Category Archives: Cameron

Outflanked.

Posted on by
3

So, what did we learn courtesy of Dave’s little turn this morning? I reckon we’ve learned that our PM is pretty gullible or is wilfully misunderstanding that which is before him. The speech started with a load of waffle about the post war era and name checked NATO only once, perpetuating the whole ‘EU is the bulwark of peace’ myth, but as NATO has proven, the enjoyment of peace in Europe is not down purely to the EU, although I am happy to accept it has played a part. However I also have real concerns that the collapse, as it will come, as it inevitably comes for all empires, could be the cause of war in itself.

We’ve learned that our PM believes that the aim of EU is to secure prosperity. Really? OK, it may be its aim, but the idealogical dogma that pervades throughout means that it will not happen. The stats the PM trotted out during the speech back this up, the EU accounts for 7% of global population, 25% of global GDP (although how you can have global gross domestic product is a mystery to me) and is responsible for 50% of ‘social spending’. This is just unsustainable. There is no way that this ideology can lead to prosperity. I think it was Churchill who drew the comparison to nations taxing themselves into prosperity with a man stood in a bucket trying to lift himself off the ground by raising the handle. The scenes in Greece will be repeated continent wide before the edifice collapses, in just the same way as the USSR fell apart.

He believes the EU is an ‘anchor of democracy’. I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.

He believes that an independent UK would be stymied by isolationism. He’s right. However, I don’t think anyone is talking about isolationism, and he very conveniently failed to mention the one word that could prove our salvation, the word that will never be uttered by the pro-EUists, the word that will be kryptonite to the ‘innies’. That word is Commonwealth. We’re already a member of a club that is prosperous, that is (largely) democratic, and, more importantly, actually likes us.

He believes that he can reform the EU. He thinks he can usher in a new age of competitiveness, whilst ignoring that competitiveness is anathema to the vested interests in the EU, French politicians in thrall to farmer’s reliance on CAP for example. He wants to scale back on the directives, but the directives are life blood of EU, there can be no scaling back. Bureaucracy is king. He makes the mistake of trying to tell me that the EU is by the member states for the member states, but it just isn’t. It is run by the executive for the executive, this is why his claim that the EU is an ‘anchor of democracy’ is so laughable.

He wants to see more flexibility, but these are autocrats, there cannot be flexibility, only unquestioning obedience to the commissariats. These autocrats don’t want flexibility, for as soon as you allow people to be flexible, the autocrats surrender a degree of control. Everything must be prescribed, measured, regulated and controlled. They just aren’t going to sanction any flexibility.

He wants ever closer union, except for the UK. Cameron seems to think that ECU is good for some member states, but fails to understand, or purposefully ignores, the idea that the individual is subservient to the state in the EU. As far as the EU is concerned what is good for the state is good for the citizen and what is good for state comes second to what is good for the superstate – that being the autocrats.

He talks about democratic accountability, well forget it. They don’t want democracy. They’ve demonstrated this with the Irish referendum and the overthrowing of sitting prime ministers. Democracy returns the ‘wrong answer’ time and again. There is no motivation for any democratic accountability in the EU let alone any meaningful democratic reform. Jesus, this is an organisation with three Presidents and more than a score of Commissioners, over none of those appointments do you or I have any say. Democracy? Rubbish.

He glibly talks of referenda, saying of the EU electorate; ‘They’ve had referendums promised and not delivered’ Et tu, David? That was the point when I realised you weren’t ignorant and were actually malfeasant.

So, Prime Minister, tell me, if you’re in favour of a referendum, why did you whip your MP’s against it? Why no mention of this being a binding referendum?

You say we need to wait until 2017 to be sure of what we are choosing to be a part of or apart from. What we are choosing to be in or out of is simple. The EU will not change, it has no interest in changing. You cannot make it change.

This is hubris of the highest order from Cameron. He will be outflanked, the EU will introduce changes over the next 4-5 years making it even more difficult for us to leave. The EU’s campaign of propaganda to keep us in will start today.

‘It is time for the British people to have their say’ he says. He might as well have added, ‘Well, not quite, in four years or so, if you are all good little drones and vote for me. Then I promise, really really promise, that we will give you a straight in or out referendum, once we’ve ramped the pressure up on you, by telling you that leaving the EU will mean that a paedo will move into your spare bedroom.’

This whole thing is based on the assumption that he will gracefully deliver us a referendum if we vote him back into power. It is cynical, self-serving and given what has gone before in guarantees, I do not believe he can or will deliver on this promise.

Regardless, the EU keep UK in campaign will start today. Watch the EU funding pour into the BBC. See the scare stories come out as the insidious campaign to keep us in starts, paid for from the taxes that are taken from us.

What happens next? France, Germany and Spain made it clear pretty quickly that they aren’t about to negotiate. So a question, what happens when Cameron comes back from the negotiating table with nothing? What if he doesn’t even get to a negotiating table, because nobody consents to sitting round it. Is this referendum being sold on the basis of him getting a deal; therefore if no deal is offered, he can say the conditions for a referendum have not been met?

Just as what form Cameron’s proposed restructure of the EU looks like was vague in the extreme, his response to Miliband’s questions in PMQ’s was ambivalent at best. It would appear that he hasn’t considered the eventually that he will not have a deal to put to us. There’s his get out clause. Sorry folks, I tried. But hey, I got another five years at Number 10, so it’s not all bad!

Miliband was clear that there would be no referendum under Labour. Clegg has said that this is not the right time, but as far as I can see, the right time as far as Clegg is concerned is likely to be when hell freezes over.

