French election? It's all about Europe in the end...

Where does one even begin to discuss the drama that just unfolded before our very eyes in Paris? Hollande's victory now cements a widely-expected change in the French political landscape.

But what changes can we expect? With Hollande returning socialism to French political life, we can expect the usual symptoms of spending, reaffirmed with promises that this will make all the difference. We can expect more "community" based measures, which ultimately, the wealthier part of French society will pay for, with their expected 75% tax rate. We can also expect other "bad" groups to be expected to pay, i.e. the financial sector, as Hollande will stubbornly introduce a Tobin tax on financial transactions in France, even if he can't first secure it at the European level.

However, hiding behind this wonderful illusion that spending solves all problems is the reality that you cannot spend what you don't have, so as well as increasing taxes you can expect the new French administration to borrow. Except that's not as easy as it once was, with the Euro debt crisis meaning that France is already up to its eyeballs...in debt.

As a consequence, we can expect France to be pushing at the European level for all measures to "save" the euro, which, when translated into French, means extracting money from the other 26 EU member states to save French banks....the more enlightened of us already know however that it's these banks, and not the German/Spanish/Irish/Portuguese/Italian/British ones that have the highest exposure to Greece.

With French banks saved, the French economy is prevented from collapse, and the French Government cannot become any more indebted to saving its own banks, (assuming that the money is eventually transferred from the EFSF/ESM directly to banks to avoid any bailout being recorded on a Government balance sheet) which have failed just as miserably as any "Anglo-Saxon" ones. But, the core problem will remain, and government debt will ensure that this socialist administration will not be able to fulfil its pledges. They will come to understand that if you don't have the money in your piggy bank, you simply cannot have what you want. It's a form of poverty, that some other political philosophies understand well.

Of course, the underlying aim of the French Government in joining the upcoming fiscal union/economic government/full monetary union/bank union or whatever they'll call it is not just to maintain the illusion of an economically strong France, but to continue to cement French political power within the European Union. The French have long benefited from being able to project French post-imperial power through the European project, and they will not let that go easily. Being able to influence the EU to do what France wants is the only real power France has.

If the French Government, in its likely disagreements with austerity-Germany is at risk of losing its influence in Europe and having other countries dictate to it through EU rules, you'll soon see just how much "solidarity" the French really believe in. They'll stamp their feet and make threats....

It's going to be an interesting few months, as the French desperately try to hang on to their influence as the Germans lead the way - but they won't like the German economic cure, so expect blackmail of some sort. France wants the political influence and the economic power - but you are in debt dear France, so you'll have to choose what is most important. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

In conclusion though, I sense that the idea of Europe is the most important thing. And the French will not sacrifice that for a few promises of government spending. So all Europe needs to do is to help Hollande save face by keeping his borrowing costs low so he can mortgage the next two generations of French children. With the EU extracting political power from France as its price of solving this crisis (Germany hiding behind the EU) and seizing the crisis as the moment it has been waiting for to build its federation, whatever Hollande promises, this French administration will be like the last one - all about Europe in the end....

Scotland, oh Scotland.....

-

It was rather impossible to miss the the explosive debate that began just last week when David Cameron threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond and demanded a referendum on the Scots leaving the United Kingdom. I'd like to offer my thoughts.

It is well-known, and I noted myself in my blog post on St. George's Day 2008, that the debate about Scottish secession has been looming for quite some time. What nobody really expected was the extent of the Scottish National Party's (SNP) victory in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Since this occurred, it is now politically possible for the SNP to table a referendum to the Scottish people.

Cameron started the official "war" over secession last week when he demanded that a referendum be held sooner rather than later. Rather surprisingly, this prompted Alex Salmond to reveal hitherto unknown information about when exactly he was planning his referendum - late 2014 to coincide with Scotland's greatest military victory (were there many others?) over England 700 years ago.

Now that we know the SNP's plans, the Government demanded that it be sooner, and has now given a list of conditions that the SNP must meet for the referendum to be legal under UK (and inherently Scottish) law.

My aim here is to simply draw a clear picture. Certain elements of the story are wholly misrepresented and/or plainly misunderstood by a large number of people.

First of all, this is not actually an "independence" vote at all. The word "independence" has connotations that usually imply that one party/country has been dominated by another, usually through conquering or colonisation. This is simply not the case. This is about Scotland choosing to leave the United Kingdom; a union that it agreed to in the first place. It is not for me to judge the circumstances under which Scotland joined the Union, but it is perfectly free to choose to leave should it so wish. The language of the debate really needs to be accurate, for the Scots are deciding whether to leave a union that it joined as a sovereign nation, and the people are simply now voting for the return of full sovereignty to Edinburgh as supposed to London. The consequence of course is that the English will regain full sovereignty from the Scots too, a point not often mentioned.

Secondly, I have read a wide range of comments and articles from those who feel that England should have a say in this. The logic goes that as the UK will be affected, everyone in the UK should decide if Scotland leaves. My view is that this is incorrect. If everyone was to decide if Scotland should leave, how would we ever know the true wishes of the Scottish people? It doesn't seem democratic to me to not allow the Scots to choose to restore sovereignty by themselves. It is on the other hand perfectly reasonable that if the Scots want to leave, they have the right to make the choice. True, there are consequences for all of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but should the tables be turned and one of us wanted to cede from the UK, we wouldn't want the Scots to decide for us either.

