Brexit - Let Battle Commence

It's started. The President of the European Parliament (how many presidents does the EU have or need?) has said that the EU Parliament will veto any deal reached between the UK and the EU negotiators, before the discussions have even started. That's EU democracy for you!

If this report is true, our PM had better send a second letter saying that
a. Any discussions have been rendered pointless  by this proposed veto and
b. The UK has no intention of wasting our Ministers' and Civil Servant's time on such pointless discussions because
c. The British public won't tolerate waiting two years for what could be done tomorrow.
d. Therefore she is formally informing them that we will be leaving the EU and reverting to WTO trading rules as soon as possible.

Just to add to the fun, the French President has demanded that we pay the "divorce bill" up front before they will be prepared to start trade talks; as we've said we won't pay it follows that there won't be any trade talks so providing yet another reason for sending a second letter as above.

Meanwhile the German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has said he will take the UK to the International court of Justice at the Hague if we don't cough up! At the same time, he says that he has fears that a 'Hard' Brexit will cause a financial crash – which could have dire implications for the struggling Eurozone. Talk about "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" as my old mum would have said!

And for the last laugh, Jean-Claude Juncker has issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States  that EU could break up the US!

All this idiocy would make a good comedy show for television were not the issues so serious.  Perhaps it's time for Boris to get involved, I'm sure that he could come up with something equally outrageous!

Brexit letter sent at long last!

It has taken nine months since the referendum on Brexit.
The letter required under Article 50 of the EU treaty has been sent; not just sent but handed over by the British Ambassador to the European Council President, Donald Tusk, in person. No chance to mess around claiming it was lost in the post or any such rubbish, it was delivered in full view of the media!

Rather strangely, the BBC web site only provides the first page of the letter, with the Prime Minister's signature apparently at the bottom of this page and you need to download a pdf to discover the fact that letter comprise six pages, with the signature at the bottom of page six. I can only assume that this is because the rest of the letter is not in accordance with BBC ideas in that it strikes me as being very firm but at the same time making it clear that we have no wish to harm the EU in any way. Somewhat different to the attitude of one of the other EU Presidents, Jean-Claude Juncker, who wishes to see us "punished" for wanting to leave.

The full letter can be viewed on the BBC site at this location.

Any way, after nine months it has happened, I was beginning to doubt whether the letter would ever be sent, especially when it wasn't dispatched the moment that Parliament gave its approval. But it's been delivered, and hopefully in two years time we will be out and free to 'do our own thing' once again.

I notice that the EU is still demanding a huge sum when we leave. If this were a divorce, as much of the media seem to think, surely the lawyers for the party receiving such a claim would immediately lodge a counter-claim and not simply ignore it. The EU has considerable assets in terms of property such as the huge number of buildings it owns in Brussels and elsewhere; surely we should get our share. There is also, one reads, one of the finest wine cellars in Europe; we should demand our share in order to celebrate the completion of Brexit in due course!

Let's hope all goes reasonably smoothly and we are able to reach suitable deals in respect of trade, fisheries, and our citizens living in the EU.

Now all we need to do is to send a similar letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Theresa May's Vision of Brexit

Yesterday Theresa May made her long awaited statement as to what she meant when she said "Brexit means Brexit".  Some say we have had to wait far too long for an indication as to Britain's position, but surely this is Cameron's fault. He was so convinced that the country would vote to remain in the EU that no preparations had been made by the Civil Service for a possible Brexit vote.

 Most of the arguments to date have been over the so-called soft or hard Brexit options, the former appearing to me to be almost the same as remaining a member of the EU under a new name.  She  made it very clear that we wanted to control Britain’s borders and create an immigration system that “serves the national interest”.  And whilst we would like free trade arrangements with the EU, this will not be at the expense of us either having free movement of people or paying vast sums into the EU coffers. Most importantly, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that the UK “will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain”. 

She also said that we do not wish to remain in the existing customs union as we would be required to have the common tariffs with the EU which are designed largely to protect various EU producers from world wide competition. She also pointed out that the existing customs union precludes us from negotiating our own trade agreements with other countries.

Most importantly she said that she prefers 'no deal' rather than a 'bad deal'. This, of course is something that Cameron would never have said which was why he got nowhere in his pre-referendum discussions.

