Making Perry?

Autonomous Mind posts on the alleged spat twixt Claire Perry and Douglas Carswell, as reported in the Mail on Sunday. For the record, the question Carswell asked was during Prime Ministers Questions, when Nick Clegg deputised for David Cameron who was otherwise engaged on a jaunt to visit Obama. Having viewed this exchange on Parliament TV (starts 12:28:55) unfortunately some numpty stands up in front of Perry so it is not possible to see what happened.


Even allowing for the fact that some would say that the present Conservative Party is far from what is traditionally held to be a Conservative Party, Carswell is still taking the party whip and presenting himself to the public and his electorate as a Conservative MP. I find it strange that an MP who is so 'distant' in his beliefs when comparing those beliefs with that of his party still remains within that party; which leads to the belief that his political principles and beliefs are not as strong as his desire to continue his career - and so on balance I am the same opinion as Autonomous Mind.


Whilst I, too, have been critical of Carswell on my blog, if one is to criticise him of faux euroscepticism, then the same accusation must be made to Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Christopher Heaton-Harris and others, in which of the latter I of course include Daniel Hannan. Where I believe Carswell lays himself open to criticism is that bearing in mind his authorship, with Daniel Hannan, of "The Plan", those aspects of their tome that Cameron has embraced has been done with what one might call 'lip-service' in that that which Carswell and Hannan believe is far distant to that which Cameron will be implementing.


What is at the heart of this matter is principle and honour, not just in their support of the party under whose name they sail, but also when considering how they campaigned during a general election. From the moment David Cameron was elected Leader it was obvious that he was not the eurosceptic that he presented himself as, a position that has hardened as time has gone by. I have to admit that I do not know how they conducted their election campaigns, but pound to a penny those campaigns were run according to the Conservative Party manifesto with a wish on their part not to 'rock the boat' in the hope that a Conservative majority would be achieved. In that regard, one wonders how often during campaign speeches and canvassing they broached the subject of this country's EU membership without it being raised by those to whom they were addressing. If I am incorrect on that suggestion then obviously I offer an unreserved apology. In fairness, it may well be that they too were misled by a manifesto which promised re-call of MPs, local referenda, etc, etc.


What the subject of Carswell's, and others, position raises is doubt about their political principles and honour and reinforces the belief held by many that MPs - of all parties it must be said - are more concerned about their careers, even if they do not wish for ministerial promotion. If one holds firm political principles then where is the personal honour in remaining a member of a party who plainly does not espouse those same principles? It is accepted that membership of a party cannot mean that one agrees with every policy that that party promotes, but in the case of Carswell and Hannan they are both so diametrically opposed the question of why they remain in the Conservative Party has to be repeated.


Claire Perry's alleged suggestion may well be supported by some, both in Parliament and amongst the public and they may well point to the case of Roger Helmer who did indeed 'jump ship', although in the case of the latter I believe there were other reasons - for example, with his stated intention not to stand again coupled with his inability to have his favoured candidate take his place, was he motivated to proverbially stick two fingers up to Cameron and Warsi?


Knowing my preference for Direct Democracy, there may be critics who will argue that the same shenanigans would occur, which they may well do; however because those matters for which national politicians would be responsible for would be greatly reduced, so would the possibility for differences of opinion on policy.


Just a few thoughts on the Perry/Caswell matter offered for further discussion.........

When will our politicians 'grow a pair'?

Today in the House of Commons an emergency debate was held, at the request of the well-known 'eurosceptic' Bill Cash, on the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance - on which the Hansard report can be read here. 


In his opening remarks, Bill Cash:

"The debate is about the rule of law: not only the rule of law as it affects the United Kingdom but, inevitably, the rule of law in Europe as a whole. The Prime Minister, to his great credit, rightly exercised the veto to protect UK interests....."

For the last time, there was not a 'Treaty' on the table so how could Cameron have exercised a veto? Sheesh!


John Baron (Con - Basildon & Billericay) asks:

"Does he share my concern that with democracy having been suspended, in effect, in two countries, with a deepening democratic deficit........"

Has not democracy been suspended in 27 nations, not just two? Has not democracy been suspended in the UK - with the compliance of our 'representatives'? Sheesh!


"Give a dog a bone" - we then find that Peter of that ilk repeats the fallacy that the Prime Minister vetoed a treaty. Perhaps Mrs. Bone might have a word with her spokesman?


We are continually informed that the UK should 'protect its interests' in its membership of the European Union, yet if as Mark Reckless informs us our influence is limited, one has to ask what is the point of our membership?


