Posts Tagged 'Quislings'

Police and criminal justice opt-ins expose Tory lies over no more powers to the EU

Jacob Rees-Mogg has one of those tiresome ‘catch up’ pieces in the Telegraph, where he has a light bulb moment about something that Eurosceptic blogs covered months ago and explained was a government Eurosham.

This time it is the turn of the faux opt-out from the police and criminal justice power grab by the EU to come in for Europlastic criticism by one of the backbenchers who helps to prop up what passes for national government in Westminster.

Clearly Rees-Mogg has been and still is labouring under the delusion that the UK is a sovereign nation.  But, playing catch up, he now has moved as far along the track as seeing the potential of the UK to surrender sovereignty as a result of the opt-ins  to the police and criminal justice measures – and ponders what prospect there is for Cameron’s faux renegotation if Tory ministers cede ground on this power grab.

But he does offer some value in his piece (no comments enabled, presumably in the expectation he would be drowned in a torrent of digitial ink) when he posits on the opt-out, opt-in shenanigans that have been taking place in the corridors of Whitehall and reminds us that we cannot trust a word said by Cameron and his fellow quislings when it comes to matters EU:

The Government promised to inform Parliament of its intention in February but delayed until July. At that point there was much urgency which has hindered the efforts of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. The claims made for the block opt-out and opt back in are exaggerated. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, says that the block opt-out is “first and foremost…about bringing powers home” and Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, views it as “part of a process of bringing powers back to this country” yet many of the 94 measures that will be permanently opted out of are defunct or trivial while the 35 to be re-entered bring the full authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission and the European Parliament to bear.

This is a tangible transfer of power against an intangible return. As the report says: “Adherence to any legally binding EU police and criminal justice measure brings with it the risk of legal principles and practices of other jurisdictions influencing or interfering with our own, as the Court of Justice will have the ultimate say on how it is interpreted and applied.”

The only surprise and disappointment here is that Rees-Mogg is suprised and disappointed.  One would have thought he had spent enough time in Parliament to realise many in his party and almost all of his party’s senior leaders are utterly committed to the destruction of our nation state and full assimilation into an anti-democratic bureaucracy, regardless of what the British people may want.

But national sovereignty, seemingly unbeknown to Rees-Mogg, has long since been snatched away from us.  In recent weeks the evidence of that has been all too clear, as EU rules on taxation have prevented the UK from taxing profits made in this country and off-shored to jurisdictions in the form of transfer payments.

The politicians wail and moan and try to rouse a rabble of ill-informed ‘citizens’ to protest at the behaviour of the companies concerned.  But they pointedly refuse to explain why this is happening and why this country cannot stop it from happening as long as we are members of the EU.  It is one of the truths that must not be spoken because the politicians want more of this, not less.

Negative, negative, negative. Ignore the EuroFUD and seize the positive!

Another day, another steaming pile of fear, uncertainty and doubt bullshit from the pro-EU corporatists.  Roland Rudd’s insipid tentacles have been unfurled again and the media, biased beyond belief and fully paid up members of the pro-EU club, meekly repeat the latest instalment of fearmongering with uncritical fealty.

This time the federalist fanatics at the Guardian play host to the latest dose of dishonesty.  Never mind that less than half of UK exports are actually destined for EU member states, there’s more lies to boot in there.  Martin Barker is the joint-Managing Director of Rowan Precision Ltd.  However, he didn’t just decide out of the blue to submit a piece to Comment is Free; he is an EU enthusiast who plays an important part in advocating the agenda of Rudd’s extreme pro-EU Business for New Europe (BNE) and is one of their signatories.  As such he is also referenced by another Conservative pro-EU front organisation, British Influence, and provides soundbites on demand to keep the Europhile drumbeat going.

What is really interesting is the language being used by the EuroFUDers.  They have clearly been stung by the positive narrative coming from the blogosphere.  As blogs such as EU Referendum have exploded the myth that leaving the EU and its political control does not mean leaving the single market and its economic benefits, the EuroFUDers have adjusted their pitch to what we see in byline (emphasis mine):

Limited or restricted access to the EU’s single market would be an impediment to growth, job creation and innovation.

This shows us they are admitting the game is up for their dishonest sweeping claim that leaving the EU means leaving the single market and all that would entail.  The fear has been removed.  So a new anxiety is required, hence the launch of this revised argument that is designed to suggest that yes, while we could leave the EU and remain part of the single market, that involvement would in some way be limited or restricted.

More fear, more negativity, and yes, more dishonesty.  The fact is a country is either part of the single market, or it isn’t.  There is no question of limited or restricted access.  Such a notion has been dreamed up to maintain FUD.  The narrative is as predictable as it is disingenuous and deceitful.  A perfect example can be seen in the comments.

Via their sockpuppets they will argue that the structure of Norway’s economy is more limited than ours, as if they makes any difference to the ability of companies to export to EU member states or UK consumers to import from them, which is the rationale for single market membership.  They will also claim that access needs to be re-negotiated, doggedly avoiding the fact the UK could simply join the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) – an organisation co-founded by the UK – to remain part of the European Economic Area (EEA) aka the single or internal market.  Then there’s the spin and deceit about Switzerland’s relationship with the EU, which in no way restricts their single market access as they are also EFTA members.

All these twists and turns by the EuroFUDers must be happening for a reason.  Their only stated concern is the ability of the UK to maintain access to the single market, because they only cite worries about any loss of business or economic benefits to the UK.  So when a clear solution is presented that enables the UK to retain those benefits, why all the contortions to falsely declare them unworkable, limited, or restricted?  The only possible answer is that their true agenda is political, not economic, and their only aim is to keep the UK firmly part of the EU under the political control of Brussels.

That is the only logical explanation.  Why else would they eschew a continuation of the single market membership they claim to prize above all else, but also coupled with the UK being able to arrange future trade deals solely on the UK’s and third country’s own terms, rather than the consolidated compromise fudge deal scrunched up to suit partial interests of all 28 EU members?

There is a positive future that awaits the UK outside the EU.

A future with the capacity for much better trade deals on much more advantageous terms, offering far greater opportunity for British businesses and consumers.  Not only that, but the UK being able to sit at the global top table on international bodies in its own right, determining and influencing global regulations long before the EU member states have them handed over for implementation by Brussels.  As the quislings at Business for Rule from Europe and Brussels Influence see their strawmen knocked down one at a time, they will be unable to escape having to address this argument.  Who knows, even UKIP might finally find its voice!

