When a bleary-eyed David Cameron gave his pre-dawn press conference this morning, he was asked if he had reverted to the Victorian Tory foreign policy of 'splendid isolation'.

 

The PM dismissed the claim, referring to the way Schengen operated, to Maastricht and other ways the EU allowed its members to operate differently.

It all sounded a bit like John Major's famous 'variable geometry'. But the EU Venn diagram this morning looks a bit like two separate circles, a big one with 26 other states in it and another small one containing the UK.

 

Initially, it looked as though we were part of an outer Europe that people were calling the CHUKS (Czechs, Hungarians, UK and Sweden). Yet with the news that Hungary is to join the Swedes and Czechs in ratifying the Sarko deal, we look like we really are on our own. The next question is clearly this: will we 'chuk' ourselves out of Europe?

 

Here's two straws in the wind:

Denis Macshane, a former Labour Minister for Europe, has just texted this to PolHome from his Blackberry:

 

"There is now little point in Britain staying in the EU. Bill Cash has won and I congratulate him and other Eurosceptics on their victory. It is an historic turning point and Britain might as well get out now as Europe's future will be settled without us. The 17 plus 6 will decide new rules which will govern trade in financial and other sectors and Britain wiill have to comply like Norway or Switerzerland or give up market access."

 

That's pretty strong stuff, even though it sounds like the emotional outpouring of a life-long Europhile. But there may now be an 'inevitable logic' (as George Osborne would say) that the UK has to shift to an In-Out referendum on the EU,

The second straw in the wind was a Tweet from key Osbornite Matt Hancock, singing the praises of trade outside the EU:

 

"Exports to China up 12% over last MONTH, overtaking Italy & Spain as export destination, now 7th biggest trade partner. Need more of this..."

 

I should add that when I talked to a minister a few weeks ago, he floated the idea of a Britain out of the EU after the next election. This was a Britain prospering from free trade and low taxes and regulation, trading with China and other states outside the shackles of the EU. It was not a headbanging minister.

The question now is whether Cameron can put the Eurosceptic genie back in the bottle. Of course, people like Edward Leigh will be delighted he hasn't 'done a Chamberlain'. Yet they may demand more.

 

 

David Davis has just used an ominous phrase that we now have 'a new relationship with Europe'. Expect that to be repeated in coming days. He tells me:

"David Cameron has done exactly the right thing. The British government demands were utterly reasonable. The fact that they were rejected demonstrates a change in attitude on the part of Germany, France and the European Commission, a new assertiveness on their part. This is a harbinger of things to come and it means we have to think very hard about what this new relationship is going to be."

 

It's now the Lib Dems' turn to get very uneasy about what this all means. Already MEPs and MPs are expressing discontent.

No.10 were suggesting last night that Nick Clegg had agreed before the PM set off to allow him to use the veto if he didn't get his way. Lib Dem sources are stressing that 'veto' is not a word they use. They also say that: 'This is not the outcome we wanted by any stretch of the imagination. We did this with a heavy heart'.

 

For his part, Clegg has expressed his 'regret' at the outcome and some Libs worry that the Coalition could fracture if there is an In-Out referendum.

Maybe the real reason for Clegg's refusal to accept wider treaty change lies in the Lib Dem's own manifesto from the last election.

 

Let's not forget that it pledged:

 

"Liberal Democrats remain committed to an In-Out referendum the next time a British Government signs up to a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU."

 

If Cam had allowed a 27 Treaty, his backbenchers could have pointed not just to their own election pledges - but also to those of their Coalition partners.

 

 

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/41547/is_the_uk_going_to_quit_the_eu%3F.html

 

 

 

Who's been following this in the news today then? Could have big implications for the government and the UK's future membership of the EU which is looking more shambolic and divorce worthy than ever before.

I've been keeping a close eye on developments, Cameron is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, whichever way he turns he's got the media on his back. He's nothing if not determined!

It's so funny how it's considered "isolationism" when you don't want your nation's sovereignty completely snatched out from under it by a bunch of bankers and globalists.

 

This shouldn't be a difficult decision for Mr Cameron.

An intriguing analogy I read said that Britain was left isolated...much in the same way a passenger was left behind dockside at Southampton as the Titanic sailed away.

http://www.thedailybell.com/3334/Financial-Times-Changes-Article-Headline-on-EU-Three-Times

 

Apparently the Financial Times changed their headline about this 3 times, lol.

 

I guess they were trying to turn the public's first impression against it.

I think despite the headlines being about the UK veto, it's the fact that Merkozy haven't dealt at all with the Euro crisis. All they have done is kick it down the street a few further yards like the in denial/incompetent morons they are.

 

It's just one disaster after another and Merkel and Sarkozy are two figures in history that are in danger of having a not so glorious obituary.

Well economically there's no way out of this. The euro is destined to collapse.

 

They're just buying time with more talk of treaties and bailouts.

10 myths about Cameron's veto

 

The EU veto that Cameron pulled in the early hours of Thursday morning has been widely misunderstood on all sides. Here are the 10 most common myths:

 

1. Because of Cameron’s veto, Britain lost a seat at the negotiating table. Not true. The UK was never itself going to take part in the Merkozy pact (and potentially be subject to EU sanctions), and therefore not in the monthly, parallel EU meetings that will begin in January, either. Even if he had approved the Treaty changes, Cameron still would not have had a seat at the table. Wider political challenges aside, the veto didn’t change anything structurally in terms of UK influence.