It is obvious that the Tories will now sell this as a case of  ’vote UKIP get no referendum’, BUT, how many Labour voters vote for them because they are not the Tories, not because of their EU policy? How many Labour voters having heard Miliband’s response will be sufficiently exercised to go over to UKIP? Let us not forget, the famous Rotherham foster parents had gone to UKIP from Labour. How many people are supporting UKIP not because of EU policy, but because they are significantly different to the other three?

What happens if the Tories win the election, if the negotiations result in a package that can be put to the people, if the people then reject our membership? The EU don’t want us, but they don’t want to lose our money. What happens when the EU declines our resignation? What then? As far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected, the Lisbon Treaty says that withdrawal must be agreed by all member states. Well what if they tell us we can’t leave, in direct contradiction to a referendum result? They’ve got four years to put more obstacles in the way. Are they going to try to keep us in by force of arms? Will they see which way the wind is blowing and try to unseat a PM and get their own man in? Their own man is sat next to the PM on those green benches every Wednesday. Could an Act of Parliament enabling a referendum be repealed after Herself has signed it off but before it has been carried out?

Cameron taking a risk with his job here, but if he was going to be bold, he’d have been better off calling a referendum to run alongside the next General Election. Sure the LibDems would have created merry hell about it, but he could have called their bluff, had the government resign. OK the new fixed term parliaments mean it wouldn’t have led to a General Election, but it would have made life very difficult for both the LibDems and Labour if the Tories declined a request from Her Maj to form a government.

He’s fudged the issue. There are too many imponderables. Too many opportunities to sideline the issue and wriggle out of it, and when push comes to shove, after the ‘Cast-Iron Guarantee’ I just plain old don’t believe him.

My vote sticks with UKIP, because I will vote for what I believe in, not against that which I oppose.

Don’t believe a word.

Posted on by
4

You have a troubled marriage. You married your spouse when things looked their bleakest, when your self-esteem was at its lowest possible ebb. The merest bit of attention was so incredibly welcome that you raced down the aisle with the first person who showed an interest.

Now, on the eve of your 40th wedding anniversary, you review what the last four decades have got you, and you realise that you don’t actually have very much in common with your other half. Your spouse laughs at your sensibilities, at your hopes and dreams, they insult you both in private and in front of their friends. Your contact with your friends and family is strictly monitored and limited. They are not made to feel welcome in your house, meanwhile your spouse’s friends come round as and when they please, staying for as long as they like, eating your food, taking your hard earned money out of your wallet. There is nothing you can do about it.

It is an abusive relationship, and you get to the end of your tether as it becomes clear the relationship isn’t working, it has become toxic, and worst of all your spouse has no desire to consent to a divorce.

And so we find ourselves helplessly wedded to the EU. Yet over the last couple of days it appears that there is the merest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. We’ve been told that perhaps, if we’re lucky, we could get ‘associate membership’ of the EU.

Quite what that means I’m not sure, but to stretch the marital metaphor further, I’m betting it is akin to being given a divorce, but remaining in the same house together, albeit in separate rooms, and being allowed to arrange your bedroom furniture as you see fit. However, you’ve still got to do the cooking, your spouse’s freeloading mates will continue to come round, they’ll be free to stay in your room if they like, and you’ll still be expected to pay the lion’s share of the mortgage, and to pick up the beer and sandwiches tab. Beer and sandwiches that we’ll be prohibited from eating because we wouldn’t be ‘full members’.

The only thing the EU wants more than our fealty and obedience is our cash. They may well be willing to let us slack off on some of the former, but there’s no way in the world they’ll drop a penny piece of the latter.

I’m also willing to bet that the few powers that we manage to claw back under ‘associate membership’ would be subject to punitive restrictions, ifs, buts and maybes. There’d also be a good deal of smoke and mirrors, and I’m betting that a lot of stuff that is filed under headings like ‘employment’ and so forth will find itself filed under ‘single market’, and as an associate member, I’m betting there would be bugger all we could do about it.

When Cameron makes his much trailed Europe speech this month, he’ll be full of tough talking and blah blah blah, but don’t believe a word of it.

One thing I will say in favour of being a full member of the EU is that at least we can act as some sort of brake, even if it is only temporarily. I’m certain that if we signed up to associate membership, we’d be stitched up like a kipper.

Have no doubt, Cameron would sell this as a huge victory, but it is a find the lady game.

The EU will not consent to us renegotiating our membership, threat of in/out referendum or no, without them coming out on top. They just won’t. The only way we will remain full or associate members of their club is on their terms, and if we go for associate membership, they will make us pay through the nose for it, ensuring we have the minimum level of sovereignty and access with the maximum level of compliance and responsibility.

Like all abusive spouses, they thrive on control and making their other half feel worthless and undesirable, and if they can’t have us exclusively, they’ll make sure we’re so ugly that nobody will else want us.

When Cameron makes his big speech, don’t believe a word of it. He will offer us a deal before going to referendum, rather than going to the table with a referendum result in his pocket. He will sell us short. He will not be out manoeuvred, because he is on their side, not his country’s. He will give us up willingly.

He will present it as his great statesman moment, and I hope to god his party membership see through this sleight of hand on Cameron’s part, because it is them he is really trying to shaft. I’m sure Farage will make a big noise about it when the time comes, and I hope he plays it well, because Cameron and his buddies are staking their future on Farage and UKIP dropping the ball.