Thanks for that, ‘Dave’

The loss-making editorial department of the BBC, otherwise known as the Guardian, has spent some money sending Nicholas Watt to Kazakhstan to cover David Cameron’s trip there.

Clearly the visit the trip is essential for British interests, which is why Cameron had plenty of time to chillax and massage his ego by holding a question and answer session with some of Astana’s youth.

Addressing the most pressing issues of the day, Cameron was asked which character from the Harry Potter series of books and films he would like to be.  His reply was very helpful for putting some genuine issues into context:

My daughter is nine years old, she’s just started to read all the Harry Potter books so I’m sort of rediscovering them all over again.

I can think of all sorts of characters you don’t want to be and I suppose in the end you know if you’ve got any sense you want to be Harry Potter. That must be the correct answer.

I suspect people in Britain might want to paint me in a different role but I’ll let them do that, I won’t make the work easier for them.

According to Watt of the Graun, this was a clever reference to ‘he who must not be named’, the evil protagonist character who Harry must overcome, known as Lord Valdemort.

It was kind of ‘Call me Dave’ to allow we serfs to paint him in a different role, as it is not as difficult as he may think.  However, far from being the powerful and cunning Valdemort, Cameron more readily fits to a tee the role of another Potter character, Lucius Malfoy, father of Harry’s arch-rival at Hogwarts school, Draco Malfoy.

After all, Malfoy Snr has delusions of grandeur coming from his wealth and breeding.  He has married into another well-connected family.  He likes to strut about throwing his weight around and trying to intimidate others.  He has the finer things in life and looks down on others as somehow inferior.  But he is shown in the Potter series to be a weak quisling who meekly takes his orders from Valdemort without question, is unable to do anything without express permission or instruction, aspires to a seat at the top table but has no influence whatsoever in the decisions Valdermort makes, and ultimately runs away like a coward when the going gets tough and his boss looks set for defeat.

This neatly mirrors the relationship between the EU and the UK and the relationship between the Barroso/Van Rompuy/Schulz axis and Cameron himself.  For David Cameron to imagine the reality is anything other than that is a greater fantasy than the Harry Potter series itself.  For that perfect and illustrative analogy about this country and its leader’s position in the EU we offer Cast Iron Dave our thanks.

What kind of dunces are they turning out of Eton?

This in today from the BBC

Doesn’t Cast Iron Dave realise that the UK is not at the top table of a number of international institutions because British governments have handed our place over to the European Union to ‘speak for us’ as one of 27 nations with often conflicting interests and needs?  For an ‘instinctive Eurosceptic’ he does seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time parroting the EU’s line and encouraging us to be fully assimilated, paid up members of it.

Perhaps it’s because our glorious media prefers not to remind people about the independence this country has given away, and certainly doesn’t want to shine a light on inconvenient facts such as those that show countries like Norway and Switzerland have seats at the top tables of more international institutions than the UK, as members in their own right, speaking for themselves with confidence on the world stage.

It will only be a matter of time until there is an attempt to replace UK and French membership of the UN Security Council as permanent members with an EU seat instead.  What then for Cameron’s drivel about the UK’s place at the top table?

Cameron claims that Eurosceptics are in ‘denial’ when we claim that the UK could go-it-alone and succeed in the global economy.  The fact is Cameron is not only in denial when he claims that the UK cannot, he is deliberately and knowingly lying.  There is absolutely no need for the UK or any other nation to surrender control of itself when everything EU membership supposedly delivers can be achieved through simple cooperation between neighbours.

Actually, perhaps it’s not dunces that Eton and Oxford are turning out, but rather deceitful Europlastic quislings who argue that Britain is not sufficiently capable of speaking for itself on the world stage and not strong enough to manage its own laws, trade relationships or control its own borders when other smaller and less well resourced countries manage perfectly well.  Yes, that sums up Cameron to a tee.

He was wrong then and he is still wrong now

Time has done nothing to diminish the pompous stupidity of the sopping wet Europhile Tory, the Rt Hon Geoffrey Howe – now of course Lord Howe – when it comes to matters of ‘Europe’.

During the recent tributes and look back at some of the key moments in the political career of Margaret Thatcher, Howe’s resignation speech in the House of Commons, was referenced and used in audio/visual clips time and again.  The clip used, that was so devastating back then, has allowed people to see in hindsight just how wrong Howe had been about the Euroclub, its aims and direction and its approach:

We commit a serious error if we think always in terms of “surrendering” sovereignty and seek to stand pat for all time on a given deal–by proclaiming, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did two weeks ago, that we have “surrendered enough”.

The European enterprise is not and should not be seen like that–as some kind of zero sum game. Sir Winston Churchill put it much more positively 40 years ago, when he said:

“It is also possible and not less agreeable to regard this sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions.”

I have to say that I find Winston Churchill’s perception a good deal more convincing, and more encouraging for the interests of our nation, than the nightmare image sometimes conjured up by my right hon. Friend, who seems sometimes to look out upon a continent that is positively teeming with ill- intentioned people, scheming, in her words, to “extinguish democracy”, to “dissolve our national identities” and to lead us “through the back-door into a federal Europe”.

What kind of vision is that for our business people, who trade there each day, for our financiers, who seek to make London the money capital of Europe or for all the young people of today?

These concerns are especially important as we approach the crucial topic of economic and monetary union. We must be positively and centrally involved in this debate and not fearfully and negatively detached. The costs of disengagement here could be very serious indeed.

The nightmare image envisaged by Thatcher was frighteningly accurate.  What has characterised our experience in Europe is being faced with ill-intentioned schemers whose behaviour seeks to further aims that have eroded and continue to erode democracy, that have dissolved national identity and are building a federal Europe.  Howe was wrong then and he is still wrong now – only ignorance can be no defence for Howe after all these years.

As always, the same justifications for this larceny is presented, economic interests and the needs of business and employers.  As always, the question about why economic and trade relationships require this country to give up control over its laws, borders, international relationships and immense sums of our money, is never asked by our agenda-ridden excuse for a media and never volunteered by the likes of Howe and the political class – who slither through the corridors of what used to be a seat of power and influence, but is now a provincial hub of managerialism and execution of the diktats faxed over from Brussels.

