How big?

On the basis that we all tend to use our hands to augment what we are saying, I have to ask just what it is Barroso is attempting to describe the size of in the following picture:

It can't be the size of his mouth, nor that of Van Rompuy, Ashton, Cameron, Clegg, MilibandE, Merkel or Sarkozy, nor can it be the eurozone debt - his fingers are not far enough apart.

So, just what was Barroso describing?

Just asking.........

Please note any lewd comments will be deleted!

H/T: Picture via Daily Telegraph.

Transfers of Power

Preceding the meeting today between Merkel and Sarkozy - aka Merkozy - it would appear a disagreement has arisen between Iain Duncan Smith and Nick Clegg over the minutiae of the 'Referendum Act' and whether any treaty change would necessitate a referendum, with Cameron stepping in to state that there would only be a referendum "if a new treaty passes powers from UK to Brussels" adding that "as Prime Minister, I do not think the issue will arise".

Much is made of the subject of 'sovereignty' by politicians viz-a-viz our membership of the European Union; and it is therefore worthwhile considering exactly what sovereignty means. Hopefully, we can all agree that sovereignty means the ability of a nation to have supreme, independent authority within it's own territory, thus allowing it the power to make law affecting those within it's territory. Whether it concerns areas of foreign policy, immigration, or even how 'internal' matters are conducted; the minute a nation loses the right to decide any matter for itself it has suffered a loss of power - and if that loss is the result of those matters being decided by an alien 'organisation', then it has suffered a transfer of power. Since this nation has been a member of the European Union it has been subject to over thousands of rulings from that alien 'organisation' which has resulted in a transfer of power.

David Cameron has for some time been pushing the idea that in order to solve the 'euro crisis', the 17 eurozone nations should integrate and thereby accept central control of their fiscal policies. This well-thought-out policy (not) has the inherent danger that in a group of 27 members, 17 constitutes a majority and that such a majority could well impose a 'decision', one not wanted by the remaining 10. Any such 'decision' would then be binding on all 27 members and would, by nature of the concept of 'ever closer union' and 'harmonization', result in a transfer of power.

A transfer of power, under the designation of sovereignty above, is a transfer of power - there can be no degrees of transfers of power, which rather makes a mockery of the Referendum Act and the extremely careful wording with which that Act is written - but hey, we all know the reasons for that! The MSM - aka 'pretend' journalists - would have us believe that Cameron is therefore twixt the proverbial rock and a hard place, in that he either upsets the EU by granting a referendum on EU membership or he alienates his own backbenchers who, we are assured by said MSM, are largely 'eurosceptic'. Cameron is well aware that the supposed 'eurosceptics' are 'career politicians' and that they would follow their Party Whip in supporting whatever decision he makes in order to preserve their own 'careers', rather negates any worries from the rock/hard place. Of course, were he to grant a referendum it would shatter the Coalition 'accord' - which doesn't really exist, but I digress - and would result in his 'power-grab' in May 2010 having been for nought (and yes,make no mistake, Cameron is a 'career politician' too!).

Needless to say it won't be until the forthcoming 'Heads of States' meeting at the end of this week is concluded that we will know exactly 'how much further down the river we have been sold'. The fact that it should be the people who decide whether any new treaty/arrangement is acceptable, rather than a political elite, matters not.

Of course, were to to have a system of democracy that combined 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' - but yet again I digress....................

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

The EU 8

Mary Ellen Synon posted, following the EU Finance Ministers meeting a few days ago, about how national parliaments and their peoples are being 'managed' by what she terms the euro-elite and how opposition parties are blackmailed into agreeing to bail-outs. She ended:

"So the opposition parties are threatened or frighten into agreeing to back the Brussels deal: we will not oppose, we will cooperate, we will collaborate, we will stay silent, we will submit. And then the people of these nations will be left with no leaders other than the governments put in place by the euro-elite, will be told by both sides of their parliament to believe that there is only the one way, only the one programme, all to support the one country called Europe...and you may recognise what is happening now across the eurozone: 'The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconciousness.'"

According to the Guardian the EU 8 comprise: Lagarde; Merkel; Sarkozy; Mario Draghi, the new president of the ECB; José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission; Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of the Eurogroup; Herman van Rompuy, the president of the European Council; and Olli Rehn, Europe's economic and monetary affairs commissioner.

The pretence that governments had any power has been removed and placed in the hands of these 8 people and it means that the democratic clock has been turned back to when tyrannical rule was the norm. History shows us that when governments are but puppets of another regime and the peoples of those governments ignored, eventually the people rebel exacting retribution not only on their foreign masters but also on their own politicians who were bought.

One can but wonder how long it will be before history, as it always does, repeats itself?

A Greek tragedy?

The developments over the last 24/48 hours in relation to Greece are, without doubt a tragedy. What appears to have been missed by the media is that these events have been a tragedy for what passes as democracy.

Consider first, the background: From Bruno Waterfield, on twitter, we learn:

"#eurozone, from a very good source, double checked: the depth of EU anger at Papendreou's announcement was because he had threatened a referendum at eurozone summit on 23 Oct to try and win concessions. Merkel had demanded that Greece surrendered all fiscal sovereignty to an EU-IMF team led by a German official who "would supervise every moment of the Greek fiscal and budgetary process". The Greek PM said that such a transfer of power would require popular consent via a referendum. The German Chancellor backed down."