 

2. Cameron’s veto created a two-tier Europe. A two-tier (or, rather, multi-tier) Europe was a consequence of the formation of the euro, which would inevitably force its members closer together. Cameron’s veto was a reflection of a multi-tier Europe, not the cause of it.

 

3. The UK is now completely isolated. Define isolated. Yes, Cameron expended a lot of political capital and frustrated many EU leaders — and he could have done some things differently, including sequenced his demands in a smarter way. But as Fraser pointed out earlier, the UK remains an open economy plugged into the global network. And given the state of the euro Britain is — as Terry Smith of brokerage firm Tullett Prebon told the BBC — ‘as isolated as someone left on the dock in Southampton as the Titanic sailed away.’

 

4. Cameron used his veto to protect a ‘tiny part of our economy’. This claim slipped into the BBC’s Stephanie Flanders’ reports on Friday and is incorrect. Financial services accounted for a £35bn trade surplus last year — one of the few sectors that generated a surplus, as well almost 2 million jobs and it contributed £54bn in taxes.

 

5. Merkel got what she wanted. This claim was also part of most broadcast reports and is equally untrue. Merkel got something, but, as Spiegel noted, she also ‘paid a high cost’ — compromising on ECJ budget powers and private sector involvement in future bailouts, for example — without achieving a lasting solution to the crisis. As yesterday’s FT Deutschland put it, ‘The next rescue summit is guaranteed to come.’

 

6. The UK is alone in expressing reservations about Merkozy’s deal. Cameron was clearly all alone on the veto, but others are far from enthusiastic about what’s on offer. Part of the deal hit the wall in the Finnish Parliament, while the Swedish opposition parties are opposed to Sweden signing up, meaning that the deal may not make it through the Riksdag. Håkan Juholt, the leader of the Social Democrats, said, ‘The Swedish people rejected the single currency in a referendum and we have to respect that. We have no intention of becoming members through the backdoor.’

 

7. The UK asked for ‘special exemptions’. Whether or not he asked for the right things, Cameron did not demand UK-specific ‘opt outs’ from regulations, but for the reinstatement of general vetoes over transfers of power to the EU’s financial supervisors and a guarantee that business and trading activities won’t be pushed inside the eurozone through regulation. The closest he got to an opt-out was a proposal to exempt certain types of businesses that only operate in one country from certain aspects of EU regulation.

 

8. Cameron went to Europe to protect greedy bankers. One of his demands was to be able to impose stricter rules on banks (capital requirements) in order to avoid future taxpayer-backed bailouts of bankers.

 

9. The 17+ can easily use the EU institutions to enforce their decisions, making Cameron’s veto pointless. ECJ case law clearly states that an ad hoc group of countries can use the EU institutions but only subject to an agreement by all EU member states sharing and paying for the institutions. This means that the UK still has a veto. Some EU leaders are now set on manipulating EU law to get around the UK veto (we’ve been here before). It’s not easy, but they may succeed. However, to criticise Cameron for this is to blame someone for losing in poker because the rules changed mid-way through the game.

 

To be fair, there have also been some misconceptions among those who would defend Cameron:

 

10. The veto was about blocking the financial transaction tax and specific financial regulations. Not quite. Cameron already had a separate veto over the FTT, and the Treaty changes were merely about tightening the eurozone’s budget rules (from which the UK already has an opt-out). The veto was always a lever to push for safeguards against the UK being sidelined on key economic issues (i.e. financial regulation) in future as the eurozone integrated further. It was not a protective measure in itself.

 

So leaving misconceptions and domestic politics aside, did Cameron ‘trip over his own red line’ by spending a veto without actually getting any specific safeguards in return? There is a risk. But the truth is that it all depends on what happens next. As dramatic as Cameron’s veto may seem now, I suspect it is merely one of many acts.

 

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7471178/ten-myths-about-camerons-eu-veto.thtml

Get out, and get out fast. The European Union is a bloated, corrupt shell of a "government". The majority of these bastards aren't elected, aren't known and still insist on making decisions that effect everyone. I am disgusted in my country and I am disgusted in the Union. The right to decide how we are governed is a fundamental right, and without it democracy doesn't exist.

Get out, and get out fast. The European Union is a bloated, corrupt shell of a "government". The majority of these bastards aren't elected, aren't known and still insist on making decisions that effect everyone. I am disgusted in my country and I am disgusted in the Union. The right to decide how we are governed is a fundamental right, and without it democracy doesn't exist.

 

I agree, each Country should govern itself by an elected Government, and not have rules dreampt up by people in Brussels.I also hate how people who don't want to be in the EU are branded as hating Europe, I don't hate Europe at all, I have no problem with any of our European neighbours in fact I'm quite fond of most Countries in Europe, I just hate the EU.

The EU started off as just a trade agreement between European countries. Now it's grown into an absolute monster and I am appalled by the mainstream parties stances on the EU. How can you legitimise an institution so undemocratic?

 

What the UK needs to do is start shifting it's exports. Try increasing trade with China, South America and such.

United States of Europe here we come, with the individual countries (France, Germany etc) becoming states and losing any independence they had.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8949060/Police-to-test-laser-that-blinds-rioters.html

 

Police in the UK test out a new device that blinds rioters with laser light.

 

Get ready, it's going to get very hairy soon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8949060/Police-to-test-laser-that-blinds-rioters.html

 

Police in the UK test out a new device that blinds rioters with laser light.

 

Get ready, it's going to get very hairy soon.

 

They will just get wind of this and wear sunglasses, another waste of taxpayers money.