Tag Archives: David Cameron

Dear Mr. Cameron (2)

Following the first article in this series readers will recall that I had also emailed my constituency Member of Parliament, Grahame Morris (Labour – Easington) asking for his assistance on this matter. It should also be mentioned that I took the opportunity in that email to make the point that it was depressing that not one Member of Parliament raised the concerns I had expressed; which begs the question whether they are all bereft of knowledge where ‘matters EU’ are concerned.

Anyways, one good aspect of having Grahame Morris as my Member of Parliament is that he always replies promptly and, as I have previously discovered, does make efforts to address my concerns. A copy of his letter appears hereunder:

Capture G Morris

The plot thickens…………..

St. George & The Dragon

Today we had David Cameron’s speech to the CBI, together with various articles suggesting that were his December European Council meeting to ‘go well’ it may be that the promised referendum could happen in June 2016; or at the latest in September.

June is ‘pie in the sky’ for one simple reason: did not the Electoral Commission state there should be a six-month period between the referendum being called and the actual vote? Then of course there are Scottish, Welsh, local and London Mayoral elections in May 2016; plus the EU referendum bill is still in the House of Lords and the matter of whether 16-17 year olds can vote has yet to be resolved. If the Lords gives the government another bloody nose, it is highly unlikely redrawing the electoral register to widen the franchise would be achieved by June.

Of course we can also forget September too: To change ‘Ever Closer Union’ and the ‘Four Freedoms’, for example, will require treaty change – a process that takes two years. Just where do these ‘all-knowing’ journalists come from? Ye Gods!

We also need to remember that the contents of Cameron’s infamous letter to Donald Tusk is due to be released tomorrow, no doubt preceded by the speech he is scheduled to give – probably a ‘padded-out’ version of the relevant section of that which he said to the CBI.

If we look at what Cameron has said on the subject of ‘renegotiation’ with regard to this country’s membership of the European Union – from ‘Bloomberg’ to today – it is obvious that his demands have become ‘watered-down’ by the day.

When we consider Cameron’s demands and his renegotiation process it is perhaps relevant to consider a section of the speech Winston Churchill gave, after dinner, at the Royal Society of St. George on 24th April 1933:

…….I have to speak to you about St. George and the Dragon. I have been wondering what would happen if that legend were repeated under modern conditions.

St. George would arrive in Cappadocia, accompanied not by a horse, but by a secretariat. He would be armed not with a lance, but with several fexible formulas. He would, of course, be welcomed by the local branch of the League of Nations Union. He would propose a conference with the dragon – a Round Table Conference, no doubt – that would be more convenient for the dragon’s tail. He would lend the dragon a lot of money for the Cappadocian taxpayers. The maiden’s release would be referred to Geneva, the dragon reserving all his rights meanwhile. Finally, St. George would be photogaphed with the dragon (inset: the maiden).

On Churchill’s part, a rather good prophesy of the charade we are about to see unfold.

Just saying………………………

Lies, Damned Lies and Facts

Yesterday, in the House of Commons, David Cameron repeated his dismissal of the ‘Norway Option’ as an alternative form of membership of the European Union, stating that Norway has no seat at the table and no ability to negotiate – something he repeated on Facebook.

Readers will recall my handing David Cameron a ‘dossier, during a meeting at his constituency office in Witney. Readers will also recall that in his response he stated that he could not agree with a number of the points I made, eventually informing me that he was drawing our correspondence to a close. In that dossier facts were presented to David Cameron which showed that Norway does have a seat at top tables and does have the ability to negotiate as a result of being heavily involved in the various stages by which EU law is implemented.

If David Cameron will not take on board my views, then perhaps he will those of the EFTA website and the words of an eminent authority on matters EU. In respect of the latter, permission from that authority was sought and given for me to forward David Cameron a copy of FlexCit. While FlexCit is a comprehensive explanation of how the UK can disengage from the EU, there are further references to fact in relation to Norway’s relationship with the EU. Norway does not have a vote within the EU, that is a well known fact and one that is not disputed; but Norway does not need a vote as by the time the EU implements ‘law’, said ‘law’ has already been agreed within United Nations bodies with Norway having had a seat at the table where such law was formulated; coupled with the fact that the EU is mandated to consult with EFTA on the implementation of EU law. In this regard it is worth mentioning page 204 of FlexCit which provides an example of Norway’s ‘influence’ where the formation of EU law is concerned.

That David Cameron continues to misrepresent the position of Norway in respect of her dealings with the European Union (no, let us be brutally honest: he continues to lie) cannot be allowed to continue. To this end I felt duty bound to yet again email David Cameron; the text of which follows:

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Following my move to Co Durham it is acknowedged that you are no longer my Member of Parliament, however you are the Prime Minister of this country and if we are to have any vestige of democracy then any member of the electorate must have the opportunity of contacting you in order to hold you to account; and expect to receive the courtesy of a detailed reply.

