Words, once written, cannot be erased

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Omar Khayyám

Someone of my acquaintance produced a cd entitled "Shore-horned into the EU....swallow it whole, swallow it now". This cd documented events leading up to Britain's entry into the Common Market in the early 1970s. He sent a copy of this cd to every Member of Parliament, some of whom are now no longer in office, however, and needless to say, the majority of MPs refused to take any further action, citing 'Parliamentary Protocol', due to the fact that as he did not live in their constituency they were unable to progress his letter further.

Bearing in mind events since May 2010 and more recently the last two days, two of the replies are most illuminating:

William Hague - 23rd September 2007:

"It has been David Cameron's view for a long time that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives, to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy, it is the right that Parliament decides how we are governed on issues such as healthcare, education and policing. But Parliament should not be able to give up the powers it has been granted by the British people without their consent."

David Cameron - 13th December 2007:

"I agree that the EEC people voted for in 1975 was different from the EU we have today. We believe political integration has gone too far and people do feel that Brussels' power has grown without their consent. It is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them."

Let me say at the outset that much as I would like a referendum, I don't want one as I believe an 'In/Out' Referendum would be lost to the 'In' vote for the same reasons as was the referendum in1975, namely the power, money and 'brain-washing' that was used by those supporting the 'In' decision. 

However, when discussing the principles of democracy, if one believes that to deny a referendum is a denial of democracy the question has to be asked of William Hague: why has no referendum been granted the people, especially when, as David Cameron states, the EEC that the people voted for bears no relation to the EU of 2011;  that Brussels' power has grown without the people's consent? William Hague should remember that it is only those who practise the art of dictatorship that deny democracy to their people - and Cameron's denial of that referendum is just that: dictatorship.

If Cameron truly does believe that it is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them, then the question arises why he does not take action to rectify the grievous wrong that has been done? More recently what, exactly, was he doing in Brussels if he was prepared to barter changes within the eurozone in return for concessions that would benefit a small section of our nation?

The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2010 general election spoke about protecting our national sovereignty, yet when a nation is unable, as is the case for this nation at present, to act in the best interests of its people; to decide its own future; to decide the laws by which its people live; it can no longer be regarded as sovereign. Only today Cameron is quoted by Bloomberg stating that Britain refused to sacrifice sovereignty to save the euro - err, what sovereignty is that, Mr. Cameron? The minute the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the last vestiges of sovereignty this nation possessed, disappeared.

I am firmly of the opinion that the next politician who utters the words 'sovereignty', in respect of this nation, or 'sovereignty' in respect of parliament, deserves a smack in the mouth!

We will not let matters rest there......

Remember those words, ones uttered by William Hague? Since forming the government with the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party - the party that prior to the EU elections in 2009 stated that a vote for them was a vote for 'change' - have ceded yet more powers to the EU and in the future, whether they like it or not, will be ceding even more. Some change!

Having pressed  the eurozone to accept the remorseless logic of monetary union and integrate; the government’s thinking appeared to be that Britain could stand outside mainstream Europe and repatriate certain powers in peace. Like being one of ten in a group of twenty seven forms a majority? The penny belatedly now appears to have dropped whereby Cameron has realised that the UK could - and probably will be - sidelined from all decision making within the EU, so he has promptly dropped his avowed pledge to repatriate powers and is desperately trying to ensure that the UK influence over developments is heard.

Sarkozy is on record stating that European countries should surrender some of their vetoes and grant Brussels elements of control over their budgets in order that the EU's functions may be improved and thus guard against reckless spending. Cameron has made much of the fact that any treaty change would present opportunities for repatriation of powers, yet as stated above he now rescinds that promise and appears to go out of his way to have any resultant referendum by suggesting that integration and further financial measures could be made without a treaty change. It is interesting that since this story about Cameron agreeing to back-track on repatriation broke, not much has been heard from the group let by Eustice and Leadsom - which lends 'grist to the mill' that this group were no more than a Cameron sanctioned sop to his supposed eurosceptic colleagues.

To compound the mess we are in, economically, from Open Europe we learn - via Twitter - that they quote an IMF spokesman thus: "the European authorities are exploring bilateral loans to the IMF...such loans could indeed come from member country central banks." Sheesh! (I'm about to start on my second bottle!)