There can be no re-negotiation, the EU have nothing to gain. The EU will give nothing. There can be no ‘associate membership’. We can only take back, we cannot ask for things back, for they will not be given. There can only be in or out.

This middle way of associate membership is the very worst of both worlds.

The biggest red herring of all.

Posted on by
5

Paul Smyth writes an engaging piece over at the official UKIP site, and it’s got me thinking about things on a more general level.

Essentially he talks about Obama’s victory speech, where one of the soundbites is that “among a short list of recent or anticipated positive developments he heralded the ending of a ‘decade of war’. It was a popular remark and those outside the US should pay attention to the strong sentiment behind it – America has had enough of foreign military interventions.”

He then counterpoints this with Cameron’s announced “willingness to talk with armed rebels inside Syria. This is a remarkable and ominous development. The UK will now be in direct support of one side fighting a savage civil war, a willing participant in bringing about regime change in a foreign country.” Smyth quite correctly counsels caution into jumping into any direct support or military engagement in Syria.

However, I think he makes a massive miscalculation.

That miscalculation being that I do not think it sensible for one moment to take Obama at his word. Obama is a classic statist, and like all statists the only thing he likes to do more than telling his own population what to do is to tell the governments and populations of other countries what to do.

I cannot think of a four year period post-WWII where either the US nor the UK has not had troops in active service on foreign soil. Be it under Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Labour administrations, both countries are hopelessly, helplessly wedded to throwing their weight around.

Now this doesn’t mean that I think the regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua, (Former) Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, Egypt or anywhere else were particularly nice or desirable, because I don’t. But just as both the UK and the US have a great deal of qualities in common, we also have this weakness of not being able to resist wading into a good old barney, either because a regime is properly nasty or because we have an economic interest in its overturning or survival. Worse still is the concept that someone is doing something we don’t agree with in ‘our sphere of influence’. It is this word, influence, which troubles me most.

One of the most used arguments against our leaving the EU is that it would reduce our ‘influence’.

Well, why do we need it? Think about it. Reduce it to a domestic level.

I have a friend, a Tory, but nobody is perfect, who likens our membership of the EU to the street on which he lives. ‘I like my neighbours’ he says, ‘I’m friends with most of them, but I don’t want them having the keys to my house and being able to move into my spare room when the mood takes them.’ I think that’s a useful parallel to draw. If we accept that as a completely sensible statement, then I’d ask the question ‘do you have or do you want to exercise influence over what your neighbours do, over how they live their lives?’

As far as I’m concerned, if I live at number 27, I don’t care how the people in number 1 live their lives, how they run their household, as long as it doesn’t have a detrimental impact on how I live and how I run my house. I don’t need influence over them, nor do I want it. I’ve enough on my plate running my own house.

More importantly, slagging off number 1 to all the other residents on the street, and going round, kicking in their front door and laying down the law is not going to win me any friends. Indeed number 1 is likely to be friends with a few houses down the street as well, and I may find that I upset them. Really upset them. I may find that my windows get put through.

We’ve been warned that we run the risk of ending up like Norway or Switzerland. Well, good. They are prosperous beacons of liberty, I prefer the Swiss model to the Norwegian, but I’d still swap places with Norway in a heartbeat. Ask yourself, why are Norway and Switzerland like they are? It isn’t all down to their non-membership of the EU.

These are two nations whose people are, pretty much, welcome, respected, even liked, all over the world. Nobody has a bad word to say about Norway or Switzerland. Why? Both countries have long records of not shouting the odds and making a pain in the arse of themselves.

Civil liberties among the Swiss and Norwegians are among the best in the world, barring one obvious exception (and nobody can ever legislate for the domestically seriously mentally disturbed) I cannot think of any major terrorist attack in either country. Come to that, I cannot think of any minor attack or any plots uncovered. Could this possibly be down to the fact that they don’t go wading in where they’re not welcome, not needed and have no business being?

We are in a situation that becomes like Northern Ireland or Israel/Palestine, it becomes a circular argument, we bomb and shoot them because they want to ‘attack our freedoms and way of life’ and they bomb and shoot us because we seek to impose our moral code upon them. It isn’t sustainable for either side, the only outcome is misery, death, loss of freedom and general despair. Every incident hardens the line taken by us and increases the number who can be recruited by them.

We used to have the greatest empire in the world. But we’re not that country any more. Who appointed us the world’s PCSO (assuming America is the self-appointed world’s policeman)? Why would we want that role? There’s nothing to be gained from it. All we do is piss people off.

Just as with France, we’ve struggled to come to terms with the fact that we’re not the biggest boy in the playground any more. This isn’t a source of regret, it is something we should celebrate, something we should embrace. Just like Norway and Switzerland we can sit there and do our own thing, offering advice to those who come and seek it, and being steadfast in the promise that if anyone attacks our friends in NATO, or certainly our brethren in the Anglosphere Commonwealth, that we will unleash the full force of our fury against them. We can defend ourselves and our nearest and dearest whilst leaving others to do what they see fit.

It isn’t about pulling the shutters down, it is about acting in the best interests of the people who live in this country and acting in a fashion which is commensurate with our place in the world.

One of the UKIP policies is increasing the military budget, but surely if we have an armed force which is almost exclusively for national defence, that is superbly equipped and the best trained in the world, then no increase is needed if we just stop our troops from being sent halfway round the world to play silly buggers in an unwinnable campaign?