Howe has clearly not learned – or more likely not wanted to learn or acknowledge – the reality, which is why the human-cum-dead sheep is still there even today declaring that if a proposed referendum led to the UK leaving the EU, there would be dire consequences for the country’s global influence.  Compounding this quisling’s idiocy is his willingness to perpetuate the impression that not wanting to be governed from overseas by unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats over which we have no democratic control is ‘anti European':

The ratchet-effect of Euroscepticism has now gone so far that the Conservative leadership is in effect running scared of its own backbenchers, let alone UKIP, having allowed deep anti-Europeanism to infect the very soul of the party.

The Conservative Party’s long, nervous breakdown over Europe continues and what is essentially a Tory problem is now, once again, becoming a national problem.

Serious mistakes have been made, but the situation is not irretrievable.

The ‘situation’ to which he refers is the perceived bad behaviour in some people in the Conservative Party daring to question our EU overlords and having the temerity to disagree with their rule over us from overseas.  For the situation to be retrieved, those who wish to rebuild democracy, maintain a national identity and oppose a federal Europe – namely those things he derided all those years ago as conspiracy theories and scare stories – need to be silenced and beaten into submission by the party leader.

The irony – perhaps that should read hypocrisy – of a man calling for the leader of the Conservative Party to rein in dissenters, when he resigned as a minister for being reined for his dissent against Thatcher, is not lost on us.

Howe and his ilk are the enemy within. These carefully deceitful and treacherous fifth columnists have spent too many years seeking to destroy this country’s status as a nation state to see their anti-democratic enterprise undone now and people given the opportunity to say No to the political class.

Cameron’s EU speech – the die is cast, renegotiation confirmed as a sham

An article in David Cameron’s favourite loss-making newspaper has the Tory spin machine pronouncing his long awaited speech on the EU will contain a ‘red meat announcement’ on this country’s future in the EU.

As the paper explains, a senior government source said that the prime minister intends to make the speech this week – possibly on Monday:

He wants to go ahead as soon as possible. There will be something in it which will pacify all but the hard core.  But he could deliver the same kind of speech that Margaret Thatcher gave in Bruges in 1988 and around 25 MPs would not be happy. It is not possible to please everyone.

This language points to a forthcoming flim flam of largely meaningless demands that, even if achieved, will do nothing to remove the EU’s control over this country, or reduce the colossal sums the UK is forced to contribute to the EU’s coffers.  Cameron, in his state of delusion, is determined that the EU will continue to rule the United Kingdom, outside the control or accountability of democratic stuctures.  Anything he would ever be able to bring back from ‘Europe’ and put to the people will be as meaningless as the piece of paper Chamberlain brought home from Munich.  This background information says it all:

But insiders say he will spell out in greater detail his approach – including one significant announcement – while refusing to give a “shopping list” of powers he wants to repatriate. The shopping list idea was rejected after warnings from other EU leaders, Number 10 officials and the Foreign Office that he would have no guarantee of bringing home the goods.

This more than anything reveals the sham of the supposed renegotiation plan and it confirms the cowardice at the core of Cameron’s being.  He won’t articulate a shopping list because EU leaders and the rampantly EUphile Foreign Office told him not to.  Cameron isn’t in charge, the unelected bureaucrats are pulling the strings.  So we can be certain now this isn’t about getting back key powers, it’s about window dressing while leaving the inventory of the shop exactly as it was before.  This is a con trick of enormous magnitude.

Despite this the vast majority of Tory MPs will swallow it hook, line and sinker because it’s what they want to hear. They are devoted to continued EU membership and will continue to talk about renegotiation of a few token powers like nothing has changed and witter on that we have to stay a member of the EU for economic and trade reasons, because they are too ignorant to understand or deceitful to admit political union of the EU is not necessary for keeping access to the single market.

The piece also acknowledges that which Richard has been saying for many, many months.  Namely that there is hardly any prospect of re-opening the treaties due to the sway held by other member states – so much for our lauded ‘influence’ – and as for an intergovernmental conference over which Cameron has no control, the ‘strategy’ is a hotch potch of ifs, buts and maybes.

If EUphile delusion is a disease, this man could be the unwitting cure

If there is one thing we can all respect about fanatical EU federalists, it’s that they invariably tell the truth about the EU project even if to further its aims they slip in the odfd misdirection to keep the less informed on side.  Contrast that with the UK political class, which spends all its time attempting – clearly with some success – to deceive the British public into believing the EU is only about the single market, rather than the decades-old objective of political union.

Reading the piss-poor Huffington Post ranks lower on my list of enjoyable activities than having teeth pulled without anaesthetic or undergoing a vasectomy with garden shears. But every so often that paean of quasi-Marxist groin-centric spherical objects, does manage to extract a valuable contribution from one its fellow travellers that underline the scale of the task facing we democratically-minded, classically-liberal freedom lovers.  On Friday that digital equivalent of used toilet roll delivered one such soul-destroying jumble of bovine colonic detritus.

The former prime minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, replete with those thick framed spectacles that are the essential fashion eyewear of socialist authoritarians the world over, for the benefit of the UK audience briefly used the tired but seemingly effective trick of conflating the EU and it destination of political union with the single market. Cue yawns, or in Nile Gardiner’s worthy case a short rebuttal in the Telegraph. But thereafter the true EUphile colours streamed through. Following the typical EU federalist falsehood came some welcome honesty:

Cameron will not succeed if he attempts to hold his European partners to ransom, exchanging acquiescence to EU treaty change over the eurozone for a unilateral repatriation of powers. Moreover, the rest of the EU knows that stability and economic recovery in the eurozone is vital to the UK’s own economic interests. Some have said Cameron is not going to get his way by pointing a gun at everyone else’s head. I believe a more apt metaphor would be that of a madman, threatening to blow himself up unless he gets his own way.

One issue on which Cameron has been deliberately vague is what powers he seeks to repatriate. Social and employment law which sets minimum standards for annual leave, maternity, working hours or health and safety practices? Police and judicial cooperation which leading law enforcement figures have said are vital to the UK’s national security? The Common Fisheries Policy, which is already currently undergoing major reform? Do the fish even know wherei (sic) international borders are anyway? The only thing Cameron will achieve by seeking to renegotiate terms of membership is that Britain will be left ostracised, resented and alone. And the failure to meet expectations back home for a repatriation of powers would risk sending the UK hurtling towards the exit.