Over the last few days you have been quite vociferous on the question of what is known as the ‘Norway Option’, maintaining that country has no seat at the table and has no ability to negotiate. You are also on record as stating that Norway pays as much per head to the EU as do we.

You and I know that those statements are a misrepresentation of the facts – in truth, ‘misrepresentation’ is perhaps the wrong word to use as it is plain that you have been less than candid.

To deal with the last point first: as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Norwegian government’s own figures show that its total EU mandated payments (gross) are approximately £435m (€600m) per annum. With a population of five million, that is approximately £86 (€120) per head (gross). Net payments, however, are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. In 2014, the UK gross contributions to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net contribution was £9.8 bn. With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution (without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223 per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments.

You are also on record as stating that Norway pays but has no say [on the rules] – that statement competely denies the huge amount of consultation by EFTA states within the EEA decision making process (see attachment)

.You maintain that Norway is not present at the table where decisions are taken. This overlooks the influence that Norway exerts on global bodies – for example UNECE and Codex – which is where law emanates in the form of dual international quasi-legislation, or diqules. These are then handed down to countries and trade blocs, such as the EU, for implementation.

As someone who wishes fervently to cease our membership of the EU it pains me greatly to observe the paucity of the arguments being presented by the, so far, two groups vying to become the ‘lead’ organisation in the forthcoming referendum. Both exhibit a common trait with you, in that none of you appear to know that about which you speak and write.

As a further attachment please find a copy of FlexCit, the work of an eminent authority on the European Union, namely Dr. Richard North. This work explains how this country can exit the EU painlessly (the Norway Option being but the first – and temporary – step, thus allowing businesses to retain access to the single market, while the lengthy process of unpicking 40 years of our enforced membership is carried out).

While FlexCit will undoubtedly increase your understanding of matters EU and global governance, especially where the subject of Norway and her influence is concerned; it will also mean that, having read it, your need to be less than candid will become unnecessary.

Yours sincerely,

David Phipps

Needless to say any response from David Cameron will, as usual, be made public on this blog.

What a contradiction!

At PMQs today Christpher Pincher – Conservative: Tamworth – (starts 01:00:57) rose to ask David Cameron whether, on the question of the UK’s reformed relationship with the EU, he [David Cameron] would confirm that no option is ‘off the table’ and that all British options would be considered; including one similar to Norway.

David Cameron replied that no options were off the table and went on to say that some wishing to leave the EU point to Norway stating her position is a good outcome. He continued that Norway has ‘no seat at the table’ and ‘no ability to negotiate’ – in effect ruling that option out.

Hello? Either nothing is off the table, or it most definitely is  – according to his reply. Methinks our prime minister needs to widen his reading list in respect of Norway ‘not having a seat at the table’ nor having ‘no ability to negotiate’? He could try reading the EFTA website?

In an earlier tweet I accused Mark Field (@Mark FieldMP) of being a ‘numpty’, asking him, in response to an article he wrote, what it was he did not understand about the origin of law. When the same description can be applied to our prime minister, then it becomes obvious why this country is in the state it is. But then, when leaders of political parties are chosen from such a low pool of ability and knowledge, what can one expect – but I digress.

Just what is it this man, so elevated above his ability by a chosen few, does not understand about this country’s ending its membership of the EU and forging a new ‘relationship’? Who has maintained that adopting the Norway position is the end result – other than those who know not about that which they speak and write?

In any event if Cameron ‘rules nothing out’, then prejudging his rengeotiation by aready appearing to ‘campaign’ to keep the UK in the EU is a tad ‘partisan’ – is it not?

As, from my days in Witney and thus having an email contact address with him, one is tempted to email him a copy of version 24 of FlexCit and ask him just what of that document he does not understand, nor agree with. No doubt I would be informed that I am no longer a constituent of his and therefore he has no obligation to respond. I would, however, were I so to do, point out to him that as prime minister he would have me believe he speaks in my best interests (which he doesn’t) and therefore is duty bound to reply. Temptation, temptation…………

As I have written previously, David Cameron is very charming when you meet him and it is difficult not to ‘like’ him – to which the same could be said of Tony Blair. Both seem only interested in their ‘legacy’ – and look where that has got Blair (Chilcot?). Cameron once said he was the heir to Blair and in that respect he was quite correct – they are both prats and thus unworthy of the office they, respectively, held and hold.






Democracy – and why we haven’t got it

The Minister for Local Growth & the Northern Powerhouse James Wharton writes about the devolution of power and support of the devolution deals taking power from Whitehall and returning it to communities.