Those supporting the idea of the entire UK having a say is making an argument akin to all EU members having a vote on whether the UK should leave the European Union. The UK is still in many ways (but dwindling I acknowledge) a sovereign nation, but even if we were a part of a United States of Europe we would not allow 26 other countries to prevent us from doing what we wanted to do. We can expect no less from the Scottish people. The problem is though in our relationship with the EU is that we have agreed to the fixed procedure for leaving, as written in the Lisbon Treaty, and we would need to determine our position with regards to the treaty.

Thirdly, I concur with the clear legal view that under the Scotland Act of 1998, Alex Salmond has no legal mandate to conduct the referendum - it is for Westminster to determine constitutional issues, and for Westminster to give Alex Salmond the necessary legal powers for the referendum vote to be considered legal. It really is stupid that the SNP are denying that Westminster has this right when it is plainly written in law - and worse for them to use Westminster's conditions as proof to their followers that "the English want to interfere." There is a major alarm bell going off in my head here. The law is the law, Mr Salmond - the UK will respect the rule of law, and you shall challenge it at your peril!

Fourthly, I've noted the interesting attitude reflected in the opinion polls - that more Englishmen and women are keen for the Scots to leave the UK than the Scots themselves. This reflects years of Alex Salmond antagonising the English, and thus attempting to link Scottish secession with English desires. He is playing with fire and might just get his wish. But he shall be to blame for the consequences, not the rest of us.

Finally, I am not prepared to debate in full the financial side of Scottish secession, however I side with the view that the Scots will be worse off. Some believe that the Scots should shoulder a proportional amount of UK debt based on their population, but I disagree. Population was not the measure used when the debt was generated and nor should it be if the debt has to be shared. A substantially large amount of UK Government debt was spent stopping the collapse of Scottish banks, therefore those Government liabilities should in due course become the liabilities of a fully-functional Scottish Government.

To close, there is much more to say when you hold this debate up in the mirror and compare it with the ongoing debate of the UK's changing relationship with the EU. It is quite amazing and hypocritical to see the UK Government saying things in relation to Scottish secession that they would never say in relation to the UK leaving the EU. The hypocrisy stinks when Cameron says that "the Scottish people must have a vote sooner rather than later" and yet denies a vote on EU membership when there is a clear public demand to do so. These issues are for another post, as well as Scotland's and the UK's overall place in the EU given the outcome of a yes or no vote in Scotland.

-

The cards are finally on the table......

For many years, British politicians have been stringing the public along with grandiose ideas about the EU being a group of sovereign nation states, engaged in deep level cooperation and trade. The EU was an economic project, and there was no risk at all to British sovereignty. Even the layman with the faintest idea about the EU now knows that to be false, seeing as our lives are affected each day by EU legislation, and increasingly in more and more visible ways.

But even though we are all conscious of the loss of British sovereignty, those who dared speak the truth of the EU mission - political union and a European state (I politely decline to use the word "super" in relation to the project) were labelled as "little-Englanders," just plain stupid, scaremongers, and one of the most disturbing recent terms I've seen is "domestic extremist" - no joke!

Now that these bunches of extremists - those who plan to lead us all to war just because they don't want to be part of a political union - have been vindicated, nobody can be found to defend the status quo. They've gone and jumped on the bandwagon of "more Europe" - precisely the blind way of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. I am all for those who want more Europe, but I do not want to see it for the United Kingdom.

Now the extremists have been vindicated again. This time, there is no denying that they were right; there is no trying to avoid the truth by interpreting it in a different manner, or playing politics with words. The extremists told us that the plan is political union - this has been denied constantly and constantly. Many British ministers know the truth, but I also accept that some of those ministers who have spouted this lie over the years genuinely believed they were right - Margaret Thatcher for example. I think she genuinely wanted to see Europe as a group of nations that cooperate. She even made sacrifices to try and ensure that her interests shaped the Union. (I'm thinking of the Single European Act) But in the end her idealism was just too idealistic.

Why can't the truth be denied now? Why are the cards truly on the table? You might think it's because of what's just happened in Greece and Italy - the instalment of two EU puppet technocrat governments, but it's much simpler than that. And it's simplicity that is the hardest thing to deny. The cards are on the table now, and we must wake up, simply because of what Germany has been saying over the past couple of days:

1) As reported in the Telegraph on 17th November: (click here)

"The six-page German foreign ministry paper (A leaked German foreign office memo; my italics) sets out plans for the creation of a European Monetary Fund with a transfer of sovereignty away from member states. The fund will have the power to take ailing countries into receivership and run their economies. Even more controversially, the document, entitled The future of the EU: required integration policy improvements for the creation of a Stability Union, declares that the treaty changes are a first stage “in which the EU will develop into a political union”. “The debate on the way towards a political union must begin as soon as the course toward stability union is charted,” it concludes.

Is it still not rubbing in yet? Is there a way to deny these words? Is it just "enhanced cooperation?" Let's try some more....