Mrs May made it clear that existing EU laws which applied to this country would be enshrined into UK law and any that were no longer required would subsequently be repealed.  Whilst this would satisfy those workers who were worried about the possible loss of some rights that they had obtained under the EU, I am sceptical about the subsequent repealing of unwanted rules; no legislation ever seems to get repealed!

She said that she expects co-operation to continue on matters like security and other areas of mutual interest. Surely no one is going to oppose such an idea, although with the EU, who knows?

The Remoaners of course found fault with almost everything that she said. Clegg announced that he would vote down the deal in Parliament before talks have even started. So much for democracy, listening to the debate in Parliament and the electors views, 'No, I will vote it down regardless'. Tory MP Ken Clarke claimed that Britain could still find itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court as part of its new trade deal with the EU. And as usual Queen Nicola of Scotland had her moan about wanting to be consulted. They just won't give up and accept the result of the referendum!

Hopefully, regardless of what the High Court says, I believe that Parliament will vote in terms of allowing Mrs May to send the letter required under Article 50, as the alternative would be a snap General Election at a time when every poll suggests that the Tories would get a large majority.

Brussels and the Aftermath

Following the horrific explosions in Brussels, governments of many other European countries have taken more or less the same action as the did following those in Paris. They have called for solidarity and illuminated national monuments in the colours of the Belgian flag. There have been outpouring of grief in the streets of Brussels and elsewhere with flowers being left at many public memorials.

Frankly, if I'd lost someone in these terror attacks, I would be wanting to see my country take somewhat more positive action. I'd be wanting to know how a 'Belgian Citizen' can be deported back from Turkey as being a security risk and then escape the eyes of the authorities, especially as they had been informed of his impending return by the Turks. But so far real action, at least as far as the media and public is concerned has been totally non-existent.

Reading the news today, it is apparent that the intelligence gathering on the continent is not a patch on ours. In spite of the EU, there appears to be very little co-ordination or co-operation even within the individual countries although they are undoubtedly generally  very good in terms of armed response and the like, they are very poor in intelligence.

More telling are the comments made by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, now freed from political restraints, who likened the EU's various intelligence bodies to the 'leakiest ships of state' and colanders riddled with holes. He also added that "Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return". He confirmed his view that Britain would be safer and more secure outside the EU, and that there should be no loss of intelligence from the EU as it was a moral issue not a political matter.

At the same time Defence Minister Penny Mordaunt today claimed Brexit would make Britain safer although her boss disagreed. She took the view that: "We need accountability. And we need our sovereignty back."  "All that is at stake. It's not just that freedom, but our ability also to defend it, which a subject very close to my heart." You certainly can't accuse her of not 'putting her money where her mouth is' as she is a member of the Royal Naval Reserve.

Yesterday, a van load of twenty or more illegal immigrants was stopped on one of the motorways; I should suppose we mast be grateful that they were not fully armed jihadis who had been let through Dover by our virtually non-existent border security. More worrying is that no-one seemed particularly concerned!

Meanwhile, just when one would expect the Prime Minister to be harrying the various departments of state and demanding action, he has decided to chillax in Lanzarote because he needs 'time to think'.

We are fortunate enough to live on an island surrounded by a stretch of water which has always protected us from the actions of those on the Continent. Let us make the most of it

Migration - Turkey is taking the EU for a ride!

According to the latest news, the EU has provisionally come to an agreement with Turkey about the migration which is taking place across the Aegean Sea.

Apparently Turkey will take back any migrants of non-Syrian origin in exchange for the EU taking an equivalent number of Syrian refugees provided they are given a payment of some Three Billion Euros and Turkish citizens being allowed into the EU without visas.

The EU has also agreed to expedite the accession of Turkey to the EU, in spite of it previously having been rejected because of human rights issues, something which has just got worse with Turkey's closure of the only opposition newspaper.

Clearly, not only has this has demonstrated not only that the EU would be incapable of negotiating its way out of the proverbial paper bag, but it has also shown, once again, how feeble Cameron must have been in his negotiations with the EU if he couldn't beat them hands down.

