Cameron vacillating on gender quotas

Despite today's reporting of the Cameron line on gender quotas it appears that Mr Cameron is shifting his line. Whether he is under pressure from donors one can only speculate. This is the position earlier today,

David Cameron has said he will not "rule out quotas" as a way of getting more women into top executive jobs.

At a summit in Sweden, the PM said he wanted to "accelerate" the increase in women on the boards of top UK firms, preferably without resorting to quotas.

But now according to PA he is saying the following,

"I do not favour quotas," he said as the leaders set out their views
after the discussions.

"We want to try everything short of quotas - a range of positive action
but stopping short of a positive discrimination in law.

"I think we should try to go as far as we can on this agenda without
taking that step."

Not sure about you, but given the fact that the EU is pushing through a 30% quota,

Women should make up 30% of top management in the largest listed EU companies by 2015 and 40% by 2020, believe MEPs. If voluntary measures fail to boost the number of women in senior positions, EU legislation must be used.

Women currently make up 10% of directors and only 3% of CEOs at the largest listed EU companies. As the number of women in corporate boards is currently increasing by only half a percentage point per year, it will take another fifty years before boardrooms have at least 40% women, says a non-binding resolution on Women and Business Leadership adopted by MEPs on Wednesday.

this looks like hedging his bets. After all he could rule out legislation, but he doesn't.

A little more the Deutsche Boerse - NYSE merger

I suggested yesterday that the fact that the European Commission has blocked the merger deal between the NYSE and the German Boerse might go some way to explain the way in which Cameron rolled back on his veto.  My idea has been picked up by Business Insider, and the German business news website Finanzen who credit it with a modicum of plausibility,

Did the EU kill off the Deutsche Boerse - NYSE merger so that the UK's prized London Stock Exchange would remain top dog in Europe?It bears consideration, at very least.

So it was interesting to read the Agence Europe report this morning on the subject (behind a paywall),

All the EU commissioners agreed with the decision so a vote was not needed, explained EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia, suggesting that the commissioners who had supported the deal had ultimately seen the merits of the case made by DG Competition.

Which rather undermines my point, but reading further what do we see,

It is known that a number of EU Commissioners, including Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, backed the merger as a way of creating a European heavyweight to compete with global market leaders. The merged entity would have had earnings four times higher than the London Stock Exchange from the global market, for example, although it would only have 16% of the derivatives market, compared with 19% for US competitor CME. The Deutsche Börse/NYSE Euronext merger would have created a counterbalance in the eurozone to the all-powerful City of London at a time when the planned Financial Transactions Tax looks like it would send business to the City or other stock exchanges around the world, due to the unattractiveness of smaller European bourses.

Oh...

Right.

Maybe I wasn't that far off after all.

Of course this sort of thing we will not know. Cameron has to go into bat for Britain, one way or another, and if the merger came up in the private discussions one has to ask, what would you do? If the option was presented to the British government as a Manichean black and white decision it would be a tough call.

The question remains is one of strategy and tactics. Do we believe that the European are so misguided that the result of the merger, though threatening to London's pre-eminence would in the final analysis fail in its plans, due to the way in which Europe is so gung ho about introducing anti-business taxes like the FTT, thus driving business towards London, or would the new heft of Frankfurt counterbalance that?

I am not an expert, but I do think that in these matters we have to look to those words of Franklin,

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

Did he really mean that?

I ask, because from my reading Cameron is admitting that he should be holding a referendum. 

The Guardian Magazine yesterday had the Prime Minister answering a series of questions from a selection of celebrities, academics and what not. One of those asked to pose a question was Nigel Farage, who unsurprisingly asked a question about the infamous 'cast-iron guarantee".

Why do you refuse to give the British people a referendum on the EU, despite your earlier cast-iron guarantee?

So far so predictable. The answer, however is odd.

"I made a policy of having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and if the Lisbon treaty had been still extant at the time of government, we would have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I don't believe Britain should leave the European Union, but I do believe there are powers we can retrieve from Europe to have a better balance."

Ignoring the statement of the absurd Tory policy of wishng that the EU would hand back its powers. No it is the comment,

if the Lisbon treaty had been still extant at the time of government, we would have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Errr... it is still extant.

So can we have our referendum please?

The Government's phoney war on Europe.

The Government's phoney war on Europe.

Dave says he's a sceptic, Nick says he isn't, and the British public are being gulled into thinking that there are real differences between the two parties' positions.