Yes, give us the new aircraft carriers, and the aircraft to go on them, we need to be the sleeping dog that people will absolutely want to let lie. I take our NATO membership incredibly seriously, it is without doubt the most important organisation we belong to, NATO and the promise of mutually assured destruction with the Warsaw Pact prevented continent-wide war in the latter half of the 20th century to an immeasurably bigger degree than the EU ever did, would or could. However we don’t need to be haring off to the next trouble spot whenever the call goes out. We don’t have the resources, we shouldn’t have the inclination and I would argue it works against our interests far more often than it serves them.

Both Obama and Cameron are cookie cutter Western politicians, obsessed with holding office and once they’ve got that, obsessed with legacy. They are consumed with how they will be remembered. Blair and Bush will be remembered for Iraq. Eden for Suez. Johnson and Nixon for Vietnam. Obama and Cameron, given the opportunity, will be no different.

Don’t for one minute think that Obama will spend his second term not getting involved. The first term is spent seeking re-election. The second term is good old legacy building. Obama will have his moment, it may be Iran, it may be Syria, it may be somewhere else entirely. But he won’t be able to stop himself, because he will believe that only he can save these poor people in Whereverland from tyranny and evil, and we will go trotting along, as we always do, because our PM, whoever it is, will want a slice of that lovely legacy pie.

The Norwegians and Swiss will do a bit of skiing, have a nice dinner, and put their kids to bed without worrying if the bus on the way to the office is going to be blown up, or about how much of their wage will be taken off them this month to pay for all those missiles and bullets. Nobody will think ill of them.

Influence? You can keep it.

Pity poor Armando.

Posted on by
3

I feel sorry for poor old Armando Ianucci. Without doubt the current series of the Thick of It has been a triumph, it really has been one of the best things I’ve seen on TV in a long time. However I think he’s about to be surpassed as a scriptwriter. How can he compete with our very own Prime Minister?

It’s the only explanation for the total boneheaded stupidity we’ve seen coming from him and his immediate circle these past few days, with the exception of the explanation that our PM is totally boneheaded and stupid – a variable I am not about to dismiss.

Not only has there been the re-statement of his marriage to the EU in the most recent summit in Brussels (and there are so many summits nowadays that I’m starting to suspect that the whole continent is shaped like a giant bar of Toblerone) whilst he pretends to us that he might have had enough. . .

Actually. . .

Given their history, does it seem fair to draw a comparison with him telling the EU he loves them, and him telling us that he’s getting a bit sick of it, and a Tory MP telling his wife he loves her whilst he tells his bit on the side that he’s thinking of leaving the missus? That would make the British public the bit on the side, seems quite accurate to me.

Anyhow, not only that, but there’s been the whole Gideon on a choo-choo episode, swiftly followed by the ‘resignation’ of Mitchell for being a disrespectful potty mouth to the police, although he didn’t swear (as he claimed in PMQ’s), but he did (as he claimed to the Police Fed). Is this a Tory MP coming out with the equivalent of no, but, yeah, but, no, but, yeah? Had it been some lad clad in a kappa tracksuit called Jayden, or something, being a disrespectful potty mouth to the police, then a custodial sentence would have been called for by Dave and his party.

There was also the episode whereby the PM, it would seem, made up energy policy on the hoof and in the heat of battle. Energy suppliers must offer customers the lowest tariff? Really? And how long has the Conservative party been in the business of telling private business what they may offer? If you really want to have a pop at the utilities, ask them how their repeated price hikes are consistent with their record profits, ask them how it is possible for the rise in wholesale gas prices to be reflected immediately yet when the wholesale price drops it is not reflected at all. Ask them how it is they get away with acting in a fashion which is little better than a cartel. But first you’d better ask your MPs how many of them have, or have designs on, a non-exec post. Don’t want to do anything to upset your old mates, do you?

No, not content with overseeing the absolute disaster of a week, I see in the Telegraph today that he’s had an even more stupid idea.

Owners of private prisons who fail to stop prisoners re-offending will be fined, under new plans to be announced by David Cameron.

*golf clap*

Really?

So, let me get this right, some scrote gets nicked, prosecuted and convicted. He is then sent to prison. Now, unless I missed a memo, the prisons themselves don’t get a choice over which villain they get, do they? There isn’t an 11+ for crims, is there? I can only imagine the uproar if private prisons came with a selective policy.

So, let us assume that is John McScrote’s fifth spell at Her Maj’s. How the hell are they supposed to stop re-offending? The public sector prisons haven’t managed it, so how are the private sector ones supposed to?

You really want to fine a prison because one of the people you sent there has been a bit naughty for the umpteenth time? It’s your government that’s only making people serve half their sentence. It’s your government that has made an open prison down here more like a bloody pop-in centre, where spending the night seems to be somehow optional (Just Google Blantyre House, I’ve stayed in Pontin’s camps with a more hardline chalet policy). And you want to fine prisons because someone they were told to put up for a few weeks has been naughty again?

Why stop there? Why not fine the Acme jemmy and swag bag company for burglary facilitation?

Under the slogan ‘Tough But Intelligent’, the Prime Minister will signal a tougher approach to law and order by declaring “retribution is not a dirty word”.

Tough. But. Intelligent.

Just reflect on that.

Tough. But. Intelligent.

No, me neither.

It is real ‘quiet bat people’ stuff.

Poor old Armando, at this rate the Bafta for best satirical comedy will be picked up by Dave&Gideon Productions (Westminster) Ltd. He doesn’t stand a chance.

I’m implementing all the right policies, just not necessarily in the right order.