We can but hope.  But this honesty, even though it has been spilled out in a curious effort to make Britons want more of this rather than less, once again exposes Cameron’s empty rhetoric and the bleating of supposed business geniuses for what it is.  What it also does is provide ‘outers’ with yet more valuable ‘horse’s mouth’ material to show the renegotiation meme so beloved of Cameron, the leaden Tories and their partisan cheerleaders, is a fantasy option.

People are being lured in to supporting a non-existant ‘renegotiation’ option or reluctantly accepting continued EU membership because of establishment scare tactics and the concealment of the benefits of independence; which is why Mr Catherine Ashton’s recent YouGov poll (for the EUphile Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the socialist authoritarian Fabian Society) saw a fall in the number of people aged 18-34 wanting to leave the EU with more in that group wanting to stay put. Across the whole electorate the split for leaving the EU/staying in the EU is 55% / 43%.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

People desiring a major renegotiation of the terms of EU subordination is perfectly fine in itself; but its prospects are even less likely than me fulfilling my desire of engaging in an extended passionate, Monte Carlo based extra-marital liaison with Bar Refaeli, Kate Beckinsale, Doutzen Kroes and Blake Lively.  However many people polled say they support the idea, it’s just not going to happen.

While Verhofstadt then deviates back into the realms of lies and gross distortion by repeating the agreed line on EFTA and the ‘fax law’ fallacy, misleading people by describing the more than 50% of UK exports that travel through the EU as being exports to the EU, (the UK Treasury Pink Book, the OECD and the European Commission all put the figure at below 50 per cent, with the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics showing the Eurozone accounts for just 47.1 per cent of our exports of goods) and desperately trying to convince people that having your voice and interests diluted and weakened by combining it with 26 other competing and conflicting voices and interests is more effective than using your own voice to articulate your own position, he has nonetheless offered some service.  If little Guy reads the HuffPo comments in response to his rant he may also be rather disheartened to see how many people reject his premise and see the need and value to be an independent country again.

But before heading back to his seat on the gravy train and some back-slapping from the ‘colleagues’ who are desperate to keep the whole stinking ediface intact, Verhofstadt leaves us with a fisking opportunity:

In fields as diverse as the single market, foreign policy, trade and enlargement, the UK has shown that it can play a leading role. Crucially, Britain’s liberal instincts have helped ensure that the EU remains competitive, outward looking, and a force for peace and trade liberalisation throughout the world. It has achieved this not through blackmail, but by building alliances and pushing for EU-wide reform.

If put accurately and truthfully that would read: In fields as diverse as the single market, foreign policy, trade and enlargement, the UK has tried to play a leading role but has been ignored. Crucially, Britain’s liberal instints have been abused to keep it firmly inside an EU that is anti-competitive, insular, and a force for empty rhetoric and corporatism throughout the world. It has achieved this not through blackmail, but by being lied to and blackmailed by EU federalists who determine the UK’s alliances for her and reject every call for EU-wide reform.

Thanks for your help, Guy!

Germans united in regret (and self interest) over Britain’s EU stance

Different day, same inane rubbish in the media where they repeat the same establishment arguments already made ad-infinitum.  This time it’s the turn of the BBC’s Mark Urban to offer a variation on the ‘Germans are displeased with us‘ theme.

There is no real dissent across the German political spectrum on the issues of integrating the European Union (EU) more closely, apart from on the extreme right.

gushes Urban.  Well Mr Urban, with the exception of UKIP, there’s no real dissent across the British political spectrum on the issue either – Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP all crave more ‘Europe’.

From Ralph Brinkhaus, a local member of the German parliament, the Bundestag, to Christine Lemster, a chemistry student at Hamburg University, we heard a similar refrain – the UK and Germany ought to be natural allies, and it is too bad that they cannot unite around EU issues.

Stop, Mr Urban, you’re breaking my heart.  Of course we can be natural allies and we can unite around issues with Germany.  But where is the explanation about why we need to hand over control of our country in order to do so?

We are natural allies with the United States and unite with them around issues, but no one is suggesting we need to have political union with them to achieve it.  So why do we need political union in Europe?  As ever the europhile and EU grant-grabbing BBC demonstrate the closed thinking that colours their reporting of the issue.

The second issue on which there appears to be wide agreement is that Germany opposes the type of renegotiation of membership terms or competencies that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has talked about.

Well, heaven forbid this country should have the temerity to do something that doesn’t suit the agenda of the political class in Germany, or France, or Spain, or Italy.  How damned unreasonable of us.  We should be bloody well ashamed of ourselves for such harbouring such disgracefully selfish thoughts.

The last topic where the Germans offer Tory Eurosceptics cold comfort is on their idea that Britain, even if it actually left the EU, could negotiate the same type of free trade arrangement with it that Norway or Switzerland have.

We went to the Sennheiser audio plant near Hanover; where something like 10% of their worldwide sales are made in the UK, to canvass their view on this:

“I know how complicated it is to negotiate”, said board member Volker Bertels, referring to Switzerland’s long discussions over the terms of access to the European market, adding that in the case of the UK, “we all need to be careful about putting up additional obstacles”.

Once again the media paints this issue as being about one section of one political party.  They are actually doing contortions now to avoid any recognition that it is voters who have pushed this debate to the forefront through opinion polls and their possible voting intentions.  So it’s hard to get an agreement in a short time.  Switzerland got plenty of bi-lateral agreements because they have what others want and are interested in buying what others have to sell.  Provided the trade rules were in place to allow the free flow of goods and services then the market will do the rest.

So many words written by Mark Urban.  Yet none of them are devoted to any examination of the UK’s interests.  Instead he uses his platform to effectively shill for the Germans.  Such is the mindset of the establishment’s state broadcaster.  Is there anyone in the British establishment who gives a damn about this country’s interests rather than agonise about how inconvenient our potential actions might be for other countries?  There’s a word for these people.  Quislings.