With UKIP slowly rising in the polls, and last night's figures from YouGov suggesting that UKIP is now hitting 5% in every electoral area in Great Britain, the Prime Minister is trying to position himself as a great defender of Britain against the ravages of the European Union. In order to help this sleight of hand it appears that Nick Clegg is joining in the deception, by sketching out an idea that their is a gulf between the two members of the coalition.

Dave says,

"But we sceptics have a vital point. We should look sceptically at grand
plans and utopian visions. We've a right to ask what the European Union should and shouldn't do - and change it accordingly."

And Nick says

"Clearly the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, and David
Cameron and myself, think differently on European issues... I don't think anyone is talking about unilateral repatriation of powers. It's not possible, and Europe doesn't work like that."

Oddly of course it is Nick that is half right here. Nobody is (seriously) talking about repatriation of powers. Cameron is trying to talk to his own membership such is his fear of us in UKIP and our simple and popular position on Britain's relationship with the European Union.

Here are ten good reasons why Cameron's claim to be a Eurosceptic are false
1 He reneged on Cast Iron Guarantee to hold EU treaty referendum

He argues of course that it was only cast iron in the sense that if somebody else did it then his promise was meaningless. He knows that is not how it was going to be taken, indeed he deliberately muddied the waters. he also we must remember said that he wouldn't let things rest there if the Lisbon Treaty was passed. Well weirdly he has been true to his word.

2 Changed Tory Fisheries policy, No longer calls for repatriation of territorial waters.

His first act on becoming leader of the Conservative Party was to drop a longstanding policy to repatriate British coastal waters and opt out of the Common Fisheries Policy. He had been told that to do so would be incompatible with our membership of the EU. The policy had to go.

3. Supported EU regulation of the City

Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament have consistently voted for the creation of three EU super regulators, leaving the command and control of the City of London in the hands of Eurocrats who are not sympathetic to British systems and ways of doing business. It is estimated that the impact on the City will be devastating as companies and jobs flee the onslaught of EU regulation.

4. Supports entry of Turkey to the EU -encouraging mass immigration

How can he claim to be interested in controlling our borders and of reigning in the ambitions of the European Union when he is Europe's biggest cheerleader for brin g ing Turkey into the EU. Time and time again he has championed Turkish entry, despite the wildly different economic status of Turkey. Good friends yes, part of the EU no.

5. Supported creation of EU External Action Service.

And encouraged the usurpation by the unelected Cathy Ashton of British diplomatic and Foreign policy positions, not least the grant to the EU, and Ashton in particular of speaking rights at the UN, the preserve of nation states.

6. Failure to reduce EU budget / allows increase despite promises.

He promised to the House of Commons he would either reduce the EU's annual budget, or the least block it. Then came back from Brussels claiming that a 2.6% increase was a victory. If so he was triumphing in a victory for the EU against Britain.

7. Supports the creation of Eurozone core which would leave the UK in a permanent minority position.

For centuries the core of British Foreign policy has been to ensure that no European continental power has the ability to dominate Europe. Cameron and George Osborne are now demanding just that. Overturning the wisdom of Pitt, Palmerston, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill et al. How can this be in the national interest? After all it will create a permanent majority in the Council of Ministers which means that Britain will always be outvoted on any subject in future.

8. Prepared to have 40 billion pounds UK money go via the IMF to the Eurozone Bailout

Despite the promises and evasions, it is now clear that the promise not be involved in any Eurozone bailout is a fabrication. By doubling our contribution to the IMF emergency fund, Britain has made itself increasingly liable to being involved in the Euro bailouts.

9. Rolled over to Agency Worker directive and other EU laws which harm UK business and jobs.

These directives alone, which he has accepted are set to cost the British economy billions and put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. To then claim that he is fighting against regulations is ridiculous.

10. Forced Three line whip on EU referendum debate in the Commons.

If Cameron wanted a strong negotiating position in the European Union, then he could just offer that referendum. Without it our continental friends will just igno r e him. By punishing those in the Parliament who defended the wishes of their constituents, in order to pander to the wishes of the Eurocrats - and looking at what has happened in Greece since the Commons vote, this is no idle threat he shows where his true loyalty lies.


Of course Cameron's attempts to paint himself a 'sceptic' are in vain. Just as the markets react to the latest move from Brussels to prop up their dreams so do the people of Britain see through his evasions. A year ago a final plan to save the Euro would have a weeks grace in the markets, this week the imposition of technocratic Prime Ministers in Greece and Italy forced a dip in Bond spreads that lasted less than 24hrs. So it is with Mr Cameron's protestations about his Eurosceptic credentials.