Robert Buckland is of the opinion that where debates on matters EU are concerned both the HoC and the HoL need to 'raise their game' in both debates and scrutiny. He appears not to recognise that until MPs raise their game to the point of saying 'Out', they can debate and scrutinise all they like - it will change nothing.


With Richard Drax, another Conservative who is unable to make up his mind about EU integration, admitting that we do not want out, we obviously have another Cameroon puppet and Buckland agreeing makes two!


That Robert Buckland, in an intervention to Anne Main, states that all MPs are patriots - or should be - hits a nail squarely on the head where matters EU are concerned!


In his summation David Lidington states that scrutiny and criticism is important but one has to ask: what is the point of scrutiny and criticism of something which you cannot change; which begs the question is not the existence of the European Scrutiny Committee and that the House of Commons thus unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer's money? Lidington continues to maintain that decisions taken by governments, in particular Greece, have to be enacted by democratically elected parliaments, but are not decisions taken by democratically elected parliaments, against the wishes of the people, no more than those of democratised dictators - in which case where is 'democracy'?


If anything demonstrates the ineffectiveness of our Parliament and the MPs therein, it is that three hours were spent discussing an EU matter on which we have no influence and can effect no change. And Parliament is sovereign? And we are, as political leaders maintain, a self-governing country? Sheesh!

Daniel is a cynic? No, not that one..........

.....that one is a politician and politicians don't do cynicism - its not in their genes. In this particular case I am referring to Daniel Knowles, an Assistant Comment Editor at the Telegraph. Writing about the Coalition, he pens:

"So it is hardly shocking to find that the newspapers are full of accounts of Lib Dem intransigence. Last week, it was tax cuts, as David Laws was enlisted to go on Newsnight and make the case for an increase in the personal allowance. This week, it is the NHS. As you can tell from the report on page two of today's Sun (headline: "Cam caves in to Clegg on health") the Liberal Democrats are getting uppity, demanding more compromises to Andrew Lansley's zombie Bill. No one is pretending that has anything to do with the contents of the reforms. No one understands the reforms. It's all about positioning: Nick Clegg wants to appear to be mauling the Tories, and ideally, the Tories want to appear not to be mauled too much. Call me cynical, but I suspect it was all coordinated in advance anyway." Emphasis mine.

In respect of the emboldened section of the extract above, it is indeed gratifying to see cynicism displayed by one so young. Is not 'coordinated action' how politics is conducted in our country nowadays? Is that not how the charade of Prime Minister's Questions is conducted? Is that not how politics is conducted when any question on our membership of the European Union is raised? I note that Bill Cash has secured an emergency debate tomorrow on the subject of the legality of using European Union institutions to implement the fiscal pact agreed by 25 EU nations; following the decision by the Irish Attorney General that a referendum needed to be held in Ireland on the subject. And what exactly will Cash's debate solve when our real government no longer resides in Westminster - but then Bill Cash has never been one to shun the EU limelight.


Now can we have direct democracy and referism - please!

We are short of monetary 'cash' - unfortunately we appear to have too much parliamentary 'cash'

Bill Cash - in case it should miss your notice, even though he does mention it - is Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and he has an article on Conservative Home in which he puts forward the argument that the failure of previous governments to veto EU treaties is to blame for our troubles today. Coupled with this he also maintains that successive administrations have allowed the European juggernaut to continue.

It seems to have escaped the notice of Mr. Cash that it is the failure of those elected, who could have vetoed those EU treaties, that are to blame for our troubles today. It is the failure of those elected - that have supported successive administrations - that have allowed the European juggernaut to continue. It is the failure of those elected who, by their own admission are against the policies of their party, have given tacit support when they should have resigned their party whip, who at the earliest opportunity could have - and should have - stood as independent candidates. That they did not can only be due to the fact they put their careers above their principles and honour - what one might term: cash or honour.

Bill Cash would appear not to recognise that he and his committee can hold all the inquiries they wish - and on whatever aspects of the EU they choose - it will change not one comma on that which issues forth from Brussels, nor will it affect the intentions of Brussels, nor the intentions of those who it might be said attained the leadership of their party through dubious statements.

That our politics has sunk to the nadir it has, where it is viewed with outright cynicism, that it becomes legitimate to question whether those who maintain they are eurosceptics - Cash, Carswell, Hannan - are not in fact closet europhiles - aka 'Judas Goats'. I have to revert to a point made in the preceding post in which I asked: "What is the point of a politician who states that a situation is unacceptable - which is what May said - and then not being able to do owt about it?"

Not so much with a bang, more like a simper.....