Posted on by
2

The problem with a professional political class is that when it is their turn to hold power they have this irresistible desire to do things. Even more annoyingly they then contrive to do all the wrong things.

They just cannot leave things alone. Little wonder really when we hear the howls of outrage from the media when an MP sticks their head over the parapet and suggests a shorter week or day, or longer holiday. Here’s us all slaving until two years after we’re dead, and these bastards have voted themselves another week off. But on balance I’d rather have the MPs sitting on the beach at Dawlish, brooding on how they’ve got to spend a week screwing the wife instead of their SpAd, than have them sat around at Westminster doing things.

This government seems to be especially bad at doing things. That is to say that it seems to do rather a lot. The past few weeks has seen more u-turns than the London to Brighton rally for people with no sense of direction. In the normal scheme of things I’m not adverse to a u-turn, I see nothing wrong with a politician standing up and saying, ‘look, this isn’t working’ or ‘new data shows it won’t work, so we’re dumping it. Good job we figured it out now, eh?’ I understand that politicians are (for want of a better word) human, and humans make mistakes. Surely it is better for someone to realise a mistake and correct it than to pretend there’s nothing wrong and press on for fear of being seen as ‘weak’?

Of course this being Westminster the other side hoots and points, like infantile pupils in a lesson where one of their classmates has made a mistake, as if their shit doesn’t stink, and we then have the even more ridiculous sight of the u-turner wriggling around on the end of a fish hook trying to persuade everyone that it isn’t a u-turn, that this was what they intended all along, that the other side really weren’t paying attention, and anyway the Honourable member for Plaart spends every morning sat in the House Master’s study in tears because Ponsonby Majority put a weasel in his bed, again.

However this government has now gone beyond stretching credibility. Indeed it has stretched credibility so far it has snapped and flown back in its face leaving an unsightly red mark on the cheek. The latest one is the whole forests thing. It isn’t so much the argument over whether they should be sold or not, as long as they retain that foresty quality it doesn’t much matter who owns them, not selling them to the Rapacious Paper and Furniture Company Ltd would be a good start, but really beyond that I have no strong feelings. One of the reasons they were considering selling them is because of the cost of managing them. This is the sort of thing that drives me up the wall. Forests just stand there, being all green and full of trees and fox shit, how much managing do they need?

Yes I know some people will talk about arboreal disease and competition on the woody floor, coppicing and the like, but it always strikes me that this is the nature of, well, nature. It is typical human arrogance to suppose that man can do a better job of managing a forest than nature can. Nature has been doing it for millennia we’ve been doing it for the geological equivalent of the time it takes to eat a creme egg. Yes, some plant species will die out, but this is evolution, this is how things work. There is some woodland just a couple of miles down the road from me here, it has probably been there for ever, but if I went back in time two million years that spot of woodland would look very different to how it looks now, it will have evolved and changed, but like Trigger’s broom would, still be the same woodland.

Like these patches of woodland, we too are prodded and poked in a cack handed attempt to manage us, to make us fit some sort of utopian ideal that doesn’t exist, will never exist, has never existed and completely disregards our own nature.

Meanwhile, the man who has decided it is his job to fashion us into this ideal doesn’t seem to know if it is arsehole or Christmas time. I’ve been meaning to blog about his Euro . . . I was going to use the word posturing, but that suggests a degree of standing still, perhaps I’ll go for a mediaeval serf who is wibbling about the place because he’s eaten some grain with an interesting fungal growth infecting it. But every time I sit down to do it, we’ve got another message. Thus far over the last few days we’ve had:

  • No referendum
  • No referendum unless the transfer of power triggers one
  • A referendum after a renegotiation
  • A referendum before a renegotiation
  • A referendum ‘when the time is right’
  • A referendum after the next election
  • A referendum alongside the next election
  • A referendum that isn’t a straight in/out referendum (which makes me wonder what the question will be, perhaps ‘do you want to stay in the EU?’ With the options being yes and maybe.)

And now this morning we discover that he’s talking about imposing border controls on Greeks if Greece leaves the Euro.

*speechless*

Note, that’s the not the EU, that’s the Euro. By the same token we should be turning away Danes and Swedes because they aren’t in the Euro either. He just thinks we’re going to ignore our obligations under the treaties and have staff at the border say ‘Sorry, Stavros, you can’t come in.’

Really, this man is supposedly competent enough to run the country, and never mind a collection of trees, I wouldn’t trust him to manage A tree.

He’s even more mental, or just a liar.

Posted on by
1

(Wolfers’ note: Apologies for the radio silence recently, this has been down to variously; work on the aforementioned project, which if not bearing fruit is seeing the blossom drop off and the little proto-apples starting to form, a holiday and a change of ISP which resulted in some down-time.)

I always remember my history lessons at school, it was a subject I enjoyed a great deal, this was down in no small part to an excellent and engaging teacher. I remember the great emphasis he put on the concept of self-determination in the context of the end of the Great War. Of course the important point was that nations had the right to self determination, rather than their population, but even as a teenager I was asking the question ‘what is a nation if not the population that resides therein?’

As is right it has been announced that the three thousand or so inhabitants of the Falkland Islands will be (once again) asked in a referendum if they wish to remain British or become part of Argentina. I’ve a shiny fifty peso note that says it will not be legal tender in Port Stanley any time soon. As is also right, the Prime Minister has come out and said that he will support the outcome of said referendum.

Well, that’s very magnanimous of you, Dave. I understand that acting upon the will of the electorate is a novel concept for you, especially given that you were so adamant we shouldn’t be allowed a say on our own futures, that you tried to whip all your MPs through the lobby to prevent us from doing so.