The markets see through the failures of the Eurozone. The people see through the failures of Cameron to defend the countries interests

Face it Dave. Nobody believes you any more.

'Cast Iron Cameron' - How much is his word worth?

I only ask because it isn't just us UKIP types that are getting fed up with his vaccilating and dishonesty over his Euro promises.

Here he is back in 2006 signing an uncontroversial little petition, you know, the one that says wasting  £150million a year on Strasbourg is daft.

Today at the Conservative conference David Cameron became the first UK party leader to sign the 1,000,000 strong petition to terminate the Strasbourg parliament.


He signed the http://www.oneseat.eu/ campaign which aims to persuade the European Commission and the member states that Brussels must be the sole seat of the European Parliament and that the monthly parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg bring the reputation of the EU into disrepute.

On the day David Cameron and Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, launch the new Movement for European Reform, Mr Kirkhope said:

“David Cameron’s endorsement of the campaign is a symbol of how we Conservatives want to reform Europe. To be in Europe, leading in Europe is our aim. Ending the Strasbourg circus is a first step on the road to reform.”

Dear Timothy showing that touching belief in Dave so prevalent amongst Tory MEPs and apologists. It was a symbol he said, of how Conservatives were about to reform Europe.

Yeah right. Timothy. You know what happens next, because it is so obvious, so predictable.

Only in May here he was reconfirming his support for the campaign, but now it seems that he has bowed down to the French,

The leader of the UK Tory delegation in parliament has launched a withering attack on his own government for refusing to 'intervene' in the row over the assembly's 'travelling circus'.


Martin Callanan's attack comes after the UK coalition government declined to make representations to an ongoing court case over parliament's split-site arrangement.

France has taken a case to the European courts objecting to a vote by MEPs to reduce the monthly plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.

All member states have the opportunity to 'intervene' in the court case and all the mainstream British political parties expected the coalition government led by David Cameron to do so.

However, the coalition has controversially decided it would not formally declare its support for the MEP vote on Strasbourg.

How many more times does Dave have to let down his own side before they realise that his heart isn't in it. He is never going to do anything to defend Britain against the excesses of the Eurocrats?

It is rather sad, but as Desmond Swayne, Cameron's PPS put it in a letter to a constituent,

Anyone who believes that this government can expedite our escape from the EU is living in a world of illusion

Who's next? Ed Llewellyn?

Hacking, hackery wholesale stuff. But as I ask. Who's next?

We know who the bodies in the Press are, Coulson, Brooks Wallis (and sadly Hoare).

We know who the bodies in the Police are Stephenson and Yates (and now we see that the Met's PR chap  Dick Fedorcio is being investigated by the IPCC).

So the question still remains, which political body will be thrown off Cameron's husky driven sledge to satisfy the wolves. My guess is Ed Llewellyn, the Downing Street Chief of Staff.

The point is that the Coulson scalp was too long ago and he is now seen as much as NOTW as politics.

The pack want another victim and Llewellyn looks to ne to be it. Cameron is burning the midnight Carbon credits winging his way back to Blighty. And he needs to be at the very top of his game tomorrow. But even if he is the altar needs feeling. Now look at this piece by Allegra Stratton a few days ago,

The prime minister admitted that despite the information being passed from one of his closest aides, Steve Hilton, to his chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, Llewellyn took the judgment that the information was already substantially contained in news reports in the public domain.

However, in a fresh statement, the Guardian reveals that Llewellyn was informed by the paper on a second occasion about Coulson's connections to Jonathan Rees, a private detective then facing charges for conspiracy to murder, and previously jailed for conspiracy to plant cocaine on an innocent woman.

Or this,

The prime minister has suggested that the Guardian did not raise any concerns about Coulson after deputy editor Ian Katz's conversation with No 10 director of strategy Steve Hilton in February 2010.

In fact Katz met No 10 chief of staff Ed Llewellyn at the Conservative Party conference on 4 October 2010 and had a further conversation about Coulson's involvement with hacking, as part of a wider conversation of the political scene. In particular they discussed the Rees case, details of which had still not been published because he was still awaiting trial for murder.

Alan Rusbridger said: "The prime minister's account of why he failed to act on the information we passed his office in February 2010 is highly misleading. Any ordinary person hearing of the unpublishable facts about a convicted News of the World private investigator facing conspiracy to murder charges would have recognised the need to investigate the claims."