2) Referring to treaty change, the Guardian reported almost a MONTH AGO (click here) that:

“The drive for this is coming, however, from Berlin. This is the real story of what is happening in the EU: Germany is emerging, unstoppably, asprimus inter pares. The dissension with Paris arises because Merkel simply won't or can't tolerate many of Sarkozy's ideas for resolving the sovereign debt crisis on political and constitutional grounds. The one-time "economic giant, political dwarf" is no longer afraid of exercising its political clout.”

3) Is it still not rubbing in yet? Let me cite one more interesting piece of information, this time from David Cameron. He's still taking the positively stupid line that this is a "great opportunity" to reform the EU, and the rather intensely stupid idea that he can reform it and mould it to British lines. Please cut the crap as of now. The plan is decided. It's political union. To be or not to be, that's the question? Thankfully we know the answer: No for the UK. The referendum will surely come when the necessary treaty changes to create this union are made - as it is now locked into British law. How will Cameron escape that? (Article here)

“Senior figures in the German government proposed radical changes to European institutions. In an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schauble called for continent-wide elections to vote in a president of the European Commission who would be head of a “European government”.

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. From talk of treaty change a month ago, to the plans for political union this week, things really do move quickly, and it's impossible to keep up with them. But I have spelled out my case - the cards are truly on the table. If anyone would like to refute these quotes, I'd like to hear from them. Otherwise, to me it's really clear - a European Commission at the head of a European Government, and German plans to change its own constitution (after bailing out the euro was deemed illegal) to create a stability union that will evolve into a political one.

Let's not forget of course, that with all these wonderful plans on the one hand, Cameron just reminded us (the same link as above) that:

“It’s the pointless interference, rules and regulations that stifle growth not unleash it,” the Prime Minister said. “The sense that the EU is somehow an abstract end in itself, immune from developments in the real world, rather than a means of helping to deliver better living standards for the people of its nations.”

The EU is not improving living standards. It is just interfering; it is immune from developments in the real world - well said. Political union is just another representation of this fantasy world. The truth is that people just don't want it. But the EU and most politicians are just not listening. It's only a matter of time until revolution and when European history is likely to repeat itself. Let's see for how much longer British politicians want to continue to string us along, as even the layman opens his eyes to the effective loss of sovereignty of the United Kingdom, without a single shot being fired.

Illegal Bailouts!

There you have it! Even the Bundesbank know that the EU bail outs are illegal, and are simply a way to bring debt union (fiscal union) in through the back door!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8716783/Bundesbank-questions-legality-of-EU-bail-outs.html

Economic Government might have just finally arrived

So, I’m sitting here watching Sky News Live, and they’ve only just switched to the Euro Summit (or better said Franco-German summit to save the Euro) in Paris, as the news conference currently goes on. Breaking news it seems – “Merkozy” (coined this word from what I saw in today’s Telegraph) seems to have decided that the solution to the euro’s woes are “collective government for the Eurozone led by the EU President.”

So there you have it. The EU President comes into office in grandiose style post-Lisbon, with supposedly lots to do but in reality very little other than chair a few meetings a year, has a power struggle with the Commission but loses, so he needs something to do to legitimise his position. I seem to remember him shortly after taking office speaking about “economic government for Europe” and the furious reaction that his statement created.

Look at these links: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-presidents-secret-bid-for-economic-power-1894549.html and http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/summit-economy.2l4 - couldn't get it more from the horse's mouth than through EU Business.

But if instead you're interested to know how an economic government might be run, just take a look at what the head of the Eurogroup said back in April - http://euobserver.com/19/32222

So, here we are, a few steps down the crisis line, and wow, suddenly the solution seems to be precisely what the EU President proposed, because he now has something to do by being put in charge of it. Sounds like an outcome that was pre-determined to me (I just don’t trust the way some of these Eurocrats think, and yes, Presidents and Chancellors of sovereign countries are just part of the Eurocrat machine) and it was just a case of finding the right “opportunity” to bring the idea in. What better time than when the crisis really is at the end of the line, and enough panic has been created, and the markets are jittery? Anything can be forced through in the name of economic stability, regardless of political consequence.

I’m upset with Sky News and the BBC – both are just reporting it as a moving ticker underneath their broadcasts – and carrying on reporting other events like it is not important. Sky claims its source as the Associated Press but I can’t even find an article yet on their front page either. It really is amazing how the UK press is completely under control – I trust economists’ blogs now more than news reports.

Political union is well and truly alive, and whereas economics were cast aside before in the name of political union, now it is the mechanism by which political union will be achieved. I suppose that all you had to do was to create the economic crisis by forcing the creation of a single currency for political purposes, ignoring all the economic advice, and then when that advice turned out to be right, suddenly you could focus your attention on the economic problems and advance your political agenda through them. What a con – and everyone is in on it.

Notes

1) Even David Cameron knew the economic government idea was coming: http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/Britain-wins-opt-out-on-economic-government-news-495370)

2) 10 minutes later....Some news articles just being posted to the net: http://www.newser.com/article/d9p59i2g0/merkel-sarkozy-propose-eurozone-economic-government-amid-debt-crisis.html

3) Anyone for a secret debate? http://euobserver.com/19/32222 It's precisely because of this way of thinking, which pervades the EU to its inner core, that I cannot support the European project.

