Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell! (2)

That Cameron does not' govern Britain was raised in the first post with this title which dealt with the point about coastguard closures and Cameron's lack of power. This subject was also covered here in respect of the Costa Concordia tragedy.

Today yet another example of Cameron's inability to 'govern' has been illustrated with the report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph from Bruno Waterfield and in today's edition of the same paper James Kirkup reports (does not appear to be on-line) that the UK is one of 12 countries facing an investigation by the commission under a new "economic governance" procedure to "detect and correct risky economic developments. Kirkup's article goes on to state that Olli Rehn, the European economic affairs commissioner, said that if the "in depth scrutiny" concluded that household borrowing was dangerously excessive, the Coalition would be told to"take appropriate action to correct the situation". The European Commission press release on this subject can be read here, a press release which contains links to the full report.

Do note the words 'the Coalition will be told to take appropriate action to correct the situation'. So Cameron, as Prime Minister, heads the government of our country - and George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in charge of our country's economic policies? Where there any 'eurosceptics' within the Conservative Party, surely they would be crawling all over this news item and asking questions in Parliament and raising the matter in the press?

Two quotations spring to mind:

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws."
Amschel Rothchild

"Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who predict don't have knowledge."
Lao Tzu, 6th century BC poet

The first quotation is, perhaps, now redundant as the EU has virtually managed both, but I digress - and the second shows why politicians (especially the likes of Osborne and Balls) should not attempt to predict economic outcomes - or outcomes of any kind.

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


Afterthought: While our democracy, our 'independence, our status as a 'sovereign nation' is being trashed before our eyes, Cameron is presently fixated on binge-drinking? Priorities, Mr. Cameron? The mind, something he appears to be missing, boggles.......

Kirkup or (journalistic) 'Kockup'

James Kirkup, writing in the Daily Telegraph, in a blatant attempt to 'big-up' the comment piece by Caroline Spelman, pens that Spelman pledges that farmers, rural businesses and residents will get a “hotline straight to the heart of Government” allowing them to raise concerns with ministers directly. As can be seen, what Spelman actually wrote was that she is creating a rural hotline straight to the heart of Government through 14 Rural and Farming Networks; that this is a new way of working; that these networks will give rural business and community leaders a direct link to her and her team to tell them their problems so they can find ways to help. So Kirkup, where exactly does the word "residents" occur in Spelman's article? 


In effect all Spelman has done is to create a direct communication channel between central government and its acolytes within local government and 'stakeholders' on how the latter can implement central government diktats and how to pass these off to the public as 'localism'. Where local 'problems' exist and are at variance with national policies, it is perhaps pertinent to repeat that which my Member of Parliament - who also happens to be the nation's Prime Minister - informed me at a constituency surgery, namely that where local policy, or local 'requirements', conflict with national policy, national policy will reign supreme - a comment which prompted my rejoinder that that is the constituents of Witney disenfranchised then. It is also disingenuous of Spelman to say that direct contact with ministers by real people with real practical knowledge will benefit those people - as I found out to my cost when I was granted an audience with Grant Shapps!


On the subject of farmers and farming, it is again disingenuous of Spelman to intimate that their industry can be 'improved', or 'helped', when farmers are constrained by the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which in effect dictates what can be produced, at what price and how farming is organised - matters over which Spelman has little, if any, control.


All the foregoing underlines that we do not have 'democracy' per se - we have democratised dictatorship, one dictated at every level by our nation's membership of the European Union.


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

Welcome to fantasy island - Britain, its politians and media

Wow, we are informed that David Cameron has 'sprouted a pair of brussels' and vetoed any new treaty, that he has stood up for Britain and said 'No' to the mighty European Union resulting in him being feted by his party and their journalistic mouthpieces. A number of matters arise:

1. As Richard North, EU Referendum, asks: just where is this treaty? There was no treaty on the table; if there was, can we see a copy please? Cameron obviously thinks there was one (maybe it was invisible) because Russia Today quotes him saying that there was a treaty on the table, that it didn't protect British interests so he didn't sign it, as that's his job.