Now with Coulson gone Cameron needs Hilton, so the polished Ed tenure looks distinctly shakey. As Guido put it,

Ed didn’t pass on the warning to Cameron. Hilton says he is at fault for not doing so. Ed counters that if Hilton thought it so important, why didn’t he tell Dave himself? The image of the PM employing people who employ people who associate with axe murderers is not a good one…

And if he goes then this could have interesting repercussions as to policy outside the Hacking firefight. Hilton is being trailed as a leading Eurosceptic at Cameron's top table.

Downing Street director of strategy Steve Hilton is said to have swung behind moves for the UK to go it alone after being shocked to discover how much sovereignty has switched from Westminster to Brussels.

But this position has always been opposed by, why of course Ed Llewellyn

His stance is strongly opposed by Mr Cameron’s pro-EU chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, who worked for former Tory EU Commissioner Chris Patten and passionate pro-European Liberal Democrat Paddy Ashdown.

Now personally I don't believe that Hilton is Eurosceptic at all, or not in any serious way. These stories about him are to me an obvious attempt to head of discontent in the Tory Party with Cameron's drift onto the shoals of the European Union.

But if Llewellyn goes then it all comes in stark relief.

Boris adds a little more pressure on Cameron

In today's Telegraph Boris uses his normal mixture of hyperbole and whimsy to link Gaddafi and Gordon. He is trying to stick it to the AV referendum.

But he leaves a final barb at the end for iDave.

By all means let us have a referendum – the one we were promised, on the Lisbon EU Treaty. Have you noticed the EU policy on North Africa? Have you heard much from Baroness Ashton? Shouldn't we have a vote on all that?

Of course Mr Johnson shows his customary 'away with the faeries' aspects here. He calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a game that has been over for months. The troops have moved on, jeepers even Labour has moved on from the Lisbon Treaty. Today the call is for an In-Out Referendum, rather than on the minutiae of the Lisbon Treaty, welcome though that would have been at the time goven that all promised some such.

That being said it all increase pressure on IDave, particularly when he has stated on Al-Jazeera his considered opinion was that,

'I don't believe an In/Out referendum is right, because I don't believe that leaving the European Union would be in Britain's interests'

As Dan Hannan points out,

Just for a moment, though, forget about forecasting the outcome. Instead, stand back and ask yourself whether it is right in principle to consult the country. As this blog never tires of arguing, it is hard to think of a clearer textbook example of where a referendum is proper. The European question divides the parties internally; it’s a matter of major constitutional importance; there is public demand for a vote; there is a disjuncture between Parliament and people; and, not least, the three parties keep promising to hold such a ballot.

There is something faintly surreal about holding a referendum which no one asked for on a voting system which neither of the two Coalition parties supported, while refusing to hold one which the country does demand, and which both Coalition parties were recently pledging. What is the point of consulting people on how to elect their MPs, but not on whether those MPs should run the country?

Night Boat to Cairo

Two important international figures are going to Cairo.

One is our esteemed Prime Minister, who said,

 "he would tell the military to “make sure this is a genuine transition from military rule to civilian rule.”

The other as Cramner reports is ShiekYusuf al-Qaradawi. Now let's think. Who will have more impact on Arab Street?

Has somebody nobbled Singleton

In a strangely effusive piece this morning Alex Singleton heaps praise on the boy Dave,

Just as many Tories were becoming fed up with Cameron, our PM has done three things that should put smiles on their faces.

Alex tells us that the three things he has done, is show some balls on the Prisoner Votes issue by alowing a free vote. (Odd that allowing others to show backbone in a symbolic way is a sign of backbone in yourself - its all a bit "go on chaps, over the top. Me I will sit here with a nice cup of char").

Then he claims that changes to the DFID targetting is meaningfull and finally that the proposals top open up the tender book of the state to private competiton. These together says Alex,,

Assuming this policy is not watered down, Cameron won’t – as is widely predicted – go down in history as a wet. He’ll be the man who advanced the Thatcher revolution. Quite a turnaround, don’t you think?

No, not really. Lets take each on its own.

Firstly the whole issue of Britain's relationship with the ECHR is complex, but to suggest that allowing a free vote is anything other then a sticking plaster on a sucking chest wound. Alex suggests that,

This, I can tell you, threw Ukip off-balance, as that party had been trying to argue to that it was impossible for Britain to reject the court’s rulings without leaving the EU. Ukip’s message failed to resonate and, whatever the legal ramifications of the vote, the vote has made the Conservatives seem genuinely Eurosceptic for the first time in years.

