for any compromise is obviously nil and one could paraphrase by saying "never the Swayne shall meet".

"Yesterday, Tory MP Desmond Swayne, a senior aide to the Prime Minister, admitted anyone expecting the Government to hasten Britain’s “escape” from the EU should SDHpabandon [sic] hope – because of the pro-EU Liberal Democrats. The comments were in an email allegedly sent by the MP to a UKIP constituent who took him to task over the Tories’ failure to deliver a referendum on Europe. Mr Swayne wrote: “This Coalition includes the most pro-European of all political parties, Nick Clegg began as an MEP, his ­enthusiasm is undiminished. “Anyone who believes that this government can expedite our escape from the EU is living in a world of illusion. Sorry. DS.” Mr Swayne declined to comment if the email was sent by him, saying his emails were “private”."

Which just goes to show how useless is the group headed by Eustice and how useless is his party and the man who heads it.

Andrea swinging the Lead som?

One of the 'faux eurosceptics' and a founder member of the group headed by 'Useless Eustice', Andrea Leadsom, has an article on Conservative Home about Greece, debt, the EU and her group:

"And Britain is certainly not immune to what is happening in Europe - almost half our exports go to the Eurozone and the crisis we are witnessing could well push us back into recession." (Emphasis mine)

We all know that politicians have no idea and appear to show no interest in what happens in the real world, however one would have thought that Andrea Leadsom, as a politician, would be aware of that which takes place in her own little political bubble. "Almost half our exports go to the Eurozone" is yet another untrue statistic of which Ms. Leadsom should be aware, but obviously isn't or chooses to ignore. In the House of Lords, as Your Freedom and Ours reported, a rather interesting question was asked, the answer to which showed that trade statistics are flawed. In my post, one in which I linked to Helen at Your Freedom and Ours, a commenter highlighted the fact that because of the EU Tariff levied on goods shipped THROUGH Rotterdam it shows the Dutch as having the highest per capita net contributions to EU Budgets even though the tariff is paid by customers in other countries who buy the goods sourced via Rotterdam, yet another fact not made in the 'official' reply to Lord Pearson. It says much for the standard of comments on this post that not one, at the time of writing, has picked up on this skewing of statistics regarding trade with the EU.

Oh and "back in recession"? And when did we get out of recession exactly?

I am of the opinion that Ms. Leadsom's article is best summed up by the commenter on ConHome, radstatser, who stated that he had read the article as he hadn't got any paint to watch dry, at the time.

"Useless Eustice" Group - Mark II?

The Guardian reports that there is a growing revolt amongst MPs across all parties, according to Dan Byles (Conservative: North Warwickshire), against HS2. The newspaper also reports something that has been known for some time, namely that Cheryl Gillan, secretary of state for Wales, MP for Chesham and Amersham, one of the affected constituencies, has pledged to defy the party whip and oppose the project - which would of course cost her ministerial position.

I have posted many times on the subject of HS2 (probably to the point of boredom), the last time being here, with various links, showing the connection to the Trans European Network (Transport) programme. That the likes of Byles, Gillan, Hurd and others apparently ignore, or are unaware of, the EU influence in the development of this line brings into question their suitability to hold the office they do.

Of course it would be remis not to pass comment on yet another shining example of what passes for journalism, namely the mere reporting of  of political spin without showing the slightest inclination to check the background. As Autonomous Mind posts, it would seem this newspaper is far more interested in preserving what is left of it's reputation than allow itself to report on a subject that both they and the political elite have decided is a non-subject (European Union and associated matters).

As with Useless Eustice and his collection of faux eurosceptics, so might this collection of rebels be being formed for the same purpose, namely to divert the public's attention, in this case from the real reason why the line is being built. That Cameron will not have spoken to Gillan, in view of her ministeral position, about her reported opposition cannot be in doubt, likewise that Gillan more than likely assured him it was just a case of 'keeping up appearances', with her in the starring role rather than Patricia Routledge.

That the faux-Conservative Party should have faux-eurosceptics and faux-antiHS2ers should come as 'faux' surprise to anyone.

David Cameron's history - if only......