Yet in a startling display he’s come out and made what must either be one of the most delusional or deceitful statements I can remember a Prime Minister making. Yesterday he (or more accurately, his spokeswoman) said that ‘But in terms of our membership of the EU, he feels that is not something we should have a referendum on now. That is not something that the British people want right now.‘

That really is up there with Brown’s claims of abolishing boom and bust. The thing is with Brown I honestly believe he thought he had, I really do think that Brown was unhinged, with Cameron I think it was a bare faced lie because he’s so wedded to the project, I have little doubt that he is either a staunch supporter of the EU project, or having one of their placemen sat next to him, he looks at what happened to the leaders in Greece and Italy and figures that his fate would be the same were he to push that button. Either way, it seems obvious to me that his continuing employment as PM is a greater priority to him than the sovereignty and prosperity of the country he is supposed to serve.

Yesterday the Express was running a story that 80% of people now want a referendum on our membership of the EU. That doesn’t equate to 80% of us want out, I would imagine that a large proportion of that number want to be able to cast a vote explicitly in favour of the status quo, but their opinion is just as important as mine, and it seems only just to me that people should have the opportunity to say yes, no or meh.

Even if there’s a large degree of inaccuracy in the poll, that still equates to a public opinion that is clearly and hugely at odds with the PM’s assertions. Given the spike the PM had in his popularity in using the veto that wasn’t over the treaty that isn’t, surely his best bet of holding onto the big chair is to play this card, and the fact that he is so dead set against doing so speaks more about his claims of Euroscepticism than anything else could.

It isn’t going to be long until there’s a race between the big two to be the first to offer the referendum.

If the Tories came out and offered it first, would I vote for them? Not a chance, because I’m convinced that they and Labour, would have a question on the paper not a million miles removed from the voting reform referendum, it’s going to be ‘Do you want the status quo, or do you want to re-negotiate?’ And as anyone in business will tell you, there’s a world of difference between negotiating a deal and actually getting one.

I’m not going to be cancelling my UKIP membership any time soon, because I have no confidence in the big two to deliver.

Anyone but Boris.

Posted on by
1

No, I’m not about to say how important it is to me that Livingstone wins the London election, as I said the other day, it doesn’t really matter to me who wins the big chair, as surprising as this may be to inhabitants of London, some people do live outside it. That being said, as a UKIP member, I’d really rather quite like to see Lawrence Webb get the gig. But what is important to me is who doesn’t get the job.

It has without doubt been a terrible week for the Prime Minister, and I’ve a sneaking suspicion it is going to get a hell of a lot worse. It’ll be interesting to see how close this whole Murdoch/Hunt thing gets to him, certainly I don’t expect to see Hunt hanging around after Thursday’s elections.

As foolish as it was, and as mad as he is, this whole episode has, to an extent, vindicated Vince Cable’s declaration of war on Murdoch. There’s not much that the Limp Dims can use to lord it over Camermong but this is a nasty little needle that could hit some very tender spots.

Then there’s the the proposed 6.8% increase in the EU budget, he is a self-declared Eurosceptic, but to be honest I’d give more credence to a claim from George Galloway that he was going to train as a Rabbi. He’ll huff and puff, stamp his little foot and at the end of the day give the EU exactly what they want.

Cameron’s no idiot and neither are the EU, it’s a game, a negotiation, the figure wanted is probably closer to 5%, so that’s what they’ll settle for. What annoys me, and no doubt the Tory membership, is that he thinks we haven’t figured that out and he’ll try and sell it as a big victory for the eurosceptic PM. Bollocks.

Then there’s the House of Lords thing, Cameron is happy to let us have a referendum on the House of Lords, but I can hear the howls of frustration from within and without the Tories if he peddles a referendum there having blocked a referendum on our EU membership.

I find myself wondering how many Tories, given the botched election and everything else that has followed, wish they’d backed David Davies instead now?

And so we come to Boris. I’m firmly of the opinion that Boris was given the Conservative candidacy for the Mayor’s job in the hope that he would win just to keep him out of the way. Boris is an easy figure to lampoon but he’s a dangerous man, especially if you’re a German defensive midfielder, and there’s something about the guy that you just can’t help liking – certainly in a way that Cameron and Osborne could never be liked. There’s no amount of PR preening and spin packaging could change that, Boris just has the X factor and the party membership undoubtedly love him.

I can see Boris being welcomed with open arms by the constituency party in the first half safe seat that comes up for grabs at by-election should he lose the London election. The fact that he had lost that election wouldn’t taint him, it would all be Cameron’s fault. Once he re-entered Westminster then the sport would begin, I don’t suggest that he’d be an agitator, but the guy is a lightning rod and unusually for a modern politician, when asked an opinion he’ll give it, for good or ill.

A Conservative PM that has Boris Johnson knocking around the benches would have to pull their socks up pretty smartish, because I can see the hesitant buffoonish puffing as he flatly denies any leadership designs at all, but then the clamour becomes louder and louder, and well, people have been so kind in their praise and everyone’s gone to such a lot of trouble it seems rather ungrateful not to get the old cricket bat out and see if the ball can’t be mowed down to cow corner, doesn’t it?

Without doubt I find the prospect of Boris as PM a damn sight more appealing that Cameron, but just his mere presence could cause Cameron to adjust his game significantly.

For that reason, denizens of London, for the good of the country, vote for anyone but Boris.

