Tag Archive: David Cameron

Meeting my Member of Parliament (2)

Readers will recall that on 15th August last I met with my Member of Parliament (and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) and presented him with a ‘dossier‘ containing some specific questions and allegations. Just after noon today I received the following reply:

Cameron Letter Nov14 (1)

(click to enlarge)

Cameron Letter Nov14 (2)

(click to enlarge)

The following response has been sent:

Dear Mr. Cameron,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 6th inst., in response to our meeting on 15th August last at which time I handed you a dossier containing many questions and certain allegations.

It is with regret that I find you have ignored each and every one of the questions I raised and the allegations I levied against you; instead providing seven paragraphs repeating how you have a plan to renegotiate that which is not negotiable, coupled with your plea that I should vote for your party at the 2015 General Election.

It is necessary to immediately take issue with that which you have written:

  • You write that you cannot agree with a number of the points I raised; which immediately begs the question of which do you agree and of which do you dispute;
  • You write that I am one of those who argue for a referendum now; which begs the question when have I so done;
  • You write that such a referendum would be a ‘false choice’ between the status quo that is still changing – and leaving; and that we must wait until you are able to present a ‘new settlement’ thus enabling the people to make a decision. Come, come, Mr. Cameron; there is no ‘status quo’ as the European Union is constantly ‘changing’ and will so continue until it has achieved its aim of ‘ever closer union and thus created a United States of Europe.
  • You state that among the areas in which you wish to reclaim power is that of justice and home affairs; which immediately begs the question of just what is the point of ceding control – which you seem hell-bent on doing – of that which you now state you wish to reclaim.  I of course refer to the EAW opt-ins that last night you felt it necessary to interrupt a banquet to achieve.

On the steps of Downing Street in May 2010 you famously said that you would never forget that you, as a politician, are a servant of the people, who you also acknowledged were the masters. I would be grateful if you could explain what is the point of any constituent questioning his servant when said servant refuses to answer – or evades – a question, or questions, from his master.

Needless to say, your letter and my response has been published on my blog for my readers to see – and for those that read it to also blog and use twitter to further spread your response.

For the avoidance of doubt, what in effect my dossier intimated was that you had lied to the British electorate; something which, in your response to my dossier, you have failed dismally to repudiate.

In conclusion, as there can be no greater civil crime than for a member of the public to call anyone – let alone a politician and a Member of Parliament – a liar, perhaps you would wish to instigate court action in order to retain your honour as a Member of Parliament and Prime Minister- and status as an Englishman; both of whom are supposedly renowned for their word and for speaking the truth?

With kindest of regards,

David Phipps

Now let us see what that produces!

(I, for one, am fed up with pussy-footing around, according respect and courtesy to those who don’t deserve it. Let us see how much my Member of Parliament – and Prime Minister of what was once a great nation – feels he deserves my respect).

 

 

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Meeting my Member of Parliament (2)

I thought readers would be interested to know that, following my meeting with David Cameron on Friday, today the following email has been received:

Your appointment with David Cameron MP

Dear Mr Phipps,

 Thank you very much for coming to see David on Friday at his advice surgery.  Thank you also for dropping off the document listing your concerns about David’s comments regarding Europe.  Please be assured that David will read and respond to this in due course.

Best wishes,

Julia

Julia Spence I Caseworker

 Office of the Rt Hon David Cameron MP

House of Commons , London, SW1A 0AA

Needless to say I refrained from responding that my concerns had nothing to do with the continent of Europe but were related to this country’s membership of the European Union and the less than candid statements on that subject that he has made verbally and in writing.

As previously promised, his response (and any rebuttal to his response) will be published.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Clarification required

It will be recalled, from the European Council Conclusions of 27th June, that David Cameron made great play on the statement about ‘ever closer union’. To refresh readers memories point 27 stated:

The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.

In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.

That is not what the Commission website states when explaining what is EU law and/or ‘ever closer union’:

The main goal of the EU is the progressive integration of Member States’ economic and political systems and the establishment of a single market based on the free movement of goods, people, money and services.

To this end, its Member States cede part of their sovereignty under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which empowers the EU institutions to adopt laws.

These laws (regulations, directives and decisions) take precedence over national law and are binding on national authorities.

In his statement to the House of Commons Cameron said (Col: 600):

We broke new ground, with the Council conclusions stating explicitly that ever closer union must allow for different paths of integration for different countries and, crucially, respect the wishes of those such as Britain that do not want further integration. (Emphasis mine)

The Council Conclusions said no such thing – read point 27 again. It stated that the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union, etc, etc.

It should be noted that the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘concept’ as: a general notion; an abstract idea.

Another example of David Cameron being economical with the actualité; or, even more serious, misleading the House?

Just saying………………………………….