Of course, Cameron has insisted that the UK's opt-out from the passport-free Schengen agreement means that there could be no question of Britain joining any new EU asylum quota process, but it seems quite clear that he hasn't yet received his order from Fuhrer Merkel telling him to accept both the illegal migrants and a few million Turkish citizens.

As every day passes, there is yet another reason  for voting to get out of the EU.

Project Fear - The ony reason for staying in the EU

The latest statement by the 'Remainers' is that if we leave the EU, we will no longer be able to travel freely around the EU, but as usual, they give no reason as to why this should be so.

Indeed, why should it be more difficult that at present, unless any of the EU countries decide to be bloody minded, which I very much doubt. Is it difficult for, say, Americans or Australians to travel to European countries because they're not in the EU? Of course not!

We went to Spain for our honeymoon, far more years ago than I care to remember. We had good old-fashioned blue passports, not the horrible modern EU style paperbacks. The only problem or hold-up was on our return when the BEA Trident blew its centre engine at the end of the runway and we had to wait for a replacement aircraft.

Since then on numerous occasions we toured Europe by car, with the children, finding B&B as we went. There were never any problems, we just had to show our passports and the car's documentation at some of the borders. Hardly any additional great hardship. We've also travelled quite widely outside Europe; Australia, the US and Russian required visas, so what, they still do and this presents no great impediment to travel.

The only reason that I would no longer want to travel to the EU, in general, is that with the plague of migrants, I would be concerned about our safety and it would seem that I'm not alone in this respect. The Austrian media have apparently been reporting concerns at the huge drop in holiday bookings for this summer. Vienna is one of the few European capitals that I've not visited, and it now looks as if I will never get the chance. This situation is unlikely to change whether we are in or out of the EU.

So this year, if we go touring, it is likely to be the Irish republic which seems quite safe if one avoids the rival gangs' gunfire in Dublin. But even here you need a passport so that you can prove you are British, both when entering Ireland and returning home.

Otherwise, it looks like a cruise, but it has to start in the UK as Mrs EP has ear problems and no wish to fly (otherwise we might head off to visit friends in Australia!). But certainly not a cruise to the Mediterranean, would it be safe to walk around the various places that the cruise would visit? Judging by the constant advertising of Mediterranean cruises for the coming summer, I would suspect that I'm not alone in my concerns.

So the only remaining problem now is whether we can get some affordable Holiday Insurance, and that's nothing to do with the EU!

Logic?

We are warned by the G20 that there will be a "Global Shock" if Britain leaves the EU.
We are also told that we couldn't survive by ourselves outside the EU in spite of our having one of the world's largest economies and more than half our trade being with countries outside the EU.

Surely these two statements contradict each other. If our economy is sufficiently large to cause a "Global Shock" as a result of our leaving the EU, surely it is strong enough for Britain to survive outside the EU? I suspect that the main shock will be to the EU's economy when they discover they will no longer get subsidies from the UK.

Cameron's fantasy

In a speech given in Germany, reported in the Telegraph, David Cameron has said that Britain must stay in the European Union to help “confront the evil” of Isil and stand up to countries like North Korea and Russia.

What on earth can the EU do about either that Britain couldn't do outside the EU? The EU made a mess of their dealings with the Ukraine with Russia coming off best from the confrontation. So he wants them to have more dealings with Russia on our behalf when they've already failed once. As for North Korea, I'd hate to think of the EU trying to negotiate with them, they'd probably invite the country to become a member of the EU!

When it comes to Isil, letting several million mainly Muslim migrants from the Middle East and Africa come into the EU when experts suggest that probably one in a hundred is probably an active Isil supporter was a clearly a great idea! We will be confronting them whether we like it or not when they start terrorist attacks.

Indeed, if the EU is proposing to “confront the evil” of Isil and stand up to countries like North Korea and Russia, we would be best out and looking after ourselves.

The money we pay the EU could be far more sensibly used to improve our own security and deal with Isil at home. As for North Korea, what has that got to do with the EU? It is essentially an American problem and nothing whatsoever to do with the EU which is clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur. If the US can't resolve the problem, it would need far more than a miracle for the EU to achieve anything.

Cameron's remarks, like his previous suggestion that the Calais 'Jungle' would move to Britain if we left the EU, but which has since been proved false as it is the subject of an Anglo-French agreement not an EU agreement, will do nothing to help his case for staying in the EU.

