Sunday, 9 May 2010

If this is fair, I am a banana

Would anyone who advocates the transfer of powers to Brussels on the ground that it is to our benefit, please explain this one to me.

We, the British taxpayer, are to be ordered to help bail out Greece, taking on 10% of that countries liabilities, by way of a qualified majority vote made up of countries that will not be contributing, or will contribute less. This is despite the fact that we simply cannot afford it, set as we are on the same course as Greece and only 18 or 24 months behind. The vote will be only a qualified majority not unanimity, because it is being introduced under an emergency provision designed to provide a swift response to natural disasters. The bailout is one-way only; as an EU country we can apparently be forced to contribute, but as a non-euro country we cannot be the beneficiary of a bailout.

To confuse matters further, the Lib Dems are preventing Cameron from taking the power necessary to do anything about this manifest lack of democracy and fairness by the EU that they approve of and would like to take us further into, because they want British elections to be fairer and more democratic despite never having gained a mandate for that policy.

Sometimes I think the world has gone utterly potty.


  1. What is it you think Cameron would be able to do?

    Repeal Lisbon?

  2. Well, I would like a Conservative minister to stand up in Brussels and say:

    "This is your currency; it is your problem. We chose not to join it for precisely this reason, so don't say you didn't know this was going to happen.

    We face similar difficulties caused by a similarly profligate and incompetent socialist government. We are dealing with it in a number of ways, including ways that you chose to deny yourself by creating the Euro. This means that we do not have the available funds to assist with this bailout. We also know that no such bailout will be available to us, so it is intrinsically unfair to us to be required to contribute.

    We note the use of qualified majority voting to secure this, on the basis of a treaty provision that does not and was never intended to apply to this situation. If you secure this measure in an illegitimate manner such as is proposed, we will ignore it. If you sue us, a reasonable and fair Court will support us.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, you do nevertheless have our sympathy for the plight in which you find yourselves. I wish you the best of fortune in resolving it."

  3. What 'reasonable and fair' court would this be?


  4. ...and then we have good grounds for leaving. Simples! :-D

  5. Look on the bright side. Had this news broken four days earlier, the Conservative vote would have been further shared with UKIP, leaving the Tories with even fewer seats. As it is, they reckon UKIP cost Mr Cameron up to 10 seats.

    then we have good grounds for leaving.

    Can we leave? How? And what happens if we simply refused to pay? If only the Conservative leadership inspired more confidence!

  6. Good point re UKIP.

    Of course we can leave. We are a sovereign nation, and it is established law that the powers of the sovereign include not only the making of treaties, but also the breaking of them.

    So if we decided to just walk away, stop paying, and stop attending meetings in Brussels, we have the power to do so. There would, of course, be ramifications - probably a trade war of some sort. But if we decided that this was a better option, then we could do it.

  7. Of course we can leave.

    Why then hasn't this been on the table before?

  8. Presumably, Mr Cameron will make it a condition of joining his government that we don't pay the bail out the Euro tax. If Mr Clegg will not join on those terms, then Mr Cameron will be able to blame him for putting Europe above the national interest (on a whole range of counts), while being the standard bearer for England and St George himself. That ought to look good at the inevitable election which would follow within a few months.

  9. It hasn't been on the table because no-one has the guts (or the mandate...) to suggest it.

  10. Guts or mandate? It's not the lack of a mandate, since no government need do it without a referendum. Ergo.

    Do you think Dave has the guts?

  11. Or Cameron can pay up and simply say that when Argentina starts talking war again, he expects the EU to fully support and endorse British soveriegnty of the Falklands (and only refer to them as such). Further, if war was to break out, then he expects to see a Eurpean flotilla ans task force steaming out with a British one.

  12. he expects the EU to fully support and endorse British soveriegnty

    Pardon me for being sceptical. I'm not sure the EU understand that a concept such as "British sovereignty" exists!

  13. I note with interest that you haven't answered my question. I'll take that as a "No" shall I?

  14. I said "no-one has the guts". I think you'll find that answers your question.

    Leaving the EU would be a truly momentous step. I'm not surprised that no-one dares say it. I am disappointed, though.

  15. Sorry to be a pedant but you did add "or the mandate". So it was possible to interpret it as meaning "Those who have the guts do not have the mandate".

    But yes, we will see about guts now that it seems some sort of deal has been done.

    Bruckner 7 great music to listen to as Labour fall. It was also played by Berlin Radio when Hitler committed suicide apparently.

  16. Pedantry will never be verboten here, Albert. ;-)