Tag Archive: William Hague

2013
02/28

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:





COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

Public increasingly interested in affairs EU

So reports TheParliament website (the one with a ring of stars) stating that: “Europeans are increasingly interested in European affairs, and a majority want to be informed on what happens at EU level.” With the survey, conducted between 17 November and 2 December 2012, on 26,739 European citizens from the 27 member states out of a population of 500m, it can hardly be termed representative – but I digress.

 From what coverage of the Eastleigh by-election campaigns I have seen, it would appear that mention of matters EU did not feature that prominently, other than immigration, which is a tad surprising when considering how much the EU affects life and how we live it. Needless to say that may well change, come the 2015 general election, although it is a given that the three main parties will do their utmost to ensure discussion of matters EU is kept to a bare minimum, if that.

It is worth remembering that next year, 2014, William Hague’s promised audit of EU “influence”, in how we are governed, is due for publication. He would not be surprised to learn that with my, and that of the public, opinion of our political class at such a low state, any hope that this audit will be fair, reasoned and, more importantly, factually correct, is virtually non-existent. Yet no doubt the findings of this audit will be widely used in the 2015 general election and during the proposed referendum, if and when it is held.

The “pile of cards” being stacked against any wish of the people to cease this country’s membership of the EU grows higher with the passing of each day.

 

2013
01/16

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:









COMMENTS:
1 Comment »

Being Leadsom what up the garden path

The Fresh Start Group has today published what they have called a “Manifesto for change” which includes a Foreward penned by William Hague, the brevity of which is most marked. Richard North, EUReferendum, has dismissed this tome by the FSG as being not worthy of comment – a judgement with which it is hard to disagree. It is not necessary to progress far into this document in order to see why that view is held.

The first paragraph and the start of the second to the Introduction sets the tone:

“The status quo in the European Union is no longer an option. The Eurozone is facing up to the inevitable consequences of the financial crisis, and is moving towards fiscal and banking union. This is not a path that the British people will go down, and together with other non-Euro members of the EU, we must articulate and negotiate a new and different relationship for ourselves whilst remaining a full member of the EU.

Our ambition is to build on the success of the single market. We want to ensure the EU institutions protect and deepen the single market. We also want to protect British sovereignty, ensuring that the British Parliament can decide what is best for Britain………”

Being a full member of the European Union entails accepting the status quo, of the Acquis Commauntaire wherein a power once ceded will never be returned, so how wee “george and rea” believe they can claw back powers as part of this new and different relationship and still remain a full member, beggars belief.

It is indeed laughable of these two clowns – and those who have signed-up to their beliefs – that they feel the need to protect British sovereignty which, because of our membership of the European Union – no long exists. Sovereignty, something that ensures a country can make decisions for itself, can only exist in its entirety and is not something that can be carved up into pieces, handing some elsewhere. A country either has sovereignty or it does not – there are no half-way stages.

It is pretentious, to say the least, that Leadsom wishes to ensure that the British Parliament can decide what is best for Britain. Since when, as with sovereignty, has Britain been theirs to do with as they will? Is not the sovereignty of Britain and what is best for Britain a decision of the British people?

On pages 5 and 6 of this document comes the totally false Norway/Switzerland repetition about those countries having to accept legislation with no say in the formulation of same:

“The benefits of the single market, to UK exports and to FDI, are generally accepted to be the reason Britain entered the EU and the main reason for our remaining a member. If the UK decided that, overall, the benefits to EU membership were outweighed by the costs; there are three alternative models of trading with the EU that have been considered, but found wanting:

  • Joining the European Economic Area (as for Norway)
  • Negotiating a series of FTAs (as for Switzerland)
  • Negotiating a new Customs Union (as for Turkey)

Norway, Switzerland and Turkey have preferential trading arrangements with EU Member States but are subject to bureaucratic rules of origin (though only in agricultural products in the case of Turkey). Most importantly, their trade with the EU relies on accepting or complying with many EU regulations over which they do not have a vote.”

and this document is offered for our consideration and asks us to treat it seriously? Presumably Hague did read it before allowing his Foreward to be used? In which case, in view of the blatant untruth on page 6, just how the hell does he consider it to be “well-researched”? It is noted that the situations of Norway and Switzerland viz-a-viz their relationship with the European Union were dismissed as: “found wanting”. Really?

The final page to this serious-not piece of work contains a vote of thanks to those who contributed – but unfortunately appears to have an omission, a word which I have inserted on their behalf:

“The Fresh Start Project would like to thank those who have contributed so much [crap] to this manifesto, in particular:

Gutto Bebb MP, Nick de Bois MP, Therese Coffey MP, George Eustice MP, Mark Garnier MP, Chris Heaton-Harris MP, Gerald Howarth MP, Andrea Leadsom MP, Charlotte Leslie MP, Tim Loughton MP, David Mowat MP, Neil Parish MP, Priti Patel MP, and Dominic Raab MP.”