Ever closer union is the aim of the EU - and we are surely being guided down that path by the like of Cameron, Hague and the rest of the political elite. If ever there was a time for direct democracy in this nation, it surely is now!

Just saying......................

Hague 'on the run'?

Whether William Hague is on the run, has the runs (in a verbal sense) or is provoking a run on the banks, I know not - but this post on Conservative Home does suggest his marbles are starting to escape.

In what can only be an attempt to make a case for yet more bail-out money to be provided to the eurozone, Willie (don't forget in the immortal words of the Maggietollah every government needs a Willie, unfortunately Cameron's one appears to be pissing through the wrong organ) is now playing the 'propoganda card' with his statement that the jobs and life savings of tens of millions of people in Europe may be at stake unless there is further economic and fiscal integration within the eurozone . Whilst Hague may be correct in stating that foreign banks may seize up or go broke, at the same time he wasn't saying that applied to British Banks even though they will not be immune to events on the continent.

Unfortunately  Hague is intimating that British Banks may well have a problem in the coming days and the obvious conclusion is that that is how other people may see it - consequently their natural reaction will be to withdraw what savings they have from banks and building societies.

Just what the British economy needs (not) I would have thought.

Just saying...........

Forgive them, they know not what they say

I note that there are those still calling for repatriation of powers from the EU, noticeably William Hague and on Twitter, Andrew Lilico, the latter who in a discussion with someone stated that every Treaty amendment is a renegotiation of the Treaty and there's no reason such a renegotiation couldn't involve repatriation. I am a loss to know what it is about this and this that they do not understand!

Today we had a statement from David Cameron following the G20 Summit, the text of which can be found here and it is on the subject of his comments on the eurozone and the IMF that I wish to concentrate. On these two subjects, by way of a slight digression, I would refer to this post by Norman Tebbit, one in which he writes about the possibility that Greece could be 'set free'. What Cameron's statement and Tebbit's post highlight is that politicians are taking decisions based on their thinking regardless of those of their people. Cameron, during his responses to questions following his statement, said that most people in the EU want the euro to continue. Do they - and if so where is the evidence? Cameron also stated that membership of the EU and the success of the euro greatly affected our country's prosperity. This is a line he and other politicians continually hold, yet once again no evidence is given - and when they do, for instance citing trade figures, the statistics they use have been shown to be incorrect.

The question that is at the forefront of most people's minds is just how much longer do we continue to prop up a failed currency project. That there may be 'pain' involved for us should the euro 'crash and burn' is probably true, but is that pain less than the pain we may well suffer while we continue to help prop it up. The Telegraph carries an article which mentions a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research which suggests that a disorderly break-up of the euro would mean a short, sharp economic shock and probably a recession, but would be followed by a quicker return to strong economic growth.

Also in the HoC we had a statement from Theresa May on the subject of the UK Border Agency and specifically about the recent suspensions of senior people within that agency. Yvette Cooper attempted to scupper Theresa May - who incidentally I though did quite well, but that is another subject - with criticisms centred on incompetence resulting in that incompetence flooding our country with immigrants. Luckily for Yvette Cooper it was Theresa May who replied to her, because had it been me I would just have thrown two words back to her: Andrew Neather, reminding her as an aside of that old adage about people in glass houses.

That is not to say I agree with the course of action adopted by Theresa May in that I do not recall any mention of this 'trial' in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos. Jumping aboard my participatory democracy bandwagon once again, should not any new policy - especially one not mentioned in any manifesto - be put to the people? Should not details of any such policy be published and the people have the opportunity to say: Whoa, just a minute, we don't like the look of this? What this - and the decisions of Cameron in respect of our EU membership, overseas aid and a few other matters - demonstrates is that we do live under a system of elected dictatorship. 

When considering the present elected dictators in the HoC it is unfortunate that most fall into the category of fools in that they know not, but know not that they know not. Close behind come those of simple mentality who know not and know that they know not - and who consequently say nowt. Even more unfortunate for we the people are those, who can be counted on the fingers of one hand, who do know and know that they know - but no-one listens to them.

This renegotiation 'thingy'

During the debate yesterday - and previously - Cameron, Hague and their acolytes - were all proposing that renegotiation to enable the clawing back of powers was the course of action to take in order to resolve the admitted difficulties created by our membership of the EU. Likewise there was mention during the debate - and in other debates - of the fact that Parliament was the sole arbiter in matters of sovereignty.

