Logic?

I have not been following Osborne's speech but I see on Twitter the following from Open Europe:

"Osborne: I'm worried about EU's green targets, therefore we will help SMEs to cope with the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme"

So let me understand this, George. We pay billions of pounds to enjoy membership of an organisation, who in turn decide rules on how we should organise our own society, said rules imposing inordinate costs on our businesses. We then provide even more money to those businesses in order to mitigate the effects of decisions made by the organisation to which we belong.........

Err......................

Of course, under direct democracy and referism, Osborne would not be the economic prat he appears to be - but I digress............................

Political 'Gods'

"God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless."*
Chester W. Nimitz

From PoliticsHome we learn that George Osborne believes he has the authority to state:

"I have today taken action to impose further financial restrictions against Iran......."

• Who, exactly, gave George Osborne permission to do that on our behalf?
• Where, exactly, was that permission requested in any manifesto from the his party, or that of the Coalition?
• At what point - and when - was he granted permission to make a decision that may well have possible, detrimental, repercussions for the future of those he was elected to serve?
• Who elected the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)?
• If the FATF is "an inter-governmental body whose purpose is the development and promotion of national and international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing", can we see the evidence/minutes on which FATF asks/demands Osborne to take the action he has?

* That our politicians act as 'Gods', taking upon themselves all the 'divine' powers associated with such an exalted position, is the reason why I will continue to bang my head against the proverbial brickwall!

 

And who, exactly, 'pushed' for this?

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. Cameron is concerned that if the euro-zone countries agree on a more unified fiscal policy, the bloc could form a caucus within the EU to push through reforms at the expense of the member states outside the common currency."

Doh! But then we are talking 'Cameron & Osborne' here!

Coup - look at this!

That our Parliament, MPs and democracy is a sham behind the facade of which the first two condone, through what can only be described as a Quisling attitude, the undermining of the third, is ironically on show today.

Item 1: Today's Order of Business in the House of Commons contains a debate the EU budget for 2014 – 2020. The European Commission has called for a 5.9% increase in 2014-2020, but the BBC reports that the Treasury has estimated this amounts to an 11% increase on current contributions, thus increasing the UK’s annual contribution to the EU by £1.4 billion. The Commons will also debate a Treasury proposal to object to the EU’s proposals on capital requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, as it proposes maximum limits and wouldn’t allow the Government to impose additional requirements on UK banks. For our 'sovereign' Parliament to spend a maximum of 1½ hours debating the first matter - plus the additional time for the second - when, whatever their decision, they cannot affect any budget increase, or any change to capital requirements, proposed by the EU Commission only bears witness to the truth of the statement contained in the first paragraph of this post.

Item 2: Ian Parker-Joseph, in his post today, also illustrates the sham that our Parliament and MPs have become when he homes in on the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph which highlights the creation of what IPJ correctly calls a Politburo. David Cameron and George Osborne have been adamant that the eurozone countries should come together to resolve their problems - and that suggestion is, I would aver, about to come back and bite them.

Not known much is the fact that the The Lisbon Treaty, in addition to expanding qualified majority voting (QMV), substituted the current voting weights in the Council with new ones based on the population sizes of the member states. These new rules are not yet in force – coming into force in November 2014 (with an option for a state to request a vote follows the old rules until April 2017 - an option the UK may well take). In addition to changing the voting weights, to the benefit of the larger more populous states, the rules also reduce the qualified majority required to pass an EU law from 71% to 65%. These two measures mean the UK will no longer be able to muster a blocking minority with the help of smaller non-eurozone states when the 17 eurozone members vote as a 'caucus', as they surely will do. Under the new rules a group of states needs votes from countries representing 65% of the EU population and the eurozone as a whole already have 66% on their own, giving them a permanent inbuilt majority.

So our self-proclaimed voices of sovereignty wasting 1½ hours of their time - although it could be said that, besides wasting all of their time, they are a complete waste of time - discussing aspects of our governance over which they have no say is indeed ironic, but at the same time extremely sad to witness.


Update: IPJ also Mary Ellen Synon who gives further proof that the EU stinks - an aroma that is now permeating our own government!

The penny appears to have dropped with Cameron

if this report is to be believed as from the tone it appears David Cameron has ceased 'demanding' and now appears to be 'pleading' to be heard. The irony of Cameron now pleading with the 17 eurozone countries is delicious when one realises that this entire problem is one he and Osborne helped create with his insistence that the eurozone countries sort themselves out. How he intends fighting to prevent closer integration of the Eurozone countries leading to anti-competitive regulations when he is now one of the minority countries remains to be seen. If he believes he can pull that off, then I would like to see him walk on water first.

"Stormin' Norman" posts a question I have previously raised:

"Last Monday, I asked in the House of Lords whether an agreement by the seventeen eurozone member states to make agreements outside the Council of Ministers and then to vote in the Council as a bloc for such agreements would constitute a transfer of powers sufficient to trigger a referendum here. Lord Strathclyde, the Government Leader in the Lords, understood my point clearly enough. That was that the eurozone group can always outvote the remaining member states. What we said or how we voted would have no effect on the decisions which they reached.
Tom Strathclyde confirmed that as no treaty amendment was involved, no referendum would be triggered. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has understood the problem. We and the other nine states outside the eurozone have been disfranchised on many of the key questions of taxation and commercial regulation."