Oh for the love of God (part 3405).

Posted on by
4

Bloody bankers bloody bonuses.

Right, point one. It is no business of the government or the population what a private business pays its employees. None. At all. Institute what amounts to a maximum wage and those top earners, many of whom will own those businesses, and those businesses are likely to be multi-nationals, will simply pack up and piss off. The result? People out of work, tax take down, benefits bill up. Bloody cut it out, unless you want the private sector to start setting public sector pay and conditions. No? Didn’t think so.

Point two, and I don’t know how often I’ve said this. The bankers are not the only ones with blame in our current bloody mess. Yes they made poor decisions, but nothing they did was against the rules in the UK or the EU. It’s all very well calling for someone to end up behind bars, but no laws have been broken. Indeed most of the actions carried out by the banks were done as a result of incitement from the government. Blair, Brown and Miliband were stood on the sidelines cheering them on. Let us not forget, this was a government that had abolished boom and bust. Brown was right, now we only have bust.

If I hear one more person say that the banks performed so poorly that they had to bailed out I’ll. . . I’ll. . . I’ll douse a kitten in petrol and set it aflame. OK? They did not have to be bailed out. Savings up to some huge amount were protected, and anyone who has much above six figures in one bank is a bloody idiot. Banks fail, or rather they used to. It was the politicians who went running with our cheque book, the bankers did not rip it from them. The shareholders did not exercise significant enough control over the boards that they bloody elected. Well you know what? Tough. You lose. But they didn’t, we did. Because politicians are morons who think they can solve any problem when the truth is they cause more problems than anything else in this world.

Point three, the game changes once a company finds the majority of its shares in public hands, that is bought by the government with money taken from me and you without so much as a by-your-leave.

Now, it seems staggering to me that any individual, especially a de-facto public servant can be looking to trouser the very, very thick end of a million quid in bonuses. If I were going to sign that sort of deal off I’d need to see some pretty fucking impressive and compelling evidence first.

But, and it is a big but:

Point four, old wossisname at RBS is contractually entitled to this bonus. For the leader of the opposition and the union leaders to come out and demand that the government breach that contract, a contract which it must be pointed out was negotiated and signed by the Labour government, is unbelievable.

The unionists, sat there with indignant snarls on their faces are the same people chasing HM Government through the courts over what they claim are breaches of contract regarding public sector terms, conditions and pensions.

Well, which is it? Is the government obliged to honour contracts or is it not? If it is, then all these bankers must get their bonuses (and it isn’t as if they’re getting cold, hard cash, these are future shares, dependent upon results until they mature, so it is the interest of the evil capitalist baby killing rapist bastards bankers to ensure they get the job done) this also means that the government must abide by the T&C’s of public sector contracts. If it is not obliged to honour contracts then the bankers can have their bonuses ripped away, but there must not be a murmur when the same is done to civil servants (and I write as a civil servant).

Now of course the unionists would have you believe that the civil servants are different. They are an exception. And this, dear reader, is one of the hallmarks of authoritarianism and socialism; the law is absolute up until such time as it becomes an inconvenience, then the chosen ones are an exception. Under socialism the law is a tool to form society as required, not a blind force applied with equality and without fear or favour.

Boris has waded in and said that Hester’s contract should be ‘re-negotiated’. Errrm, Boris, I think he’ll say no, then what are you going to do? Come on, you’re a smart chap, you got a scholarship to Eton, you know better than that. Can we not just stop the political grandstanding and actually employ some thought here?

Speaking of grandstanding, for Miliband to be banging on about a contract that was signed when he was in the bloody treasury is chutzpah of the highest order. Really Ed, did you think we wouldn’t remember where you were three short years ago? Or are you going to stick the knife into Gordon and old badger eyebrows? Go on, you know you want to.

He really is remarkable, not only is he worse than Cameron, which is no mean feat in itself, he’s even worse than Clegg, a man who has in a year destroyed an entire political party. At least Clegg has had the sense to keep fairly schtum about this, but Miliband, well, so dim is this man that he doesn’t notice the bandwagon is in the area, even though its band is playing ‘Happy Bandwagons Are Here Again’ at great volume. It’s only once it’s gone past and is half a mile down the road that he realises he should have jumped on, because this morning he was banging on about. . . Terry’s Chocolate Oranges.

Yes, while everyone was talking about the big story, Ed was talking about confectionery. The BBC reported it breathlessly as usual, although it soon slipped down the order paper. Do go and read the article, it really is quite remarkable. To show that he isn’t at all out of touch, he thinks that WH Smith sells fruit. Yes, really.

The whole thing stems from something similar that Cameron was bleating about when he was in opposition. And Ed, just because David did it in opposition doesn’t mean you have to. It was stupid then, it’s even more stupid now. If David had put his winkie in a food blender in opposition, would you do it now? Actually don’t answer that, because if you really think that forcing WH Smith to sell oranges because we’ve ‘got to change the rules’ is a good idea I can see you reaching for the magi-mix.

For the love of God, can we not just lock the bloody lot of them in the Houses of Parliament and wait for it to sink? No-one would miss them.

Careful now.

Posted on by
1

On Friday morning there was unanimity, as far as Clegg was concerned Cameron had taken the only path available to him, it was regrettable but his hand was forced.

This morning, he’s blown his top as the Observer reports and as the man himself made perfectly clear on the BBC.

Meanwhile Douglas Alexander appears to have been wheeled out with the impossible job of pushing a Labour line that doesn’t, as far as I can make out, exist.