The questions I would wish to pose to those believers of an unattainable dream is just how they propose clawing back powers without renegotiation; what procedures exist to do just that; just what would be offered, during the necessary renegotiation process, in return for those powers; which powers, specifically, should be returned and what would be conceded, coupled with just who would make those decisions?

How can those who believe in continued membership of the EU on their terms, ones that would result in only partial self-governance, maintain that Parliament can still be the sole arbiter in matters of sovereignty? That position is completely indefensible and illogical - therefore those that propose that should have no place in the House of Commons. The illogicality of allowing those who created a Gordian Knot being entrusted with untangling it cannot be allowed.

That those 'renegiotiators' and 'claw-backers' have another 3½ years in which to create yet more havoc, to enmesh this country even deeper in a federalist state, means that the people of this country, if they are to preserve their country and it's independence, have only one option - and that is to copy the Libyan method of regime change. If that means we too have a few secret and therefore unmarked graves, so be it.*

Just saying.....................

* Afterthought: It would also relieve us of the necessity to read such journalist outpourings of crap such as this, this and this.

'The Debate' and other related matters

As I am presently experiencing difficulty in linking to the Telegraph website (all I continually receive is notices that their website is not responding) links to articles in that newspaper cannot be provided. However.....

The op-ed page in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph is taken over by two articles, one by Charles Moore and a smaller one underneath by William Hague. Moore writes about the need for a referendum on our membership of the EU, headlining his piece "The voters have been cheated for too long. Let them decide." One section stands out:

"Most people reading this column, I suspect, do not believe in government by referendum. We elect politicians to make laws on our behalf, not to keep scurrying back to ask us which laws to make. But the idea of consent is crucial to trust in the political process. For more than 20 years now, in European matters, that consent has been lacking. It has been in the interest of all political parties to make decisions which have changed our lives without offering us any electoral choice in the matter. Therefore our future consent cannot be assumed. It must be sought in writing."

That which seems to have escaped such luminaries as Charles Moore is that for decades the consent of the people to some of the laws that have been imposed on them has been lacking - and not just in the area of our membership of the EU. That political parties present manifestos, come election time, is neither here nor there as measures in those manifestos have not been implemented as promised, but have been amended thereby imposing laws for which the people were never given the opportunity of voting. Likewise there are some laws implemented by events, measures that were not in any party's manifesto, on which again the people were never given the opportunity to vote. Moore is contradicting himself when he complains that politicians have changed our lives without our consent, but then appears to be against referendums per se. In the same piece Moore writes that we should treat William Hague with a degree of tolerance because it is difficult being a minister, especially in a coalition; and that 'Europe' is a particularly painful subject for the Conservative Party. Stating that we should not insist Cameron and Hague vote for the motion under debate out of respect for the aforementioned 'difficulties' just illustrates that Charles Moore is part of the problem - he is a member of the Westminster Bubble!

Turning to William Hague's piece, he continues his stupid and illogical mantra of being in Europe but not being governed by it. He writes that as a Conservative (really?) he wishes to repatriate powers, as mentioned in his party's general election manifesto. William Hague is presented to us as a 'wise politician', one who 'knows' all that needs to be known.; one who can be trusted to make the right decisions. If Hague is 'so clever' just what is it the man does not understand about the process of acquis communitaire, something embedded in the treaties? Does he not understand that once the European Union assumes competence over any area of government it cannot be returned to member states. As I have written previously, repatriation of even one power will never be achieved as once the UK succeeded, then just about every other member state would be jumping on the bandwagon, the result being disintegration of the European Union - and that the EU elite just ain't going to allow. In any even, if Hague is so adamant about the supposed benefits of our membership of the EU, why not publish a cost/benefit analysis? The response to that question by our political elite is that the benefits are obvious - well if they are so 'obvious', prove it chaps.

Hague also writes about the need to ensure eurozone integration does not allow countries in the single currency to impose decisions on countries outside it. Just why does he not understand that the figure of 17 comprises a majority in a total figure of 27 - or is simple maths not one of his strong points? That financial control of all member states is the reported aim of Jose Manuel Barosso is touched upon in John Redwood's latest post. Once again, just what is it about a "single coherent framework for the better economic governance based on the community method" that Hague does not understand and as such continues to maintain that we are not governed by the EU? Reverting to the benefits of our country's membership of the EU, Hague writes:

"The ability to lead European countries to a united position, as with sanctions on Iran and Syria, strengthens Britain's power in the world. Even obscure directives can have benefits: directive 2009/147/EC prevents the slaughter of our garden birds as they migrate over the Mediterranean."