When one decides to delve back into history, it is surprising what you find. Unfortunately, due to my having only begun in December 2009, my personal 'reference book' is rather minuscule when compared to others. Richard North, EU Referendum, has very kindly sourced some of his material for me - my thanks, Richard.

David Cameron was appointed leader of his party on 6th December 2005 and has always maintained his eurosceptism burns brightly within him - which is rather odd really when you travel back in time. Digressing slightly, readers will be aware of the novel 1984 by George Orwell in which Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth where he is employed to change passages in past newspaper articles in such a way as to make them congruent with current party doctrine - something similar oddly enough appears to be happening today.

On the basis of one speech, made without notes at the Conservative Leadership Conference in October 2005, Cameron attained the leadership of his party. Videos of this speech were available on youtube, yet strangely they appear to have been censored  for reasons of copyright, which is also odd bearing in mind the text of that speech can still be read. A year earlier at the Conservative Party Conference, during a fringe meeting Cameron spent five minutes offering his views on how his party would win the next general election. Richard North posted on this with a link to the Conservative Party website, a link that also seems unavailable - quelle surprise.

The same month an edition of Question Time featured a panel comprising Nigel Farage, Patricia Hewitt, Jody Dunn, Matthew Parris and...... David Cameron. For some time now we have heard nothing from the Conservative Party but talk of repatriation of powers from the EU; we have had Hague talking about it and Useless Eustice forming his pressure group, a group presumably formed with Cameron's agreement, to further that aim. I have always maintained that repatriation of powers from Brussels was 'pie-in-the-sky' as the EU only has one aim, which is 'ever closer union', coupled with the fact that were just one power repatriated to any member state it would open a Pandora's Box whereby other member states would apply. In this QT programme both Cameron and Parris were of the belief that repatriation of powers was possible, citing the example of Margaret Thatcher who, as Richard North chronicles here, had an 'ace in the hole'. What is more important though is, as Nigel Farage stated in this programme and luckily noted by Richard North in this post, any repatriation of powers would require the agreement of the remaining member states.

Returning to Cameron's election to the leadership one has to ask just what those who voted for him were thinking. His leadership bid speech contained his aversion to the party moving to the right, he only mentioned Europe once and not in the context of EU membership and if one rereads his speech the content is so bland as to be forgettable. Just a year earlier he had been guilty of espousing the party line and then publicly attempted to be disingenuous by linking repatriation of powers to the success of Margaret Thatcher's rebate 'handbagging'. The failure of his party to secure an outright majority in 2010 may well be attributable to the fact that by then the majority of Conservative members had realised the gigantic error they had made in choosing Cameron and consequently 'did not go for it', 'did not seize it', 'did not fight for it' which resulted in 'someone or something denying them'.

Were a referendum held on our membership of the EU and which resulted in 'Out', what follows is not that simple, as Richard North explains in this post. Back in 2004 Cameron knew this, back in 2005 when he made his leadership bid he knew this, back in 2007 when he gave his cast-iron guarantee on a referendum he knew this, back in early 2010 when he he begged voters to elect a eurosceptic Conservative Party he knew this - and this year when he obviously agreed to Useless Eustice forming his pressure group urging repatriation, he knew that this is unachievable too and he is not the only one either. It stands to reason so do the likes of Cash, Redwood, Carswell, Heaton-Harris and the remainder of the supposed eurosceptic Conservatives, including Useless Eustice, Raab, and Patel.

Hopefully the EU will implode through some external factor such as the failure (at long last) of the euro but failing that withdrawal could, I still believe, be accomplished although the after effects might be painful for a time.

Politicians have known for some time now that they are not respected and are held in derision by the public. Should it cross their minds to wonder why, might I suggest they just ask David Cameron. He has not been honest with us, he has lied for personal, political gain and in so doing he has been another to have sullied his Office, his reputation and what was once a revered profession. It reflects badly on those who profess to be honourable, principled men and women that they continue to allow themselves to be led by one of questionable standards. But then, maybe, the fact that any protest is most noticeable by its absence, the fact they seem content to continue to allow themselves to be led..................

Readers may have noticed one omission above when listing prominent eurosceptics and in this regard I would recall an event during the last general election when a microphone worn by Gordon Brown was famously left 'live'. Well, it would seem a similar occurrence happened and Cameron and Hannan were overheard. Enjoy...........!

