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'.

Why 'government' costs so much.........

From Fausty's comments:

"Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of nowhere. Parliament said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Parliament said, "How does the night watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Parliament asked, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Parliament said, "How are these people going to get paid and administered?" So they created the following positions, two time keepers and three payroll officers, and then hired four human resources consultants and five health and safety executives.

Then Parliament said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired fifty people including administrative officers, assistant administrative officers, legal secretaries and a chief executive on £250,000 per annum.

Then Parliament said, "We have had this in operation for over one year and we are £25,000,000 over budget, we must cutback the overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman. "

To which my comment - which appears to have been lost in the ether - was that 'we' allowed it to happen.

There is a better way people! More of which later - at the weekend........

'The Debate' and other related matters

As I am presently experiencing difficulty in linking to the Telegraph website (all I continually receive is notices that their website is not responding) links to articles in that newspaper cannot be provided. However.....

The op-ed page in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph is taken over by two articles, one by Charles Moore and a smaller one underneath by William Hague. Moore writes about the need for a referendum on our membership of the EU, headlining his piece "The voters have been cheated for too long. Let them decide." One section stands out:

"Most people reading this column, I suspect, do not believe in government by referendum. We elect politicians to make laws on our behalf, not to keep scurrying back to ask us which laws to make. But the idea of consent is crucial to trust in the political process. For more than 20 years now, in European matters, that consent has been lacking. It has been in the interest of all political parties to make decisions which have changed our lives without offering us any electoral choice in the matter. Therefore our future consent cannot be assumed. It must be sought in writing."

That which seems to have escaped such luminaries as Charles Moore is that for decades the consent of the people to some of the laws that have been imposed on them has been lacking - and not just in the area of our membership of the EU. That political parties present manifestos, come election time, is neither here nor there as measures in those manifestos have not been implemented as promised, but have been amended thereby imposing laws for which the people were never given the opportunity of voting. Likewise there are some laws implemented by events, measures that were not in any party's manifesto, on which again the people were never given the opportunity to vote. Moore is contradicting himself when he complains that politicians have changed our lives without our consent, but then appears to be against referendums per se. In the same piece Moore writes that we should treat William Hague with a degree of tolerance because it is difficult being a minister, especially in a coalition; and that 'Europe' is a particularly painful subject for the Conservative Party. Stating that we should not insist Cameron and Hague vote for the motion under debate out of respect for the aforementioned 'difficulties' just illustrates that Charles Moore is part of the problem - he is a member of the Westminster Bubble!

Turning to William Hague's piece, he continues his stupid and illogical mantra of being in Europe but not being governed by it. He writes that as a Conservative (really?) he wishes to repatriate powers, as mentioned in his party's general election manifesto. William Hague is presented to us as a 'wise politician', one who 'knows' all that needs to be known.; one who can be trusted to make the right decisions. If Hague is 'so clever' just what is it the man does not understand about the process of acquis communitaire, something embedded in the treaties? Does he not understand that once the European Union assumes competence over any area of government it cannot be returned to member states. As I have written previously, repatriation of even one power will never be achieved as once the UK succeeded, then just about every other member state would be jumping on the bandwagon, the result being disintegration of the European Union - and that the EU elite just ain't going to allow. In any even, if Hague is so adamant about the supposed benefits of our membership of the EU, why not publish a cost/benefit analysis? The response to that question by our political elite is that the benefits are obvious - well if they are so 'obvious', prove it chaps.

Hague also writes about the need to ensure eurozone integration does not allow countries in the single currency to impose decisions on countries outside it. Just why does he not understand that the figure of 17 comprises a majority in a total figure of 27 - or is simple maths not one of his strong points? That financial control of all member states is the reported aim of Jose Manuel Barosso is touched upon in John Redwood's latest post. Once again, just what is it about a "single coherent framework for the better economic governance based on the community method" that Hague does not understand and as such continues to maintain that we are not governed by the EU? Reverting to the benefits of our country's membership of the EU, Hague writes:

"The ability to lead European countries to a united position, as with sanctions on Iran and Syria, strengthens Britain's power in the world. Even obscure directives can have benefits: directive 2009/147/EC prevents the slaughter of our garden birds as they migrate over the Mediterranean."

