Following a member of my new family suffering a stroke three weeks ago which resulted in his passing on Wednesday night last week, out-put on SfS will not recommence until the end of this week.
We read in the Telegraph that George Osborne hails the written agreement that a loan to Greece via the EFSM – which he said was not on the table (ie, it won’t be happening) has been successfully agreed; and that any liabiility against non-repayment is insured. He continues by stating that because the Government refused to compromise its principles, it demonstrates a red-line they will not cross.
The media appears unable to express any incredulity that if one agreement can be torn-up, then just when in the future will this latest agreement suffer the same fate. This entire episode brings to mind ‘Referism‘ incorporated in the 6 Demands of The Harrogate Agreement (specifically Demand #4).
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
When George Osborne went to the recent ECOFIN meeting in Brussels and was questioned about the UK’s liability to bail out Greece, we were informed that he stated, as he arrived at the meeting of finance ministers: It’s in the interests of economic stability across Europe that this Greek deal is now signed and sealed. But let me be very clear. Britain is not in the euro, so the idea that British taxpayers are going to be on the line for this Greek deal is a complete non-starter. The euro zone needs to foot its own bill.
When one looks at the ‘supporting cast’, which culminates with an article by Daniel Hannan on ‘global engagement’; paraphrasing Lee Rotherham, one can only presume that this series will comprise of: from the unaccountable, by the unaccountable*, for the unaccountable – in other words, a perfect example of a vicious circle.
Ending his article on ConHome, Paul Goodman lauds the fact that ConHome (via him) were the first to propose ‘Business for Britain’. All one can say in reply is, to paraphrase Laurel and Hardy: And look at what a fine mess Matthew Elliott has got us into!
Recently the European Union published its €13.1 billion investment plan for transport which has been endorsed (naturally, as transport per se is an EU competence) by Member States. Helpfully the European Union also published the proposal for the selection of projects in the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Transport 2014 Call for Proposals.
Readers will no doubt be aware of the recent report published wih regard to the call for a third runway at Heathrow; a report on which our Prime Minister appears to be ‘sitting’ – no doubt with a headache as a result of his ‘no ifs, no buts’ statement to oppose that (but then we do know that Cameron is a man of his word, don’t we?)
George Osborne has announced plans to build more houses.
There is much discussion about the need for a third runway at Heathow, coupled wih the statement by Osborne in his budget about funding for new roads, or improvement/upgrading to/of same.
European Heads of State are to meet on Sunday to discuss Greece.
Just three items from the news of the last few days , which begs questions: does the need for more housing not have a root cause in ‘open borders’; is not ‘transport’ an EU competence and, consequently, are the decisions in this area not driven by the EU’s TEN-T programme; if Greece is to get the money it needs – and part of that ‘loan’ comes via the IMF – is not this country liable for part of the ‘contribution’?
Nick Cohen has an article on the Speccie Coffee House, one in which he begins by writing about the European Union; and then seamlessly moves to using the word ‘Europe’.
When members of the ‘Eurosceptic Aristocracy’ (a term of which I have just become acquainted) are unable to differentiate twixt a political entity and a continent, it begs the question just why the hell do people pay so much attention to similar offerings from such people?
Richard North, on his blog: EUReferendum.com has been producing some ezxcellent articles about ‘trade’, the last commenting on the problems created by non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and technical barriers to trade (TBTs). I have yet to hear any politician even raise these subjects in speeches, articles, or in the House of Commons; yet are not our politicians those who consider themselves ‘all-knowing’? This begs the question: when our political elite talk about wanting a trade agreement with the EU (without the ‘political baggage’): do they have the slightest idea of what negotiating a ‘trade agreement’ encompasses?
According to the Daily Telegraph: More than 207,000 foreign nationals successfully applied to become naturalised British citizens in 2013 – more than 560 a day – at a level second only to the 225,000 who won citizenship in Spain.
Granting someone British citizenship entitles that person to vote in local and national elections; plus any referenda. Who says the fabric of our nation is not being changed behind our backs? Remember, this citizenship is being granted by the State – we, the people, have no voice in the decisions made.