Whether Cameron has done the right thing or not remains to be seen, I think he has. However what is fairly certain is that he has done the popular thing.

Politicians get very sniffy about populist policy decisions, this is no surprise, because as far as they’re concerned, it is our job to accept their decisions, not their job to act on our wishes. But of course doing the popular thing makes you, well, popular.

The opinion polls make it clear that Cameron has significant backing for his actions, not only in his use of the veto, but also that most people want him to go further. Working on a +/- ratio of 2% in the accuracy of the figures it is clear that the British people have had enough of the EU.

Clegg seems to have chosen to have a scrap to appease his party’s members, while at the same time Cameron is lambasted by leading LibDems for doing exactly the same thing.

He needs to be very careful. Cameron has had a taste of the crowd cheering for him and he may get a taste for it, especially as he’s had nothing but brickbats since he took the job on.

Clegg’s actions since the election has led to an enormous drop off in support for him and his party, whereas Cameron has seen a significant bounce in the last few days. Cameron has also demonstrated that he will fight back when he’s backed into a corner.

The LibDems are on life support and the next election is likely to see the plug pulled, Labour are in disarray and whilst still on level terms with the Tories (having been in front before the latter half of the week) don’t have the stomach, squad or the stamina for an election fight right now.

If Clegg forces the issue, and Cameron mounts a strong Eurosceptic campaign, he could easily cash in on his new found bounce, that would probably bounce higher if he indulged in the sort of grandstanding we’ve seen from under threat Sarkozy over the last few weeks. A snap election with Cameron taking advantage of the current mood and the weakness of both the LibDems and Labour could see the Conservatives return a very slender majority, but one that could also be supplemented by the Eurosceptic Ulster Unionists.

What has led me to think this way this morning is seeing the smoke from the LibDem broadside clearing and a crowd of the LibDem great and good sticking the boot in before adding ‘but a general election now would be a disaster for the economy’.

Are you sure you want to call his bluff?

This smacks of desperation to me, just as Cameron has picked a fight and will need to see it through to the end, if Clegg and his pals want to pick a fight, they too need to deal with the consequences of that – it is a fight they simply cannot win. So just like Cameron they need to put up with what is on offer or walk away.

Clegg is playing with fire, and he’s doing it on the back of a subject where their opinions and policies are completely at odds with the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

No doubt, like all politicians who get booted out, the LibDems would act with incredulity that people had a different opinion to them, and despite having little support would still stand on the sidelines shouting that what they want is what people want.

It’s going to be an interesting few months. . .

Time to go.

Posted on by
2

And now the fingers are pointed. The €uro cannot be saved. It was, as I and many others said at the time, fatally flawed from the outset. However, so heavily wedded are the powers that be to their vanity project that they just cannot countenance letting it die with even the merest shred of dignity.

This is no longer about the salvation of a fragile currency, what we have seen this morning is a battle over the very future and context of the EU. This is a scrap over what the EU should look like, and what the unelected, unmandated, anti-democratic comptrollers of the EU want is total control of the nations that constitute the union.

Maybe they do honestly think that handcuffing 27 nation states together will mean everlasting peace in Europe. Maybe they honestly believe that it is the only way that Europe can face up to the fact that after 1000 years we are no longer the most important show in town. Maybe it is because they just have an all consuming desire to control a continent with the minimum of all that democracy rubbish. I neither know nor care.

What I do know is this, Sarkozy continues to moan and whine about les Anglo-Saxons and has once again seen fit to attack our Prime Minister in a quite astounding fashion. A fashion that we would not even use to describe Mugabe or Kim. It highlights a very unattractive character trait in Sarkozy, he’ll stamp his little foot, have a paddy, accuse us of everything he can think of and then slink off to his bedroom and dream up a scheme whereby he can get at us anyway.

Look, I’m not going to give Cameron huge credit here, by standing firm and giving a gentle ‘no’ he has done the very least I would expect any Prime Minister to do. It is encouraging to see that he has developed a tiny little pair of proto-testicles but this merits no more than a C- in my book.

However, this single act of defiance whilst being a very mild rebuke from our point of view, is a huge and inexcusable slap in the face from the EU’s perspective, and they will seek to get their revenge upon us. To not do what we are told without hesitation is beyond the pale and they will be gunning for us. In their eyes, Cameron has gone round their gaff, drunk their spirits cupboard dry, shagged their 18 year old daughter and shat in the bed. Our name really is mud now.

If Cameron wants to develop his proto-testicles into something a little more impressive, perhaps with some downy hair, then the next slight that is thrown his way around the table will see him stand up, declare that he is putting the question of our membership to the country and walk out. He needs to do it bloody quick, because the EU will now be looking at removing him as they did Papandreou and Berlusconi. Remember they have one of their own sat next to him round the cabinet table and they will be moving heaven and earth in an attempt to find a way to squeeze him in to Cameron’s big chair.

As for a referendum? Well, there can be no half measures now. It is clear that we cannot continue in this stance of being sort of in, we cannot continue to attempt to negotiate opt outs and the like, we cannot now remain a member of the EU but a ‘€uro-out’ member. We are now more marginalised than we have ever been. We have a simple choice to make, we are either right out, like Switzerland or right in, €uro and all.

Neither the UK nor the EU can allow the status quo to continue much longer.

Today also sees the accession of Croatia to the EU. They must be wondering what the bloody hell they’ve let themselves in for. I’m not sure what the ratification process is in Croatia, but I really hope they get a referendum before jumping in.