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
06/03

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

A Prime Ministerial Appointment

Readers may recall that I advised a meeting had been requested with my Member of Parliament who also ‘doubles-up’ as our Prime Minister, in order to discuss ‘matters EU’ and his being economical with the actualité.

It would appear that my wish is to be granted as I have received a letter from him requesting that as time is at a premium I advise his constituent secretary of the particular points I wish to cover so that we can both use what little time there is productively – plus it also allows time for him to put in some homework.

Therefore if readers do have a question that they would like to submit, or a point to make, now is your chance!

It would be appreciated if said questions are submitted via the ‘Email David’ facility at the head of this blog.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

When is ‘comment’ not ‘comment’?

I ask the question as, like The Boiling Frog following his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), I am a tad bemused. I also have to ask whether the PCC has become part of the political policing about which AK Haart writes.

That the media in general are part of this ‘political policing’ has been apparent to me for some time – witness the blind repetition of ‘facts’ espoused by politicians and think tanks with no rebuttal by the member of the media concerned. The media is quite right to reproduce such ‘information’, it is ‘news’, all things considered; but in my opinion they also have an obligation to question such statements when it is obvious they are flawed. The most recent example of the foregoing occurs with The Times reporting on the findings of  the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) claiming that a decision by Britain to leave the European Union would be a risky gamble that could result in economic losses larger than those suffered at the time of the global financial crisis. Richard North has taken these assertions apart and agrees that they are flawed, which they most definitely are. Yet where is there any rebuttal by The Times?

Sophia Loren is reputed to have said that when you are a mother, you are never really alone in your thoughts. A mother always has to think twice, once for herself and once for her child – would that our politicians thought twice, once for themselves and once for the constituents whose views they are supposed to represent. Likewise, Marcus Aurelius is reputed to have said that our life is what our thoughts make it. How can our life be decided by our thoughts when others attempt to alter our thoughts and thus our life, the latter which is most definitely not theirs? When sections of our society attempt to mould our thoughts – nay, to decide our thoughts for us – then one of the differences that separates the human race from any other species is negated; we then become no different to sheep. 

One of the biggest culprits attempting to ‘mould our thoughts’ is my Member of Parliament – who also fulfills the role of our Prime Minister. In his ‘comments’ about the UK’s membership of the European Union he has lied to us by omission – or, to put that in a kinder form – he has been economical with the actuailité when he has been passing ‘comment’ on the subject.

There are instance where the lack of separation of power twixt Legislature and Executive can work in ones favour, in that unlike the majority of my readers I am able to request a meeting (which I have now done) with both my Member of Parliament and my Prime Minister – and accomplish both simultaneously. I have made plain in the email requesting this meeting that I consider he stands guilty of misleading the public on ‘matters EU’ through being economical with the actualité and that I wish to discuss this with him.

Assuming I am granted an audience, I am only too happy to also put readers questions to David Cameron, time permitting. These can be emailed to me through the link on this blog, said link appearing within the heading.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

A guantlet thrown down (2)

The first post in this series has resulted in WfW being subjected to a number of DOS attacks directed at that article, so it may be time to ‘up the ante’ as it were by repeating the charge levied against Nick Clegg and this time directing it at David Cameron.

The Conservative Party has just issued a video for the forthcoming European elections:

Cameron did not veto any treaty as there was no treaty on the table to veto; Britain still contributes to euro bailouts through its membership of the IMF; and Cameron did not cut the EU budget as Britain ended up contributing more.

The video states that Cameron will bring back powers from the EU by: taking back control of justice and home affairs; yet he is in the process of agreeing to cede some of them; by taking control of our borders intimating that Britain will control who enters our country, yet knows he cannot stem immigration from  any of the other 27 member states of the EU; securing more trade intimating the setting up of trade deals, yet the negotiation of trade deals is an EU competence; giving the people a yes/no referendum by 2017 following a renegotiation of Britain’s membership terms, yet the only way he can do this would be by invoking Article 50 of the TEU – something he has not mentioned.

Based on the claims he makes in this video  not forgetting his infamous claim that Norway is governed by fax, it is necessary to state that David Cameron is a liar and a charlatan – and pointing out that he has the same opportunity as that offered to Clegg.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Witney: Another example of ‘dictatorial democracy’?

This story was the lead page of Wednesday’s edition of the Witney Gazette, one that filled the front page – and raises a number of what may be considered worrying questions.

We find Duncan Enright stating that as councillors they are elected to represent and that the proposed draft policy is outrageous.

We find the Witney Gazette stating in their Editorial that the proposed draft policy is an affront to democracy.

We find David Cameron being quoted as stating: Witney Town Council, as is the case with all public bodies, needs to ensure that its business is conducted in an open and transparent way as possible.

 What is outrageous is:

1. Duncan Enright, along with every other councillor quoted, makes not one mention of those he and they are elected to represent – and therefore not raising the point about ascertaining what they may think or want.

