Do we really want to be part of all this?

Much to the chagrin of David Cameron, the one subject he wishes to avoid has been dominating the political scene and consequently the media - namely, 'Europe'. Setting to one side Cameron's use of a veto - and whether it was a veto, but I digress - a number of events have happened, which prompts the question raised in the heading to this post. Richard North, EU Referendum, penned a resumé of events leading up to 'Events Bruxelles' at the end of last week and also linked to an article by Peter Hitchens, writing in the Mail, said article being well worth reading.

We read today that Van Rompuy wants a new fiscal treaty in place by March; Olli Rehn insists that the UK's excessive deficit and debt will still be the subject of surveillance like other member states; from EUobserver we learn that the IMF euro rescue is stating to unravel and that Britain's annual rebate is to be called into question, whilst the same source reports that contrary to Cameron's initial claim (another 'U' turn?) the UK will not prevent the use of EU institutions for fiscal compact.

 Various theories have been put forward for the reason David Cameron exercised his 'veto', one of which is that he was adamant that no referendum would be held in the UK on Britain's membership of the EU. It is worth mentioning that, in actual fact, he would have been ceding the power to decide the economic method of conducting such business had the 26 accepted his 'requirements' - a result which, if not in his eyes, would most definitely been seen as a loss of power in the eyes of the electorate. However, Ian Parker-Joseph has put forward an alternative reason why Cameron did that which he did; and having spoken to him I know that he stands by every word he wrote, although there would seem to be a 'twist' to the entire question. One needs to revert to IPJ's post on the ESM - to which he links - and read the comments from Denis Cooper which are extremely pertinent. It was originally thought that this link, which it was intimated formed Cameron's 'objections' - and which referred to the recent EU Heads of State meeting - would appear to refer to the ESM treaty.

Some may consider what follows a digression - it is however, relevant - but I wish to refer to the debate that took place this evening on Nigel Dodd's motion on the UK's relationship with theEU - a debate which can be seen here (starts at 16:48:15), the Hansard report to which I will link once it is available. In that debate David Lidington agreed the Common Agricultural Policy CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) had had detrimental effects for the UK - so why the hell do we continue to belong to a 'club' whose rules harm us? Lidington also made derogatory remarks about the centralisation of the EU - but where does that differ to the practises of our own government? Emma Reynolds, speaking for the opposition, stated that the UK was in a minority of 26-1 - really, when the actual facts are different? She made mention of the fact that millions of jobs are being created by Indian investment in this country - but what, exactly, does that have to do with our membership of the EU? Mark Durkan made an interesting comment which was that the 'Eurosceptics' in the debate were most noticeable by their absence but, like me, he digressed. It was also regrettable that the leaders of the three parties, who believe in this nation's membership of the EU, failed to make an appearance - yet as the 'drivers' of this policy one has to question their absence. Democracy? A further point has to be that a subject, one that is at the heart of democracy - ie, governance of this country - was 'constrained' by time limits? Democracy? Nigel Dodd's motion was 'carried' by 278-200, yet at any one time there was only about 50/60 MPs in the chamber, taking part in the debate - democracy? No; more likely the modern day version of the 'charge of the 600 - well it would have been had the remainder bothered.*

What passed at the 'Events Bruxelles' - and in the House of Commons this evening - is but a travesty of democracy. This also begs the question of what do the people matter when democracy is based on the system of 'representation'? It also begs the question whether we would, indeed, be better were a system involving 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' introduced. At least, we would only have ourselves to blame...........

I can but repeat the heading to this post - or would the EU just expel us? We don't really mind, either way, providing the outcome is just that: OUT! Of course, if we had politicians with 'cojones'.............


Update: The Hansard report can be read here. It will be noticed the Liberal Democrats appear to have abstained en-masse*. Ana the Imp has two posts on the subject of the European Union here and here, from the second of which I reproduce a cartoon which seems to encapsulate all that is wrong with the euro and the european union.

More HS2 Shenanighans

From PoliticsHome we learn that the Department for Transport have announced they have found an extra £500m which will be used to build a tunnel under the Chiltern Hills for the controversial HS2 train line. The extra funding means that a decision on HS2 will be delayed from this month to mid-January 2012, but is likely to assauge some of the opposition to the plans. The story is covered elsewhere here, here and here.