There is something in this, in that we, against all experience hoped that the media would spot the dishonesty of the position. The legal advice given to Clegg that suggests that there are no legal and finacial implications in ignoring the ECHR decision is somewhat cute. It is correct, today. Come 2012 when Article 6 of the Treaty comes into force then it ceases to be correct, and, under our Treaty obligations we will ahve to comply, with both legal and finacial impluicatuions if we ignore their decisions.

I note Alex talks about "whatever the legal ramifications of the vote" as if the law was incidental. It isn't, and though UKIP are surprised at the free vote, we are de lighted, as it is providing the basis for a fundamental look at the decisons of the Strasbourg Court. No decision they make, or plan to make will take place within the media Omerta any longer. As trhe story that broke in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday and followed up today everywhere else shows, the ECHR and its judgements are npow a live political issue. Worse still for the Government, by allowing the free vote they have now put themselves in a position that to comply with EU law in the future they will be fighting against the express will of the House. Cameron a Eurosceptic? - The key word is appears to be "seem".

Point 2 is the one about DFID and the UK's aid budget. Now stopping funding China would I agree bne a good thing and targetting any money we do spend on those who need it most is a sensibvle idea, and one which most would agree with. But Alex rather shoots himself, or his arguement in the foot by stating as he does,

The Government’s policy to increase the aid budget is still wrong, but cutting the most wasteful spending will help to appease the Right.

The budget is still increasing at a time of retrenchment at home. We are still chucking a billion pounds to a country, India, with nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a space program. So no, I don't think this amounts to a row of beans.
And on the third point, though Cameron's article is welcome, something about it sticks against the sides. Oh yes that's it, could this be merely him complying with EU Tendering law and maybe just extending its scope? Don't get me wrong, I am all for it, but swallows and the summer come to mind.

Greeks propose a way forward for smokers

In the frst four months of teh Greek blanket smoking ban pover 450 penalty notices have been handed out to bars in the Athens area alone. It is obviously not running as smoothly as it has done in the UK with widespread disobiedience.

So the Greek government, which is cash strapped remember, has had a  collective head-scratching about this and has come up with a nice idea. After all they are pretty well hated amongst the population, and this EU driven legislation is just pissing off the populace. So they are proposing this,

The Greek government is planning to introduce smoking licences for wet-led venues so that customers can smoke.


The cost will be decided based on the size of the establishments and any venue that allows smoking without the licence will be closed.

There is of course the fiscal incentive...

The government believes it could bring in “at least” €50m (around £42m) from issuing the smoking licences.

So Mr Cameron. You can be liberal, big society, and raise cash for the exchequer? What do you think?

The Treaty Changes: No referendum

That's the beauty of the Simplified Revision procedure. And the weakness of our government. This is the statement from the European Council tonight in preparation for tomorrow's meeting.

On the basis of a report from the President, the European Council will discuss a limited treaty
amendment for a permanent mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area.
The mechanism will replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European
Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM), which will remain in force until June 2013. Activation of the permanent mechanism, in the event of a risk to the stability of the euro area, will require mutual agreement of the euro area member states.

The treaty change would involve revising Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union by adding a paragraph under which member states whose currency is the euro may establish amongst themselves a stability mechanism to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole and stating that the granting of financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.

Britain's position is made explicit in this piece in the FT this evening,

The UK was also causing some pre-summit concern because of their backroom efforts to clarify that non-euro countries would not be involved in any future eurozone bailouts. But diplomats said Britain has dropped a push to get such clarity into the treaty language.

Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron appears ready to settle for a clear statement from the leaders that an EU-wide fund, like the €60bn portion of the current bail-out system which is supported by the EU’s own budget, will never be created again once the temporary fund winds down in 2013.

The problem with this, as anybody who has watched Brussels and the Council over the last few years (something that seems to have escaped the current crop of Tories), he has swapped something solid, something legally defensible "clarity in the treaty" for something indefinable and essentially worthless, "a clear statement from leaders". He is a politician who knows what it is to dissemble to his own people, see his "cast iron guarantee" so why would he trust other country's politicians?

Who is that bloke from Eton?

It appears that Cameron has a long way to go to project British influence,

Downing Street, however, plainly needs more of a direct line into Race Course Road, the residence of Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister.
Speaking at the Hindustan Leadership summit at the weekend, 78-year old Singh failed to recall Cameron’s name.

When listing the leaders of the permanent five United Nations Security Council members, Singh started with US President Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, but stumbled when he came to the UK. After a couple of goes at remembering the name of its leader, Singh simply opted for the “UK’s prime minister” and moved on to China and Russia.