There's your EU

Love the way too that a German court now has the right to ban sales of Samsung's new tablet throughout the EU (except the Netherlands) Did anyone notice? And there you have it - I don't want to digress from the issue of this board but a German court in Dussledorf has now decided British law as to the sale of a product. The EU doesn't even bother transferring the obligation to enact the same law to the British legal machine, to give the EU credibility and legitimacy - they just do it from another country, and we comply. There's your EU.

50% hike in British rail fares? Thanks EU!

Below is the comment I made on the following Facebook post, from the EU Referendum Campaign:

https://www.facebook.com/eu.campaign/posts/124688387627241

Comment:

There are some really interesting comments being made here, and it makes a change to see a intellectual discussion that doesn't descend into name-calling, as can so often happen to comment threads of newspaper articles. I would like to state that BR was just another tragic case of an industry (and jobs) being destroyed because of EU rules, and let's not even mention the most criminal of policies - fisheries, and what it has done to the UK. I stand in agreement with the points that the destruction of our trade links with the Commonwealth was the prerequisite of entry (as was the subsequent domination of France in agriculture, because it suddenly became cheaper to buy from France than import from the Commonwealth) but that was always part of the plan. The beauty of it is that the French built their dominance on the back of subsidies AND by having the rest of Europe as their customers, not out of choice but because high tariffs made everywhere else expensive! Neat trick. I also agree wholeheartedly with the same-old European attitude, in particular France (and other countries) where they constantly disregard the rules without fear of consequence. In turn, they then abuse the law-abiding UK as they fearlessly buy up our companies. (Surprised EDF wasn't mentioned - remember when they charged us more to subsidise cheaper bills in France?) It's not protectionism I support, but a fair playing field - and that just doesn't exist! As I always tell my students, just try to buy a French supermarket or bank, and let's see what happens! Would love Tesco to go to France and sell apples from New Zealand or South Africa more cheaply than French ones! In conclusion, if the EU can't get it right economically, and then we consider the fact that politically it is corrupt and void of democracy, the case is getting stronger by the day to leave and reestablish our relationship with those countries that DO choose to be part of the EU, as people finally realise the Brussels effect on their lives. For years I've seen the way things were going, as I'm sure many of you have - and if someone would pay me to write about the EU I gladly would(!) but I leave you with a lovely link from yesterday's papers - pay attention to what the Italian Prime Minister is reported to have said. Thanks for reading.http://www.telegraph.co.uk​/finance/comment/ambroseev​ans_pritchard/8700782/ECB-​is-eurolands-last-hope-as-​bail-out-machinery-fails-t​o-resolve-crisis.html

Our New EU President and High Representative

It´s finally time to make a post on the post-Lisbon Treaty full ratification era, albeit one long overdue.

What´s the name of our new EU President again? Van Rumpey? Rumpole of the "new" Old Bailey? Oh, indeed not, damn, it´s actually Van Rompuy! How dare I begin my post with such an error and terrible example of British ignorance to the European project! Well, I might as well keep the error now; it sounds rather funny, and if we can´t keep our humour through these troubled and disturbing times, we have little else!

It has taken me some time to get over the shock of the sudden reversal of the Vaclav Klaus´s decision to fight the Lisbon Treaty. Granted, the overwhelming collective might of the 26 might have been too much, but I fear we lost a perfect and unique opportunity to expose this project for what it is. Not unless Vaclav Klaus is complicit to the project, as conspiracy theorists would claim. I won´t venture there but will try to stick to certain facts.

Let´s examine some of them. He is an ardent Euro-sceptic. He could have fought this until the day they impeached him, thereby exposing the project. Only he truly knows the reason for turning his back on his own principles. We can judge him for that hypocrisy only - in all other things he had no obligation, and thus I´ll reiterate, as I have done before, that we cannot blame Klaus for the fact that Britain has signed away even more of its sovereignty.

The deed is done. The Treaty of Lisbon amending previous Treaty texts, essentially bringing the rejected constitution into reality, comes into force on December 1st. Another sad day just around the corner - the good thing however is that being a Tuesday and close to final exams, I´ll be too busy preparing those and observing World Aids Day to worry too much about the Treaty entering into effect. I won´t need it splashed all over the papers in my face - I´ll quietly contemplate the defining moment; the death of large tracts of British political ideology and culture, in a more tranquil setting, from far far away.