Let's have some real reasons to stay in, if there are any, not scare tactics.

'Far Right' or 'Patriotic'

The Daily Express refers today to the "Shocking march of the far-right across Europe as migration fears reach fever pitch".

I would agree that many people across Europe are concerned about the influx of immigrants, and I am amongst those people, but does this make us all 'far-right'? I certainly don't consider that I am far right, I consider that I am a patriot wishing to see my country protect itself against invaders, the majority of whom belong to a religion which preaches ideas which are totally alien to our way of life, and indeed alien to the way of life in most European countries.

Most people would agree there is a need to help genuine refugees from war and violence, but the majority of these invaders are simple economic migrants. We should no more accept them into our country than we should accept someone who decides to camp at the bottom of our garden whilst demanding entry to the house. We defend our personal property against intruders, the State should do likewise with our country.

In the absence of action by the established centralist politicians of all the major parties throughout Europe, who try to be all things to all people, is it surprising that groups of people are coming together to demand action? The leader of just one country within the EU is trying to do something. In Hungary, Viktor Orban, the prime minister, has closed the borders and started the construction of border fences. His view, which I feel is supported by many throughout Europe, is that he is not prepared to allow the mass entry of non-Christians into his country as it would destroy the Hungarian culture and way of live. The EU, of course, condemned this action and issued its usual threats whilst at the same time failing to offer any solution to the problem.

So these days then the media say "Far Right", I think "Patriot".

One Dead Boy

Seventy migrants suffocate in the back of a lorry and everyone metaphorically shrugs their shoulders. One photograph of dead child on a beach and the whole of the EU changes its policy towards migrants.

This video from Nigel Farage is worth watching

The dead boy's family were quite safe in Turkey, a Muslim country, indeed one might even conclude that they were safe in Syria as they went back to bury their son. This shows me that they were economic migrants, nothing else, not refugees, as apparently they were not in danger in Syria.

Ask yourself, would a refugee, fleeing from Nazi Germany with his family return there to have buried a member of the family who got killed during the escape? That is the reality of real refugees from war or oppression, not someone who goes back, apparently quite freely,  to have a burial service.

It is also of interest that Breitbart is the only media outlet that I am aware of which refers to them as Kurds. The Kurdish controlled area of Syria is now relatively stable (if anything in the Middle East is stable), so one might ask why didn't they join their fellow countrymen and assist with the fight against ISIS?  Or were they from the Kurdish area which meant that they could return at will, but decided that it wasn't good enough for them?

However you look at it they were economic migrants, not asylum seekers fleeing for their lives. Even then, Turkey wasn't good enough for them so they decided to try to get to the Germany or, as they speak English, more likely to the UK.

If we are to take any Syrian refugees, they should be genuine refugees who are living in poor conditions in Lebanon or Jordan, not ones who are effectively trying to jump the queue by forcing themselves upon some unwilling country.

In any event, I take the view that it is wrong to rehouse large numbers away from their home country; hopefully ISIS will be beaten and in due course they will be able to return home. The right approach is what this country was doing, providing humanitarian aid to the adjoining countries which are housing them, Lebanon, Jordan and to a lesser extent Turkey. There they are with people of their own culture, speaking their own language, not having to try to live, in what to them, must be an alien environment.

We have accepted refugees in the past, but they were in relatively small numbers compared with the overall population, they were generally of our culture and were assimilated within a couple of generations. With their different outlook on life, I cannot see Muslims ever being assimilated into the native population.

So I would ask our politicians, don't make major decisions on the basis of one dead boy lying on a beach, but on the basis of common sense and rational logic.

Nigel Farage at his best!

I liked this latest piece by Nigel Farage on the subject of Juncker
Note that for once some of the MEPs are clapping, not listening in stony silence as in the past.

The Ugly Face of Scottish Nationalism.