And the prevention of the slaughter of our garden birds flying over the Mediterranean is reason enough for our being a chattel of the European Union? Sheesh, Hague is more of an idiot than I first thought.

On the subject of the forthcoming debate on Monday next, Autonomous Mind posts on this subject, mentioning the Eustice amendment. As I posted a day or two ago, this motion is a Backbench Business Committee motion and as such needs to be debated as written - yet few have 'picked up' on this point. Speaker Bercow proclaims himself a champion of the backbenches and it is unlikely he would allow any amendment or alternative motion. To do so would mean him subjecting himself to accusations of hypocrisy, let alone any accusation of being a 'government tool' and that of ignoring the will of MPs and their own committee. Turning to another aspect of AM's post, I refer to the letter sent to Eustice by Bernard Jenkin in which the latter advises he is against an In/Out referendum. That statement immediately, in my book, transfers Jenkin from the 'eurosceptic' camp into the 'europlastic' camp. Just who the hell is Bernard Jenkin to allow his personal view to interfere in how and where he casts his vote? But then Jenkin is but doing what all MPs do - namely having achieved the position of MP promptly then deciding that only they know best and to hell with the views of the people they are meant to represent.

Another interesting aspect of this forthcoming debate and the questions on the motion proposed by the Backbench Business Committee comes with the publication of a poll by YouGov, one referred to by James Forsyth in this post from the Coffee House:

"The poll results also demonstrate that only a small percentage of the public would vote for the country’s current set-up with the European Union if they had the chance. Only 15 per cent would vote to stay in, compared to 28 per cent who would vote to leave, while 47 per cent would plump for renegotiation. If forced to chose between In or Out, the public splits 31 to 52."

Notice how 'renegotiation' has achieved a substantial following and one has to wonder just how many of that following actually understand that the option they most favour just ain't available, or why? Yet again we see how political spin and the failure to be honest with the electorate achieves just exactly what the politicians want, namely the pursuance of an unachievable policy but one that effectively closes further debate on the subject. On this subject of 'renegotiation', it is worth reading this, which Richard North wrote way back in 2008 and which reaffirms my previous comment about why renegotiation is not an option.

As an aside, Ian Parker-Joseph has announced the birth of his fifth grandson and remarks, in a reply in his comment section, that he fights for his country, a fight previously carried out by his father and grandfather. He ends by saying that he will never give up that fight and would wish to seem them all hang first. In offering my congratulations I suggested that as part of the celebrations perhaps we should being the hanging now.

Here endeth the silly season

with the closing of the Conservative Party conference. 

Due to charity commitments I was sufficiently lucky in that I was not able, had I been tempted, to listen to Cameron's speech but having read it, it would appear to be no more than a speech designed to show what a 'statesman' he is (not) with 'leadership' cropping up time and time again. This from a politician with more 'U' turns - or EU turns - (take your pick) attempting to show he possess decisive leadership qualities. Picking up on a remark made on Twitter, I can but agree that whilst it had been assumed MilibandE had plumbed the depths of poor speaking, Cameron seemed determined to put up a god fight for that accolade. Unsurprisingly, the matter of our membership of the EU was not raised, other than a passing reference to the euro and a repeat of the pledge that whilst Prime Minister Britain would not join the monetary union. He was his usual disingenuous self when stating that we would not be part of any future bail-out of that currency when he knows damn well we are through our membership of the IMF. That the euro is about to implode is not in question, yet there is never any mention of what he would do when it does - has any plan been concocted to deal with it when it does? Should we not be told?