Ushering in the Treaty, we saw the appointment of the new EU President and High Representative (a.k.a. Foreign Minister) yesterday. I am ready to comment on the whole saga. I am glad that those who argued for a Chairman´s role for the President as supposed to global showman won that argument. But to be honest there were evils to be had everywhere. Let´s mention them in turn:

a) By opting for a Chairman´s role for the President, this is surely, to borrow the wonderful headline from an article today in The Independent, the "path to least resistance." Typical EU strategy - condition people to getting used to the situation slowly; the big boys come later.

b) Choosing a President from a small country as supposed to a large one keeps smaller states in line. Belgium is most deserving, as the state that turned itself over to the EU from the beginning, and as the state that could become the sovereign EU if its national government continues along its current path of instability. Is it really crazy to imagine? Sovereign territory is all we need - Belgium would make the perfect Washington D.C., or Mexico D.F. This was a spontaneous thought that occurred to me late last night - and it certainly doesn´t hurt to consider all possibilities - let´s wait for the evidence to manifest itself.

c) The new EU President is a federalist - it couldn´t have been otherwise.

d) France and Germany showed that they still run the show behind the scenes. They got their man, unlike when they didn´t get their Belgian man Verhofstadt to succeed Prodi as Commission President in 2004.

d) The British position - Blair was impossible in the end because the UK is not a member of the Euro or Schengen area. What I find most curious is that there appears to have been the eternal assumption that one of the two jobs would go to the British. Why was this so? If the two jobs are to be shared between small and large states, why were contenders from other large countries not ever taken seriously? The British media spoke a foregone conclusion, and they were right to do so.

I personally believe that the perfect way to keep a Euro-sceptic nation glued to the EU project, especially when one considers the likely entrance of a Euro-sceptic British government in 2010, to be to appoint one of its countrymen to the heart of the project. Europhiles are now rejoicing at the increased British influence and voice at the heart of the EU; I actually see a woman who is committed to upholding the EUROPEAN interest, and shall not answer to any national government. Let´s not forget this overriding fact please. There is no such thing as national influence in Brussels - this can only come from the European Council composed of national leaders. Chairing the meetings of foreign ministers, she won´t be able to increase Britain´s influence - her job will be to influence Foreign Secretaries to the EUROPEAN interest. Point made. The glue is only one way - no increased voice gluing the EU to Britain, but plenty of glue keeping us from wrestling power back from Brussels without a tougher fight. The fact that she is Labour through and through makes the incoming Conservative government´s relationship with the EU even more challenging.

I believe overall that this is a Franco-German ploy to walk the path of least resistance, and to keep the British in line with a plum job. But to close this blog entry quite pointedly there are two remaining things to say - both are linked to this annoying concept known as democracy - but I´m sorry, it must be mentioned. First of all, there is now an unelected Commission, unelected President of the EU Council and an unelected High Representative with responsibility for an "External Action Service" as well as security policy. Do we need any more evidence of the loss of democracy in this project? My mind keeps going back to a comment I read earlier that to be undemocratic, the EU must in turn make its constituent states behave as such - well I think we´ve seen plenty of that since the rejection of the EU Constitution in 2005.

Finally, I´m going to quote from the book immediately turned upside-down and to my left side sitting on the desk. Entitled "The Great Deception: Can the European Union survive?" by Christopher Booker and Richard North, on page 543, in relation to the successful agreement of a European Constitution text, it is stated:

"These hundreds of pages wove the recipe for a system of government as complex as any the world has ever seen. It´s real ingenuity, as had been the case since the launch of the ´project´ half a century before, lay in the extent to which it left all the outward institutions of national governments in place, while hollowing them out from within. It was a system of government which, while preserving some of the outward forms of democratic accountability, through the presence at its centre of elected politicians and through the European Parliament, was in fact almost wholly unaccountable to the peoples in whose name it would be claiming to act."

The new European Constitution enters into effect on December 1st.

Thanks for reading.

Support Vaclav Klaus - say no to the Lisbon Treaty!

Have spent the past couple of hours this evening reading about the Lisbon Treaty Developments. What a joy to see a facebook group and an online petition - sign me up! We must show our support to President Klaus during this most tense and extremely challenging sitution.

The fact is Ireland said no - that is democracy. The fact is that most EU member states know that their populations would reject it. So avoid a referendum by doing a re-package - all whilst distracted and running to hide under the economic crisis umbrella.

Support Vaclav Klaus!!

Lisbon Treaty Developments

After hearing the Irish vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty on October 02nd, we are now seeing some very interesting developments in Europe.

The final country that needs to ratify the treaty for it to come into effect is the Czech Republic. Its Parliament has already ratified the document, but the President, Vaclav Klaus, is against the treaty and does not want to sign. Without his signature it cannot come into effect in any of the 27 countries.

This is a tense political situation because he is now facing pressure from the entire EU to sign - and there are reports that the Czech Government may force him out of office to enable the treaty to come into effect! This is absolutely incredible and the sheer thought that the EU would go to this level to get this document ratified sets an extremely dangerous precedent indeed. In actual fact, the very THOUGHT of it is as bad as the deed itself. Will the EU just not take no for an answer?

I am essentially pro-European but overall a sceptic. However I feel my Eurosceptecism barometer rising by the day and I don't know if I am beginning to advocate withdrawing from the Union altogether. I still feel that this would be extreme, however not too out of proportion with those extreme thoughts we hear coming out of Brussels today, as the Czech Prime Minister is "summoned" to Brussels for the second time in seven days.

I have been reading a host of articles today, and from what I can gauge I would like to congratulate President Klaus in his resolve. He wants to stand firm against this treaty and I believe that he is trying his very best to stall for time until a British referendum is possible. President, I thank you on behalf of the British people desperate for a vote on this issue, and for exposing this tyranny in the mainstream.