And the prevention of the slaughter of our garden birds flying over the Mediterranean is reason enough for our being a chattel of the European Union? Sheesh, Hague is more of an idiot than I first thought.

On the subject of the forthcoming debate on Monday next, Autonomous Mind posts on this subject, mentioning the Eustice amendment. As I posted a day or two ago, this motion is a Backbench Business Committee motion and as such needs to be debated as written - yet few have 'picked up' on this point. Speaker Bercow proclaims himself a champion of the backbenches and it is unlikely he would allow any amendment or alternative motion. To do so would mean him subjecting himself to accusations of hypocrisy, let alone any accusation of being a 'government tool' and that of ignoring the will of MPs and their own committee. Turning to another aspect of AM's post, I refer to the letter sent to Eustice by Bernard Jenkin in which the latter advises he is against an In/Out referendum. That statement immediately, in my book, transfers Jenkin from the 'eurosceptic' camp into the 'europlastic' camp. Just who the hell is Bernard Jenkin to allow his personal view to interfere in how and where he casts his vote? But then Jenkin is but doing what all MPs do - namely having achieved the position of MP promptly then deciding that only they know best and to hell with the views of the people they are meant to represent.

Another interesting aspect of this forthcoming debate and the questions on the motion proposed by the Backbench Business Committee comes with the publication of a poll by YouGov, one referred to by James Forsyth in this post from the Coffee House:

"The poll results also demonstrate that only a small percentage of the public would vote for the country’s current set-up with the European Union if they had the chance. Only 15 per cent would vote to stay in, compared to 28 per cent who would vote to leave, while 47 per cent would plump for renegotiation. If forced to chose between In or Out, the public splits 31 to 52."

Notice how 'renegotiation' has achieved a substantial following and one has to wonder just how many of that following actually understand that the option they most favour just ain't available, or why? Yet again we see how political spin and the failure to be honest with the electorate achieves just exactly what the politicians want, namely the pursuance of an unachievable policy but one that effectively closes further debate on the subject. On this subject of 'renegotiation', it is worth reading this, which Richard North wrote way back in 2008 and which reaffirms my previous comment about why renegotiation is not an option.

As an aside, Ian Parker-Joseph has announced the birth of his fifth grandson and remarks, in a reply in his comment section, that he fights for his country, a fight previously carried out by his father and grandfather. He ends by saying that he will never give up that fight and would wish to seem them all hang first. In offering my congratulations I suggested that as part of the celebrations perhaps we should being the hanging now.

A 'car-crash' tv moment by both Labour and Conservative

I refer to the appearance on the Daily Politics by Emma Reynolds (Labour) and Andrew Rossindell (Conservative), reminescent of Justine Greening's dismal time on the same programme.

View for yourself - and just ask yourselves how is it that such people get elected as MPs?

Emma Reynolds hasn't a clue what she is talking about and Andrew Rossindell believes that Cameron is doing the right thing for Britain, yet at the same time is criticising him. Sheesh!

And we should not accompany these apologists, representives of the majority of their class, to the nearest lamppost and attach hemp to their necks 'pour encourager les autres'?

'Mickey Mouse' qualifications

I alluded, in my preceding post, to David Cameron's 'faux qualifications' and the fact he (somehow) gained a first in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. That he has demonstrated a lack in the first and third has been demonstrated by recent events, however his lack of understanding in the second is also demonstrated by  another fact, one which shows why he failed to gain an outright majority at the 2010 general election.

From an article in the Yorkshire Post, by Janice Atkinson-Small - a former Conservative candidate who has defected to Ukip - we learn:

"However, as candidates, we were not allowed to discuss Europe and immigration. Those words could not go into our leaflets and campaign materials. They were considered too toxic. Immigration was the biggest issue across West Yorkshire at the last General Election but candidates were not allowed to discuss it."