Rodney Leach – Tory, Baron and pro-EU quisling stooge

The shape of a new Europe therefore writes its own script – a neighbourly alliance, partly federal, partly by treaty between independent states, in which those who want to share a currency and economic sovereignty and those who just want co-operation would be equally welcome. Only trade, the bedrock of the original Common Market, would be universal. In truth, it is not the eurozone that is the “core” of Europe – it is the single market.
–  Baron Leach of Fairford (Rodney Leach)

Actually Rodders old chap, the core of ‘Europe’ (by which the lazy Lord means the EU) is not the single market.  It is the goal of political union.

Everything the EU does – and everything it has done in its previous guises – is and has been designed to further the federalist ambitions of creating a super-government to rule the entire continent.  The single market was just a construct designed to enable politicians like Edward Heath and Harold Wilson to lull their electorates into a false sense of security as they signed away the independence of their country thinking they were just joining a trading bloc.  Leach knows this but won’t say it for fear of frightening the horses.

Yet this is the man in charge of the supposedly eurosceptic organisation, Open Europe, which tries to deceive people into believing that they share the same values and aspirations as those who want the UK to leave the EU, while working actively to keep the UK firmly inside the EU.

If Leach’s cannot be relied upon to be honest in describing the objectives of the EU how can anyone rely on anything he says?  Leach is clearly not a eurosceptic and nor is the organisation he chairs.  For the avoidance of doubt, in the paywalled Times article – laughably titled ‘The sceptics have won. Now for a new Europe… This is the perfect chance for Britain to work out how to loosen its ties with Brussels’ – from which the quote above was re-produced by ConservativeHome, Leach also said that the voice of:

moderate sceptics, who want to stay in the EU but might want “out” if the Government can’t negotiate a changed relationship… is too seldom heard.

There it is again.  The europlastic ploy of the hijack and redefinition of the term ‘eurosceptic’ to make it fit with the interests of the political class.  Now it seems the mood music being played by the Tories is that being a ‘moderate sceptic’ means wanting to stay in the EU if things change a bit. What does that mean, exactly?  Leach helpfully explains by saying these supposed moderate sceptics want to:

limit Brussels’ involvement in areas such as policing and crime, fisheries, farming, employment law and regional policy

Loosening the ties, as the now clearly identifiable EuroLeach puts it.  In other words, they only want some powers back but otherwise want to leave Brussels in overall control of government of this country and its affairs. And they push this line despite the raft of evidence that the pick n’ mix approach EuroLeach and co are pushing is a fantasy option that is rejected by the ‘colleagues’.

So it’s clear the only purpose of the changed ‘relationship’ with the EU that EuroLeach and his cohorts at Open Europe advocate is to make continued membership of the EU and government from Brussels easier to take (hence their effort to suggest being a member of EFTA leaves a country like Norway with no influence over EU trade measures resulting in rebuttal by Witterings from Witney, Boiling Frog and EU Referendum, and a certain amount of embarrassed Open Europe backtracking of the claims).  It has nothing to do with the UK taking control of its own affairs again.  Yet these are the go-to people for the media seeking ‘eurosceptic’ viewpoints on a range of EU-related stories.

Far better to describe EuroLeach and Open Europe for what they are… the enemy within.  They are unreconstructed pro-EU quisling stooges.

The EU elephant in the Europlastics’ room

Returning from my blogging holiday I was delighted to find another outstanding piece of work emanating from the EU Referendum blog of Dr Richard North. Once again, the media is left watching the birdie by the oh-so-clever politicians and their civil service puppeteers, this time on the much discussed subject of defence equipment procurement.

The upshot is that our ‘instinctively Eurosceptic’ and faux ‘veto-wielding’ Prime Minister and his collective of political pygmies have once again shown their Pro-EU credentials, happily sneaking in Brussels diktat through the back door, while moaning of too much EU power to the media at the front.  Surely that merits some attention?

As North explains in his opening:

You would have thought that, given the huge number of column inches devoted to the diverse and expensive defence procurement failures, the MSM might be interested in this government’s proposals for remedying the system, delivered on Wednesday in the form of a White Paper.

After all, the media fixated on for days and thousands of column inches on the merits or otherwise of paying RBS Chief Executive, Stephen Hester, a bonus of £963,000 worth of shares.  So surely the media would be all over a subject that concerns the spending of many BILLIONS of pounds of taxpayers money. But no. Britain is home to the Kindergarten Press, where playground antics and which kid in the class is most popular today takes the lead in headline selection.

So it is, once again, left to an attentive blogger to do the job the dumbed down media won’t or can’t do, and explain that the government’s White Paper showing the MoD will no longer favour UK companies when procuring defence equipment is not based on getting best value for money, but rather the result of compliance with the instructions of our Supreme unelected, unaccountable Government in Brussels:

These come in the guise of EU Directive 2009/81/EC “on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC”.

The result is that:

British ministers are implementing EU law, and they are always going to obey their masters. And in this White Paper, they are providing an ex post facto explanation of how the procurement system is to be adapted in order to ensure absolute obedience.

Not that the uninformed masses will know that, because our media – the same one that bleats about democracy erosion and political openness – either doesn’t understand it or doesn’t want to explain it.

Operation Deceive and Destroy

The Conservatives are following their messaging calendar to the letter.

Their communications plan has seen the Tory whips suggest to George EUstice and Chris Heaton-Harris that they form a group of Europlastic MPs to ‘promote debate‘ about this country’s ‘relationship’ with the EU.  It has seen David Cameron framing his answers to talk about this EU ‘relationship‘ as he appeared before the Liaison Committee.  And now it sees the rent seeking arch quisling-in-chief, William ‘Eurowillie’ Hague, dropping some carefully chosen words onto the willing ears of the Times about ‘loosening ties’ with the EU.

You don’t need to be an etymologist to see how the meaning of the noun Eurosceptic has been deliberately and cynically transformed to enable those who are nothing of the sort to adopt its mantle while undermining Eurosceptic aims.  The media has been complicit in this, routinely referring to pro-EU politicians who actively further the aims of the EU as Eurosceptic.  It suits the Tories and the media well.  It gives Eurosceptic voters the illusion the Tories share their desire for an independent UK, while giving  internationalists the opportunity to attack the supposedly xenophobic Tories on tribal party lines which delights the leftist media.