David Cameron's 'European Council statement' in the Commons this afternoon most definitely did not produce any outright rebellion from the so-called 'eurosceptics' as had been promised and one has to ask what happened to all the planning that was supposed to have been held in Edward Leigh's office last night?

Where were the 'searching and/or unanswerable' questions, ones to put Cameron 'on the spot'? For example, how can any action taken by those who have signed up to 'the treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' not encroach on the single market? All questions were couched in 'parliament-speak', a language which unless an MP is a wordsmith of great standing, as was Enoch Powell, ensures that any hint of sarcasm or ridicule is nullified. Even he who is held to be the greatest eurosceptic of them all, Bill Cash, missed the opportunity with what may be termed an extremely 'Cameron-friendly' question which was easily 'swatted away'.

It had been my intention to write further on this 'treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' but, as I write, I see that Richard North, EU Referendum, has beaten me to it. It is worth repeating the point Richard North makes; namely that Cameron still maintains the untruth he  vetoed a treaty when his own government spokesman has admitted that there was no treaty on the table. Note also that not one of the 'supposed' eurosceptics, those who were reportedly going to cause trouble, raised this point - not one and if they did it must have been when I turned the sound down on my laptop to answer a telephone call! Richard North writes that Cameron is guilty of misleading the House - but ever one to call a spade a spade, I would aver Cameron lied to the House. Unfortunately, in the HoC, one cannot utter the word 'lie'; which is probably due to the belief, one held among themselves needless to add, that politicians never lie - they just don't tell the truth!

Now watch the MSM swallow 'Cameron-speak' hook, line and sinker!

Afterthought: I see that David Cameron has stated that the decision to strip Fred the Shred of his knighthood was the right decision - if only we had the capability of stripping David Cameron of his position of Prime Minister - come to that, if only we had the capability of stripping the majority of MPs of their position........ The decision by Cameron (and he had a hand in it)  is 'democratised dictatorship' - the decision by us would just be 'democracy'........


Afterthought (2): Of course the news released now about Goodwin would not be a ploy to divert the public's attention from matters EU, would it?????

The EU's 'law-grab'

The Daily Mail advises us that the EU now wants power to set 'Euro-crimes' punishments in our courts, continuing that eurocrats were last night accused of making a ‘massive power grab’ which would allow Brussels to dictate laws to Britain and decide punishments in our courts. This is presented as 'news', following the debate in Parliament yesterday, although the EU Commission document to which the Mail refers - and about which the debate was held - is actually dated 23rd September last year. The delay twixt the publication of the document and the parliamentary debate is no doubt due, as Keith Vaz complained, to the fact that MPs are too busy that they simply do not have the time to cover European issues, and therefore rely heavily on the European Scrutiny Committee to alert them if anything is going wrong. This begs the question of what, exactly, our MPs could do - were they so inclined - on any matter EU whilst they continue to acquiesce to Brussels, but again I digress. Thought: Perhaps if MPs spent less time worrying about how chips are arranged on their plates, the cost of their food and drink; oh - and gave up their directorships and 'advisorships' they may have a tad more time for their primary occupation?

A number of important points were made: Kate Hoey was correct when she pointed out that the most iniquitous thing about all this continuing opting in and moving into an ever-closer European Union for this country is the fact that the British people have never given their permission for that to happen, a point Crispin Blunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, underlined in his summation to the debate when he stated that the Government will continue to examine the content of European Union criminal law proposals and our participation in them on a case-by-case basis - no mention of the people, it will be noted. Bill Cash was also correct when he made the point about 'tendency', whereby in almost every area, the original proposals—from Maastricht, through to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon—have adopted a minimalist approach at the beginning, but then expanded, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired. Cash was also correct in his assertion that all that was being discussed is liable to be decided under Qualified Majority voting (QMV) where Articles 82-86 are concerned.


Reverting to the point about government deciding matters with no reference to the people, on this subject I was struck by that which Geoffrey Cox said. "It is to this House that citizens of this country entrust the moral judgments that underlie decisions about what should be criminalised and what should not". I note that we are now 'citizens' - thus distancing us from the political class - rather than 'people' and Cox should realise that the people have no option but to entrust the moral judgment on matters because the people are never asked for their opinion; they are only ever told what their opinion should be. That is a rather neat example of 'democratised dictatorship', something which is replicated in virtually every 'Act' that is passed by Parliament.