Klaus has also given us Brits the assurance that no election will now be called before the law demands it in May/June 2010, so no nasty early election calls from Brown to try and ride high on a brief wave of fake popularity.

However, us Brits need to heed Kalus's words when he said that it is unfair to expect him to do something when we had our chance and did nothing. He is right - we should have protested against this more vigorously.....to the point of forcing a vote of no-confidence in the Government! Why not? If so many are against it, why didn't we show it?

Two of the three articles I am referencing below to finish today's post are in Spanish, and one in English. The first discusses the background to the whole Klaus-stalling-the-Lisbon-Treaty-issue. The second look at the possibilities for B-liar to be President. Finally, the third references a VERY INTERESTING telegraph article written in June, where even the Irish Commissioner (who admitted in 2008 that he had never read the Treaty) said that given the chance, most countries would reject Lisbon. How much more do I need to say?

End of post, and may I stop banging my keyboard in frustration at this wholesale destruction of British democracy, and democracy in general........

1) How Klaus is stalling the Lisbon Treaty - Good luck!

2) B-Liar to be President?

3) Even the Commissioner knows that everybody would say NO!

The Gloves Come Off - Lisbon Treaty

The gloves come off in this unwinding story............two things are disturbing - first, how the pressure comes from Paris and Berlin more than anywhere else........second, talk of impeachment because he won't sign? I really hope that is not true.....the EU continues to show its ways.



EU Bully tactics yet again - click here.

Lisbon Treaty SECOND Vote October 2009...

I am blogging rather late on the whole Lisbon Treaty issue.

Aside from being busy, I wanted to give myself some time to absorb various perspectives from the press, as well as decide for myself my position given the vast range of commentary available.

However, the blatant fact is that I haven't been able to blog because I feel truly sickened by what's going on. Previous posts on the Lisbon Treaty remain consistent with this one - I am essentially against anything that puts substantial powers into the hands of the unelected. I feel that given British history, and its pivotal moments such as 1649 and the absolutist-wannabe James II in 1688, and the civil war and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689, that RIGHTS evolved for good reason.

I have felt proud of the notion and idea that a Brit instinctively knows his or her rights - although that does not always mean literally. We have been comfortable with the idea that we didn't need our rights written down, documented, and in our face - rather offensive was the idea for anyone to tell us our rights - we just "instinctively" knew.

And so the question of rights yet again becomes a pertinent one. The Lisbon Treaty, with respect to my limited knowledge and understanding, (because I am not a lawyer) does indeed appear to seriously threaten what we consider to be fundamental English/British freedoms. I am worried for the future of trial by jury and presumed innocence until proven guilty, especially when coupled with some of the dranconian measures now in place across our wonderful democratic "EU" - NOT to even mention the attack on our own civil liberties from this Labour government.

I see here my most passionate political issues delicately intertwined. For the EU with the kind of powers it will assume under Lisbon is an attack on the British understanding and culture of civil liberties. On the one hand, I do blame the EU establishment. Their increasing political and economic power over this country does certainly bear fruit. However, the blame must be apportioned on the British government/political establishment, and the vast swathes of Euro-cash in which they swim. To cash in traditions that were justly fought for, could, as one newspaper put it today (05/10/09) be the "ultimate betrayal in history." However, I would beg to differ, and cite the complete destruction of civilisations (such as the Aztecs by the Spanish) as far more of a disastrous event. However, with the impact of Lisbon still unknown, I may well change my mind in the near future to come.

Casting my mind to the Irish, I don't wholly blame them. They made the decision that they wanted to. What saddens me is how they were completely manipulated into doing so. Crisis, burned economically into their hearts, threats of EU money running dry, scare tactics and horror stories - and the biased-ness of the entire media and political establishments - all perfectly combined into one nasty cocktail of scaremongering and fear tactics. And it worked perfectly - after all, what better way to control a country if not through economics? Make a crisis, and reap the rewards, depending on where you sit in the power triangle.

To reiterate, it is incredibly sad how our Irish brothers and sisters (yes, brothers - for the hostility in my eyes that is so famously stereotyped appears to me to be one-way, aimed AT the English, and yes, English not British) have given into this fear. Did we all forget the scaremongering the last time? The exposure that the Irish Commissioner in Brussels hadn't even read Lisbon? What really makes me despair in the idea of how the choice to say yes to Europe would reinforce Ireland's position in the EU, and free it of the "influence" of others - a blantant reference to the United Kingdom if there ever was one. In actual fact I concur with the idea that Ireland will become MORE irrelevant in the Union, probably labelled as the land of the Celts.

Overall, I must respect the decision of the Irish people, and if it is really true that such hostility remains towards the English, as well as the Irish political establishment, (I take Daniel Hannan's view on this) that the undemocratic EU is the only way out, then so be it. It was their choice to make, and the No camp did their best under estremely biased circumstances, with a political and media machine that they did well to survive with, let alone try to convince.

From one sad story to the next. The focus after all must be the United Kingdom. It is not the fault of the Irish that we were not granted a referendum, and anyone blaming them for our woes are terribly misguided. Grant the Irish their wish, lament the clear impact on our country, but the blame for this lies squarely with Brown. Lament the sick nature in which he turned up late to sign away the sovereignty of Parliament. Lament the shame to stand with his fellow European leaders in a photocall, where he would be standing on the side so they can airbrush him out after May 2010 from the official photo. Betrayal yes, and unforgivable.

