The Budget: An 'act' for blaming the British people and interfering in all their affairs in order to distract attention from the real causes and the true remedy of this nation’s financial predicament.

"People constantly speak of  'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men." H.L. Mencken

So passes yet another Budget day beginning with the Chancellor posing at the door of No11 with his Red Box, then proceeding to the House of Commons where he reads out a speech containing what amounts to a pack of lies, where upon the Opposition then get their attempt to also spout lies in rebuttal. During this entire process the remainder of the House of Commons behaves like a pack of kindergarten schoolchildren, requiring the obligatory admonishment from their headmaster. This is politics? For heavens sake, we could stick a load of monkeys in a cage and get the same result for far less cost.............. Oh, wait....................


I do not propose to comment on the Budget detail; there are far better qualified than I who can do that, however the Mail seems to have picked up a few salient points which are worth reading. Likewise Open Europe blogs on a little noticed fact in the Budget of a massive discrepancy for the UK’s net contribution to the EU, compared to the figures produced in the pre-budget report back in November. While I have to admit having missed the first 20 minutes of Osborne's speech however I do not recall any mention of that nugget, nor can I spot any mention on Hansard.


Why do we allow ourselves to be put through this charade? Why do we allow politicians the power to extract money from our pocket time and time again, then complain about the fact on each and every occasion? I am now going to take extracts of a speech given by Enoch Powell on 11th May 1968, at Chippenham, when he spoke against yet another Prices and Incomes Bill. Powell believed that Bill had been mislabelled and his suggested replacement title is just as applicable to Budget speeches by Chancellors of the Exchequer; namely that of the heading to this post.

"We live in an age of conspiracies. They are far more successful and well-managed conspiracies than the conspiracies of history. Perhaps the improvement in efficiency is one of the benefits which we owe to the technological revolution. At any rate, the age of the old-fashioned conspirator is no more. He no longer gathers with his fellows in tiny groups, admitted by password to huddle round a dark lantern in a dingy garret. Today the conspirators sit in the seats of the mighty, at the desks of Ministers and editors; they live in the blaze of continual publicity; their weapons are the organs of opinion themselves. The politics of the last few years have been little more than a series of conspiracies conducted by the politicians and the Press against the common sense of the public. They have for the most part been brilliantly, audaciously successful. Opposition, criticism, questioning have been beaten into the ground, not by force but by something much more efficacious: by tacit agreement on the part of those who speak and write to speak and write the same kind of nonsense, year in year out, until ordinary men and women no longer dare trust their own wits but give up the struggle and deliver themselves passively to the guidance and domination of their betters. The Higher Nonsense is a mightier instrument of mass  repression than machine-guns, grapeshot and cavalry charges ever were. The success has been so complete that we fail not only to be astonished at it, but even to perceive it........ 

..........Inflation with all its attendant evils, comes about for one reason and one reason only: the Government causes it. To say anything as plain as that is to arouse a chorus of imprecation. All the clever people start talking at once in a loud voice about ‘cost push’, ‘demand pull’, and ‘monopoly power’. But look who is doing the talking. If it is true that governments cause inflation and that the citizens are the innocent victims, who has the vested interest in denying it? Answer: governments themselves, and all those who thrive on an increase in the power and expenditure of governments. Governments, and their attendant host of commentators and propagandists, have executed what is perhaps the greatest confidence trick of all time, a confidence trick on a gigantic scale: they have caused inflation year after year, and at the same time persuaded everyone that somebody else was to blame. It is equivalent to stealing a man’s wallet and then getting him locked up for theft. The achievement is all the more remarkable because the facts are so blatant."

Enoch Powell provides an impressive, coherent and cogent argument for the introduction of Direct Democracy coupled with the element of 'Referism' (not, I hasten to add, he would have agreed). Have we not suffered enough from the actions of incompetent individuals who believe they know everything, but in fact know nothing? Has our country not been brought to its knees on more than one occasion by these incompetent individuals only for them to be saved by the efforts of the people they have misled? Has the time not come when we, the people, must inform these incompetent individuals:


Enough is enough. We will no longer waste time denouncing you, you are dismissed forthwith as yet another sad, bizarre chapter in our history and we vow never, ever, to allow your like to be reborn.


Update: Richard North, EU Referendum who appears to think the same as I do.

Its that damn 'Cyprus problem' again!

From the Open Europe press summary we learn that Turkey is refusing to have any normal relations with the rotating EU presidency when Cyprus takes over on 1st July.

Well, what a surprise - not! As I posted here, where Turkey's accession to the European Union is concerned the 'Cyprus problem' was always going to remain just that - a problem.

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

Surely we cannot go on like this?

The Daily Telegraph reports that George Osborne told MPs that it may well be necessary for extra support to be provided by Britain to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the global fund to help stricken governments. We read in the Mail that Barroso is calling for Member States to contribute even more to the EU bail-out fund. Ian Parker-Joseph posts on why Member States are unable to reduce their spending and Pixijade posts a most telling graphic on the state of the UK's debt.


Elsewhere, in other news, the Mail breaks the news of the findings of a report, one commissioned by a group of ten Conservative MPs, on events since Britain's subscribed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The report can be downloaded from here (see foot of page) and on that page will be found the names of the ten Conservative MPs concerned. The question of Britain's acceptance of the ECHR is further complicated by the European Union's intention to join the ECHR in its own right; and on that last point Open Europe has a reasonable summary here.


What the above shows is that monies forcibly extracted from us in the form of taxation is being spent by politicians without any referral to those that are providing it - which makes a case for 'referism'; that any Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget is not fully under his control - hence a loss of sovereignty; that politicians, especially Conservatives, seem to speak without engaging brain whilst also seeming to have no idea how to clear debt. What a way to run a country!


All of which also shows that a debate on the type of democracy under which we live is long overdue.

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.

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......................