But back to today’s instalment from Eurowillie.  As always it is the case that when it comes to politicians we should ignore what they say and judge them by what they do.  Is William Hague a pro-EU or not?  The answer is, like Cameron, he sees himself as a ‘practical Eurosceptic’ which means he firmly and resolutely supports the UK remaining firmly in the grip of EU governance.

In fact he has gone further and actively endorsed the EU. Hague fronted a six week campaign to promote careers available in the European Union which ran in the Telegraph and on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website in January and February this year. Both microsites have been wiped from existence, but we still have Hague’s comments and a screen grab of the ad campaign for posterity: (click to expand image)

Presumably the area of Foreign Affairs is not one of the ‘ties’ that Hague is in favour of ‘loosening’.  How very Eurosceptic of him. Hague is just another Judas goat, aided and abetted by the useful idiots who are given a little latitude to ‘dissent’ in the hope of retaining Eurosceptic supporters.  As such we need to keep highlighting the evidence far and wide in the hope more people understand how they are being manipulated.

And so the Tory deception continues…

Writing in the Telegraph, political editor Patrick Hennessy tells readers that up to 70 Conservative MPs are to join a new group dedicated to “reversing the process” of closer European Union integration in a move he says is likely to place fresh strain on the coalition.

Three Conservative MPs are setting up this new group, one of whom is Daventry MP, Chris Heaton-Harris. They were the authors of a letter circulated among Conservative MPs that explained:

“The political objective of the group would be to reverse the process of ever-closer union.”

Of course the bullshit-o-meter should already be blaring. Surely, someone who is opposed to ever-closer union would be shouting from the rooftops about something as far reaching as, say, the EU’s Draft Regulation establishing a programme to support the further development of an integrated maritime policy. There is evidence to the contrary.

This blog wrote about the draft regulation in July, to highlight how Parliament’s European Scrutiny Select Committee – chaired by ‘Eurosceptic’ Bill Cash – nodded through the regulation in 2010 without so much as a murmur.  It should come as no surprise to readers therefore that Heaton-Harris sits on that Select Committee. Despite his supposed opposition to further integration it seems Cameron the cat has got his tongue.

After the blog post AM submitted a Freedom of Information request to Parliament by email for the full minutes of the committee’s deliberations about the draft regulation, to see what Cash and Heaton-Harris had to say about it.  The response received last month showed that the only information in the public domain is what we had already linked to in the blog post.

We keep being told the UK is very a democratic country, boasting a Parliament that is committed to openness and transparency in such weighty matters; so it obviously follows that in response to such a request it tells the citizens it is supposed to serve:

Any other information which may or may not be held by the House of Commons on any discussion in the European Scrutiny Committee on this item is exempt information under section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under this section, information is exempt if it its exemption is required to avoid infringing the privileges of the House of Commons, which include the right to decide whether, when and how to publish information about proceedings in Parliament, such as meetings of select committees held in private.

You can see the full response below:

The long and short of this is that even when the so called Eurosceptic Tories have an opportunity to take a stand against further integration and ever closer union, they don’t. Their promises are meaningless, and they do not honour their duty to the people they are elected to serve.  For all the acres of newsprint devoted to diversion pieces like the one Hennessy has published, all we have to show for Tory Euroscepticism is an acceleration in the transfer of power to Brussels and a long list of broken promises.

Hiding away the consequences to spare their own shame

It is easy to feel contempt for the political class and the establishment. It is also quite understandable to feel dislike for such people who do things to suit themselves and disregard the wishes and interests of the general population.

But when reading the comments of the Under Secretary of State for Defence, Andrew Robathan, a former British Army Officer in the Coldstream Guards and the SAS, one can be excused for feeling a simmering hatred.  Formerly the Queen’s man, Robathan has sold out to the political pygmies in return for a career in Parliament.

This has been demonstrated by the words Robathan used to explain why the repatriation of British soldiers, slaughtered in Afghanistan for reasons passing understanding, will be hidden away from the general public when the inbound flights cease to land at RAF Lyneham and instead land at RAF Brize Norton. When our dead soldiers land at Brize the Sunday Fail explains that they will be driven through the back gate and then down side roads, neatly avoiding the nearby town of Carterton, as they make their way to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. Robathan said:

The side gate was seen by the Ministry of Defence and the police as the most appropriate way to take out future corteges.

I am not sure taking coffins in hearses past schools, past families, past married quarters is necessarily the thing that everybody would wish to see … the focus must be on the families of the dead service personnel. They are the people who care most. That is where our focus is.

No, instead Robathan and his ilk would prefer to keep the human impact of their completely mismanaged adventurism in Afghanistan a dirty little secret.

They know that news broadcasts informing the public of yet more young men who have been sacrificed needlessly to prop up a sick illusion do not have a fraction of the psychological impact of seeing coffins containing the remains of those poor lads being driven to Oxford.  Why should the reality of the consequences of the politicians sending these young men to their deaths be hidden away from the people they stepped up to serve?

This isn’t about looking out for emotional wellbeing of the families of servicemen.  This is about the MoD and the politicians not wanting to feel the pressure of public opinion weighing down on them as the bodies of young men whose lives have been snuffed out fighting to defend a corrupt, untrustworthy and backward regime that is incapable of securing the support of its own people.

When Robathan spins the line he did he erases the respect he earned through his previous service. All the good that went before is cancelled out. But most importantly he lets down those who have followed him into the armed forces and who should only been sent into harm’s way with very good reason.

Afghanistan is nothing like a good reason and Robathan is now nothing more than a self serving turncoat. He is a coward for toeing the party line in this way.

Compare and contrast

It is often said the BBC’s favourite news subject is itself.  The same is true of Conservative politicians and their bag men. The love being the centre of attention because it takes the focus away from their multitude of broken promises and their rank incompetence.

This weekend we have no less than two articles online that put the 2010 intake of new Tory MPs front and centre.  While the articles hail from different viewpoints, both underline the self referential Westminster bubble’s desire to talk about issues of fascination to itself rather than subjects that matter to the long suffering British public.

First up we have Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, taking time out from ‘running interference’ for David Cameron in the Sunday Fail, to try and convince readers that he and the Conservative Party are still right of centre, by arguing that the new intake of (supposedly centre right) Tory MPs are pushing David Cameron towards a more robust, more appealing Conservatism.