Any loss of ability by a country to set it's own taxation and economic policies constitutes a loss of power, treaty change or no treaty change.

One point that I fail to understand in Norman Tebbit's post is his referral to a possible 'third way'. If we are one of the countries forming a minority group within the 27, just how do we try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest? Off with your head is correct when she writes that the European Union has consistently tried to solve the eurozone crisis by making small and insignificant gestures, which quickly crumble under scrutiny.

Interestingly one of the aims of the European Union, in their wish to create a United States of Europe, has been their attempts to 'kill' any sense of nationalism, yet is that not the card Merkel and Sarkozy are playing in their desire to be 'top dog'? It is, in my view, nationalism that will contribute to the downfall of the EU and I can but echo Fausty:

"There's nothing inherently wrong with nationalism. Countries are nations. Countries' leaders used to act in the national interest, but now work for globalism, even if that works against the national interest.
Corporations write our laws - be they from the EU or from our own government. They write them to reduce competition from the little guy and to garner tax favours or waivers for immigration/settlement laws. These global entities have become too big to fail, and yet they themselves represent the very antithesis of the free market economy.
Your homework for tonight: Explore the true meaning of nationalism and discuss its use as a firewall in a global system. "

Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. First though we leave and when Europe has 'gone up in flames' (be that literal or metaphorical matters not) then once again we can indeed go in and try and set them on the path of recovery (again!). 

Mixed message?

Osborne was very specific in his Commons statement that British taxpayers' money would not be used for the new Greek bailout, neither would it be put towards any special IMF package for the eurozone. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we can avoid further costs arising from our obligations to the IMF. He repeated his promise of two weeks ago, that "Britain stands ready to consider the case for further resources and contribute with other countries if necessary". (Now that is an offer that Christine Lagarde will probably grab with both hands). Yet just hours later Guido Fawkes tweets that the "first CCHQ press release from new Econ Sec Chloe Smith attacks Ed Balls for not wanting to send more money to the IMF to bail out €urozone."

The phrase: "Get your acts together, boys and girls" springs to mind.

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

When you're a small fish among big fish........

Presumably Cameron will be required to 'report to Parliament' on his 'euro meeting' which took place yesterday - a report which should be most interesting.

From the Mail it would appear that Cameron received the proverbial 'cold shoulder' from Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and we learn from Bruno Waterfield, in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph (sorry, no link) that Cameron has failed to win reassurances from European leaders that Britain's economic interests will be protected if single-currency countries form a 'eurobloc' to deal with the financial crisis. Quoting a source from amongst European diplomats, apparently Cameron is getting nowhere and the tide is against him - in other words, he has been rebuffed by both France and Germany. That Cameron was most definitely on the sidelines can be illlustrated by the paucity of the content in statements being put out by the No10 website, the latest being this. 

One can only wonder at the short-sightedness of Cameron and Osborne who have been pressing that the 17 eurozone countries should sort out their own mess, but not then realizing that those 17 member states would form a bloc, one which would be taking decisions that will affect the remaining member states outside the euro. Now we have Osborne complaining about a 'two-tier Europe' and that Britain must be alert to the danger of 'caucusing' in areas that should legitimately be the preserve of the 27.

Nothing like being in the European Union and thus able to influence events, or as 'Wee Willie' likes to say: 'In Europe, but not run by Europe', is there Mr. Cameron?

Politicians - Spinmeisters extraordinaire

"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous."

Thomas Jefferson

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts on Osborne's 'sleight of hand' in blaming Labour for the present price of energy bills, a post to which Restoring Britain also links. As Richard North so correctly states the Conservative Party voted for the Climate Change Act so it is a tad disingenuous for Osborne to attempt to lay the blame for that on Labour.

But of course, in keeping with politicians of all parties, truth is not a characteristic for which they are renowned. Let us look at the Conservative Party Manifesto 2010 which states:

"We’re in the process of drawing up Marine Conservation Zones which will safeguard large areas of our marine habitat for the first time."

a statement that was in effect repeated in The Coalition's retrospective manifesto "Our programme for government" (page 18).

But then of course all this policy presented as 'We' is complete lies and is not theirs but that of the EU. We need look no further than Council Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008 to see where the policy is originated. With the latter, the Labour government agreed the final text of the Marine Framework Directive which determined the management of seas throughout the EU, including all seas under UK management and jurisdiction. By 2015 member states will be required to have developed strategies for their seas which deliver "good environmental status" which is defined in the Directive as meaning that biodiversity is maintained, all commercially exploited fish stocks are within safe biological limits both in terms of age and size, and that all elements of the marine food web are at normal abundance and diversity. These strategies required by the Directive must be in force by 2020.