2. The Witney Gazette pontificating about democracy when it so obviously has not one iota of understanding about the total lack of that about which it writes. There is also the point that had they bothered to read the press statement issued by Witney Town Council they should have immediately, themselves, queried Sharon Goth’s statement attributed to her and not just relied on one from NALC’s spokesperson Kate Groves.

3. The head of the largest public body in the land calling for business to be conducted in an open and transparent way as possible when he does anything but – exemplified by his (a): avoiding the real reason for HS2 and (b): obfuscation over this country’s membership of the European Union.

To each of the above the accusation of Pot/Kettle can be levied.

One group to whom the aforementioned accusation cannot be levied is the Witney public, who like the British public, have allowed themselves to become conditioned to accepting a form of democracy that equals democratised dictatorship – resulting in their serfdom.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Out of the mouths of idiots

David Cameron, this afternoon, in Brussels:

We know from our history that turning a blind eye when nations are trampled over and their independence trashed stores up far greater problems in the long run.

Fear ye not, Mr. Cameron; the pigeons are coming home to roost!

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Planet Cameron

Richard North writes about Planet Cameron and the, in his words, inability of politicians to come to terms with the fatuity of Cameron’s EU renegotiation/reform fantasy, It is therefore pertinent that I reproduce the content of an email that I have just received from David Cameron, one headed: Europe – have your say.

Conservatives

Make sure you have your say by registering for a postal vote on the About My Vote website.

Since becoming Prime Minister, I’ve taken action to stand up for Britain: 

  • Securing a cut in the EU budget to save British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds
  • Vetoing a new EU treaty that would have given more power to Brussels and would have been bad for British businesses and taxpayers
  • Refusing to spend British taxes bailing out the euro 

But I believe the EU needs fundamental change so it works for Britain.

I will negotiate a better deal for Britain – and when I’ve finished, I’ll give the British people a say on whether we should remain in the EU with an in-out referendum before the end of 2017.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats oppose this plan and want to deny the British people a say – while UKIP simply can’t deliver.

Only the Conservatives can deliver real change in Europe, and this election is a hugely important step to securing it.

So make sure you have your say by registering for a postal vote today.

Even if you decide to vote in person, you can still take your postal vote to your polling station and put it in the ballot box.

Best wishes,

David Cameron signature

 

David Cameron

Readers will note that besides continuing his meme of having renegotiated the UK’s terms of EU membership and put it to a referendum by the end of 2017, his email above contains three blatant untruths – there was no cut in the EU budget; there was no treaty to veto; and we are still liable, through the IMF, for funds to bail out the euro.

But hey, when was truth a prerequisite when one is desperately trying to cling on to the reins of power?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

The non-event of the year (so far)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel Visits The UK

Well, the much heralded visit of Angela Merkel has come and gone – and one can only presume that journalists and the political pundits are extremely busy this evening wiping egg off their faces. We have been informed by some that she would be throwing open the door for Cameron to have his ‘renegotiation’, while others informed us that she would be slamming that door firmly shut – in the event she did neither, informing us very early on in her speech that both would be disappointed.

What we had, in effect, was what may be termed a typical ‘EU fudge’ speech, one talking about the need for a more competitive EU; that any reform would follow the normal step-by-step method (aka mission-creep); and more importantly that the four freedoms were not, per se, up for renegotiation.

On that point about the four freedoms, it was interesting to note that, practicing what is now the norm, statistics were issued today, under cover of the Merkel visit, detailing the levels of immigration.

Official statistics showed net immigration to the UK was 212,000 in the year to September, up 58,000, which is a long, long, long way from the “tens of thousands” promised in the Conservative Party manifesto – and subsequently. Merkel was kind enough to suggest to Cameron that she could work with him on changes to the freedom of movement rules – but only in relation to benefit claims; while also stating that the fundamental right of labour to move freely would most definitely not be ‘on the table’.

Another unfortunate consequence of Merkel’s speech – and obviously not one Cameron intended – was the fact that it showed the uselessness of the Coalition’s Balance of Competences Review in that (a) they are so skewed in favour of EU membership as to be worthless; (b) Cameron has yet to put any demands on the table; and (c) most of the ‘demands’ for which he wishes he ain’t going to get – let alone discussed.

All in all, one thing becomes clearer by the day: (i) the longer Cameron continues this fiasco of maintaining he will hold a referendum in 2017, knowing as he must that with treaty change coming that date cannot be met, the more ridiculous he and his policy looks; and (ii) while politicians, especially Conservative politicians, continue their misinformed comments and remarks – coupled with their failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room (flooding?) the more ridiculous they look, too.

As an aside; if we as taxpayers have to foot the bill (which we no doubt have) for what was obviously going to be a non-event from the outset, should we not have been asked whether we agreed in the first place?


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012