In what appeared to be a rambling speech to the Greek parliament today, a live-blog of which can be found here, Papandreou basically admitted that the referendum 'ploy' was only a means to force agreement from Greek opposition parties on acceptance of the EU 'package'. (Now that the opposition appears to support the EU austerity package there is obviously no need to get permission from the people.)

That Papandreou was bullied by Sarkozy and Merkel and put in his place, in no uncertain terms, is evident by the report from Reuters:

"Flanked by his finance minister and sitting across a white-covered table from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he was told bluntly he would get no more aid until Athens committed to play by the rules."

It is also obvious that Greek politicians were 'got at' as we learn from Deutche Well:

"Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos appeared to have changed his mind on the referendum after talks with French and German leaders Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel in the French city of Cannes. Venizelos said in a written statement that "Greece's place in the euro is a historic achievement" and that "this established right of the Greek people cannot be put under scrutiny in a referendum." Development Minister Michalis Chrisohoidis appeared to echo those calls, saying, "There can be no… return to the drachma and the past."

It will be seen from those reports that at one point Papandreou was told that Greece couldn't leave the euro and remain a member of the EU. Intriguingly the European Central Bank has published a paper on just that question and it can be found here. That the EU and their elite do not like referenda is illustrated where at one point in the ECB paper it is admitted that:

"The advisability of a referendum is highly questionable, considering the grave political implications of such a step for the stability of the Union."

As an aside, it would appear that the British and Greek people are not the only ones who would like a referendum on matters EU, so would the German people - according to this report in Bild (translation via Google here). On the subject of matters EU and referendums, Ana the Imp has a well-crafted post, one which is worth a read.

Of course, standing on the sidelines of all this is David Cameron, who is attending the G20 meeting today and has a wee problem, one illustrated in this post from the New Statesman. (Dirgressing once again, the picture is not very flattering to Cameron, who looks as though he has been "toupé'd". Or, as a public employee and a politician who would fit into any of the current political parties whilst retaining all his perks, perhaps it should be "TUPE'd").

The whole situation is probably best summarised by Raedwald who predicts 'fury on the streets'. When comparing our situation in this country Raedwald is also totally correct when he states that our politicians are also are a class apart, willing to sacrifice their own nation and peoples on the altar of EuroFederalism and for their own deeply corrupt self-interest. He is also correct in his observation that now the referendum 'genie' has been let out of the bottle, it will be difficult indeed for our politicians to put it back in. I was yesterday slightly critical of Ukip, however a post from Alex Singleton is also worthy reading in that what he writes is correct - as long as Ukip manage how to put the ball into an empty net. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

Just a few thoughts on today's events..................

Libya - Now the fighting starts

Open Europe's press summary for today contains one important news item:

"On his Straneuropa blog, La Stampa’s Brussels correspondent Marco Zatterin reports that EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger may next week propose that in future all oil and gas contracts between EU member states and third countries be examined at the EU level before they are concluded. The article notes that Germany has probably been lobbying for this proposal, due to fears of lagging behind France, the UK and Italy in striking deals with the new Libyan government.

Meanwhile, following yesterday’s conference in Paris, competition has kicked off among countries that participated in the military operations in Libya to secure energy deals with the new Libyan government. In an interview with RTL, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said it was “logical and fair” that  countries which offered the biggest support to Libya’s National Transition Council received a preferential treatment. On the BBC’s Today programme, David Cameron noted, “I think there’s a big danger today actually of people in the West taking too much credit for themselves." (Emphasis and links mine)

One wonders how long it will be before all trade deals need to be examined at the EU level -- but I digress.

 EUobserver reports that according to Sarkozy, the EU will in future play a bigger role vis-a-vis the US in providing hard security in north Africa and the Middle East, whilst also being of the opinion that the union should also play a bigger role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. For all the sabre rattling, one fact cannot be denied and that is in Libya, as in any future 'war of liberation', the EU could not undertake any military action without American logistics, reconnaissance, command and control and ammunition.

So the fight has started for oil deals with all the squabbling that will be involved, which is something that probably prompted Cameron's statement above. Oil, undoubtedly is the prime reason for the UK's involvement in Libya, however the involvement of the EU is, without doubt, twofold - oil and the Barcelona Decaration - aka Expansion of the EU Empire.

For new readers the Barcelona Declaration was adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference - 27-28/11/95 and is a subject of this post in April 2010. According to the EU: "The declaration is intended to establish a comprehensive Euro-Mediterranean partnership in order to turn the Mediterranean into a common area of peace, stability and prosperity through the reinforcement of political dialogue and security, an economic and financial partnership and a social, cultural and human partnership". It will also be noted that since 1995 other conferences have been held: in Malta in April 1997, in Stuttgart in April 1999, in Marseilles in November 2000, in Brussels on 5 and 6 November 2001, in Valencia on 22 and 23 April 2002, in Naples on 2 and 3 December 2003 and in Luxembourg on 30 and 31 May 2005. In addition, think tanks involving the Ministers for Foreign Affairs were organised in Palermo in June 1998 and in Lisbon in May 2000. At the Stuttgart Conference, Libya was welcomed for the first time as a special guest of the presidency. It also attended the conferences in Marseilles, Brussels and Valencia and now has observer status.

All this talk by Cameron, Sarkozy and the EU about the restoration of democracy is but a smokescreen to cover the grasping with both hands an opportunity to further two long-term aims. Whilst the expansion of the EU empire will take a few years, knowing that their energy plans to produce electricity are no more than 'pie in the sky', I would not be surprised if the elite in the EU had been reminded of the words of an American politician, one Christopher Dodd:

"As the temperature drops, the need for heating oil goes up."