 

2012
10/06

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:









COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

First they came for……

“Representative democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

(paraphrasing H.L. Mencken)

With the impending commencement of the last of the self-glorification jamborees, much advice appears in the press by journalists (eg: Charles Moore, Neil O’Brien and Andrew Grice) advising David Cameron and the Conservaties how to continue the propagation of the system by which they, the journalists, are able to feed themselves through the regurgitation of senseless pronouncements made by men and women who have, time and time again, failed in their chosen career but, defying all the laws of logic, manage to hang onto their jobs.

Added to which we have William Hague, in the Telegraph, informing us what we can and cannot have when it comes to deciding how we wish to be governed; which is accompanied by the obligatory ‘puff-piece’ from Robert Winnett, the newspaper’s ‘political editor’, who is of the opinion that many of those travelling to Birmingham consider Hague to be the greatest prime minister we never had.

Nowhere have I noticed any of the journalistic ‘wise men’ mention – probably because the thought never entered what passes as their brain – the point that if we are to be allowed to express our consent on membership of the EU, should we not likewise be allowed to express our consent on any law that the political class decide to impose on us? Should we not be allowed to express our consent on the amount of taxation that we will be told must be provided? More importantly, not one of them focusses on the fact that, in virtually every sphere of our lives, all that we can do is only that permitted by the political class. Bearing in mind the preceding sentence, there is no mention of the fact that, if this country is supposed to be a democracy and the political class have so much power, then there cannot be that much power, if any, left with the people.

It is indeed ironic that those who have chosen to turn a blind eye to the growing power of the political class are those who are now complaining the loudest about the wish of the political class to dictate to them what they can and cannot publish.

The words of Martin Niemöller spring to mind………….

 

 

 

2012
09/10

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
7 Comments »

Predictable

A few days ago William Hague issued an invitation on Twitter for the best suggestions in answer to his question of what idea, innovation or trend you think will have the greatest impact on our world over the next 20 years? The best 5 suggestions would receive an invitation to meet him and have a guided tour of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

I can’t remember precisely the wordage used but my suggestion for the innovation that would have the greatest impact in the world over the next 20 years was along the lines of the introduction of true democracy, thus negating the unfettered power of the political class.

Not withstanding that the chances of my suggestion being selected equated to the possible lifespan of an ice cube in hell, one can only shake one’s head in sadness when viewing the selection of suggestions that have been posted on the FCO website.

The aspects encapsulated within those suggestions, of communitarianism and new world order thinking, come as no surprise. It would be interesting to know how many of the selected suggestions – and indeed of the total number submitted – have come from those who are in some way connected to, for want of a better word, ‘stakeholders’.

Just asking………..

2012
08/30

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
9 Comments »

Hague and more ‘largesse’

William Hague has ‘decreed’ that because the situation in Syria is growing more acute he has decided to announce an increase in the humanitarian aid that the UK will provide, while also refusing to rule out the supply of arms – ‘at some point’ – to Syrian rebels. He continues that in view of the Security Council’s (United Nations) inability to resolve the problems in that country, it becomes necessary that the United Kingdom should do everything it can to help the people who are suffering. In that ‘pronouncement’ he, rather than play the ‘its for the children’ card instead plays the ‘its for the refugees’ card – and in respect of refugees, Hague maintains that things can only get worse.

A number of points arise

  • If, as a country, we are to become embroiled in another war – and humanitarian aid is usually the first step in that process – should we, the people, not have a voice in that process?
  • If, as a country, we are to provide aid to refugees in a foreign land, ones suffering from the decisions taken by politicans then should we not address the plight of our own ‘refugees’, those suffering from decisions taken by our own politicians where cuts to ‘services’ are concerned?
  • Why are we pouring vast sums of money into organisations like the United Nations – and similar – if they are unable to resolve that for which we pay?

Politicians would have us believe that they are our ‘parents’; that they will look after our ‘interests’; that they will ‘insulate us from the evils of the cruel world in which we live; that we are their ‘family’. In this context I have to revert to a question I have raised previously – if a family finds itself in financial and social straits then does it not ‘contract’ within itself and do all that is necessary to rectify its ‘problems’ and, in so doing, disregard all ‘outside’ factors? Does it not attempt to put its own house in order before attempting to do that for ‘others’? If such a family has any sense it does.

So why the hell are we expending all this money to help others, who if victorious will no doubt then promptly ‘kick us in the teeth’, prior to helping our own ‘kith and kin’ to whom surely we have a duty to help first?