Crispin Blunt also made much of the 'emergency brake' whereby Member States can pull that so-called "lever" if they consider that proposed legislation touches upon fundamental aspects of their national criminal justice system: from Europa we learn that to balance the introduction of QMV in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Lisbon Treaty introduced a procedure called the “emergency brake” to protect the interests of Member States. It allows Member States to bloc the adoption of a legislative proposal and to send it to the European Council, if they feel that the proposal has an impact on fundamental aspects of their criminal law system. In such a case, co-decision procedure is suspended. After discussion, and if there is a consensus, the European Council, within 4 months of the date procedures were suspended, then sends back the proposal to the Council, which then ends the suspension of the normal legislative procedure or co-decision. If there is no consensus, within the same timeframe, a minimum of 9 Member States can proceed with enhanced cooperation on the basis of the original proposal. Reverting to the point Cash made about the EU's method of operating whereby a minimalist approach occurs at the beginning, but then expands, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired, what price that in say 10 years time Protocol 21 (which covers the UK's ability to opt in/out on freedom, security and judicial matters) is changed/annulled/overriden - which, in a manner of speaking, would rather 'Blunt' Crispin's emergency brake.


To finish on a lighter note, on reading Vaz's short mention of his school days with Andy Slaughter and the fact that he (Vaz) used to try to avoid being in class with him because their names were adjacent on the register, and when they were read out in quick succession—"Slaughter", "Vaz" caused comment, my immediate thought was: 'if only'.

Why a clean slate is needed

In my preceding post I posed the question whether the Coalition will last because of the wish of two disparate political parties to rescue the economy of our country, or whether it will last because the top echelon of those two disparate parties wish to retain their individual positions of privilege and power. 


Where people wish to retain positions of privilege and power, be that the public or private sector, if pushed into the proverbial corner they will lie to save their careers. An example of this fact has been illustrated by Richard North, EU Referendum, (do follow the links) in which he shows that Cameron has in effect misled the House of Commons.


That the questioner, nor any other MP (God forbid MilibandE, who doesn't appear to know what day of the week it is) was not immediately hitting the 'airways' asking the question posed in Richard North's headline to his post, namely "Whose this "We", Cameron", leads one to finally believe that they are indeed "all in it together" - to coin a phrase. The marked lack of so-called 'Eurosceptics' so doing, was telling - what? Where was Cash, Carswell, Heaton-Harris, Bone, Jenkin (to name but a few) - and more importantly, although not an MP, where was that 'arch-antiEUer' Daniel Hannan, from whom so far we have not heard one peep?


The lack of rebuttal by MPs (and MEPs) can only be due to:


(a) they have no idea of what membership of the EU entails;


(b) they have no wish to 'rock the boat' as they are hoping for advancement in their careers', or:


(c) they are 'brain-dead' idiots.


Personally, I suspect the latter as that seems to be the prime qualification for entry into our political system.


Apologies for 'banging-on' about it, but does this not illustrate why our present system of democracy must, repeat must, be changed/


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

Is the Tory Party's memory so short?

The Daily Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield, reports that the Conservative Party have dropped demands for the repatriation of powers as - according to Chris Grayling - the key priority is to get stability restored, to get a solution to the eurozone crisis and that if treaty change is the means to that end, then the Coalition would recognise that as a necessity. The Times (£) also has an article which reports that given the severity of the eurozone crisis, David Cameron is prepared to forgo the chance of repatriating powers from Brussels, including added protection for the City of London from EU directives.

It is disappointing to note that Bill Cash - the man who is, supposedly, a 'eurosceptic'; the man who knows everything about matters EU; the man who is Chairman of the European scrutiny committee; is still maintaining that repatriation of powers is a 'necessity'. Forgive me for repetition, but just what is it 'The Great Man' doesn't understand about the words 'ever closer union'? Surely even he, 'the font of all knowledge EU' understands that ever closer union means that once a power has been ceded - or forcibly taken - by the EU, is never to return?

Perhaps a little jog of his - and his party's - memory is in order. To that extent, let us return to the press summary from Open Europe, one dated March 29, 2010. From that press summary:

"The article noted that Ms Merkel insisted that an incoming Conservative government would not be allowed to use new treaty negotiations to ask for powers to be returned to Britain. “I will not speculate on the outcome of the British elections,” she said. “Treaty changes are agreed by unanimity so I am not worried about something changing that I do not want – to put it bluntly. That's the way it is.........."

(Zeig Heil! Heil Merkel!)

Even if 'The Great Man' hasn't 'got the message', it does appear that his party - and the delusional one who heads it - have now accepted that the EU is akin to a black-hole in space, something that swallows matter which will never reappear, whose 'force' it is pointless resisting.

One day - and we can but hope that day is not long in coming - even these idiots will come to the conclusion that the only question to be answered is 'In' or 'Out'.