No, I am not referring to Alex Salmond aka "the wee eck", although he would be unlikely to get into a list of the hundred most good looking Scots, but to what happened in Edinburgh when the leader of a United Kingdom political party visited the City for a press conference.
According to the Guardian, which is hardly pro-UKIP, Nigel Farrage was threatened  by "activists in the radical left pro-Scottish independence movement" when visiting Scotland to support a UKIP candidate who is standing at a by-election.
Note the Guardian's description, they were Nationalist and they were left wing, that is National Socialists otherwise known a Nazis. They used exactly the same tactics as Hitler's Brownshirts, which is violence against any opponents. These are Scotland's new Nazis, using similar tactics against the English that Hitler used against the Jews, tactics which were tacitly supported by the Wee Eck when he refused to condemn what had happened and suggested that it would be safer for UKIP not to enter into Scottish politics.

I would like to remind the Wee Eck that

• Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom, regardless of what some Scots seem to think.
• The Union Flag still remains the flag of the whole of the UK.
• Scotland elects a (disproportionately high) number of MPs who sit in the UK parliament and have equal rights with all other MPs.
• Any person or party may stand for UK elections in any part of the country, regardless of where the party originated or where they are born.

I would also remind BBC Scotland that they are funded by licence payers' money and have a duty to be impartial and objective, and their interview with Nigel Farrage hardly seemed to be either. The belief that the English should not get involved in Scottish politics is ludicrous whilst Scotland remains in the Union; on that basis will the BBC be campaigning for only English born candidates to stand for English seats? Of course not, that would be racist. Seemingly however that doesn't matter as far as BBC Scotland is concerned.

The Nationalists are having a problem as those who support the union slowly squeeze information out of the reluctant SNP.  Issues such as the EU, defence, currency, and pensions now have more questions than answers, and even those who support independence are beginning to question whether they would want Salmond to lead them in an independent country.

The Nationalists' problem with UKIP is not that it may be attracting that many votes, but that it is attracting attention to these questions and in particular that of the EU. Salmond has made it quite clear that he wants Scotland to be in the EU, although it is far from clear whether Scotland would be admitted automatically as a consequence of having been part of the UK, but one thing that is clear is that all new countries in the EU must sign up to the Euro.

UKIP is making many Scots seriously think about the hard facts of independence. Do they want to be in the EU as the Wee Eck proposes? Do they want the Euro? What happens if you believe as a Scot that the UKIP's vision of Britain outside the EU should also be that of an independent Scotland? Which is to be preferred, remaining part of the UK outside the EU, or being an "Independent" Scotland within the EU ? UKIP also seems to be attracting votes from both the Tory and the Labour parties, which could be attractive to many Scots.

In the past I have spent a lot of time in Scotland, both working and on holidays, and I have always enjoyed my time there. But ever since Scotland got its own parliament I have tended to feel that the English are becoming less welcome. Last year, after visiting the Wallace Monument, we returned to our car which has the Union Flag stuck over the EU symbol on its number plates and a Scot pointed to the flag and said they we don't want your bloody sort up here. Well after yesterday's Nazi display, he can be quite certain that we won't be visiting Edinburgh this year.  Southern Ireland is back on the agenda, we have found it very welcoming in the past in spite of out Union Flag, and more to the point I prefer Jameson Whiskey to the Scottish product. And there is the attraction of real Irish Guinness, not the English made substitute!

Germany and European Debts

My namesake in Scotland, A Scottish Pensioner, asks in her blog why Germany is paying Southern Europe's bills, and why the German people are content to do so.
I posted a reply, but decided that perhaps I should amplify what I said and why I reached my present viewpoint.
I was born before WW2 and lived through it as a child. My father had strong views on the Germans and no doubt he has strongly influenced my thinking.
I always knew that my father spoke German, but until recently with the publication of the 1911 census, I didn't know that my grandfather was Swiss from the Canton of Berne and so German would have been his native tongue. My father served with the Machine Gun Corps in the trenches, and after 1918 served for a while with the army of occupation, and although only a gunner, somehow he managed to see a lot of Germany during that time.
Subsequently, having come home and qualified as an accountant, he secured a job with the UK subsidiary of  Bayer gmbh, the major German pharmaceutical and agri-chemical company, in a senior position. Between the wars both he and my mother visited Germany numerous times and made quite a few friends there.
Nevertheless, although he got on well with Germans as individuals, he always felt that the Germans wanted to dominate everything, believing that only their way of doing things was best. He never believed in the idea that the Germans were coerced into by the Nazis into war, but always argued that they wanted it, firstly as a matter of pride, having been beaten in 1918, and secondly because many, particularly in Prussia, felt that they had the right to rule.
There have been other previous European leaders who would have liked to dominate Europe, the main on being Napoleon, and indeed he did manage to rule large parts of the continent. However the difference between him and both the Kaiser and Hitler seems to be that whilst the French accepted what Napoleon was doing, he never had the real support of the French people, unlike the Germans who were enthusiastic supporters of what their leaders were trying to achieve.

