Democracy - Cameron Style

When it comes to campaigning for the EU referendum, David Cameron has advised Tory MPs to ignore the views of their constituency party and of their local constituents and make up their own minds. Implied in his 'advice' is that they need to consider their future career within the party. Clearly Cameron has already made up his own mind to stay in the EU, and if the referendum is in favour of staying, the implication is that MPs who campaigned in favour of leaving the EU will not see any promotion and could even be deselected for the next General Election when many constituency boundaries are to be changed.

I have never belonged to a political party, until Mrs Thatcher was deposed, I supported the Tories, since when I've become a supporter of UKIP. Looking at the way Cameron expects MPs to treat their constituents and their local party, what would be the point of joining? The local party has very little power or influence; it is allowed to select its prospective parliamentary candidate, but only from a list of prospective candidates put forward by Conservative Headquarters. Exactly what are the benefits of joining the Conservative Party if one doesn't have ambitions to be a politician?

Strange as it might seem, many of our Trade Unions are more democratic. I used to belong to a Union and went to its annual conference on a few occasions. On one occasion, our branch had tabled a motion criticising the National Executive on a particular issue concerning professional engineers. The motion was called to be debated and I was allowed my five minutes on the platform to put forward my branch's views. The matter was duly debated and although we lost, our grievances were fully aired.

Can you imagine that happening at a Conservative party's annual conference? I certainly can't. It is simply a show-piece where the higher-ups in the party tell everyone how well they are doing and why they are doing the right thing, regardless of what members think. Why on earth should anyone want to join an organisation like that? I've never been one for toeing a party line just because I'm told that's what I should do, I like to make my own decisions based on my own conclusions.

Time will tell how many Tory MPs decide to ignore Cameron's 'advice'.

A "No" Vote - So what is next?

Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. In spite of all the polls which tended to suggest a "close run thing", it was "No" by a decent margin which one hopes will put the issue to bed for a generation. Why were the polls so far out? My instinct says that a large number of Scots keep themselves to themselves and probably were recorded as "undecided", or, in certain areas simply said what the pollsters expected to hear for fear of intimidation.

The three party leaders at Westminster offered a load of last minute bribes to Scotland should they stay in the Union, but these have got to be approved by Westminster and many MPs are unhappy that the English were not consulted as it would seem that they will undoubtedly carry any extra costs. And, of course, there remains the so-called "West Lothian" question with Scottish MPs being able to vote on English legislation, whilst English MPs are unable to vote on those same issues in Scotland, as they have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

It is clear that Westminster will now be forced to address this issue and there a number of solutions. Simply saying that Scottish MPs can't vote at Westminster on English issues could give major problems. What happens if country as a whole decided to elect a Labour government, but on English issues there was a Tory majority?

If the referendum has achieved one thing, it is that Westminster will have no option as to produce significant constitutional reforms. It seems doubtful that these will be introduced during the remains of this Parliament and I suspect we will have to wait until the next. Hopefully the parties will come forward with detailed proposals in their manifestos.

The next political event is of course the forthcoming by-elections, particularly at Clacton where the sitting MP changed his allegiance to UKIP and, unusually, called for a by-election, rather than simply hanging onto his seat. Let's hope he gets back with a huge majority as this will at last prove that UKIP is beginning to be a force in UK politics following the election of so many UKIP MEPs

The Tories - All Talk and No Action

The main problem with the current Conservative Party, and the reason why it is where it is in the polls, can be summed up in two words - "David Cameron".
As a retired engineer, there are a number of phrases that I could use about him (without resorting to foul language), but the one at this time which seems most appropriate is that he should "learn to put his brain into gear before opening his mouth".
Only this morning, we are told that he has dropped his proposal for a "per unit" tax on alcohol, apparently under pressure from some members of the Cabinet. One might ask why on earth did he put forward the proposal without first discussing it with his colleagues? It seems to me that he heard about the idea, decided "That's great" without even the slightest thought that there could be problems in implementation. In any case, a subject like this is surely for a junior minister to consider, not the Prime Minister personally.  Next on the PM's agenda - Plastic bags!. We'd have never won the war if Churchill had worried about such trivia rather than fighting the war!

Another problem with Cameron is that in issues that matter to the electorate, all we get are promises but no action. "If" (a very big "if") he wins the next election, and "when" he has held negotiations with the EU, we are then promised a referendum on our membership. But he has said that he will campaign to stay in which hardly indicates much enthusiasm for real change.

He is loosing votes to UKIP because they make their position very, very clear; they want out of the EU. No "ifs" or "buts", they just want to get out. If by some miracle they were elected, no referendum would be needed as it is part of their manifesto, and they would simply be doing what they said that they would.

In my view, if Cameron wants to stop the erosion of votes to UKIP, he needs to do one thing, table the necessary legislation before Parliament for a referendum at the earliest possible date. We know the LibDems would oppose this (although in doing so they oppose democracy) but what would Labour do? Milliband has said that he opposes a referendum, and if he does, at least the public will know where Labour stands come the General Election.

Theresa May could also follow the same approach with the European Human Rights legislation. Put forward changes to our own laws to allow our Supreme Court to be the highest court of appeal. If Labour opposes this, the Tories would be in a far stronger position to blame Labour for all the difficulties in deporting illegal immigrants who manage to argue their right to family life under European law.

Meanwhile I am confident that UKIP's position in the polls will steadily rise followed by a big boost early next year as the Romanians and Bulgarians start to arrive here.

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".

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.

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.