And with our foriegn and trade policy set in Brussels, why should Prime Minister Singh bother to learn it?

Trade or Business? Cameron in China

When Cameron talks of trade, he means business, as the terms of trade in a broader sense are out of his hands.

He is over in China, stuck on the horns of a conundrum. He wants to help British business in their dealings with the Chinese, but is powerless to do so. This is for the simple reason that Britain no longer has the ability to make trade deals. 

Those rights, that power lies exclusively with those friendly chaps in Brussels. 

So when he talks of

David Cameron today declared his ambition to double bilateral trade between the UK and China to 100 billion US dollars a year by 2015, as he arrived at the head of Britain's largest ever Government and business delegation to the Far Eastern country.

Mr Cameron said he expected deals worth billions of pounds to the UK economy to be sealed during his two-day visit, which will feature intensive trade talks.

While he accepted that the balance of trade will remain firmly in China's favour in the coming years, he set a target of achieving 30 billion dollars' worth of UK exports within the next five years - up from around 7 billion now

He is talking business deals not trade on a broader scale. As with China today so with India before. Each time what is sold publicly as a diplomatic trip. Our PM off to meet the political leaders of big and powerful foreign nations to negotiate deals and to sort out trading relationships is no longer the case.

What this is and the India trip was, are a trade fair and business trip as such I wish it well.

EU Budget: Government's plan to cheat

As we know, Mr Cameron came home from Brussels the other week after his 'spectacular success' in holding down the 2011 EU budget to a 2.91% increase. This was against the concerted opposition of countries like Malta and institutions like the European Parliament.

Now, according to the EUObserver, the Polish MEP responsible for the Parliament's response this worsting has rather put a kibosh on Dave's celebration,

But Ms Jedrzejewska, who is responsible for drafting the Parliament's position on this matter, says that if the Parliament agreed to the 2.9 percent figure, more money would have to be added in "ammended budgets" throughout the course of next year.

"It's not an honest proposal and people who wrote the letter know it will be more in the end. They are just postponing payments," she said.

So that is somebody who knows what is actually going on, describing the British authored letter as 'not honest'.

Well who would have thunk it?
She goes on,

This tactic – already seen this year with no less than 10 amending budgets – increases the lack of transparency of EU accounts, which only leads to more lack of understanding from EU citizens, she argued.

"On one hand member states are asking us to cut payments for 2011, but on the other they are demanding supplements for 2010," Ms Jedrzejewska said.

Cameron is not taking this slur sitting down though,

"It is untrue to suggest we're acting dishonestly," a spokesperson for the UK government told this website.

"This is not about postponing payments and we're not privately planning to agree to further increases to the 2011 budget through amending budgets next year. That's wishful thinking on behalf of MEPs. Any future amending budgets should be about re-prioritising expenditure within these limits, not increasing them," he added.

Yeah right go and tell it to the ECJ

What is going on with this Anglo/French Defence Treaty?

Richard North writes with magisterial venom today about the Defence Treaty being signed at Lancaster House.

the great greasy-pole merchant Liam Fox - so ambitious he would sell his mother for a farthing if it bought preferment - has sold us out to the forces of European integration, cosying up to his euroslime master Cameron in the process.

Tell us as if you mean it Richard, (or should I call you Ricard in these moments?), he then goes on to explain how, depsite the blandishment of the craven fools in Government and  their cheerleaders why this is a European Union project, not a bilateral one,

Needless to say, this "new" Combined Joint Expeditionary Force is not new. It is simply a battle group, along the lines agreed in 2004 as the core part of the European Rapid Reaction Force.

Yes it was always part of the plan,

This is a continuation of the Maastricht Treaty agenda, as this briefing note makes clear. Agreed by the Tories under John Major, this set up the parameters for the development of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The process continued with the Franco-British meeting in Saint-Malo (France) in December 1998. That was when London and Paris agreed to jointly and actively work to make the European Union "able to carry out some security tasks on its own".


During the period 1999-2003, the EU set up relevant political-military structures to assess, decide, plan and execute military operations and now it is "moving ahead" to embark on a "second round". And that is what this is, the "second round" - building the ESDP, planning and organising new military "cooperation" and integration among EU member states. The current move is the Trojan Horse or, as the "colleagues" say, the catalyst.

Over at the Telegraph we have an extraordinary letter defending the decision,

As the French and British governments seek to maintain military capabilities during the toughest spending climate in living memory, it is essential that greater co-operation be on the agenda at today’s summit.