On the subject of our EU membership we have been treated to William Hague touring the media studios attempting to defuse the growing anti-EU cries from within his own party and claiming that any referendum on leaving the union could harm British jobs and economic prospects, yet not offering one statistic to back up his comments - yet another 'scare du jour', a ploy of which our politicians are becoming so adept. That our democracy is in need of change is something that I continue to press; and nothing demonstrates that further than the Coalition's act to enforce fixed-term parliaments. It would seem that Cameron had a preview of a recently published book, "Dare less Democracy", authored by Laszlo Trankovits and published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the most influential German dailies, in which it proposed that there should be less democracy; that the functioning and efficiency of a society, state and economy are threatened if everyone can have their say and participate in everything - which kind of makes a mockery of Cameron's "Big Society". I am grateful to Edward Spalton for bringing that book to my tattention and can but repeat his remarks that the tendency to overrule democracy has been evident for years. At least this influential German author is explicit - like Peter Mandelson who declared that the era of representative democracy was drawing to a close - to be replaced, in his view,  by focus groups and consultative referenda (but never about the EU!). In Britain this state of affairs has, more or less, been achieved by all the three main parties agreeing on their common, willing subjection to the EU - the anti-democratic structure par excellence which dictates the majority of laws and rules. Yet Britain and other EU countries continue to join military expeditions allegedly to bring democracy to other countries.

That Cameron, Clegg and MilibandE are determined our present system of 'democratised dictatorship' should continue cannot, as I have repeated many times, be allowed. Their continued posturing that they represent the voice of the people is a sham and one, like all shams, will eventually be seen for what it is - something that is probably best illustrated by what might be considered a 'proverb', one which I read on one of the 'quote sites' that I follow on Twitter; and which is applicable to each of the leader's speeches at the Lib/Lab/Con conferences:

"After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut."

Hague hoisted on his own petard?

From William Hague's speech to the Tory faithfull robots:

"A government betrays instead of serving its people if it allows them to live on a delusion and that we will not do."

A government allows....? So we do indeed live in a democratised dictatorship!

To live on a delusion and that we will not do? But we do indeed live on the delusion of the political elite that it is more beneficial for the UK to be a member of the EU, a belief that they refuse to prove by way of a cost/benefit analysis!

And we thought that MilibandE was an idiot..........................

By God, the Tory spin/propoganda machine works well............

Late morning - in fact just before midday - today Douglas Carswell posts an article on his blog pleading that Nick Clegg not be the point of blame for the lack of "Conservative" policies within the Coalition.

Just over four hours later William Hague addresses his party conference praising Nick Clegg to the skies. Now, don't tell me the two are not in any way related, please.

The Conservative Party and 'Europe'

Much has appeared in the press and blogosphere about the 90 Conservative MPs and their meeting tonight to discuss how to dilute the effects of our membership of the EU without causing David Cameron too much of a problem.

Amongst those who have articles are: Lord Tebbit; David Davis; Bernard Jenkin; George Osborne; John Redwood; Your Freedom and Ours; and Douglas Carswell. The latter had obviously been reading the paper published by Open Europe yesterday as he is already putting forward the idea of Euro-Localism. Reading this latest paper by Open Europe only confirms Richard North's assertion that they are but a mouthpiece for Cameron's vision of our participation in the EU.

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, wonders whether Hague is looking to the future, one where Cameron and Osborne are toast and he is the only 'leader left? Bearing in mind Hague's categorical statement (foot of article) that leadership in the future was not on the cards one might say that idea is a non-starter. However, knowing that 'U' turns are all the vogue Cameron at present, Helen's thoughts may not be that far out.

Autonomous Mind has suggested that the term 'Eurosceptic' is now outmoded and that 'Europlastic' is more in keeping with the present stance of Conservative MPs. Might I suggest that for any politician who believes in the subjugation of our nation through rule from abroad, the term 'Euroturd' might be more pertinent?

The debasement of politics and politicians

Events occured during the course of the past week that did not show politics nor politicians in a very good light at a time when their image had been thought to have reached it's nadir. I refer to the treatment handed out to Nadine Dorries by David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions; the reasons behind what I believe to be a disgraceful and disrespectful display of manners; and George Osborne's unacceptable behaviour at the GQ magazine awards ceremony.

I have no comment on the question of abortion, nor that of Dorries' amendment as that is neither here or there in the context of this post. I have read suggestions that Cameron's answer to Dorries' question was deliberate and that it was due to his sense of humour - whether that is true or not is again neither here nor there. What is important is the fact that he failed to answer her question, an obligation he must surely have, coupled with the fact that he felt it necessary to apologise, according to the Mail-Online, by text message. The fact he did not feel able to apologise at the time speaks volumes of a superficial man who is happy to get a cheap laugh at the expense of a woman and one who, in relation to Cameron, is a subordinate. As an aside, I find it odd that Dorries having apparently accepted his apology then has an article in the print edition directly underneath the story about Cameron's texted apologies, but I digress.......