If the economic ‘resources of our nation are ‘limited’ – as politicians take delight in reminding us when imposing cuts – then should not we, who provide said economic resources, say how and on what said economic resources should be spent?

Who the hell does Hague think he is – some ‘tinpot’ elected dictator? Oh, wait……………

 

 

 

 

2012
08/16

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:








COMMENTS:
13 Comments »

But it is not ‘our’ law!

Whatever one’s views on ‘matters Assange’ I find the statement attributed to William Hague as disingenuous:

“This is the United Kingdom fulfilling its obligations under the Extradition Act to Sweden, a close partner in so many ways, a fellow democracy in the European Union. It is as simple as that. Therefore to us it is a simple matter of carrying out our law, but as well as being simple it is something we must do. We absolutely must fulfil our obligations under the Extradition Act. Therefore we are determined to do so and we remain determined to do so despite the regrettable announcement that Ecuador has made today.” (Emphasis mine)

But it is not ‘our’ law; it is a law imposed by the UK”s membership of the European Union, one to which Parliament agreed – not that they had any choice in the matter. Should not any law which is effective within the UK not exist but with the agreement of the people – but I digress. I also take issue with the words ‘a fellow democracy’ – the definition of ‘democracy’ being subjective, as ‘Harrogate’ proves.

Were Ecuador to grant Assange an Ecuadoran passport and simultaneously grant him status as a diplomatic, however temporarily, what exactly could the UK government – on behalf of their masters in Brussels – actually do without contravening the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)?

Just asking………

Afterthought: Where William Hague is concerned one can but repeat: Leave a boy in charge……….

 

2012
07/12

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:







COMMENTS:
7 Comments »

If you want ‘Vague’, call for Hague

Richard North, EUReferendum, has commented on William Hague’s announcement in the House of Commons in respect of the ‘EU Audit’, or to give it its full title “Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union“, that the Coalition propose to conduct.

Reading Hansard’s report of the debate, a few points:

Hague maintains:

“The review will be an outward-facing exercise, both domestically and internationally, and Departments will be tasked with consulting and inviting evidence from everyone with a knowledge of and interest in the exercise of the EU’s competences, including not only Committees of Parliament and the devolved Administrations but businesses, civil society, other interested parties and individuals with expertise in and experience of each area.”

Of course civil society does not mean civilian society but those quangos, think tanks etc that believe they know everything there is to know (that should rule out Mats Persson of Open Europe then – but I digress). It would seem from Hague’s statement that as the ‘man in the street’ will not be considered to have the required expertise and experience, then we, the public, may as well save ourselves the price of a stamp.

“It is my view, as it is the Prime Minister’s, that in future we must take the opportunities for Britain to shape its relationship with Europe in ways that advance our national interest in free trade, open markets and co-operation. That should involve less cost, less bureaucracy and less meddling in the issues that belong to nation states.”

which begs the question that if a nation is to remain sovereign, then do not all issues belong to nation states?

Douglas Alexander, for the Official Opposition (Labour) confirms that his party too believes in the UK remaining in the EU which means they may as well sport the same rosette come election time: and we all know that mixing blue and red gives purple (oh hang on, some other party has got that colour and some would unkindly point out that they also have a yellow streak – but again I digress). From his remarks Alexander would also appear to believe in this idea that one can repatriate certain powers – and if Richard North believes Hague is from Planet Zog, then so must be Alexander.

In response to the question from Anne McIntosh (and her question did encompass a certain amount of ‘tosh’), the response of Hague was informative because he, in effect, admitted that what were once our waters are no longer; and that hopefully the EU would allow member states a certain latitude in how future measures were implemented. Cameron and Hague would have us believe they govern our country? Sheesh!

The question from Chris Heaton-Harris, translated from ‘Parliamentese’ reads: “With all the fudge we in Fresh Start have managed to put out, coupled with what no doubt will be a well ‘managed’ audit, are we able to ensure that the public will be misled again and that they will then agree with what we recommend?”

As a last comment, I wonder what odds might be obtained from a bookmaker that a very powerful and unexpected reason will arise whereby not all the evidence will be publicly available?

 

 

2012
06/20

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Err, how can you effect change from within…….

if you don’t attend meetings?

The FT reports that ten EU Foreign ministers recently met, at the end of which meeting suggestions were made for moves towards closer integration, including creation of a European monetary fund, a European army and a European finance minister. Among the most noticeable of absentees was William Hague.

Just saying…………

 

2012
06/12

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:






COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Contradictory Beliefs

The Guardian picks up on the news that the people of the Falkland Islands are to have a referendum on whether or not they wish to remain British, a report which quotes David Cameron quite extensively. David Cameron is quite eager, it would seem, to fight wars with a view to imposing democracy on other nations and preaching to other nations about the need for democracy; yet he is loath to implement it in his own country.