So coming to the present and the original question as to why Germany is paying Southern Europe's bills. I would argue that a large part of the German people still want to dominate Europe and that they still feel their defeat in WW2. They still believe that they are the natural leaders of Europe and that their their way of doing things is the best. However they now have politicians who realize that they are no longer going to be able to achieve their goal by military means but can achieve virtually the same objective by financial means.

The EU has provided them with an ideal platform for their objectives. Before the Euro, Germany was keen on regulation and standardisation, with their representatives, of course, being the main instigators of the rules. With the advent of the Euro, they had the strongest economy and the strongest currency, and as a result have been seen as the managers of the new currency (in spite of what the French might think!). By insisting on low interest rates, they tempted the free spending southern European countries into borrowing well beyond their means. Whilst previously these countries would have managed their currency by allowing quite substantial inflation to reduce their debts, this now became impossible, and to prevent them going bankrupt, Germany put up considerable sums of money, in effect, to buy their debts, provided that the government did what it was told in financial terms.

So Greece did as it was told, appointed an EU/German approved prime minister, called off a referendum on the Euro and now has something like half its population unemployed and on the bread line. Italy was instructed to do something similar, but things have not gone as expected and they called a general election with the result that a party run by a stand-up comedian has the balance of power. And today, Cyprus has effectively declared that it will be bankrupt by May, and in order to get EU help has been told to levy a tax on all savings accounts.

To me, Germany's aim of dominating these countries by financial means is beginning to pay off. Germany will pull all the financial stings and the puppet governments will jump. Germany, in due course will want its money back and when they can't pay will make other demands. Domination will be just as effective as if their army had walked in. The countries will be unable to resist, individuals will have any savings stolen to pay the debts and to all intents and purposes they will become German colonies.

Their only failure was that Britain didn't join the Euro, although it was a near run thing. But we are in the EU and dominated by German inspired rules and regulations designed to benefit their economy. As an example, try to buy some old fashioned Sodium Chlorate weed-killer. You can't - it has been banned by the EU on health and safety grounds, although the only problem, as far as I can ascertain, was that the IRA used it for bomb making. What do we have instead? Well most of the replacement products on the shelves at my local garden centre are made by Bayer and imported from Germany,

I rest my case.

Repatriating Power from the EU

There is a lot of talk about the repatriation of powers from the EU as being part of any negotiations on Britain's EU membership, and I'm quite sure that the government would like to keep this repatriation in very general terms rather than being specific. However, without a list of those powers that ought to be repatriated to this country and the details of the results of the negotiations on an item by item basis, it will be impossible for the public to determine the success or otherwise of the negotiations. Without such detail, the government are bound to claim the negotiations were successful as no-one has ever heard of a British Government having unsuccessful negotiations (see the picture in my previous blog!)

I would propose a few items which should be on the list, and by which I will judge the outcome of Cameron's talks.

1. We have full control of our boarders and can decide who is allowed entry into our country (and whom we throw out).
2. Our Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for all matters in this country, not the European Court (I know this is not strictly EU, but the European Court is bound up with the EU).
3. Companies and manufacturers only have to meet EU rules for their products/services when dealing or selling to the EU.
4. It is for our companies/organisations to agree with the trade unions/individuals what hours are worked, not have them imposed by a directive from the EU.
5. The financing of this country and its budget is our business and no-one else's.
6. We can trade with whom we like without EU interference and bi-laterally agree any tariffs (An African leader said recently that his country does not need aid, just fair access to the European markets)
7. Decisions on Green matters (waste disposal, sustainable energy, etc)  are ours alone.
8. Removal of clauses from the treaties which aim to secure ever closer political integration within the EU.