George Osborne, it seems to me, needs to take his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of Parliament far more seriously than he does. Smutty jokes are not funny as they tend to show an adolescent schoolboy sense of humour and are not something one expects of a national politician. Not only does it show disrespect of his high office, it also shows a disrespect of himself.

The far more important matter requires a return to Nadine Dorries and the question (col: 354) she asked of David Cameron. It is a fact that the Liberal Democrats have constrained Cameron and the implementation of the manifesto on which he fought the last general election. Policies on the Health Service and the attempt to repatriate powers from the EU, to name but two, have been thwarted by Nick Clegg and his party. That Cameron took an easy and as I have said a cheap way out to avoid what was a serious question - and one that he could not answer without confirming what all believe to be true, namely that it is indeed the tail wagging the dog - illustrates that, as Hague confirmed only a day ago, his career matters more to him than any sense of duty towards the country he is supposed to serve and which he professes to love.

That our politicians are now reviled can no longer be in doubt as they continue to admirably demonstrate some of the reasons why.

MCC

It is ironic that the initials of what were the governing body of cricket in England, Wales and throughout the world, a game that personified all that was good about our country - our sense of fair play, honour and principle - should become sullied by a politician who should have those same beliefs.

I refer to yet More Conservative Crap being reported by the Daily Telegraph and in particular the latest utterances of William Hague who, in an interview in The Times (£), is apparently blaming the LibDems for his party's inability to be more 'Eurosceptic'. From the Coffee House we learn Hague tells the paper that ‘A point of difference in our manifesto was the aim to repatriate some powers. Clearly that’s something I’m in favour of, but that’s the area we had to compromise on in return for other compromises'. That is, I believe, the first admission by a politician that two parties of opposing views were prepared to ditch sections of their manifestos in order to pursue their personal political careers. 

That Hague obviously has no honour nor principle I believe I amply demonstrated in a previous post and which coupled with this latest interview illustrates that we can no more trust what Hague says anymore than we can trust what Cast-Iron Dave says - the latter who, according to Neil Hamilton in his address to the Ukip conference in Eastbourne, appears to be suffering from metal fatigue.

With Cameron telling the Liaison Committee that he believes any Treaty change unlikely in the foreseeable future being immediately contradicted by Merkel and others, the point made by the Coffee House that any opportunity to achieve the impossible - repatriation of powers - is likely to occur during the lifetime of this Parliament whilst Hague and his cronies are dependant on LibDem voting support is one well made. I am reminded of the old adage that when in a hole etc etc..........

When considering the political elite's belief that membership of the European Union has, in Cameron's own words, "no case to answer" it is perhaps again ironic that Hague's own words may well come back to haunt him (and it won't be the first time - see previous linked post) when history comes to pass judgement on the subject. From the Telegraph article:

"would stand as a monument in time to how group–think can go so seriously away from what is realistic"

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...........................

You couldn't make it up! (2)

William Hague has today outlined his vision for the future of the Foreign Office in a speech in London (transcript here), one with most commendable aims - if only we were a self-governing nation. Hague states:

"The most important responsibility of any Foreign Secretary is make the right judgement about the most urgent challenges in foreign policy and tirelessly to promote the national interest."

But as I explained yesterday, in certain areas he cannot. He continues that he is re-opening embassies around the world, yet this is the man who managed to absent himself from the vote in the House of Commons agreeing to the European External Action Service under the auspices of which the EU intends to open up their own embassies around the world. This is the man who, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, qualifies for the description of the unspeakable in support of the unelected. This is the man who, when Leader of his party, asked the country to come with him as he intended to give the people their country back This is the man who said about a Prime Minister:

"For this man's whole political approach has been to parrot the language of Conservatives; to pretend that he understood what Margaret Thatcher had achieved and why Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were so wrong. [..] A Prime Minister who has the brass neck to stand before his Party Conference vowing to set the people free while at the same time centralising power, increasing taxes and undermining personal responsibility [..]The man is a fraud. Anyone who so misunderstands or so wilfully distorts who we are as a people or where we come from as a nation cannot possibly know where we should go to next as a people and as a nation. For this was the speech of a man who is embarrassed about where he came from, and the country he lives in, and the century he was born in and the Party he leads. Most of all it was the speech of a man who is embarrassed by the opinions of the people who elected him. Embarrassed by their patriotism and their fierce independence and their pride in Britain. He thinks patriotism is uncool and independence is out of date and pride is undignified."