Clegg - Warm-up man?

Little reported, as far as I am aware, is a speech given by Nick Clegg today at the London School of Economics. The most interesting section is where he turns his thoughts to the eurozone crisis:

"In terms of the Eurozone, the real failure has not been the original concept of monetary union. It’s that the rules were never applied stringently enough. The Stability and Growth Pact was actively watered down in 2005, allowing members to wriggle out of their fiscal commitments to each other. Now we are seeing the effects. But on a day like today, when people are talking openly about the possibility of Greek default, the key question is not: how do we seek to renegotiate the UK’s place in the European Union in a treaty that hasn’t even materialised yet. The single-most important question, the urgent question is what role can we play in helping the Eurozone avoid further turmoil, creating the stability needed for prosperity and jobs – in the Eurozone and in the UK too. A stable, healthy Eurozone matters massively to the UK. It’s where we send 40% of all of our exports and, together, we all face a longer term problem of competitiveness - a problem not even a raft of new treaties could fix." (Emphasis mine)

The first part of the emboldened section is, I believe, a side-swipe at 'Useless Eustice' and his band of merry men and women and that treaty renegotiation just ain't going to happen; however it is the second section that provides the most cause for concern. In view of the fact that until 2013 the UK is still liable for contributions to prop up the eurozone due to our membership of the IMF, the question that logically arises is whether Clegg is preparing the country for yet another bail-out for Greece, rather than Greece being permitted to exit the eurozone.

Were a further bail-out to Greece to happen - and one in which we may well be liable for the odd £billion or two - it would, I believe be an ''excrement hitting the ceiling-mounted air circulation device' moment where the British public are concerned, especially when they will look at that and then compare the deprivation they are suffering at home with Coalition 'cuts', cuts 'real' or 'imagined' will not matter. As an aside, it is also worth recalling this in relation to Cleggs assertion that 40% of our exports goes to the EU, but then that is yet another digression..........

There is of course yet another question that this speech poses, namely who, exactly, is running this country: the EU with the help of Clegg or the EU with the help of Cameron?

The 'new' Conservative 'Eurosceptic' Movement

I have had to break off from my intended post on Constitution (4) because the recent article on Conservative Home by Anthony Browne, co-author of the Open Europe paper on Euro-Localism, cannot be allowed to stand without comment. Richard North has already posted his views on Anthony Browne, pointing out that this is the man who one minute is advocating that we must not leave the EU and then writes for Open Europe.

Anthony Browne obviously has a deep sense of democracy when he enthuses that the purpose of the meeting was not to pressure the government into holding a referendum on pulling out of the EU – indeed, that was explicitly and repeatedly ruled out as a purpose of the new group. Neither does he get this 'democracy thingy' when he writes that the purpose of the group was also to reach political agreement, backed by in depth research, into exactly what powers the UK could repatriate, and in what way. So with the majority of the country wanting a referendum he is more than content that MPs - and MPs alone - should continue their practise of deciding what the country wants, or to put it another way what the country is going to get.

That Anthony Browne and George Eustice are but sycophants of David Cameron is all too evident; each is intent on ensuring that a rebellion against Cameron does not happen and confirmation that this is but a smoke and mirrors exercise to ensure our country remains a member of the EU, despite what the public believes or wants. But then would we expect otherwise; they are, after all, both in their own way members of the permanent political class, one that looks after their own.

I have borrowed the phrase 'permanent political class' from a speech by Sarah Palin in which she said:

".....because the reality is we are governed by a permanent political class, until we change that. They talk endlessly about cutting government spending, and yet they keep spending more. They talk about massive unsustainable debt, and yet they keep incurring more. They spend, they print, they borrow, they spend more, and then they stick us with the bill. Then they pat their own backs, and they claim that they faced and “solved” the debt crisis that they got us in. [..] Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive..[...]..of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy?"

 And that, dear reader, is why the likes of Eustice and Browne became involved in politics. They have no more intention of heeding the public than the Pope has of converting to Anglicism. If Anthony Browne and George Eustice really believe all this crap, namely that the one-way tide of power passing to Brussels can be stopped and then reversed, then rather than being in Westminster perhaps they should be in Broadmoor.