It whiffles on and concludes,

Anglo-French defence cooperation offers an obvious way forward which we cannot afford to ignore. The security of Britain, France and Europe is at stake.

Utterly denying the facts that this is an EU inspired Treaty. and the signatories, it is a  list of the European elite, names that should and will be remembered. In 1940 Cato wrote the famous book "The Guilty Men" then it was about appeasement, today we have a new list, emblazoned in the Telegraph,

Roland Rudd

Chairman, Business for New Europe
Claude Bébéar
President, Institut Montaigne
Sir Richard Branson
Chairman, Virgin Group
Major General Tim Cross (retd)
Sir Richard Dearlove
Head, Secret Intelligence Service 1999-2004
Etienne de Durand
French Institute of International Relations
Charles Grant
Director, Centre for European Reform
Sir John Grant
UK Permanent Representative to the EU 2003-2007
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Chief of the Defence Staff 1997-2001
Professor Stephen Haseler
Director, Global Policy Institute
François Heisbourg
Special adviser, Foundation for Strategic Research
Lord Jay of Ewelme
Former head, Diplomatic Service
Mark Leonard
Director, European Council on Foreign Relations
Karine Lisbonne-de Vergeron
Fellow, Global Policy Institute, London
Peter Luff
Chairman, European Movement
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesman
Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge
Chairman, Nomura International
Dominique Moïsi
Professor, College of Europe and Harvard University
Contre-Amiral Michel Picard
Former head, Force de Frappe
Vice-Amiral Patrice Puy-Montbrun
Sir Mike Rake
Chairman, BT
Lord West of Spithead
First Sea Lord 2002-2006
John Stevens
Chairman, Europachannel
Bruno Tertrais
Foundation for Strategic Research

Elsewhere here may be answer as to why UK Aircraft carriers will carry French planes, they are desperate for a market, according to the FT,

Even more worrying is the continuing dearth of export orders for the Dassault Rafale multi-role combat aircraft.


France has yet to win an export order for the Rafale. It has been trying for a decade without success. Securing a foreign order for this combat aircraft is not just a matter of prestige for the French. After all, Serge Dassault, the veteran controlling shareholder of the eponymous aircraft maker, is also a senator and member of the governing UMP party and owner of Le Figaro, the slavishly pro-Sarkozy newspaper.

But there are more important reasons why Rafale export sales are so crucial. Exports would reduce the overall cost of the programme at the same time as providing funds to help finance new research and technology. Without exports, there is the risk that France would no longer be able to ensure the autonomy of its military aircraft industry, especially when the time eventually comes to develop a replacement for the Rafale.

Last, but not least, failure to export the combat aircraft will put further stress on the country’s already stretched Treasury. Indeed, the French Defence Ministry has decided to order 11 additional Rafales next year earlier than scheduled to ensure that production lines keep running. This will cost the taxpayer an extra €800m ($1.1bn).

It is not for lack of trying on the part of the president that France has so far failed to place an export order for the Rafale.

Who voted for this? Did anybody? Did any man or woman put their cross in a Tory box on election day and imagine that all this would come about? Of course not. Sadly they have only themselves to blame as it is not as if they werwe not warned. The warnings of course were dimissed as scare mongering by UKIP.

Well who is scared now?

How the Brussels deal is seen elsewhere

This illustration from Tim Montgomerie's column on Conservative Home just about sums up how the Toryy membershipo feel about Cameron's performance in Brussels.

"There will", as somebody else there says, "be consequences"

What rebate?

It looks to me that those nice chaps in the European Commission are doing what they can to help Mr Cameron. The reports this morning about the EU's wish to end the remains of Thatcher's famous budget rebate fall into this bracket.

"The British rebate has lost its original justification," Mr Lewandowski told the leading German daily Handelsblatt in an interview published on Monday (6 September). "The structure of the EU budget has changed substantially. Farm subsidies – the main reason for the rebate – have decreased, while the per-capita income of the UK has increased substantially since the 1980s."

Lewandowski seems to have become the Commission's floater of choice what with this and the comment a couple of weeks ago that he was interested in setting up a pan European tax. Of the EU dislikes what remains of the post Blair rebate, and it is amusing that he suggests that they want to spend the money on their 'global ambitions', but, but.

What I can see is happening here is that he is setting up a straw man threat to the UK's budget. The boy Dave and his accolyte Mr Osborne can then say that they are going to the wall to protect the budget.

Then when the Commission backs down on the subject the Government can parade themselves around claiming 'Game set and Match to Britain'.