He writes how devolution can give voters, civic leaders and businesses power over the decisions which affect them and which shape their local environment. Elected ‘civic leaders’ can only be held to account by voters once every four years, so just how can the people who are subject to decisions made by those (businesses) over whom they have no real control whatsoever hold them to account? Paraphrasing this article, business needs to learn one thing: how we are governed is not the business of business.

Wharton also writes about Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), which is but a substitution by the last Coalition govenment for Regional Development Agencies. It is a requirement of the EU that Member States ensure such bodies exist – so as with everything, what’s in a name change? Public life is riddled with duplicity and is now the norm – witness, for example, how many climate change ‘pushers’ have enhanced their income through exploitation of the very legislation of which they were part of it’s enactment. Tim Yeo? John Gummer – the latter since ‘lorded’ and now living on planet Deben?

This article of Wharton’s, in common with the output by most politicians, is nothing but idiotic dogma and ideological crap with one aim: to wrest control from the people and concentrate it yet further within the political elite (Hannan with ‘The Plan’, please take note). Devolution – Pah!

Now we have the government of the day, due to being ‘blocked’ by the House of Lords, wishing to, in effect, change our constitution (such as it now is, their having virtually scrapped it by virtue of our membership of the EU) and how it is supposed to work – and we do not live in a democratised dictatorship? At the end of the day just whose constitution is it – and when do we get our say over something that was not mentioned in the manifesto on which they were elected?

Presently we now have three declared contenders for leadership of the ‘Leave’ faction and one for the ‘Remain’ faction; and ‘annointment’ of each side will be in the hands of the Electoral Commission. It needs to be remembered that while that body is supposedly ‘independent’, four members of it are ‘nominated’ by political parties. Nothing like having an iron, or four, in an ‘independent’ fire is there? Should it not be for the electorate to decide which group they wish to lead both sides of the argument – a sort of ‘open primary’ – and then let each side ‘fight it out’?

At his Icelandic meeting we have David Cameron expected to repeat a claim that Britain would be unable to leave the EU and still enjoy unfettered access to the single market – which is a downright lie. Coupled with this we read a No10 spokesprat stating: “…..and no EU Commissioner to help.” On their appointment any EU Commissioner has sold their body and soul to the EU – so the only entity they can help is the EU.

If the government of the day is attempting to mould public opinion, is it too much to ask that they tell us the truth? If, as it apppears, the government of the day is attemting to rig the result of the referendum by means of propaganda then they are but paying lip service to democracy – and should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.




Knowing not – no surprise there then

Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, it would seem the aim of present day politicians, especially the blue ones, is to keep the populace subdued and content with repetition of their imaginary acts of patriotism.

I see today that David Cameron, in his closing speech to the Tory conference, repeats the lie that we have ‘got out’ of bailouts – no we have not, Mr. Cameron. It is worth recalling that, although he chose not to repeat them, neither was there a treaty vetoed; and nor is Norway ‘governed by fax’.

What he did repeat, by inference, is that to trade with the EU we need to be ‘in’ the EU to have access to the Single Market – no we do not Mr. Cameron.

In this short section of his speech dealing with ‘Europe’, he mentioned Conservative values encapsulating a belief in the ‘nation state’. Now, according to Wikipedia, a nation state is one that is a geographical area that can be identified as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign nation – and a sovereign nation we most definitely are not, Mr. Cameron.

When he who knows not talks to those that know not, it is no wonder David Cameron received a standing ovation.





A political fairy tale

So David Cameron has ‘laid down the law’, informing his EU fellow Heads of State just what and what is not acceptable to the United Kingdom where our membership of the European Union is concerned – well, that is what he said he would do, many moons ago.

As with ‘everything Cameron’, there is a vast difference in what he says he will do and what he eventually does. We had a demand for ‘full-on’ treaty change; now we now learn that we can’t have ‘full-on’ treaty change prior to ‘his referendum’. We now find that what we are likely to get is a ‘promise’ that his demands will be incorporated into the process of a future treaty change, something that will be legally binding – as and when that may happen. On this point of a promise, one can but refer to Richard North’s point (in the comments section) that there is a vast difference twixt legally binding and politically binding.

Not only the foregoing, but we have been told that some of Cameron’s demands will not be countenanced (freedom of movement for example) – which only highlights the point that renegotiation of the non-negotiable is just not ‘on the table’; as those of us with a brain knew only too well. This – and the result of the recent meeting of the European Council held this week – rather places those Conservative MPs, who were content to ‘wait and see’the results of Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’, in a rather awkward position – besides making them look niaive and gullible (what say you, Paterson, Redwood, Baker, et all?).