From the Guardian article we are informed that this extra £500m is to provide a further tunnel of 1.5 miles taken on the basis it would reduce aesthetic damage to the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty. From the Daily Telegraph we learn:

"The first six mile section to Old Oak Common Lane in northwest London is tunnelled before running over-ground to the M25, and then passing through another tunnel. This tunnel surfaces after Amersham for a mile, before entering a shorter tunnel, which ends at South Heath. The new cash will be used to join up the Amersham tunnel with the shorter tunnel."

And whose constitutuency is Chesham and Amersham? And who, besides David Lidington, has threatened to resign if HS2 crosses their constituency? Forgive me, but this decision 'stinks'! It reeks of public money being spent to save the government of the day very high profile resignation(s); and all the fall-out that that would entail.

We learn that Justine Greening is to delay any decision until January next year, although it is noted that she is due to appear before the Transport Select Committee on Wednesday 14th December at 17:05 hours. From the BBC suggestions have been made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England that the extra money has been found by possibly 'ungreening' (pun intended!) other sections of the line; and it is to be wondered whether Justine Greening will be forthcoming about such matters when she does appear before the Select Committee, assuming of course the question is asked, or whether she will make such details clear in her statement to the HoC.

In the recommendations of the last Transport Select Committee report it was noted that claims HS2 would deliver substantial carbon-reduction benefits did not stand up to scrutiny, although in the same paragraph the committee did note that HS2 will produce less carbon than an expanded motorway network or greater domestic aviation in the event of increased demand for inter-urban travel - so on the basis that all this 'carbon scam' is accepted, it presumably shows 'justification' for HS2. One other statement is worthy of mention and that is the Government needs to make clear how HS2 fits into its wider aviation strategy. Once again our politicians are being disingenious with the actualité because the government doesn't have a transport policy, aviation or otherwise; as the EU, by means of Article 4(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) can dictate any aspect of transport policy any time they so choose - and all our pretend government can do is, in effect, then implement any subsequent decision.

Whilst much is made by those against the scheme who have local concerns, it should also be noted that funding proposals have yet to be announced. Philip Hammond, when Transport Secretary, may well contend the project is affordable, yet at the end of the day we do not yet know how much liability there is for the taxpayer. In the letters column of today's Sunday Telegraph it is suggested that taxpayers will be liable for £10billion. (the Castles & Parish report referred to can be read here.) The 17 councils referred to are part of the 51m group, an alliance of councils opposed to HS2, so called because HS2 will costs every Parliamentary constituency £51m. Another matter worth ascertaining is, in discussing revenue that HS2 will produce, I do not see any inclusion to cater for the intention of the EU and their proposal that the 'user pays' concept.

It is also worth noting, if discussing disingeniousness, that in the Transport Committee report and the Castles & Parish paper, the 'EU element' of the Trans-European Network-Transport (TEN-T) appears most noticeable by its absence - but hey, the appearance of 'parliamentary sovereignty' understandably has to be 'maintained at all costs'. (again, pun intended)

As with just about any government 'project', what our political elite are doing with HS2 is spending money that is not theirs in the first place. Now, with 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' they would bloody well have to ask first!

A pack of fools lead by an even bigger fool

Who but fools, led by by an even bigger fool would manage to look foolish twice in one day?

A Public Relations Fiasco: On the day announcements are made that 2,500 people in our armed forces are being informed their services are no longer required, the even bigger fool, at a ceremony marking the transfer back to Brize Norton from Lynham of military repatriations, praises our armed service personnel with the words:

"I cannot stress enough the sacrifices they make for us and we cannot thank them enough for what they do. And we cannot say enough how proud we are of them and all that they do for our country."

Lies, damned lies (and no statistics: a cost/benefit analysis is constantly refused): Who but fools led by their even bigger fool would consider it normal behaviour to lie and thus mislead those they are meant to serve? The Bruges Group have just published a letter from David Lidington (Minister for Europe) to Philip Davies MP (Conservative:Shipley) in which he makes false - and thus untruthful - statements. One of these statements is a repetition of the lie that 3.5million jobs are reliant on exports to EU member states, with the Bruges Group stating that they find it surprising that a Conservative Minister is repeating that erroneous claim.

I don't find it surprising one little bit bearing in mind the even bigger fool lies - which must mean he is also content to allow his fools to lie and mislead. Not bad for a group of people who campaigned in 2010 on the need to clean up politics.