2. There would appear to be an area disagreement over whether the 'arrangement' that Merkozy wish to put in place has legal standing. According to the Guardian France suffered a setback when EU lawyers ruled that the changes would be illegal if approved by only the 17 eurozone members, yet on the BBC Barroso is of the opinion that legal advice states it is possible. The Guardian is not the only newspaper carrying reports that questions the legality of what Merkozy wishes to do, with Spiegel OnLine reporting that because monetary union is regulated extensively in the Lisbon Treaty, reform can only be implemented within the existing legal framework. The legal services experts of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Council, which represents the member states in Brussels, are all in agreement. A treaty concluded only by the 17 euro-zone governments would be illegal, they say. Individual countries could only issue a "political declaration of intent," in which they determined, for example, how they would decide on the use of sanctions against budget offenders. But such a declaration would have no legally binding character and, as officials point out, could also be revoked following the election of a new government.

3. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, Daily Telegraph, writes that the  leaders of France and Germany have more or less bulldozed Britain out of the European Union for the sake of a treaty that offers absolutely no solution to the crisis at hand, or indeed any future crisis. It is EU institutional chair shuffling at its worst, with venom for good measure.At first it did look as though there were four countries in the outer bloc with the Czechs, Hungary, UK and Sweden (which some wag had promptly named the CHUKS), however it now seems that the UK is indeed alone with the news that the other three have agree to ratify the Merkozy 'deal'. There is a further 'fly in the ointment' in respect of the ratification process with the news, via Bloomberg, that Finland is reported to have said if each of the 27 nations isn't in agreement with the new treaty they they will pull out of the eurozone.

4. Just what is it that Cameron has achieved and what has changed? The answer to both question is exactly nothing, zilch; although one thing has become only too clear. What chance repatriation of powers when the other member states would not even concede an itsy-bitsy concession? This of course now creates yet another headache for David Cameron, because every piece of legislation going through the parliamentary process should now receive even greater scrutiny. Note I said should, as I don't believe it will - should being the case of those matters of a financial aspect currently in the pipeline. Thanks to Open Europe, Annexe 1 (p.54) of the linked document lists EU financial regulation in the pipeline; the current status; and entry into force. The annexe also helpfully contains a list of proposals that have yet to be adopted (pp55/56). 

5. It is a tad ironic that for centuries this country has fought wars to ensure that no one power became dominant on the continent and that for decades our politicians have fought to prevent a two-speed EU from happening, yet almost overnight we are about to get both. In the defence budget review one can only hope that Cameron retained some anti-missile-missiles as methinks he will need a good stock to counter the fiscal bombardment that is sure to be launched from Brussels.

6. The Boiling Frog has some succinct comments on 'Events Bruxelles', ones worth reading in stark contrast to offerings by James Kirkup and Charles Crawford. Some questions have been raised as to Cameron's real motives for 'spoiling the party' and, in that respect, James Delingpole comes closest in my opinion when he writes that Cameron's only wish was to find the line of least resistance which would keep him in power longest. At all costs Cameron wished to avoid a referendum because it is on record that in a cabinet meeting he stated that such an occurrence, which would no doubt split the coalition asunder, was to be avoided at all costs.

7. The burning question which few, if any, have seen fit to tackle is the future political landscape in this country - especially when considering the involvement of Ukip. Nigel Farage has been on the airways, understandably, but not said anything of substance - in my opinion. If recent events are anything to go by, we may as well not hold our breath.

Afterthought: Remarks of Herman Van Rompuy here; Conclusions of the Council here; and the Statement by the Euro Area Heads of State here.

So all those Tory rebels were 'eurosceptics' were they?

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

With all the political commentators, Conservative Home and Jacob Reese Mogg maintaining that the Conservative Party are by nature eurosceptics and that 81 of their number voted accordingly, a small paragraph at the end of an article by James Kirkup in today's Daily Telegraph caught my eye (unfortunately it does not appear to be on line). In this article he quotes Conservative MPs who say they are worried about reselection come the new boundary changes and at the end of the article comes this:

"One rebel confessed: "I'm actually not particularly anti-European. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote to stay in. Supporting the motion was partly about keeping faith with the people who sent me here and partly about taking a swing at No10."

This unnamed rebel will not be the only one from the 81 holding similar beliefs and reasons for rebelling, hence the electorate has every reason to be doubtful when a Conservative MP declares himself a eurosceptic. The fact that this rebel is prepared to disregard his/her constituent's faith speaks volumes about polititians principle's and their sense of honour.

And people are petitioning for a second debate on the referendum question? Bearing in mind the above - for what and why, exactly?