We now find, according to the Guardian, that Cameron intends to hold the referendum on a ‘risk basis’; namely a strategy of informing the electorate of the ‘risks’ should we reject his recommendation that we remain a member of the EU.  The question that then arises is why the hell should we trust a man who has repeatedly lied and misled us in the past on ‘matters EU” and who, do not forget, refused to answer my detailed questions about his stance where membership of the EU is concerned.

Reverting to the earlier link to Richard North’s article, we are not only ‘being played [with]’, we are also being taken for fools; plus we also find ourselves in the position of having our minds being made up for us by our political class through their manipulation of the information that their cohorts in the media feed us.

And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship? Of course we do – and so we will remain; until we are able to enjoy the benefits of The Harrogate Agenda. 

For all Cameron’s ‘bustering’ prior to the European Council this week – and the ‘hype’ that preceded it by him and the Foreign Office – if we look at the Conclusions issued by the European Union to said meeting, we find that Cameron was but a ‘footnote’ in the agenda, warranting but a  one-and-a-half-line paragraph at the end. So much for the UK ‘having ‘influence’ at the, supposedly, table that matters?

Just what the hell is this all about – other than Cameron attempting to secure his place in history as a total idiot?

While no longer a constituent of David Cameron, I do have a direct email contact with him; consequently it is my intention over this weekend to take him to task over his latest ‘ploy’ – not that I expect a response other than the standard ploy of his refusing to respond, based on the fact I have moved. Notwithstanding that, he is still, unfortunately, my prime minister and as such he owes me  as a member of the electorate – if we have any vestige of democracy left in this country – a response.

Stay tuned, do………………………..






How ‘green’ can one be?

Not in the sense of being an environmental advocate ‘nut’, but in the sense of knowing nothing, thus being naive – leaving aside the colour aspect, it being a mixture of blue and yellow; which in what follows begs the question whether Damian Green is in the right party.

Damian Green has an article on the Speccie Coffee House blog extolling the virtues to be gained by continuing this country’s membership of the European Union. As with all such articles it is full of holes and repeats well-worn propaganda such as 3 million jobs depend on such membership; not forgetting of course that British people can work and study anywhere in the EU, buy second homes or retire in France or Spain, and establish businesses and bid for contracts on a level playing field. What Green forgets is that all of the benefits arising from our membership of the European Union could have been negotiated without the loss of our sovereignty.

Damian Green believes that David Cameron can renegotiate the non-negotiable – now we all know that Cameron believes he is a ‘god’ and can walk on water;  but there are limits to the incredulity of us mere mortals

The article ends with the promise that he and those of his belief will put their case calmly and strongly – most notable from that statement is the omission of the word ‘truthfully’, which so many of these europhile articles lack.

Either, like other europhile politicians, Green knows nowt about ‘matters EU’ or he deliberately sets out to mislead and thus lie to us. In which case, in either event, just what the hell is he doing in politics; an area where truth, honesty and integrity are of the utmost importance? Mind you, where that last question is concerned, it is my believe it could justifiably be posed, where ‘matters EU’ are concerned, to all the other MPs (no exclusions either).

One big deficit in our current system of representative democracy is that a Member of Parliament can ‘shoot off his mouth’ via the media – and as such address the electorate in general – yet when a member of the electorate wishes to take him/her to task, if that person is not a constituent of the MP in question said complainant promptly gets the ‘brush off’.

Nonetheless, a link to this article has been ‘tweeted’ to Damian Green – for what it is worth – along the lines that he is a disgrace to politics. Mind you, at least he can pride himself that he has managed to join a club to which the leader of his party is also a member.



Cameron/Clarkson – what a democratic mess

On the BBC news this evening David Cameron, when questioned about the ‘Clarkson/Top Gear’ fiasco, stated that he did not wish to become involved in the ‘running of the BBC’ (readers can go find the link – do I have to everything round here? I jest, naturally).

But consider: were Clarkson, who lives lives in Chipping Norton (which is part of Cameron’s Witney constituency), to seek a meeting with his MP alleging victimisation resulting in his loss of earnings and asking for help, then Cameron would of necessity have to become involved with the running of the BBC.

What we have here is a situation that demonstrates the lack of separation twixt Executive and Legislature. Cameron may well have a case that he, as Prime Minister, cannot interfere in the ‘running’ of what is supposed to be an independent state broadcaster, yet were Clarkson to invoke his help, then Cameron would have to do that which he says he cannot. Are not MPs elected to represent the interests of their constituents?

It should also be remembered that Cameron, as a member of – and head of – the Executive can, if he so wishes, change  the Charter under which the BBC operates – and yet he states he cannot become involved in the running of the BBC?

One can but ask the question, therefore, just how much pressure is Clarkson under not to exercise his right as a constituent?