From the Number 10 website Cameron’s statement can be read in full:

“I have always said that it is up to the Falkland Islanders themselves to choose whether they want to be British and that the world should listen to their views.

Thirty years ago they made clear that they wanted to stay British.  That’s why British forces bravely liberated the island from Argentine invaders.

 Now the Argentine Government wants to put that choice in doubt again, by shouting down the Islanders’ ability to speak for themselves and punishing them for exercising their own free choice. That’s why it’s absolutely right that the Islanders have today set out how they intend to make their voices heard once more. And Britain will be resolute in supporting their choice.

 Next year’s referendum will determine beyond doubt the views of the people of the Falklands.  Britain will respect and defend their choice. We look to all UN members to live up to their responsibilities under the UN charter and accept the Islanders’ decision about how they want to live.”

Cameron’s words can only be considered as hypocritical when applied to his own country. If the Falkland Islanders have the right to choose whether they want to remain British, then should not the people of Britain have that same right where the governance of their country is concerned? Cameron accuses the Argentinian Government of shouting down the Islander’s ability to speak for themselves, yet is he not guilty of ‘shouting down’ the British people where their wish to express an opinion on membership of the European Union is concerned? Did not the people of Britain twice fight, during the last century, to remain British? Cameron may well be prepared to respect and defend the Falkand Islander’s choice – it is great pity and to his detriment and standing as our Prime Minister that he will not respect, nor defend, the right of the British people to have a choice. As Britain is a member of the United Nations and should therefore live up to its responsibilities under the UN charter, is not Cameron guilty of failing to adhere to an agreement previously entered into by the country he believes he governs?

To compound the illogicality of Cameron’s stance, William Hague weighs in (from the Guardian article):

“In a region that rightly prizes democracy and human rights, it is entirely appropriate that the islanders can express this fundamental right. The principle of self-determination is a key part of the United Nations charter. The voice of the Falkland Islands people should be heard……….”

It is obvious that Hague, like Cameron, did not engage brain before opening his mouth – but hey, they are both career politicians so why would anyone expect anything else. Are we not a region that prizes democracy and human rights and is it not therefore logical that the people of a region, so believing, should be able to express a fundamental right? Is it not right that the voice of the British people should be heard?

What we are witnessing with the statements by Cameron and Hague is that representative democracy is a sham and that it is no more than a dictatorial democracy. Technically, a dictatorial democracy cannot exist – but our political elite have managed to create such a bastardization and are able to maintain it due to the indifference – and ignorance – of those that could change it.

 

2012
05/13

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:







COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

A ‘fail’ from the Daley Telegraph

Richard North, EUReferendum, has already rubbished Daniel Hannan’s opinion that a referendum on EU membership will be offered to the electorate by David Cameron. Richard links to the ‘interview’ by the political editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Patrick Hennessy, with William Hague in which the latter states there are no plans for a referendum, considering it the “wrong question at the wrong time – partly because we don’t know how Europe will develop over the next few years”. To repeat; it is not Hague’s, nor anyone else’s, right to decide for the people something that should be their decision. If that is Hague’s view of democracy then he can kiss that part of my anatomy he appears to want me to kiss on him.

Hennessy’s ‘interview’ is of course another in the series of ‘Big-up’ pieces on featured politicians and so, unfortunately, is that of Janet Daley whose piece appears in today’s Sunday Telegraph, the headline to which is: “We really still don’t know our Prime Minister”. Daley’s piece is written from within the acceptance of present-day politics and the system of democracy currently used, which is disappointing in itself.  Developing the headline to her article she queries why we don’t know that for which Cameron stands or what he wants for our country. Considering the number of ‘U’ turns that he has made, is it any wonder?

Daley writes that politics, like everything else in life, is personality-led yet fails to query why this should be so, or is so. Should not politics – and the decisions taken within politics – be people-led? She questions whether Cameron is an opportunist who maintains unfortunate connections for his own ruthless ends and whether his vision for the country is too radical and therefore is deliberately being kept hidden from public consideration. Hell, the man is a career politician, what on earth does Daley expect?

At the end of her piece Daley comments on a study by the Reform think tank in which a call is made for smaller government and how it is possible for it to be more efficient and less expensive. She also mentions that Cameron briefly alluded to such an idea but promptly dropped it, querying whether this was because he could not be bothered to make the case. As one who considers herself to be a political commentator, it is sad that Daley fails to understand that no politician will promote an idea that will result in their loss of power and, as a result, their own demise. Either Daley is naive or she needs to consider a career change.

Only yesterday there was an article in the Guardian detailing the falling sales of Sunday newspapers. When considering the standard of journalism in the two articles in the Sunday Telegraph perhaps people are turning to the blogs for unvarnished news? 

 

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012