The question becomes what to do now. David Cameron is quite rightly under pressure, and must spell out his position. But I believe that despite this pressure his approach is rational, if not extremely difficult to maintain. This really is a day-by-day battle now. Heaven knows the pressure on the Polish and Czech Presidents to sign the treaty already ratified by their Parliaments. I don't want to say the word "inev.." but the turn of events will certainly come to be historically significant. I believe that the media has highlighted the dilemma well - what will Cameron do if Lisbon is ratified in all states? It truly will become a choice of whether we stay in the EU, if Cameron wants to force a referendum.

But I believe that at heart that David is Pro-European (I believe many Tories are) but the idea of the EU (Please note, not Europe) has always been an economic one for the British, and resistance to Political Union is not unusual! So to read today about a possible change to the European Communities Act is a step in the right direction - after all, this is no different to the German approach that would require their Parliament to decide to veto EU laws coming into Germany. The problem, however, lies in practice............with EU law already established as superior, how do you override that? With Lisbon creating the mechanism to make changes without the explicit consent of member states, how do you override that? With news of an EU Common Security Policy, how do you override that? (a.k.a ID cards through the back door) With news of France and Germany wanting greater cooperation in the EU, do you just withdraw altogether and let this club be what it wants to be? Or do you sacrifice British sovereignty to maintain influence over the club? Many burning questions.

Finally, we must consider the international ramifications of Britain and Lisbon. The US is already cavorting with Russia, China and Japan - and openly talking of a G4. China and Japan talking about beginning the road to some form of Union - really? Who would they talk to in Europe? The signs are discouraging - the UK would completely be absorbed and lose international prestige and influence at the hands of an unelected EU President. Is this really in our long-term interests? Many say we should just accept the reality, but no, we create our reality with our decisions everyday, and Lisbon without proper consultation, education and a referendum decision, is plainly wrong.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on UK politics, where being governed from the Continent will surely spell the end of the Union - the Scottish and Welsh Governments may be pleased, because in line with the EU's principle of subsidiarity, they would be seen as the recognised powers in their "region" - and the UK Government an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy through which to govern - however they will just end up like Ireland - giving away power in the name of distrust of London, and becoming insignificants in somethin much bigger and more powerful than they are. However if it means that the Scots can make new songs to celebrate Europe Day in their own language - surely it's worth it?

I will stop writing on Lisbon right now, as I must return to burning the midnight oil. However I close with one thought and one interesting idea written in a national newspaper. My personal thought is that the world is awash with a history of the rise and fall of Empires - I see another one coming - why do we feel the need to consolidate, supposedly based on the common good, (or in the past by sheer imperalism and domination) just to reach critical mass, become too big, and blow apart in spectacular fashion? A thought I must invest more time in.......

The interesting idea I mentioned is that of riding on a train. We are passengers, and we were always asking questions to the conductor. He/She would always tell us where we were going, how long it might take to get there - there was a good relationship. Now with Lisbon, the reply would be to where we are going, "that is no longer your business, but ours." Of course I have interpreted the story for myself, and must find the relevant link, but the idea is poignant and struck me. No longer the UK's business, but that of an unelected President and his best friend in the unelected Commission.

God save the Queen for as long as the monarchy survives, for as long as the Union survives, and for as long as our relationship with our Commonwealth friends survives.

As the Sun says goodbye - why I ditched Labour.

So the Sun has decided to ditch Labour for the Tories. A long overdue decision, and simply a reflection of the once-again changing political times. I agree with the decision, because it is clear to me that Brown simply cannot live up to what he says he can - he mentions "policies," but the time has passed to make any real difference - and we are left with many of the same challenges as twelve years ago.

To give Labour some credit though, of course it is in the Sun's interest to back who they percieve to be the "winner" and I am slightly cynical as to the ultimate motive - more sales. But putting this aside for a moment, I really do hope that the primary motive of the newspaper is to reflect the collective feelings of their readership, and to present political reality as it is.

Labour was needed in 1997. Hopes were high - achievements have been made. But over the past few years - and particularly since the 2005 election - what a failure. I have a list I made more than a year ago listing what I percieve to be failures - and my attention has been brought to more. To get to the crunch however, my biggest three problems with this government remains their stance towards the EU, their endless attack on civil liberties, and the divison that devolution has created - all policies that might be right in principle, but certainly not in practice.

I personally decided to forget Brown and Labour the day he arrived late to sign the Lisbon Treaty - trying to do it out of the limelight, in such an underhanded manner that HE KNEW how wrong his decision was. This is the moment that people will not forget Brown, for its effects will be felt for years to come. My decision is not just based on the classic argument of sovereignty, but on the idea that what Lisbon advocates is simply not what we want as a people from the process of European integration!

Now we just have to wait and see what Cameron does when he refers to "making a decision at the correct time" in relation to if Lisbon will be ratified before he enters office next year.

Sovereignty..........

