EUSpeak - by Van Rompuy

Courtesy of England Calling:

1. We, the people, have no bloody choice!

2. And the difference is?

3. Same bloody question!

It is sad the man is not of this planet - and even sadder is the fact that neither is Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and about 600+ others!

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.

Not more money to the IMF.........

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Louise Armitstead, writing in the Daily Telegraph, link to the fact that Britain may be liable for yet another 'bung' to the IMF; a story to which Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, links. This relates to a statement given by Barroso to the European Parliament about decisions made at the meeting of Heads of State on 8/9th of December, from which:

"EU leaders will decide soon on whether to provide the IMF with up to €200bn more to help debt-stricken eurozone countries."

Helen is quite correct when she writes that there was no mention of this small matter by Cameron when he 'reported' to the House of Commons on that meeting. For the record, this is the Hansard report of his opening statement, one that contained the words: "Let me take the House through the events of last week". By his omission of that little snippet from 'the events of last week' might one accuse Cameron of having misled the House of Commons?

Now I may be a tad confused, however I seem to recall Cameron making much play of the fact that Britain would no longer be liable for bail-outs to eurozone countries after 2013 under the EFSF coupled with the fact I also seem to recall that that was the date when the ESM was to become operative. Herman van Rompuy is on record as stating that he wishes the 'so-called 26' to agree 'terms' so that they can be implemented in March 2012, which one can logically assume is when the ESM will become operative. He also tweeted earlier today "@euHvR I will convene an informal meeting of the 27 heads of state or gov. in Brussels. Date to be decided: end of Jan.- beginning of Feb. 2012", a tweet timed at 13:30. Presumably it will be at that meeting that the decision will be taken by the EU Leaders to 'donate' that €200bn.

Cameron may well believe that IMF resources are for countries not currencies, and that they can’t be used specifically to support the euro, however that form of words is just semantics, is it not? It is worth recalling the €50billion would be 'split' between the remaining 10 non-euro member states. Any bets that Cameron won't pay up?

Just asking...................

Do we really want to be part of all this?

Much to the chagrin of David Cameron, the one subject he wishes to avoid has been dominating the political scene and consequently the media - namely, 'Europe'. Setting to one side Cameron's use of a veto - and whether it was a veto, but I digress - a number of events have happened, which prompts the question raised in the heading to this post. Richard North, EU Referendum, penned a resumé of events leading up to 'Events Bruxelles' at the end of last week and also linked to an article by Peter Hitchens, writing in the Mail, said article being well worth reading.

We read today that Van Rompuy wants a new fiscal treaty in place by March; Olli Rehn insists that the UK's excessive deficit and debt will still be the subject of surveillance like other member states; from EUobserver we learn that the IMF euro rescue is stating to unravel and that Britain's annual rebate is to be called into question, whilst the same source reports that contrary to Cameron's initial claim (another 'U' turn?) the UK will not prevent the use of EU institutions for fiscal compact.

 Various theories have been put forward for the reason David Cameron exercised his 'veto', one of which is that he was adamant that no referendum would be held in the UK on Britain's membership of the EU. It is worth mentioning that, in actual fact, he would have been ceding the power to decide the economic method of conducting such business had the 26 accepted his 'requirements' - a result which, if not in his eyes, would most definitely been seen as a loss of power in the eyes of the electorate. However, Ian Parker-Joseph has put forward an alternative reason why Cameron did that which he did; and having spoken to him I know that he stands by every word he wrote, although there would seem to be a 'twist' to the entire question. One needs to revert to IPJ's post on the ESM - to which he links - and read the comments from Denis Cooper which are extremely pertinent. It was originally thought that this link, which it was intimated formed Cameron's 'objections' - and which referred to the recent EU Heads of State meeting - would appear to refer to the ESM treaty.

Some may consider what follows a digression - it is however, relevant - but I wish to refer to the debate that took place this evening on Nigel Dodd's motion on the UK's relationship with theEU - a debate which can be seen here (starts at 16:48:15), the Hansard report to which I will link once it is available. In that debate David Lidington agreed the Common Agricultural Policy CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) had had detrimental effects for the UK - so why the hell do we continue to belong to a 'club' whose rules harm us? Lidington also made derogatory remarks about the centralisation of the EU - but where does that differ to the practises of our own government? Emma Reynolds, speaking for the opposition, stated that the UK was in a minority of 26-1 - really, when the actual facts are different? She made mention of the fact that millions of jobs are being created by Indian investment in this country - but what, exactly, does that have to do with our membership of the EU? Mark Durkan made an interesting comment which was that the 'Eurosceptics' in the debate were most noticeable by their absence but, like me, he digressed. It was also regrettable that the leaders of the three parties, who believe in this nation's membership of the EU, failed to make an appearance - yet as the 'drivers' of this policy one has to question their absence. Democracy? A further point has to be that a subject, one that is at the heart of democracy - ie, governance of this country - was 'constrained' by time limits? Democracy? Nigel Dodd's motion was 'carried' by 278-200, yet at any one time there was only about 50/60 MPs in the chamber, taking part in the debate - democracy? No; more likely the modern day version of the 'charge of the 600 - well it would have been had the remainder bothered.*

What passed at the 'Events Bruxelles' - and in the House of Commons this evening - is but a travesty of democracy. This also begs the question of what do the people matter when democracy is based on the system of 'representation'? It also begs the question whether we would, indeed, be better were a system involving 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' introduced. At least, we would only have ourselves to blame...........

I can but repeat the heading to this post - or would the EU just expel us? We don't really mind, either way, providing the outcome is just that: OUT! Of course, if we had politicians with 'cojones'.............


Update: The Hansard report can be read here. It will be noticed the Liberal Democrats appear to have abstained en-masse*. Ana the Imp has two posts on the subject of the European Union here and here, from the second of which I reproduce a cartoon which seems to encapsulate all that is wrong with the euro and the european union.

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 translation of

"Being in Europe but not run by Europe" and "the necessity of being in Europe in order to influence events":

*With acks to Max Farquar from whom I 'borrowed' the above, his title being Ventriloquist and his dummy