Greece

So Greece is to have a referendum early next year to find out whether the country should accept the EU austerity measures. Whoops, that's really upset the apple cart! The EU doesn't "do" referenda, that's for democratic countries, not those under the Brussels dictatorship.
To an outsider it would seem virtually certain that the people will vote against the EU proposals, the more so because they are German inspired, I've never been to mainland Greece, but have visited the islands for a couple of holidays, and even there, where they rely on tourists, the anti-German sentiment still appeared quite strong, in spite of it now being some 65 years since the end of the war. Yesterday, posters, in German, parodying the Nazi slogan "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer" were displayed in some towns. Meanwhile, top Military leaders in Greece have been replaced by the government, but we are assured that this is NOT because of a potential Military coup.

The Daily Mail lists what will be expected of the Greeks as a result of the deal

• Income tax threshold would be lowered from €12,000 (£10,300) to €5,000 (£4,300)
• Retirement age would be raised from 61 to 65
• VAT would rise from 19 to 23 per cent
• Higher property taxes
• Monthly pensions above €1,000 (£860) would be cut by 20 per cent
• Excise on fuel, cigarettes and alcohol would rise by a third
• To qualify for a full pension people would be required to complete 40 years work
• Retirees aged under 55 would lose 40 per cent of their pensions over €1,000 (£860)
• Public sector wages would be cut by 20 per cent
• Employees of state-owned enterprises would have their wages cut by 30 per cent
• A cap would be introduced on wages and bonuses
• 30,000 civil servants would be suspended on partial pay
• All temporary contracts for public sector workers would be terminated.
• Just one in 10 civil servants retiring this year would be replaced
• New levies on household incomes of between one and five per cent

The observant readers will note that there is nothing in the list about Greeks actually paying their income tax! Apparently there are few people who declare having an income of greater that 30,000 euros,and yet there are more Porches per capita in Greece than in  Germany!

Meanwhile, back in  Germany their Foreign Minister says "[What] we just agreed last week cannot be placed back on the table,", which in itself says a lot about the EU's concept of Democracy. I always believed that when heads of Government met and reached agreements, these were always, in a democracy, subject to Parliamentary approval in each country concerned. Apparently not in German style democracy, once your Fuhrer has decided, you will do what he says whether you like it or not !

I wouldn't pretend to understand international high finance, but it seems that the Eurozone governments have two choices
Firstly, to give Greece billions more money and write off their debts in order to fund their profligacy. What would be the likely costs? Germany suggests that the agreements reached last week will solve the problem albeit at a cost of billions to the Eurozone and to the IMF, an organisation to which the UK contributes.
Secondly, to allow Greece to default and drop out of the Euro. There are those who say that Greece could default and stay in the Euro, but I haven't seen anyone explain how this might be achieved. The cost here will be that the governments concerned will have to write of all the loans given so far, as will a large number of banks.
I favour the second solution; Greece is blackmailing the Eurozone. Of the Daily Mail list, only the increase in VAT will actually bring in more money in the short term, all the others are potential savings in expenditure if they actually take place. Anyway blackmailers always come back for more!
Allowing or forcing Greece to leave the Euro with Greece presumably bringing in the "New Drachma"  will cause enormous losses to governments and banks, but at least it would be a one time event which will be quantifiable and not recurring, unless, of course one of the other southern European countries follows the same course.

EU Referendum

We now know how many of our MPs actually believe in Democracy.
Exactly one hundred and eleven.
The rest obviously believe they know better than the electorate and believe in a Party Dictatorship where the electorate is merely able to choose a party.

A referendum is the ultimate expression of democracy, and the only possible reasons for not having one are if
a. There is no clear demand from the public for one, which is clearly not so in this case
b. The cost. But the government was prepared to find the money for one on AV, in which few had any interest, so they can hardly claim that would be a problem.

It is no excuse to argue that it is the wrong time or that it would be a distraction from more important issues, in politicians eyes it will always be the wrong time, and they will always believe that there are more important issues. That will never change.

It is quite simple,
THOSE MPs WHO VOTED AGAINST A REFERENDUM DO NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY.

Giving Into The E.U.

Yesterday, I felt that David Cameron was worth a few words of praise over his stance on housing benefit. Today, it is the reverse, and it is clear that he has no guts when push turns to shove.

Reports in the Daily Mail
"Cameron can't halt rise in Euro budget: PM admits jump of at least £430m is out of his hands (And he's not even going to try to stop a new EU treaty or give us a referendum on it)"
and in the Daily Telegraph
"David Cameron softens on EU budget"
seem to confirm my beliefs about him.

In his blog today, John Redwood MP asks "What is the UK’s national interest?", to which my response was that it should be the UK, and nothing but the UK. The job of the UK government is to look after our national interests and no-one else's. The French have always done this very effectively; if you were to ask anyone in France "what is the French national interest", they'd think that you were stupid, or worse. Similarly, the Scottish parliament considers it their duty to look after Scotland, not the UK as a whole - I don't like the idea, but I believe that they are acting correctly.

Look how the French dealt with the matter of the Roma gypsies (who no doubt will soon be in a town near you). They started to deport them, The EU huffed and puffed and threatened legal action. The deportations continued. The EU decided to take a further look at the matter (ie do nothing for now). No change from France, so the apparatchiks crawled back into their comfortable holes in Brussels and decided that the UK was an easier target.

If Cameron had any guts, he would say to the EU  "Britain is having to cut all its government spending by 10% and we propose to cut our EU budget by the same amount".  No if or buts, just cut it and await reaction. I suspect the EU would accept it simply because they would know that if they did anything else, the pressure on Cameron to have a referendum on withdrawing from the EU would become irresistible.

For once I'm tempted to say "Why can't the British Government be more like the French?".