I could go on a lot further, and I'm sure readers will have their own ideas as to items which should be added to the list.
The advantage such an approach is that when Cameron says we have agreement, we will be able to run down the list, tick of the items that have been agreed and make our own assessment of the outcome.
But I suspect all that Cameron will get is something like a change in the rules relating to the curvature of bananas or the minimum size of apples which may be sold in supermarkets !

Cameron's Speech

At last we have the long awaited speech outlining Cameron's position towards the EU. Made at 8am yesterday morning, I wasn't up in time to watch it.
Nevertheless, having read the various reports and blogs, and listened to the views of both Labour and UKIP on television, I must admit that I'm not much wiser. To me it appeared to be one of those speeches which seems to offer something to everybody, but when closely examined, actually offers nothing.

The whole speech seems to be a blatant attempt to win the next election as everything mentioned is conditional upon the Conservatives being re-elected. Whilst he doesn't mention UKIP, the whole thing seems to ba an attempt to get the "fruitcakes and nutters" back into the Tory fold. In effect he was saying to people like myself, "UKIP don't have a hope in hell of winning the next election, so the only way that you will get a referendum is to vote Tory". Whilst this might seem a valid argument at the moment as Milliband is against a referendum, I'm sure that if the Tories enter the election campaign promising a referendum, Labour will do likewise.

As  understand the situation, Cameron is saying that if he wins the next election (and that's a very big "if"), he will take that as a mandate to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, and following these negotiations, he will put the result to a referendum at which he will campaign for a "yes" vote. There is absolutely no indication as to the matters which would be subject to re-negotiation or what outcome he would be seeking.

For me, the best assessment of his speech, albeit from a UKIP point of view, is by Alexandra Swann in her blog for the Telegraph (here) in which she concludes that it is "waffle, platitudes and vague promises".  Milliband's response that the uncertainty brought about by this speech is damaging to industry and investment is probably the most stupid of all as he could call for a referendum at any time and would probably get sufficient support from the Tory Eurosceptics to get it through parliament..

Meanwhile, I have this vision of Cameron returning from the EU negotiations, waving a piece of paper and proclaiming that we have "Europe in our time".

Trade with the EU

Douglas Carswell MP makes a very good point in his blog today which is well worth repeating.

"Last week, Honda announced it was laying off 800 workers. Why? Because the Honda plant produces almost exclusively for the European market, and the European market in car sales declined by 7 percent last year.
"This week, Jaguar Land Rover announced it was hiring 800 workers. It produces for markets in America, Asia and the Middle East."

As he says, "Nothing could better illustrate how our future prosperity lies in trading with the wider world, not just the declining Eurozone"

This is something that should be pointed out every time the "experts" talk about  the loss of trade that will occur if we leave the EU.

Afterthought:  I wonder if these experts who are full of doom and gloom about what will happen if we leave the EU are the same experts who predicted disaster if we failed to join the Euro. Yes they were right about disaster, but it was for the Eurozone, not us.

Obama Knows Best!

A few days ago, Obama, through the medium of one of his ambassadors, lectured Britain on the dangers of us leaving the EU.  (here)
Today, White House officials have told a US journalist that the Israeli Prime Minister doesn't know what is good for Israel.  (here).
I wonder which is the next country to be told how to run their affairs by this self-proclaimed expert who can't seem to get his own country's finances under control.  But then, like Tony Blair, he probably has no idea what to do about the situation at home, and its so much more interesting dabbling in other people's affairs.

Ken Clarke and the EU

The Telegraph today reports on a number of remarks made by Ken Clarke.

Apparently according to Ken, Britain must stop having a "nervous breakdown" over Europe as it would be a economic "disaster" to leave the EU.

Sorry Ken, its you that is having the "nervous breakdown" over the fact that Britain might leave the EU. Any economic "disaster" would be for the other countries, not us, as presently we have an adverse balance of trade with the EU, and our non-EU trade is steadily expanding.

However, of far more concern is his reported remarks that
"David Cameron assures the public, he’s always assured me, that he believes, as I do, that Britain’s place in the modern world has got to be in the EU.
"It would be a disaster for our influence in global political events. It would be a disaster for the British economy, if we were to leave the EU. It damages our influence in these great critical events of the moment if we keep casting doubt on our continued membership."

This, of course confirms what we have all known for a long while that Cameron, who has promised to to renegotiate the UK's relationship with Europe, is not likely to agree to an IN/OUT referendum on the E.U.

So nothing has changed, if Cameron remains leader of the Tories, we will remain in the EU in order that, inter alia, we have "influence in these great critical events of the moment" !   I just wonder what influence that Britain or indeed the EU has over what is happening in Gaza, which is surely  "a critical event of the moment" as, in that in the limit, it could end up with a war involving the major powers.

Nothing that Ken has said will make me change my mind about getting out of the EU, and whilst friends of mine who live in his constituency tell me that he is a very good constituency MP, in this matter I feel that he his sorely out of touch with his electorate.

EU Budget

According to the Daily Telegraph,
"The Prime Minister renewed a threat to veto any real increase in the EU budget, despite warnings that his approach is alienating Germany’s Angela Merkel."
It goes on to say that
"Reports from Berlin suggest Mrs Merkel, the Chancellor, is prepared to call off a planned EU summit to discuss the budget unless Mr Cameron changes his tone."

The picture that one gets from these exchanges (if they are correct) is that Germany, in the form of Angela Merkel, is running the EU. If we aren't prepared to do what she wants, she will call off the summit.  In fact the EU comprises 27 countries and I'd like to know what the other 25 think about the prospect of Germany calling off the summit. Surely, if anyone is to call it off, it should be the EU president.

I'm sure that we are not the only country who opposes an above inflation increase. Are the others too scared of Germany to object, or is it just that they want us to do the dirty work?

It will be interesting to watch what happens. However, the way things are at the moment, my money is on Cameron giving in, claiming, for example, the extra money is for some new purpose and that it is therefore justified. Personally, if I was in his position, I would call Germany's bluff, it would after all save the cost of the meeting which is probably totally unnecessary in these days of electronic communication.

The End of the Tories

Judging by the way that David Cameron is running this government, one begins to wonder if he is doing his best to ensure that the Tories are out of power for a long, long while after the next General Rlection. Almost everything that he or members of the cabinet do seems deliberately designed to reduce the party's standing in the opinion polls.  Why on earth should this be so? He has more Public Relations experts in the cabinet than any previous government yet all they are getting is bad publicity. There was no real reason for any of the recent fiascos, yet they just keep coming. Yesterday, Alex Salmond labelled UK politicians ‘incompetent Lord Snooties’ and it is hard not to agree with him in so far as the top Tories in government are concerned. 

In the Observer today, Lord Tebbit says broadly the same thing:
"This dog of a coalition government has let itself be given a bad name and now anybody can beat it. It has let itself be called a government of unfeeling toffs".
As he points out previous  Tory governments have had far more toffs, but they were real toffs not wannabe ones like the present lot.  He adds: "The abiding sin of the government is not that some ministers are rich, but that it seems unable to manage its affairs competently."
For what it is worth, my view is exactly the same, Whilst they may not actually call people outside their own circle "plebs", as Mitchell is alleged to have called the police, there seems no doubt in my mind that this is what they think.

If the Tories are to regain any standing in the polls, they need to come up with some carefully considered solid policies and put them into effect. Changing planning laws won't affect most of us, won't achieve much for the economy, but will attract a lot of flak from all directions, which is hardly good news. Nor will claims of more severe punishments for criminals, they are available already but rarely implemented. A new law to deal with the illegal supply of guns, it sounds good, but I'm quite certain the existing laws are more than adequate, Proposals to cut benefits for those who are not actively trying to get work again sound good, but will probably be squashed by human rights issues and of course concern about "the children". And as for "gay marriage", well this is hardly a vote winner with traditional Tories!

On Europe we are getting contradictory statements and all that does seem clear is that it is unlikely that we will be offered an IN/OUT referendum. With new terms of membership being discussed, it is more likely that we will be asked whether we accept the new terms or prefer the existing ones. At the same time we have UKIP steadily gaining ground, picking up, as they go, a number of traditional Tory policies which have been abandoned in the scramble for the centre ground. The European elections should give a good indication of things to come and I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories hit an all time low.

I am now convinced that this is the last Tory Government that I will see in my lifetime unless firm competent action is taken within the next few months. And I don't believe that this will happen whilst Cameron is at the helm.