Any independently minded observer reading Montgomerie’s piece would either be reduced to tears of laughter at the notion of the autocratic Cameron being forced into any position he doesn’t want to adopt, or moved to hurling invective at their screen in response to the sheer vacuous idiocy of his claim.

Which brings us smoothly on to the second piece about the aggressively self serving Tory newbies…  for in the Mail on Sunday we have an anonymous piece, written by a person who indicates they are a longer serving Conservative MP, which explains that while he/she thought the new intake of Tories would clean up politics, the cruel hounding of Mark Pritchard shows they were wrong.

As this anonymous person reminds those who had forgotten the origin of these Parliamentary candidates before they were elected, top of the list were the friends or former schoolmates of Cameron and George Osborne, or those who moved in the same social circle. The candidates lists in many constituencies were cynically manipulated to ensure those who Cameron and Osborne could rely upon to be ‘on message’ were the ones who were selected. Alongside these, the anonymous writer reminds us:

were the ambitious sycophants and plain old careerists who would sell their own grandmother for a pat on the back or a wink from a whip

So how does this insight square with Montgomerie’s article, which one could argue is nothing more than another Cameron-protecting puff piece designed to keep the angered Tory grass roots from turning their back on the left sliding party for good?  How does Montgomerie’s piece square with his own support of the ‘Better Off Out’ campaign to see Britain leave the EU, when he witters on about this new intake, amounting to two thirds of Tory backbenchers, supposedly pulling Cameron towards more Thatcherite positions, and the old Right towards greater pragmatism?

Perhaps Montgomerie’s stomach for principle has now completely evaporated, easily pleased at seeing nothing more a Conservative in name only in Downing Street due to his tribal party loyalty, to be replaced by the coward’s approach – consensus politics and so called pragmatism which maintains the anti democratic nature of politics in this country – which prevents the change we so desperately need.

You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking

Every time he opens his mouth David Cameron reveals a little bit more of the idiocy within.

His latest comment, an attempt to stem criticism from senior members of the armed forces, underlines Cameron’s stupidity.  How exactly does Cameron expect the military to do the fighting when the size of the armed forces is being pared back, equipment that is essential for independent operations is being decommissioned at break neck speed and certain personnel have little time for training and recovery between deployment to theatre?

Yes, the Ministry of Defence has squandered billions on ludicrous procurement decisions. Yes, the Defence Chiefs have failed their commands by setting their hearts on equipment designed for use in conventional warfare while all our operations since the Falklands have been asymmetric. But this has been allowed to happen by the utter failure of the politicians to control that for which they are responsible.

In a way Cameron is being honest when he says he will do the talking.  Talk is all he is good for.  Cheap talk and empty rhetoric.  But he is fundamentally dishonest when he tells the armed forces to get on with the fighting because the defence policy of his band of traitorous quislings is eviscerating the British military and neutering its ability to function independently. It is not even an accident, it is being done by design as part of a bigger European plan to create an EU army that leaves member states reliant on interdependency.

Perhaps the Defence Chiefs could restore some semblence of honour if they admit they have been wrong to go along with the EU’s grand plan, discovered their backbones and oaths to defend this country’s interests and told Cameron what he can do with his words.

Parliament deceived about EU plans for sharing of military assets

To quote what Michael Fallon MP once said in a Parliamentary committee about former City Minister Lord Myners during the ‘Fred the Shred’ furore: ‘Misleading Parliament is a serious offence; misleading the public is even worse. The honourable thing to do now would be to resign.

The same comment should now be directed at the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy) at the Ministry of Defence, Gerald Howarth MP for misleading Parliament and the public.  To set the scene, consider this Parliamentary written answer by Howarth published in Hansard on Thursday:

Military Alliances

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the pooling and sharing of military assets.

Mr Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), has regular discussions with his European counterparts on pooling and sharing. We believe that it is important that the UK seeks and exploits all opportunities to promote greater burden sharing and increased cooperation, in order to optimise capability development in Europe.

More specifically, I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Defence Ministers’ formation on 24 May 2011, which included pooling and sharing as a topic for discussion. The UK took the opportunity at the discussions to re-emphasize the point that national commitments to any pooling and sharing initiatives must be voluntary, consistent with the fact that each member of the Council is a sovereign nation state.

The meeting at which pooling and sharing of military capabilities was discussed actually took place on 23rd May, but that is not how Gerald Howarth misled Parliament and the public. It was Howarth’s omission of important details about the meeting which Parliament should have been told and the public made aware that is the issue.

The fact of the matter is pooling and sharing initiatives in the military context here are not voluntary. They are being directed by the European Union. The matter is voluntary in so far as the EU will operate at arms length to provide support and foster pooling and sharing only as long as the member states actually get on with the business of carrying it out. Couched in the flowery diplomatic language of garblespeak this message is made clear in the adopted conclusions of the meeting:

(NB. This was split across two pages and has been merged for ease of reading)

If pooling and sharing of military assets was a matter purely for member states to engage in voluntarily, which Howarth wants Parliament and the public to believe, then what business does the Council of the European Union have setting best practice, scoping models for cooperation, defining success criteria, providing supporting tools and encouraging the European Defence Agency to help member states identify where assets can be pooled and shared?  These are the actions of programme directors, not observers. The EU is in the driving seat.

So where does this square with Howarth’s alleged emphasis that national commitments to any pooling and sharing initiatives must be voluntary, consistent with the fact that each member of the Council is a sovereign nation state?  His comment is utterly meaningless.  In choosing to omit the information from the conclusions of the meeting as shown above, Howarth was deliberately engaged in an effort to deceive MPs and voters.

The reality is clear. The EU is – to coin David Cameron’s phrase – ‘nudging’ the member states into a position that makes it easy for EU-wide command and control to be implemented. The member states know this but are comfortable with it as it fits their aim of ever closer union, regardless of what their people may think.

One final point needs to be made here.  Where is the media?  What, for example, is the point of the Telegraph conducting an interview with the head of the French Navy to splash a story about the UK and France sharing an aircraft carrier, when it misses or ignores the real story behind it that the public must be told?  Useless is a word that doesn’t come close to describing our national press.

UK needs to be independent to deport foreign criminals

There can be no more clear a demonstration that our politicians do not understand who controls this country, or are content to wilfully misrepresent the truth to continue deceiving many British people who simply do not understand where power resides.