The headlines will state what a doughty defender of British interests the Coalition Government is, whilst not noticing the continued leaching of power elsewhere.

Should the Tories still be boasting of their Rawanda links?

I ask, because the official Tory Blue blog has just put a post up doing exactly that.

Paul Kagame has been the Tories favourite African dictator for quite a while now, and these trips have been going on for years. Indeed it is almost like some sort of rite of passage for those who wish to be seen as Cameroons to have been on one of the young pioneer trips to Kigali.

Cameron himself went to see Kagame just at the moment that his own consituency dissapeared under water and then invited Kagame to speak at the Tory Conference.

Now we are hearing more and more stories coming out about clampdowns on the press and opoposition figures in the run up to presidential elections could it be that the close links forged over the years may become a millstone around their necks?

After all it is not as if they were not warned at the time.

The Prosecutor at Arusha is in possession of primâ facie evidence which would easily suffice, in ordinary circumstances, to justify the drawing of and issuing of an indictment for prosecution of Kagame and other senior RPF adherents for grave crimes against humanity and war crimes. Much of this evidence has been provided to the prosecutor by Professor Filip Reyntjens of Antwerp University who has frequently appeared as an impressive expert witness at the ICTR. He makes little secret of what he has made available and that it amounts to allegations of grave crimes against Kagame and many of his RPF supporters.

The body of evidence is, I have it on impeccable authority, substantial, compelling and of the gravest nature. Such an Indictment is only withheld for political reasons, I believe.

A Good Day to Bury Bad News?

In the autumn, Britain will have to re-ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Over in Brussels things are afoot and the first major Foriegn Policy act of a new PM will be to go to Brussels to rubber stamp a treaty amendment.

On Election Day the European Parliament will vote to confirm an IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) which will take place on June the 17th and 18th in Brussels.

18 extra MEPs. Parliament will decide whether to allow treaty changes increasing the size of the European Parliament to take place without a full Convention (debate Wednesday, vote Thursday).

In this they are supported by the European Commission,

the Commission recommends opening an Intergovernmental Conference as soon as
possible, remaining strictly limited to discussion of the Spanish proposal for a protocol amending Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions

That IGC will amend the Lisbon Treaty (Protocol 36). This will require that the Lisbon Treaty be re-ratified by all 27 nations of the European Union.

Once the IGC is over, the new version of the protocol as adopted will have to be ratified by the 27 national parliaments.

That means that a new Prime Minister will have to ram a new Lisbon Treaty through both Houses of Parliament.

Seeing as no national newspaper or media outlet seems prepared to ask the question, we must. Will any of the pretenders to Number 10 answer?

Will they take this opportunity to give us the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that they promised?

If not, why not?

Update
Bruno Waterfield goes into somewhat more depth

Another defection to UKIP, this time in Colchester

Graham Dines is reporting in the East Anglia Daily Times, that local Tory stalwart, Ron Levy has jumped ship,

CONSERVATIVES in Colchester have been dealt a body-blow just weeks before
the General Election with the defection of a former party chairman to the UK Independence Party after 40 years as a Tory activist.Ron Levy will be campaigning on behalf of UKIP's candidate John Pitts, accusing David Cameron of “a blatant act of deceit” by not keeping his promise that a Conservative government would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

We welcome Mr Levy. Ron you are not the first and you will certainly not the last. His letter to his local chairman reads,

“I have witnessed the party becoming more closely aligned with New Labour, and my hopes that the party would be steered back on to the true Conservative course have become more and more remote.
I now accept that it is no longer the party that I have supported, and for which I have worked so hard, for almost 40 years.
He said the membership of the European Union was leading Britain towards “the economic and social abyss.
Now, either David Cameron is too blind to see this or, for some reason, which he refuses to reveal, he is unwilling to so do.
Mr Cameron hides behind the defence that there was no point in holding a referendum on the Treaty since the Czech Republic had ratified it,” said Mr Levy, who was a delegate to the party's national conference in 2006 and 2007.
But Mr Cameron always knew that was a possibility yet he continued making the promise of a referendum.
Surely the honourable course for him to pursue now would be an 'in or out' referendum on our EU membership, thus giving the British people a real and democratic chance to have their say.
The UK Independence Party embodies all the qualities, objectives and policies that I can support, many of which I expected to see in the Conservative Party. But, most importantly, UKIP now speaks for the huge number - probably millions - of people who believe that membership of the EU is destroying our country and who feel the time has come to leave.
So I have made the decision, I have put my country first - and have defected to the UK Independence Party.”