No, Hague was not describing David Cameron - but he might just as well have been......

William Hague ended his speech thus:

"And so I say to the people of Britain: if you believe that our country is unique in the world but is in danger of losing its identity; if you believe that Britain is a place where you should be rewarded for doing the right thing, but now you are penalised for it; if you believe in Britain as a healthy democracy, but that the standards of democracy are now being tarnished and diminished; if you believe in Britain as a country where the law is enforced and respected, but that now it is not respected enough; if you believe in Britain as a country that will work with its neighbours but never submit to being governed by anyone else; if you believe in an independent Britain.Then come with me, and I will give you back your country." (My emphasis)

Of course we now know that to follow Hague, his Leader and his party means that there is no point in going with them as we will never, ever, get our country back.

Oh, the ability to sleep soundly at night knowing that you are a politician of honour and principle.......


Update: For those who want their ears assaulted, the Foreign Office appear to have put the speech on youtube! (for some reason it won't 'embed')

You couldn't make it up!

Following my post about Oborne, that icon of political journalism, praising William Hague and stating that he had regained control of foreign policy we read in the same newspaper, on the same day, that the EU are about to use another 'sleight-of-hand' (misuse of a clause in the Lisbon Treaty, namely 'structured co-operation') to initiate the introduction of a EU military headquarters.

Bruno Waterfield's article points out that using 'structured co-operation' would mean the decision then becomes one that would be taken by majority voting and would thus negate William Hague's threatened veto - so much for Hague regaining control of foreign policy. On the Daily Telegraph website, although I am unable to find it in my print edition, comes a 'whining' piece by Geoffrey Van Orden (Conservative MEP) who writes that since 1998 he has led opposition to the EU's meddling in defence matters - and this is no doubt another attempt by the Conservative Party to show their Eurosceptism. Let us not dwell too much on the idiocy of a newspaper producing two articles at total variance with each other - it is, I am sure we all agree, cruel to mock the afflicted; suffice it to say, a serious broadsheet the Daily Telegraph ain't.

That the Conservative Party have practised what is probably the greatest political deception on the British people is now laid bare for all to see. That they have been aided and abetted by the media, especially the Daily Telegraph, is beyond argument. That the likes of Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg wear civilian clothing rather than military uniforms does not detract from the fact they are no better than dictators - and in common with totalitarian dictators, they seem to get themselves 'elected' by robotic followers.

From time to time Richard North, EU Referendum, asks why we do not rise up and slaughter 'them' and I can only concur with his question - with the proviso that 'Them' does not just include the politicians; it includes every bureaucrat and every section of the media that allows this deception to continue.

Hague - Foreign Secretary?

Peter Oborne has an article in the Daily Telegraph online, one that will presumably appear in Saturday's print edition of the newspaper, entitled "After years of shameful neglect, William Hague has restored the Foreign Office to its proper dignity". Commenting on the changes that Hague has introduced, mainly in procedures and the raising of the FO's profile - a subject on which I am unable to comment, but one that Charles Crawford as an ex-diplomat would be so qualified - my only comment and criticism of this article is that it illustrates journalism at its worst, which bearing in mind the journalist concerned is only to be expected.

Oborne writes:

"The Foreign Secretary has also regained control over foreign policy itself."

Err, as a member of the European Union do we not have a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who has just set up at great cost Embassies throught the world; and who is, in effect Foreign Policy Chief. Did not Joao Vale de Almeida, installed as EU Ambassador to the United States, not famously state that in his area code, he should be called first, whilst insisting that he did not wish to impose himself on member states' ambassadors, who will continue to oversee "bilateral matters." but where a common position existed, he was the one leading the show?

Hague may have the title of Foreign Secretary just as Cameron has the title Prime Minister - unfortunately neither possess the full powers of either post. They both may throw their weight around, now and again, but then who actually pays attention.....................

A tad misinformative Mr. Oborne, if I may say so.