-
It's very fitting that as I am about to lecture my students on the EU that the Daily Telegraph has started a new series of articles about it. Of course this is in the run up to the Irish referendum (Round 2) of the Lisbon Treaty. So the EU will be a topic I blog about regularly over the coming weeks......

This article has caught my eye as I was going to bed, and it seems a good a place as any to begin reflection.....

Is Britain still a sovereign state?

To think that I am discussing the impact of globalisation on sovereignty with my students, and I haven't even touched the mighty EU yet..........
-

Ireland says No - wonderful news! Sad day for EU and UK

Let me make clear first of all that I remain, on the whole, pro-European, (although that really depends on the actions now taken by the other EU governments to force this treaty through in the wake of a No vote to the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland) but the people of Ireland have spoken and rejected this Treaty. I must say that I agree completely with the decision. If the EU is to truly have a purpose it must be close to the people of Europe. Sadly, it is not. From the corruption that forced the resignation of the entire Commission in 1999 to the sheer arrogance of re-packaging the Constitution and forcing it through 26 of the 27 EU countries without a referendum, the EU simply needs to understand the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY. For this we have the Irish people to thank. They really looked at this issue, said "Hold on, we don't understand it at all" and voted No. How right they were, especially when the Irish Commissioner in the EU admitted that he hadn't even read the document himself. How right they were, even when the new Premier Brian Cowen hadn't read it either.

Take a look at this brilliant summary

First point: It is more than sickening to think that the whole "Yes" campaign stated the dire consequences if the Treaty was rejected, but without having read the document it wasn't able to state what these were.

Second point: The arrogance of the Yes campaign is breathtaking. Betting shops (Paddy Power) paying out early, the whole Irish elite political machine against the No vote, biased media coverage (I'm not so sure of this claim in Ireland itself, but the British press has HARDLY covered the issue over the past few days) and to top it all off, the erosion of more civil liberties in the UK itself yesterday with the extension of the time that someone can spend in detention to 42 days. Why do I connect the two issues? Because this seems to have been the week that the elites were going for it - to swipe away a lot of fundamental freedoms all at the same time - to get it over and done with. I would even like to go as far as to say that the detention vote in the Commons was probably planned to coincide with this referendum in Ireland to take away attention. How cynical some of you might say I have become - however, with the ever-increasing intrusion of the state in our lives; of political correctness and local Councils using terror laws against innocent people, I believe that cynical is not the word - lifting the wool would be the term.

Third point: Corruption. I would be the first to defend the UK in terms of corruption. Regardless of a deep subconscious awareness of the corruption of any government, I have always defended rigorously to my students the general anti-corruption stance in the UK. The way in which we are a "fair" people, and the way in which the police serve the people, being two examples. I feel I seriously have to keep my mouth shut now because I cannot transparently justify such assertions. We are becoming a police state; these "terror" laws prove that - ID cards prove it - the political correctness of the police proves it - and linked to all of this, the Lisbon Treaty enshrines the transfer of an unacceptable amount of British sovereignty to Brussels. I really feel that we have learned, at a government level, some of the tricks of the trade of corruption, and that some of those tricks come directly from the EU.

The EU is becoming less accountable, more corrupt by the day, and ARROGANT.

a) Holding off on a raft of proposals such as tax harmonisation until after the Irish vote.
b) The EU insisting the continuation of ratification procedures despite the Irish rejection.
c) Rumours that the EU will get the Lisbon changes into EU law anyway by playing with their own rules.


This is all incredibly sad for me to see. Sad for somebody who was so passionately pro-European. Sad to see so much corruption and lack of democracy. Sad to see decisions taken by people that I don't even know. The EU could have been so much greater if it hadn't taken this path.

A welcome sad day for the EU, a disaster for British democracy, and a great day to say thank you Ireland for your courage and common sense. The Irish people looked at the reality and made the right decision. Like the British, they wanted to be part of the EU for its economic benefits. If there were to be political integration, it had to be something that came more naturally, instead of forced upon the populations of 26 out of 27 countries without a vote - Ireland wasn't going to forget why it joined the EU, and for a long time to come, the Irish two finger-salute to the EU will be remembered, as will the shame that now arrives as I believe the elites will try to push the treaty through anyway. The good thing is that this time, they can't attempt to push it through privately. All is out in the open.

I would like to finish by saying that I think it's time to take a holiday - to Ireland.


Thank you.



I will attach some links below, if you feel like me you will see the huge biased-ness for the Yes campaign and the current opinions of the British and Irish press.


1) This is probably the article that sums it all up - the arrogance and the wrong attitude, and the exact reasons why the Irish have rejected this. EU leaders plotting to get around the rejection in defiance of their own rules. The arrogance and lack of trust that this makes me feel is enough to make me vote out this Labour government, for it is the only democratic protest that I have. I hope many choose to follow, for what UK would there be left if we integrate so deeply into a club that operates in these ways?

2) EU referendum: What part of 'No' don't you understand?

3) EU referendum: Ireland's debt to the EU

4) We're fighting the EU treaty in the courts

5) Well done, Stuart Wheeler

6) This article makes me sick, especially when it talks about "Bridging mechanism" to isolate Ireland to still get the Treaty through - the rules are the damn rules guys, you can't change them now.