A decision which illustrates the lack of his 'political nous', his dictatorial attitude to his country and his party - and his overriding love affair with all that 'sprouts from Brussels'!

That Cameron is a tad 'green' where his political ability is concerned; that he is a tad 'yellow' where his belief in his nation is concerned, consequently making the emotions of the electorate 'red' with annoyance; and making the remainder 'blue' in sorrow with the state of our nation, cannot be beyond dispute.

He should be extremely proud of his achievement - he has managed to alienate every facet of political opinion whilst at the same time, in his 'conference speech', imploring us 'to all 'work together'!

Priorities

The euro is about to implode; Iran, Israel, Palestine and Turkey are flexing their respective muscles; Greece is about to go for broke; Portugal, Spain and Italy are not far behind; debt is multiplying faster than Cameron's 'U' turns; Argentina is beginning to get a tad 'bolshie' over the Falkland Islands; Witney is about to have a road foisted on it costing £20million when an alternative solution costing £4million exists; my Member of Parliament has, so far, taken 4 months (and still counting) to reply to a series of questions; Peter Oborne has now decided to provide yet another example of crass output from what passes as his brain - and what can our government come up with?  Philip Hammond has announced a consultation with a view to increasing the speed on our motorways from 70mph to 80mph, stating that "the current limit has lost its legitimacy."

With a stated intention by the EU to impose a speed limit of 20mph in towns and cities, the idea being to save energy and carbon output, the chances that Philip Hammon will be allowed to progress this idea to a conclusion is looking pretty remote seeing as this would increase both energy used and carbon limits - something about which our real government in Brussels has the proverbial 'bee in the bonnet'.

More importantly though is the fact that it obviously has not crossed this idiots mind (Yup, Brussels you're not alone, we have them in the UK too) that the current politicians have lost their legitimacy and that when the people do decide to act, they won't be offering any 'consultation' - they will, likewise, 'raise' Hammond and his ilk about 6 feet off the ground. I believe the term is 'Summary Justice'!


Update: Bearing in mind Hammond's statement that road casualities would increase 'slightly', might I quote from the latest DG Mobility and Transport email from the EU?

"The European Parliament has this week backed the European Commission's goal for halving the number of road deaths by 2020. This goal is part of the Commission's policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020.
Road safety is a major societal issue. In 2009, more than 35,000 people died on the roads of the European Union, i.e. the equivalent of a medium town, and no fewer than 1,500,000 persons were injured. The cost for society is huge, representing approximately 130 billion Euro in 2009.
In its Communication "Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth", the Commission has underlined the importance for Europe of social cohesion, a greener economy, education and innovation. These objectives should be reflected in the various aspects of European transport policy which should aim at ensuring sustainable mobility for all citizens, "decarbonising" transport and make full use of technological progress. Road safety plays an important role in the  White Paper on transport policy 2010 – 2020, as lowering the number of road users' casualties is key to improving the overall performance of the transport system and to meet citizens' and companies' needs and expectations.
A coherent holistic and integrated approach is therefore needed, taking into account synergies with other policy goals. Road safety policies at local, national, European or international level should integrate relevant objectives of other public policies and vice versa.
The proposed policy orientations takes fully account of the results obtained during the 3rd road safety action programme 2001-2010, showing that in spite of important progress made on road safety, efforts needed to be continued and further strengthened.
The European road safety policy orientations up to 2020 aims to provide a general governance framework and challenging objectives which should guide national or local strategies. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, actions described should be implemented at the most appropriate level and through the most appropriate means.
In the framework of these policy orientations, the Commission considers that the three following actions should be undertaken as a priority:

• the establishment of a structured and coherent cooperation framework which draws on best practices across the Member States, as a necessary condition to implement in an effective manner the road safety policy orientations 2011-2020,
• a strategy for injuries and first aid to address the urgent and growing need to reduce the number of road injuries,
• the improvement of the safety of vulnerable road users, in particular motorcyclists for whom accidents statistics are particularly worrying."

The relevant document can be read, in its entirety here.