These two examples illustrate how the political elite have made the people of this country the victims of propaganda, aided and abetted by the people who have not taken any interest in the practises of those they have elected - in other words they have become intellectually incompetent. In so doing they have created an ideal tyranny as it is one that is ignorantly self-administered by themselves and they have become the most perfect of slaves to their political servants in that they have blissfully enslaved themselves.

The state of our country, economically and socially, is therefore the fault of the people, not the politicians as by their ignorance the people have given the government the power to do what the hell it likes, although to be fair - in view of the present hoo-ha about Liam Fox and lobbyists - I suppose we do, at any one time, have the best government that money can buy. Politicians of all parties talk about the need for stable government - the problem is that they never tell us in advance how bad the stable will smell. As it is not the function of government to dictate to the people their standard of behaviour, but it is the function of the people to dictate to the government their standard of behaviour, perhaps we should disband the government and save ourselves a great deal of hassle.

Voltaire is credited with saying that the best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by occasional assassination. I would counter that the best government is no government - and that can quite easily be achieved by mass assassination! An event followed, of course, by a change to a Swiss style of democracy incorporating "Referism" - but then I repeat myself...........

Get thee hence

and immediately to an article by Richard North in the Mail on-line, one which deals with a policy surely 'Huhne' out of stupidity.

Richard suggests that Osborne will need to go further. Might I suggest that Osborne takes a leaf out of the 'Book of Chris' - and does it faster, ensuring that their journey is one to personal oblivion. Whilst he's at it, perhaps Osborne could offer a free ride for every other politician?

I notice that the picture incorporated in Richard's article shows Osborne wearing a 'viz-jacket', one emblazoned with the letters 'PL' which presumably stands for 'Political Labia' - the latter word, I believe, being a more acceptable version of  'c**t'!

More headaches tomorrow?

We have George Osborne promising a council tax 'freeze' for next year with a reported 'saving of £72 for the average family, an announcement intended to assure the electorate that all is well in the fight against their ever rising bills. As Mark Wadsworth asks, will people really fall for this - a reduction in an in-your-face tax of £1bn whilst increasing stealth taxes (VAT and NI) by 20bn - and not notice? How long will people continue to accept ever increasing bills whilst the cost of foreign aid is set to continue? How long will people accept what amounts to a lowering of their lifestyles whilst continuing to be charged £300 per annum for EU membership? What is really hard to understand also is the public swallowing the myth, one that politicians are only too happy to continue, that council tax pays for all the services they receive, when in fact council tax only provides approximately 25% of a local authorities income stream. What is also hard to accept is that the media seem content to perpetuate this myth.

The Financial Times reports that the drive for deeper integration amongst eurozone member states is causing worry for those outside, with the possibility that those outside will become enmeshed with the eurozone as a result of what is decided within. That the European Commission is increasing their control of member states' national budgets is fact; likewise is fact that the avowed aim of the EU is that it's currency will be the euro. Regardless of the legalities involved - and we all know that the EU does not worry too much about legalities when it wants something - one does have to wonder how long it will be before those 'outside' will be told: Sorry, but you're now 'in'.

An article surfaces today in the Daily Telegraph, one reporting on excessive use of credit cards by the Health & Safety Executive, a move condemned by MPs who last night lambasted the watchdog for “squandering” taxpayers’ money. Odd that this is classified as squandering taxpayers' money yet they did not consider that the case when the expenses scandal became public knowledge; nor that of foreign aid, nor that of EU membership payments.

When wishing to obtain funds from a bank it is necessary to specify for what reason the funds are required and how they will be spent. It is about time that politicians were made aware that taxpayers are their bank and that they too have an obligation to inform us why they require our money and exactly how it will be spent. If only for this reason should our system of democracy be changed and an element of Richard North's "Referism", together with ideas outlined in my "Constitution" series of posts, be introduced.

A statement made today on twitter by @andyholland01 said that the sad truth about this govt is that none of them are very bright* and nobody in the media wants to admit it - how very true.


* Update: See what I mean?

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.

Axed seats*

Politics Home reports that George Osborne may well find that come the Boundary Commission review revue, Tatton as a parliamentary constituency no longer exists. Other prominent politicians whose seats may be affected are Ed Balls, Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander and Hilary Benn.

A related article in todays Daily Telegraph (seemingly not on-line) by Robert Winnett reports that two other ministers in the same predicament are Grant Shapps* (Welwyn Hatfield) and Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) The same article also reports that MPs are due to receive a briefing on Monday about the proposed changes, prior to the Boundary Commission announcement the following day. A further speculation is that Cameron may be forced to agree with other party leaders to delay the changes until later this decade.

Apparently, Winnett reports, one Tory MP stated that the Prime Minister is going to get it in the neck and that the next meeting of the 1922 Committee is going to be full of fractious MPs. Lord Tyler, the LibDem spokesman on constitutional affairs believes the penny hasn't dropped in Downing Street.

First, being broke as a country I didn't believe we had a penny left to drop; second, if we had a penny to drop would it ever in Downing Street?


* Never mind about seats, how about necks?
** Having met him, I can assure readers that that would be no loss!