The subject is the unsurprising revelation that 102 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants who were set for deportation have been able to stay in the UK by claiming that they had a ‘family life’ here which is covered in Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The quote is carried by the Barclay Brother Beano and was made by Conservative MP, Dominic Raab:

Before the Human Rights Act, no criminal had ever claimed a right to family life to frustrate a deportation order in this country.

It is high time we changed the law, to restore some common sense and retain public confidence in our border controls.

If one wants to change something it is essential to understand the nature of the thing and honestly describe what must be done to change it. We do not have legal control over our borders.  It doesn’t matter if the Human Rights Act is kept or repealed. In order to rectify the situation of failed deportation efforts this country needs to take back control of its borders by having primacy over the law in this land.

The nature of the thing is clear. The UK is not independent, because UK politicians have subsumed it into the European Union without the permission of the electorate.  All the while the UK remains signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and remains part of the EU, the law in England and Wales and that in Scotland and that in Northern Ireland, will never have primacy.

Until the UK is truly independent people will be able to appeal decisions beyond our Supreme Court in London to the European Court of Human Rights. Thus te UK will remain beholden to its real government in Brussels and its real seat of legal authority in Strasbourg.

That is the only answer . We need to take back the power our politicians have given away to European bodies. But Raab does not say that because he either does not understand it (unlikely), or (almost certainly) he knows he would fall foul of the man who controls his Parliamentary career prospects, the Europhile quisling overlord David Cameron.

Thus Raab is just another of Cameron’s useful idiots.  He is either too stupid to be an elected representative because he does not understand who runs this country, or like most of his Parliamentary colleagues he puts his own interests and the tribal demands of his political party before the interests of the people he was elected by – and is handsomely paid to serve – namely the British public.

EU plan for UK-French military merger inches closer

In September 2010 this blog explained to readers how plans for a Royal Navy aircraft carrier share with French Navy is nothing more than an element of a much bigger Tory idea dating back 14 years. We posed a question:

But what will be Cameron’s excuse when the deeply unpopular plan for the Royal Navy and French Navy to share aircraft carriers and integrate operations is confirmed?  After all, as EU Referendum reminds us, this is nothing more than the realisation of a long standing European military cooperation agreement signed by the Conservatives under John Major in 1996.

The Barclay Brother Beano, for reasons passing understanding, is still the Tories’ rag of choice. And it is there that the latest instalment in the drip feed of confirmation has been positioned…

(Note the date of the piece – 6 June – a typo error, or carefully timed release to fit with an announcement that has gone pear shaped?)

It has long been the EU’s plan for the UK and France to share military hardware in this way.  The article is a measure of the contempt in which the political class treats us, and an underlining of the ignorance/complicity of a fawning media that props up this worthless parasites.

What we are seeing is the end game, the execution of a long standing plan to bring about interdependence between the UK and French armed forces, which means Britain’s capability to undertake unilateral military operations will no longer exist.  We can only act militarily with the permission and active cooperation of others. The next stage will be the gradual assimilation of other elements of armed forces from other EU member states, operating under the blue banner and gold stars of the EU, giving Brussels its dream of a military capability under a unified command structure taking orders from the unelected and unaccountable mandarins who rule over us.

All this has been planned and delivered, hidden in plain sight of the electorate and the media, yet even now many in the media are still unable or unwilling to connect the dots and explain to our population what our political class has done. They are sickening quislings to a man and a woman.

The Europhile’s Prayer

Over at EU Referendum, Dr Richard North brings us John Drennan’s level headed critique of EU rule over Ireland.  Along with Drennan, Booker and Synon, I get it too.

Richard then goes on to offer up an amusing adaptation of the Lord’s Prayer to fit in with the required worship of the EU.

As I quite enjoy changing the lyrics to songs, I’ve decided to join in the fun and produce my own version – the Europhile’s Prayer:

Our Masters, who art in Brussels,
hallowed be thy rule.
Thy diktat come,
thy laws be done,
from Greece all the way to Ireland.
Give us this day our directive.
And deny us democracy,
as you deny those who crave independence.
And lead us out of nation statehood,
and deliver bureaucracy.
For thine is the EU, the power and the glory, until we’re defeated.
Amen.

No doubt some quisling politicians will think this is all rather appropriate and it will soon appear on the walls at Conservative Central Office, Labour’s Victoria Street HQ and the Limp Dim bunker in Cowley Street.

The UK’s quisling-in-chief

Anyone who has gritted their teeth and listened to the many statements of Conservative Foreign Secretary William Hague in recent weeks on the Libyan uprising may have noticed Hague has never failed to act as if he were the official spokesman for the EU.

For a man who is a supposed Eurosceptic Hague seems to have been holding a very large candle for Brussels, never failing to mention the EU as a solution to every problem, even though it is NATO that is carrying out air strikes against the Gadaffi regime.  This pro Brussels sycophancy is completely at odds with the carefully cultivated image of a man who will not rest until Britain controls her own affairs.

However Hague has taken his forbidden love of the EU into new ground tonight. In a speech delivered at the Mansion House on the Arab Spring and democratic reform in Middle Eastern countries, Hague has once again advanced the EU as the answer – this time as the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict:

The EU already has the tools and the resources for the task.  What it has lacked is the will to use them well. We should use the EU’s economic magnetism to encourage and support real political and economic reform. That means a new partnership with the southern neighbourhood with a simple proposal at its heart: that the EU will share its prosperity and open up markets in return for real progress on political and economic reform.

The EU should offer broad and deep economic integration, leading to a free-trade area and eventually a customs union, progressively covering goods, agriculture and services, as well as the improvement of conditions for investment. All of this must should be accompanied by our partners achieving clear and sustainable political and economic reform.

It is stomach churning to see how devalued the role of Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has become.  There is no mention of the role Britain could play, just a fawning fanaticism to cheerlead for a bureaucracy that talks big and delivers nothing. Move over Baroness Catherine Ashton and behold the EU’s true Foreign Affairs spokesman.

No doubt once he has been ejected/departed from office we will see this overhyped money grubbing climber slide into a cosy, well remunerated EU placement. As Hague likes wearing baseball caps, perhaps the one above will serve as a goodbye and don’t come back gift from people who would rather we had a Foreign Secretary representing this country instead of Brussels.


Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive