The EU helps get rid of two more governments

 

The EU is a destructive force in European politics. I have lost count of how many governments have been toppled by the economic policies the Euro demands. The French government is the latest casualty, with President Hollande dismissing his Ministers following the opposition of some of them to the austerity policies they are forced to follow to comply with EU and Euro requirements.

If a policy of business  tax cuts and spending cuts is to work in France, as it could, it has to be accompanied by an easy money policy from the Central bank and banking system. If you are going to reduce the public sector you need to help augment the private sector.  In the Euro area they have decided instead to run a tight money policy by demanding ever more cash and capital from commercial banks to support their lending, and declining to take any offsetting special monetary measures as the US, UK and Japan have done. Ministers complaining about the policy have been dismissed so the President can find more compliant pro Euro Ministers.

Meanwhile, a different kind of EU policy has helped destabilise the government of Ukraine by heightening the disagreements between the pro EU and pro Russia factions within the country. The overthrow of the previous elected President helped trigger a chain of bad events. Now the most recently elected new President has his way and is going to require early elections to a new Parliament. He says he cannot work with the current representatives from the Donbass region who are too pro Russian for his liking.

The Presidential election was brought forward by almost a year, and the new President was elected without any votes being cast in the Crimea, and with most of the polling stations in the Donbass region unavailable. His intention to hold Parliamentary elections on October 26th 2014, three years before the end of the current Parliament’s full term, will also presumably lead to an election in which the most  pro Russian parts of the country will be unable to vote. Clearly the Crimea is now under Russian control and will not participate at all.  How many of the people in the Donbass region will this time have peaceful access to a polling station? If the pro Russian part of the population does not feel they can have a proper influence on the election it does not augur well for the restoration of Ukrainian unity and peace.

These are yet more reasons why the EU should do less and be more mindful of national and local democracy. Democratic government only works if the consent of all the people to the method of government is maintained. This has been broken in the Ukraine, and is being strained in parts of the Eurozone whose economic performance is poor.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

133 Comments

  1. Peter van Leeuwen
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    Why do those who want to leave the EU anyway, still try lecturing it about what it should do? Britain can fight its own wars in Iraq, Lebanon and bring down governments of its own liking.
    A skewed presentation of Mr Hollande’s government reshuffle. How many more French ministers had to leave compared to Cameron’s latest government reshuffle?

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:01 am | Permalink

      Peter,
      How much of the £2 million the EU spends on internet trolls do you receive?

      • Mark B
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:16 am | Permalink

        Brian, with respect, that is not necessary.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

          Agreed; personally I have never thought that Peter is being paid to act as an advocate for the EU and use his undoubted command of English to poke his nose into the affairs of our country, which he once said he was going to stop doing at least as far as this blog was concerned. It’s conceivable that he may have some ulterior motive, but I tend more to the view that he does it for free as a dedicated eurofederalist because he knows that there are too few citizens of this country who are willing and able to make the same case. Of course he uses the excuse that he has English relations, but then I have Spanish, Portuguese and German relations but I don’t feel the same need to constantly interfere in the affairs of their countries on behalf of an international organisation set up with the intention of bringing about their extinction as sovereign independent states and their perpetual legal subjugation in a European federation. If that is the destiny knowingly and freely chosen by his Dutch compatriots then so be it, it is their affair if they wish to wind up their country; but it is not what people in this country want for the future apart from a very small minority, just a few per cent whose disaffection with their own country shades into treachery even if their actions do not technically amount to treason.

          • Mark B
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

            Dennis

            If he was an Secret EU Squirrel tasked to subvert us, I would demand OUR money back.* Because as such, he bloody useless ! If anything, as can be seen, he is having the reverse effect of what he is allegedly doing. Whatever that may be ?

            He is entitled as anyone, to express his opinions. So long as he is willing to be challenged on them. He is very pro-EU and unashamedly, unlike certain UK politicians.

            It is good to be able to listen to, and counter his arguments and assertions. Think of it as a form of vaccination against EU-titus. :)

            * the EU take money from us, so it’s our money they are wasting.

            PS Dear Mr.Redwood MP, what have you done to U5 ? If anything ?

            Thanks.

          • Peter van Leeuwen
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

            @Denis: thank you for “defending” me. With over half my family UK citizens living in the UK (those who are politically interested are all pro-EU!) I cannot help some continuing interest in your country Denis. When it gets really bad (like the UK aspiring to join Belarus and Vatican City as a non-member to the European Convention) I actually preach to them, but for the rest it is just play. If the UK rejoins EFTA, it doesn’t matter to me, I’ll just continue to show my passport (3 times for my last UK entry in July, 0 times for the return journey :) ) like before.
            We wouldn’t think of ever relocating to the UK because it is rather old-fashioned in old-age issues like euthanasia. I cannot help liking the British, no matter what idiosyncrasies I observe. You are likewise welcome to poke the Dutch, I can take it. Sill happily pooling our sovereignty, Peter.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

            A brilliant comment, thank you Denis, once again.

      • stred
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

        Peter proved himself as a non troll recently during the debate about Brussels ordering weak hoovers. He reported on the manufacturers lobbying tactics and showed that it was possible to visit meet a dim Commission functionaire , (influence him ed), and have everyone buying useless hoovers from Donegal to Donetsk. This was not the actions of an EU troll.

        By the way, where is Uni5. Has someone turned him or her off?

        • Peter Davies
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

          he or she must have got a job so prob doesn’t have the time

    • Mark B
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:18 am | Permalink

      Peter

      Would please care to elaborate on what you mean. Our kind host has expressed an opinion I do not fully agree with but, as to the claims regarding wars etc. I think the UK does not need a sermon from one of our Continental cousins on the other matters you have raised.

      Thank you.

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        @Mark:
        1) I don’t view the French government reshuffle as an EU-inspired “toppling”, but as Hollande getting rid of rebels. The UK had its own recent government reshuffle.

        2) The suggestion is that other governments have been “toppled” by the EU (portrayed as some foreign evil power, while being neither), which I also dissagree with. At some point I coudn’t contain myself, hence Iraq and Lybia, but you are right about not needing sermons.

        3) The post seems to even prefer the once elected Yanukovitsh above the overwhelmingly elected Poroshenko, because the people of Crimea and Donetz didn’t come to the ballot box. It wasn’t Ukraine which prevented them taking part. The EU has never objected to the Ukraine joining the Eurasian Union, it was Russia that didn’t want it to seek an association agreement with the EU.

        If the UK were to view any problem, development or situation from the perspective of an obsession with a national problem (the UK in/out of the EU is a national problem), how could it be taken seriously?

        • formula57
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

          @ Peter van Leeuwen – on your point 1), note the original comment was “I have lost count of how many governments have been toppled by the economic policies the Euro demands”. So not toppled by the direct machinations of the EU Commission and other bureaucracy, rather by voluntarily (to a point) adhering to the policies that EZ member governments are expected by the EU to follow. Arnaud Montebourg’s remarks made clear his objections to such adherence: and in consequence as we know his Prime Minister and President decided the government of which he was a member had to be dissolved. That seems consistent with what Mr. Redwood’s original comment.

          • Peter van Leeuwen
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

            @formula57: whereas Juncker’s appointment was by qualified majority, I don’t think that is true for the fiscal compact nor the stability and growth pact, thus, all completely voluntarily entered into by EZ members. It is called playing by the rules. France and Italy (together with the social democrats in Germany) may find enough partners to relax policies and at least to speed up and intensify investments, utilizing the EIB. The youth unemployment mess is a huge and urgent issue.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

          Whatever the EU does you will defend it, that is in your nature.

          • Mark B
            Posted August 28, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

            Dennis

            He sets the ‘skittles’ up, we just have to knock them down. Easy.

    • Stephen Berry
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      Peter van Leeuwen is wrong to tell people on this blog whom they can and cannot lecture, though I doubt that anything he says is likely to have much effect there. But he is right to point out that not everything bad that happens in Europe is the fault of the EU.

      Any country with a functioning legal system only needs low taxes and a stable currency to prosper. France is no different. All the French have to do is cut taxes and the size of state sector. If they reduce the public sector, and that means state spending, the private sector will automatically increase in size. There is no need to launch any easy money programme. In fact, it is one of the best kept secrets of the 20th century that governments don’t need to mess around with the money supply at all. If the EU, and I guess that really means Frau Merkel, is telling the French to cut state spending, that is a good thing. The real problem is that modern welfare state politicians are extremely reluctant to do this.

      Whatever the EU’s role in the Ukraine, we have to remember that it is the US which is the real mover, both there and in the Middle East. Without America’s big stick, the government in Kiev would take a much softer approach to the Donbass region and I doubt if the EU and the UK would be much involved at all.

      I used to cringe when Tony Blair would threaten this or that military action in the Middle East, behaving as if he were the American President. Did anyone else get a similar feeling when William Hague used to wag his little finger at Russia over the Ukraine? I pondered launching a campaign to have his Yorkshire citizenship withdrawn.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:38 am | Permalink

        Indeed “Any country with a functioning legal system only needs low taxes and a stable currency to prosper. France is no different. All the French have to do is cut taxes and the size of state sector.”

        Indeed, though it also helps is you are not at war and have some decent defence systems in place. France especially just needs far less government, lower taxes and far fewer regulations. Alas they vote for dopes like the current president and indeed most of the recent ones.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        The EU’s role in Ukraine is as one element in a threefold composite, the EU/NATO/US troika. Itself still lacking the military power to pacify and then defend Ukraine the EU must rely on NATO to do that, and of course it is the US which supplies most of NATO’s military power. On other hand neither the US nor NATO could easily step outside the military sphere and provide the liberated/subjugated Ukraine with the civilian government it would need, that would be the role of the EU. That is why the three have to work together to achieve their common objective of extending the rule of Brussels to the east and so encircling Russia to the south.

        There is however now the new problem that Merkel seems to be getting cold feet over what she herself helped to start:

        http://euobserver.com/foreign/125331

        “Germany’s Angela Merkel has said Ukraine is free to “go to” Russia’s “Eurasian Union”, amid signs of a new willingness to make peace with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.”

        • ian wragg
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

          And what Merkey say’s goes. Anyway she needs the gas.

    • Gary
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      Well said Peter. The hypocrisy here is incredible. If the EU took our lead they wouldn’t bother with the reshuffle niceties, they would just bomb a country into regime change. I see we are now off to bomb Syria, under the guise of protecting people from IS. Well I never. Could not have seen tbat coming /sarc

    • A different Simon
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Peter ,

      The essential difference between the UK’s recent cabinet reshuffle and Hollande’s is that the UK is within 12 months of a General Election .

      With respect to Nicky Morgan , Cameron caved in to the NUT when he dropped Michael Gove as education secretary .

      Whether one agrees with Michael Gove’s reforms or not people need support from their superiors especially if they are to threaten the status quo .

      Michael Fallon was an exception minister of state for energy who the country needed in that role . I don’t understand westminsters fad for musical chairs .

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    Indeed the EU are clearly anti-democratic at every turn, dragging all power up to EU level (even vacuum cleaners) there is no democracy beyond the superficial MEP veneer, not even a real demos.

    As you say the French need the private sector to grow and the state sector to he halved, but then the UK is not much better off.

    The radio 4 “expert”, just now, said austerity (state sector) tends to slow growth. Clearly not if you release and free up the private sector enough to more than compensate. Indeed the state sector endlessly pissing money down the drain destroys growth, confidence and real job creation. As we see in the UK with HS2, green energy subsidies and all the other Cameron & government “investment” absurdities.

    Still the French were stupid enough to elect these socialist buffoons. The UK thought they were electing the Tories.

    The essential difference between Cameron types and say Tebbit types is the latter looks rationally at what is principled & actually works. Then tries to make conditions conducive for it.

    The former just dips his finger in the fickle waters of public opinion and goes from husky PR photo op, to state school photo op saying whatever “non judgemental” drivel he thinks will go down well at the time. If he think he needs a Muslim woman from the north he finds one, or some token female ministers he find them and sacks his better ones. What sort of leftly dope will he find for the BBC this time?

    • Mark B
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:24 am | Permalink

      LL

      For BBC expert read, safe, reliable talking head, who will tell them, and the listener, what the BBC wants to here.

      Whenever Auntie talks, it is usually to herself and not those gathered round. Time to introduce her to the wonders of Dignitas

    • A different Simon
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      Americans are counting down the days till they see the back of Obama .

      Le Catastrophic is on borrowed time .

      If the Conservatives don’t lose the next election we might be faced with another 5 years of Cameron .

      He must have an iron grip on the Conservative party to have survived so long .

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Surely the Tories are dead in the water, despite Miliband’s best efforts to help Cameron. After all he could not even beat dead in the water Brown, and that was before he started on all his ratting, 299 tax increases and lefty loon agenda.

        The voting system is still against him (thanks to his own incompetence), the Libdems would clearly go with Labour give a hung parliament (should they have any MPs left). You still get odd of 3:1 for an overall Tory majority. Unless the ratter can reinvent himself and con the Tory voters a second time he will be off to Europe or popping up on the BBC endlessly to talk pro EU/lefty drivel as Clark, Heseltine and Major types do so endlessly.

    • Bazman
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

      Did you even bother to read the facts about vacuum cleaners?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        The facts are that the best people to decide what they need to clean their properties & cars are the customers, users and the equipment manufacturers. Not some bureaucrats in search of a non job and good pension.

        • Bazman
          Posted August 28, 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

          That was not the story was it? You just go from a to b without reading the facts as you believe you own them. Does not seem to apply to the reliability of your cheap gas boilers though. Funny that.

      • Bazman
        Posted August 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        If companies where made to be responsible for the full lifecycle of their products you might see more innovation and reliability, but this would be just interference by the state and some bureaucrats in search of a non job and good pension would it not? So what is your solution to this other than buying the cheapest product and pretending it will last? Nothing as usual.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 28, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

          Let the customer decide.
          Just as you do.

          • Bazman
            Posted August 29, 2014 at 8:25 am | Permalink

            Should they also decide on crash testing abilities of cars. or for levels if fat sugar in food, but in modern industrial society customer choice is not the only factor. Certain standards, levels of performance, safety and impact on the environment have to be met and agreed on at local and international levels. It is acceptable that E-waste is dumped on third world countries as this is their choice and other poor practices can be got away with such as inefficient cars and electrical products as the market allows this?
            Failed markets there is good one for you to write about John. Cameron mentioned the drug industry, so what else can it apply too. Housing? Post office privatisations, utilities. The list goes on.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

            Avoiding the point with a long list of red herrings as usual.

            You may want a long lasting premium product.
            Others may want a cheap short term product as a solution to their requirements.
            Should the EU make only yours lawfully available?

            Basic safety is has been accepted as a requirement of a product for many decades under the law.
            Many product designers gain sales success by introducing added safety into their products well before legislstors force them to.

  3. Mark B
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    I do not think the EU is directly responsible for what has happened in France. France, her Government and her people, have all signed up to the EU, the Euro and the Fiscal Pact. Not a Treaty, a PACT !! Both theirs and our experiences of the ERM should have warned them of what might come.

    They, and many others, are experiencing hardship due to the constraints of the Euro and, the fact that it is not a finished project. For the Euro, and indeed the EU to be a ‘finished project’, it needs to become a fully functioning State. It is, you might think, experiencing birthing pains, but a nation is being born, and right before our very eyes. What is a bit of a worry, is that we are a part of it. And if Mary Shelly was a live today, I think she might have written a good book about it.

    For France and others, they have been caught in a web of their own making, and the EU spider will, in time, consume them. For us, we are a little more fortunate. We can see the harm being done and leave via Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, before it is too late.

    We can do it ! And we should do it !

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:42 am | Permalink

      We will not leave nor even have any meaningful renegotiation under Cameron or Miliband.

      Their heart and souls are just not in it. They are both, it seems, genetically anti-democratic, pro EU, tax borrow and piss down the drain socialists. It seems they cannot help it, they were just borne that way just as some cuckoos are borne to parasite off other birds. The question is why did the Tories elect such a duff compass as leader.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        How many PM’s can you name, that have dragged themselves up from the Council Sink Estate too high office ?

        No Dick Whittington’s are they.

        • agricola
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:56 am | Permalink

          Not a one from a council sink estate to my knowledge but if you allow silver spoonless, but aspiring lower middle class origins then how about Margaret Thatcher.

          Reply Indeed, and John Major did not come from a rich background

          • ian wragg
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            And look what a mess he made of things. Kept the Tories out for a generation. Looks like history repeating itself.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:46 am | Permalink

            John Major did it a from humble, gnome making, background and it seems with well below average (success? ed) too. Perhaps why he destroyed the party electorally for 3 terms (and 4/5 of a term) so far.

            Cameron has less excuse for his incompetence but is equally bad in his sense of direction.

          • majorfrustration
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

            Or David Davis

          • Tad Davison
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

            Reply to reply:

            Personally, I’m not too bothered about a person’s background, but whether they’re right or wrong. I know poor people whose integrity is absolutely beyond question, so that should not be a barrier to high office.

            What level of the social strata John Major came from is immaterial, he was most certainly a disaster for the United Kingdom. By losing the 1997 election in such a profound way, he left the door open for some of the most duplicitous conmen ever to walk the corridors of Westminster. And indeed, history could repeat itself once again unless Cameron recognises the anti-EU feeling in the UK and responds positively to it. Maybe he’s dragging his feet in the hope he can turn around post November 1st and say to the British people, ‘sorry, I can’t deliver meaningful renegotiation, because I am bound by what previous governments have signed us up to, and QMV is preventing me.’

            (What was it I said earlier about the most duplicitous conmen ever to walk the corridors of Westminster?)

            Tad

          • Bazman
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

            John Major was telling us that he saw migrants as natural conservatives, though the conservative party hardly has the monopoly on wanting to better oneself.

    • Peter van Leeuwen
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:56 am | Permalink

      @Mark:
      I don’t think that the EU or EZ will (or needs to) become a fully functioning State. As a hybrid with an intergovernmental and supranational component it may actually be more flexible and future proof.
      It is not unthinkable that some powers and competences move away from the centre (even after the UK will have left), a bit like large corporations go through periods of centralisation ad decentralisation.
      Too much is made of “ever closer union”, the government leaders can chose to interpret it differently.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

        Peter, three words:

        EVER – CLOSER – UNION

        Take any of those three away, and you have no EU. Ain’t gonna happen.

      • outsider
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

        Dear Peter van Leeuwen, Your analogy of the European Union with a corporation is interesting but (in practice if not theory) it seems more of a bureaucracy like the later centuries of Imperial China. Such a bureaucracy steadily and conscientiously follows what it considers to be its prescribed purposes, such as widening and deepening, without ever re-examining them.
        The drive to widen means that it is always looking for new states to join, leading in this case to a disastrous intervention in the affairs of Ukraine, and making it look ever more an empire like the old Austria-Hungary.
        The urge to deepen makes it look ever more like a state. For instance, the post-2008 eurozone crises have shown that individual states cannot be trusted to run their own budgets but also that the eurozone budget limits are inadequate to cope with severe recessions even if Friedmanite policies are followed. The inexorable bureaucratic logic is that budget deficits and counter-cyclical borrowing will need to be centralised to the EU itself, as in the USA.
        By the way, thank you for challenging the arguments of Mr Redwood and many of us who comment on his posts. Your voice greatly adds to and sharpens debate. I hope the occasional abuse will not deter you.

      • Peter Davies
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

        Long time since I’ve seen you on here PVL – not that I’ve had much time on here myself. To take you to task on that last statement, the EZ is one step away from being a US of Europe.

        Once the next natural step has been taken to merge central banks, they have you all where they want to, all EZ members will effectively be one state with a continuous trickle of powers to the centre to finish the job to make sure – the we’ll see how the Netherlands ‘pooling’ its powers really works.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      The French may surprise us yet!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

      The fiscal pact is a treaty, and that word is actually in its title:

      http://european-council.europa.eu/media/639235/st00tscg26_en12.pdf

      “TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM … “

      • Mark B
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

        Corrected.

        So why call it a pact. Why not call it the; “Treaty of Alamo”

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

          I don’t know why; it was fed to the media as a “pact” or “compact”, and that is how the media were happy to take it, but it is treaty just as the European “Convention” is a treaty.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        Do not forget that according to David Cameron a treaty is no longer a treaty once ratified! This is very handy should one want to rat on any cast iron promises made to voters, using this as an absurd fig leaf.

  4. alan jutson,
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Political leaders get what they vote for.

    If you give power away, then your own power to control things as you would like, will then automatically be less.

    If they do not like what is happening, then do not vote to give power to someone else !

    Simples.

    Perhaps one day some of them may wake up and smell the coffee, bacon, or whatever else is needed to clear their minds.

    • Mark B
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      Agreed ! But these people are weak. I mean, just look at our lot.

  5. Richard1
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    The departing ministers in France are opposed to the German monetary policy being imposed on France, but they are also opposed to the many and deep structural reforms the French economy requires, in particular in tax and the Labour market.

    • formula57
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      So they are! Although they along with all other French ministers were quite content, it seems, for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy to suffer under those same EU-driven policies.

      Perhaps France needs to be a little more communautaire – and get used to being so now that Germany has apparently abandoned the principle of always and fully accommodating French wishes.

      • formula57
        Posted August 28, 2014 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

        We are all equal in the EU but, disgracefully, some of us are more equal than others: –

        “(Reuters 28 Aug.) – After ramming austerity medicine down the throats of smaller euro zone countries for the past four years, Germany is showing clemency towards its closest ally, France.”

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

      Richard–It rather beggars belief that France should not see that staying closer to the German way of doing things would be a good idea. Sound means sound by the way (ie 100%) and I deprecate our host’s use of the terms “easy” and “tight money” in the way that he does: the idea that monetary policy in the EU is too tight just because Germany rightly resists debauching the Euro by printing money is strange indeed. Sound money should not be subject to discussion.

      Reply I am all for sound money. I am also for properly financed and regulated banks that can finance sensible growth, which clearly Euro area banks have been unable to do for some years.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        Reply to Reply–I would be happier if I could see what your second sentence has to do with the first. Are you saying that one can only properly finance and regulate banks by printing money? If so I disagree. Printing,is not required because money is already extremely easy, though I admit one would never guess. Banks in the Private Sector choosing not to lend is another story, and in any event that will change soon. Think Gold. I don’t mean a Gold Standard, I mean Gold. Unprintable.

  6. JoeSoap
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    So it becomes more and more difficult to see how you think Cameron will ever re-negotiate the whole way the EU works – it just isn’t going to happen.
    Can you really see him putting Catherine Ashton back in her box looking after part of a Social Services department somewhere on the outskirts of London, where she should be, instead of the embarrassment of her sitting with and negotiating with Putin?? It hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen; not under Tory rule at least.

    Reply Either he gets a new relationship we like or we leave – you will help decide.

    • Mark B
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply.

      Not withstanding that he cannot EVER get any meaningful powers back. And assuming he gets returned to office with a working majority. Can I please ask the following question ?

      Q: By what method, and means do you think we should or could leave the EU ?

      I ask this, because as far as I can see, there seems to be a paucity of thought and strategy, much like the SNP’s view for so called Independence.

      Reply If no good deal is offered and we vote for Out, then the UK Parliament will simply legislate to reassert our independence and the government will negotiate new arrangements for an independent UK to trade and be friends with the neighbours.

      • JoeSoap
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:17 am | Permalink

        Reply to reply.
        There is a lot of scepticism about this.
        You see a referendum was promised on the Lisbon Treaty. It was ratified before the Tories came to power. If the promise had been serious, there would have been renegotiation then, in 2010, to unpick the provisions of this Treaty, and possibly other powers as well. The promise wasn’t serious though, so nothing happened.
        In the same way, this particular promise isn’t serious. The BEST case scenario is that following a Tory victory in 2015, Cameron puts some Catherine Ashton/Baroness Warsi types on the job of re-negotiation. Well the team certainly won’t be Redwood/Hannan/Tebbit, will it?? We then get a watered down slightly delayed version of what is happening in the EU anyway, oh and a vote isn’t necessary because Cameron got his mandate in the 2015 election.
        Sorry you are being suckered.

        Reply Mr Cameron made clear before the election he would not hold a referendum on a Treaty which had already been ratified and absorbed into the Treaties. He did not offer a renegotiation in the 2010 Manifesto and so did not seek to do one.Nor would the Lib dems have agreed. This time he will offer one, will do one and will hold a referendum if he has a majority. People who want out should see what we have now achieved, and how this is the only route that might work. Lib Dems and Labour will not offer either a renegotiation nor a referendum, and no-one thinks UKIP will be forming a government to honour their pledge to withdraw from the EU.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

          To the contrary, on November 4th 2009 when Cameron announced that he was caving in over the Lisbon Treaty he said that he would seek to get powers back. If that promise didn’t find its way into the election manifesto then you and we should ask why not.

        • JoeSoap
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

          “He did not offer a renegotiation in the 2010 Manifesto and so did not seek to do one.”
          Seeking to get powers back, which is what was subsequently promised, is all part and parcel of any re-negotiation. You are playing with words here, when the real question is “Is this man serious in his intentions?”. Most people conclude not.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

            Cameron is very serious in his intentions to try to deceive the public a second time, find a few fig leaves in any negotiation and then offer a biased referendum with LibLabCon, the BBC, large business, most charities, the state sector and most academics pushing to stay in.

            Anyway he will not win the election, you can get 3 to 1 on an overall majority and about half is party is pro EU Ken Clark types anyway even if he get one.

            Yes JR he did rat on Lisbon before the election, but it was still a huge fraud against his supporters. It lost him his Tory majority.

          • JoeSoap
            Posted August 28, 2014 at 11:03 am | Permalink

            Carswell commented “I happen to like David Cameron, I’m not expecting him to reciprocate that now. He’s a nice person, he’s just not serious about change.”
            QED by your own side’s MP

          • David Price
            Posted August 28, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

            @LL
            Your logic escapes me. Cameron did not have the authority to rat or otherwise on Lisbon before the electrion. If, according to you, Cameron ratted on Lisbon after the election how would that have lost him the election majority?

  7. Andyvan
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    The EU should do a lot less cow-towing to Washington’s war mongering as could Westminster. UK MPs managed to stop Obama’s attempt to attack Syria, perhaps it should consider refusing to impose or support ridiculous sanctions on Russia. Perhaps even openly disagree with America’s perpetual war state and call a spade a spade. The Kiev government is run by (questionable people ed) backed by the US to split the EU and Russia. Dave should come out in the open and say so.

  8. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    JR: “EU should do less and be more mindful of national and local democracy”
    The EU and democracy – a perfect example of an oxymoron. This organisation is not just undemocratic, it is anti-democratic. I agree entirely that “The EU is a destructive force in European politics” but you support a party that wants to keep us in there imprisoned, governed by a foreign organisation.
    We must leave – no faux renegotiation – no more deceit by the three main parties in Westminster – simply just leave – we want our country back.

  9. agricola
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Essentially the EU is not democratic. Yes it has a veneer of a Parliament but there is little power in that Parliament. The power rests totally in the undemocratic Commission and all the bodies such as the ECHR and the ECB which are used to promote whatever the Commission requires. Junker is now presuming to tell the UK who they can submit for Commission membership. Any UK government with guts would remind Junker of our contribution and tell him to accept who we choose and shut up.

    On past performance I am assuming that Cameron’s threats to the EU on re-negotiation are worthless window dressing designed to appeal to Conservative waverers in the run up to the General Election. I look upon it as black propaganda in the face of the UKIP threat. As there has never been a clear list of what he wishes to repatriate in the form of lost powers I look upon it as a con like many of the others he has floated.

    The EU will continue to interfere with sovereign governments through it’s acolytes such as Hollande, but all they will achieve is a strengthening of the Front Nationale and ultimately the destruction of the EU. My closest example is the way that Soviet power in Eastern Europe slowly rotted from within until the point at which there was nothing left to sustain it. I can only hope that the EU’s farcical attempts at a foreign policy do not lead us into more trouble. Problem is they are too evangelical, a Taliban in suits, to learn from their mistakes.

  10. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    “…the new President was elected without any votes being cast in the Crimea, and with most of the polling stations in the Donbass region unavailable.”

    Perhaps the Ukrainians were using the UK model of democracy where Prime Ministers have been appointed without any reference to the British electorate e.g. Callaghan in 1976, Major in 1990 and Brown in 2007.

    As for the polling stations fiasco, wasn’t it during the last General Election in 2010 that scores of people in Sheffield were denied the opportunity to vote, despite attending the polling booths well in advance of the 10.00 p.m. deadline?

    • formula57
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:56 am | Permalink

      I doubt the Ukrainians are using the UK model for that very clearly does not provide for the head of government being chosen by direct election – hence the examples of Callaghan, Major and Brown being appointed as you say “without any reference to the British electorate”.

  11. Atlas
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    Since the EU is based upon Plato’s “Republic” ,where those who know better rule all, we should not be too suprised by events.

    After all, will UK MPs stop the HMRC power grab for money from people’s accounts without have to prove their case? If not, then they cannot complain about EU power grabs.

  12. oldtimer
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    If the aim is ever closer union, and it is, anything that weakens the existing power structures is to be welcomed. We have already seen this in Italy and Greece. The EU uses every available tool to achieve this aim. Fortunately it does not yet have an army. We have been warned.

  13. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Austria….little whiff of financial discontent yesterday?

    Salmond posed the question about the UK plan to tow Faslane down south. Darling said no plan exists because no formal requirement is present. Don’t quite believe that.

    Similar question as to the EU departure really. Just a few words about talking our way out of it. Vote me back in and you know me….yeah?

    As with Scotland this is all about vast amounts of public money that always appears to be a formal acquisition and casual dispersal (disposal?). If we do talk our way out of the EU or somehow get special arrangements just when do we get to halt (reduce) the payments to the EU. What penalties (hangovers) are we committed to? There must be loads of them.

    After all, its just our money. Never something that ever seems to be respected well. Paid out and forgotten seemingly.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      If there is a NO vote, I would like to see the faces of Salmond and his merry band of grasping gauleiters when we withdraw from the EU on a UK wide referendum with the encouragement of the SNP’s ideological enemy UKIP.

  14. ian
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    All roads lead to washington USA

  15. Karl Hohenstauffen
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    The EU is publicly portrayed as a force for balance and peace. In reality, the EU is a major contributor to instability and war, whether it is about internal upheaval or conflicts between countries. An undemocratic monster created under false pretenses could be the cause of the next major European military confrontation.

  16. Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Now I read that the EU, in the form of Juncker, is telling Cameron that he must send a woman to Brussels if he wants Britain to have a worthwhile post.
    Quite a democracy we have there; how long before the EU tells us exactly whom we’ve got to send.

  17. ian wragg
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    Next on the agenda, only Brussels approved parties to stand for election. Nigel and his merry band will be outlawed and John’s party will support such anti-democratic moves.
    I see the Luxembourg Stoat is telling us he wants a woman commissioner from the UK.
    Bring it on. The more people like him offends us being one of the few new contributors to the EU, the sooner we will leave.
    Why wasn’t a female put in his post. After all CMD used his maximum influence to block Junket. That worked well didn’t it.
    Now he supports the Polish PM who say’s its only right that Poles in the UK send their child benefit home.
    Very quiet about Rochdale John. Where was the Tory opposition when this was happening. Sorry, etc ed

  18. forthurst
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    In Minsk, the elected Presidents of Russia, Belarus, Khazakstan, and that woman, elected by no one, President of nowhere, met to resolve the dire situation in Ukraine. A further meeting is planned for today.

    When the next election for parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, is held on October 26th, it will not include the 2,249 or more people, mostly civilians, killed by various militias, some government sponsored and others sponsored, personally, by ‘oligarchical’ Dnepropetrovsk governor, Igor Kolomoysky, resident of Switzerland. As for the hundreds (or thousands – higher figure left out ed) who have fled the Donbass region to Russia, will they be permitted postal votes or will they be required to return to cast ballots in polling stations in locations where mourners have been burying their dead in their back gardens, the journey to the cemetery being too dangerous?

    Having acceded to power, as JR writes, without the votes from the besieged Donbass, having dissolved parliament, does President, Petro Poroshenko, he of the (dubious past etc ed) intend to preside over a parliament neither elected nor represented by Russian speakers?

    • forthurst
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      “(or thousands – higher figure left out ed)”

      yes, definitely a mistake!

  19. Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    The situation in Ukraine is not comparable to that in France. President Hollande and the Assemblé National were both elected by a free, fair and transparent system. If their policies are not working then they and the French electorate have only themselves to blame.

    The Verxhovna Rada on the other hand was elected during the Presidency of the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovitch when electoral fraud was the norm. That President abandoned his post as have some Deputies representing his Party. Furthermore, some current Deputies have been supporting violent Russian terrorists and the Kremlin in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how the Rada as currently constituted can command the confidence of a country at war. There is a simple solution to the problem of voting in Luhansk and Donetsk which is entirely in the gift of the ‘separatists’ – they can surrender and take part in the democratic process.

    • forthurst
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      I haven’t actually been watching the news on Sky and the BBC etc, so I had no idea it was that bad. Your rendering of the recent history in Ukraine is quite the most absurd travesty I have seen for some time.

      • Posted August 28, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

        “If a man read little he hath need of much cunning to seem to know that he doth not” – Sir Francis Bacon. Perhaps if this anonymous writer did not rely on the news according to RT he might be better informed. Unless of course he or she works for RT!

        • forthurst
          Posted August 30, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

          “Perhaps if this anonymous writer did not rely on the news according to RT he might be better informed. Unless of course he or she works for RT!”

          Some time ago, JR said that one thing that gave him optimism for the future was the World Wide Web. Clearly, if there are still people who seriously imagine that the MSM or RT alone, depending on their point-of-view would furnish them with the ‘truth’, JR’s optimism was entirely misplaced. JR has complained about the paucity of balanced reporting available in the MSM on Ukraine and I agree with him. In point of fact, without resort to the web, on which there are several websites offering articles sourced from people with specialist knowledge, it would not be possible to even get close to the truth of what has been taking place in Ukraine or elsewhere.

  20. Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Dr. Redwood,

    You state the obvious, but continue to support a leader who is in favour of this undemocratic, disfunctional construction which is the E.U.

    Casting votes which you know you will lose does not constitute a proper response to the needs of the country.

    Time to prioritise loyalties!

    John Wrake.

    Reply I support the one political leader who can bring us a referendum so we can vote to get out of the ERU. I do not compromise my principles on the EU, and decline to vote for EU power.

    • ian wragg
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      You really must take more water with it John if you actually believe CMD will allow a referendum. Him and Gideon are doing all within their power to ensure you don’t get elected.
      – bedroom tax
      – HMRC raiding bank accounts
      -Immigration running at 520,000
      -deficit stuck at circa £100 billion p.a.
      – per capita down 7% on 2008

      Dream on buddy.

      • matthu
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

        Finally worked it out: CMD = CallMeDave!

        • Lifelogic
          Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

          Thanks, you got there before me!

  21. Horatio McSherry
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    John,

    It seems to me (in simplistic terms anyway – I appreciate it’s much more complex), that the rise in popularity in calls for break-aways and for independence splits into two sections: Those who want more, larger, higher social-spending government (and who see themselves as recipients rather than contributors) and those who want to be left alone to their own devices and want independence from those same governments for the opposite reason.

    Scotland is an odd case – as ever – as they seem to want to be ruled by a big British government but then want to be ruled by an even bigger, more distant behemoth of a government of the EU.

    Bob Crow once famously crowed that he had more in common with a Chinese labourer than with Sir Fred Goodwin. Ludicrous, obviously; but he was accidentally right in that communication has become so wonderful that geography is not the thing that separates people of the world anymore, but those people of the world who want to take and those who want freedom to make their own way.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

      It’s the SNP who are saying that we want to join the EU, not Scotland. We voted in a UKIP MEP. Typically, Salmond claims to speak for all of Scotland. The far-Left SNP hate UKIP even more now and this hatred is apparent during the current campaign. etc ed

  22. Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    As I understand it, if we are still in the EU by 2020 all member states will HAVE TO BE IN THE EURO.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      Anne,
      Thank you for highlighting this and I note our host has no response.

    • matthu
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      A possible reference for this claim is provided by The Telegraph:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10935617/After-2020-all-EU-members-will-have-to-adopt-the-euro.html

      Reply It’s nonsense. Our version of the Treaty does not require us to join, nor will we.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply,
        You may call it nonsense but as I have tried to point out before it is only a matter of time before we will be told that in order to have any influence in the EU we will have to join the euro along with all the others with the exception of Denmark who are required to join. The EU website is quite clear:
        “All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as ‘convergence criteria’.”
        “Of the Member States outside the euro area, Denmark and the United Kingdom have ‘opt-outs’ from joining for reasons of economic sovereignty. These two countries can join in the future if they so wish.”
        “Sweden is not yet in the euro area, as it has not made the necessary changes to its central bank legislation and it does not meet the convergence criterion related to participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). However, under the Treaty, Sweden is required to adopt the euro.”

        As I keep saying it is only a matter of time!

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        It seems to me that the author Andrew Lilico has plucked the 2020 date out of the air. But there can be no doubt that as more and more of the EU member states joined the euro, as all except the UK and Denmark would be legally obliged to do notwithstanding the present resistance from the Swedes, the pressure on the UK to also join would gradually increase, and eventually a UK government of whichever party or parties would give in.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      Where has that come from?

  23. lojolondon
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    European PM’s that have been toppled by the EU – so far –

    1. Margaret Thatcher – 1990 – questioned British membership of the EU
    2. Jorge Heider – 2008 – not left-wing enough for the EU
    3. Silvio Berluscone – 2013 – questioned Italian membership of the EU
    4. George Papandreou – 2011 – offered Greece a referendum on the EU

    Clearly several other non-EU countries have also had their leaders changed due to the hideous influence of the EUSSR.

    • BobE
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      Also Ireland was forced to keep voting until they said yes. Third attempt of Germany to dominate europe. However if they keep prodding Russia over the Ukrane issue they will start a european war, again!

    • Richard1
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      It is not correct to say Margaret Thatcher was toppled by the EU. She was toppled because she had lost the confidence of Conservative MPs. Could be those MPs were wrong – I thought so at the time – but there’s no doubt that was what did for her. The main reason as I recall was the MPs felt she wouldn’t abandon the poll tax and continuing with it would have lost the Conservatives the 1992 election.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

        She became increasingly out of step with members of her Cabinet. We often forget that, for a PM to survive, they need support of both Cabinet and the Party.

        As she became more anti-EEC and began to see it for what it truly is, (assuming she did not know) she became a burden.

        There is a lot in Howe’s resignation speech, and no surprise that prominent Europhiles ranged against her.

        That’s my take.

    • Bazman
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      Not in the real world again are we lojo? Funny how you have little to say when challenged like few other on this site. Are you not embarrassed by this or do you think you own the facts? Which?

      • Edward2
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

        The facts are correct as lojo says.
        In my opinion.
        Which I own, as you own your opinions Baz.
        Its the current right of each of us.
        But how much longer that is allowed is a concern.

      • lojolondon
        Posted August 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        So, Bazman, what is your challenge, what is your question, and which of my facts do you want to dispute?

        • Bazman
          Posted August 30, 2014 at 8:06 am | Permalink

          Thatcher was toppled by The EU? Deluded magical thinking.
          Do you own your opinion or the facts edward?

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

            The issue of Europe was the main dispute which led to her downfall by pro Europeans such as Heseltine Howe and others.
            Its not about ownership of facts Baz just knowing what is correct and what is not.

            PS No one said she was toppled by the EU.
            Do you not read other posts before you sound off?

          • Bazman
            Posted September 7, 2014 at 10:29 am | Permalink

            lojolondon said this.
            Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:01 am
            European PM’s that have been toppled by the EU – so far –
            1. Margaret Thatcher – 1990 – questioned British membership of the EU.
            Or does it not say that?

  24. stred
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    The special monetary measures you mention presumably refers to QE. As this is a means for governments to replace bank money creation by state creation to pay for state spending, do you approve of it a think France should do the same?

    Last night the parliament channel had the most entertaining programme in which the deaf signing man tried to keep up with Alastair Darling trying to answer Alex Salmon while he continously interrupted, while playing to marxist Picts in the audience. One point came through. If Salmon has his way and uses the Pound, without the approval of the Former United Kingdom, then they will not be able to run a deficit. Then the Scots will have to have strict spending limits, while the Former will continue to print money.

    Reply As I made clear during the crisis the best answer which I favoured was to fix the commercial banks so they can lend sensible amounts of money again. If this proves too difficult, as it seems to for Euroland, then money creation by the authorities can help.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      France cannot do the same because it does not have its own currency; the euro is a shared currency run by the ECB and national central banks in the eurozone are not authorised to unilaterally create euros for any purpose, let alone to fund large purchases of bonds previously issued by their national governments. If the Greek central bank had been able to do that then no doubt it would have been induced to do so, in the same way that the Bank of England was induced to create £375 billion of new money to buy up gilts and so massively rig the gilts market to the advantage of the UK Treasury.

  25. ian
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Lagaede charged with fraud after hollande government changes. Which (questionable individual ed) will washington dc chose next for IMF, what about GB.

  26. ian
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    War going well in east ukraine for the rebels, Kiev troop cannot fight their way out of wet paper bag only good for shelling civilians. Kiev looking for ceasefire, what demands will rebels want. Not much for the media there.

  27. BobE
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I watched a TV interview with the Ukrane president. He stated that he was a part of europe and will be joining the EU.
    You do realise that Russia will go to war before allowing Ukrane to join europe!!.
    Doesn’t anybody understand that? Also that Nato is incapable of stopping Russian forces without the Americans. That would start WW3.
    Is the EU dictatorship mad!

  28. ian
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    ECB hires blackrock hedge fund to fix things. PRIVATE QE. coming.

  29. Elliot Kane
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely agree, John.

  30. waramess
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    You say :”If a policy of business tax cuts and spending cuts is to work in France, as it could, it has to be accompanied by an easy money policy from the Central bank and banking system”

    How much more can be done to create “easy money” than currently exists with interest rates at close to zero? Banks cannot be forced to lend against their will as has been shown in the UK.

    What exactly might you be proposing? Should France go a bit further with an “easy money” policy, as George has done, by guaranteeing bank lending?

    Ye gods, do neither the Keynesians nor the Monetarists know no boundaries when it comes to blowing economic bubbles?

    If governments are spending too much they have to stop, not slow down, and if the froth that overspend has caused results in some poor investments in the commercial sector collapsing then that is to be expected and must be accommodated.

    The austerity will provide a rich bonus to the people of France, but not immediately and, every Euro the state cuts in it’s spending will be a pound back in the pocket of the taxpayer, one way or another.

  31. Terry
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    I am sickened that this country ever joined the EEC ( pre-EU) in the first place. Like all voters in THAT referendum, I was deliberately mislead into buying into ‘The Common Market’. I say ‘deliberately’ because it was total subterfuge. The architect of the original application was Ted Heath, a Conservative PM. He knew the ultimate plan (a Fed super State) but withheld the details from the electorate. I believe Harold Wilson was equally so inclined. We now know that the EEC was a prelude to the EU behemoth which is run on the lines of a socialist Government – Big brother Government always knows best. This outcome is the antithesis of true blue Tory ideals. They believe that ordinary people are best able to decide what to with their own earnings and with their own lives and that it is The Private Sector that provides those earnings. Not the State dominated Public Sector. The Government does not create any money of it’s own but it takes it from those who do but to provide salaries to those who do not generate any income. They rob Peter to pay Paul, leaving Peter, his wife and children short on the deal. Which is why socialism, will never work. The books will never balance. Unless they are fiddled!
    I can only conclude that Ted Heath was no true blue Tory and despite misleading a whole Nation of people was never held to account for the treachery. It seems that PMs, no matter what they do, are immune from prosecution. That is undemocratic but most certainly accepted by Brussels. We citizens of Europe, have become irrelevant to their rules and their dictates. Our own desires and aspirations have no bearing on the EU policies at all. Def. Time to leave.

    Reply I read the Treaty of Rome and voted No in 1975 – one of the first votes I was able to cast. You have to take advantage of the opportunity when it comes along. Please help us secure another chance so you can get it right next time.

    • Terry
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

      Very impressive but par for your own course, I suspect. It’s a pity all of our MP’s did not do so at the time. It’s a great travesty that you are not in Cabinet, John, along with your like minded colleagues in the HoC. Bring back true Conservatism and make this country Great again. Alas the Quad are not seen in that light in this household and for an ex-PR man the PM is not presenting the ‘Right’ picture in any sense of the word. If I may add, the problem is that we do not want to have to wait for 2017 we want it now! Can you tell me, realistically, just how long after a “No to the EU” vote in 2017, could we expect to extrapolate ourselves from their tentacles? It’s very important to us.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

        Terry,
        ” It’s a pity all of our MP’s did not do so at the time.”
        Most MPs knew what they were signing up to and wanted political union via the backdoor of economic co-operation. They deliberatley deceived the electorate and succeeded. A blueprint which Cameron will follow, if a Conservative government is elected in 2015.

  32. acorn
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Donbass is a “Euroregion”. It is one of many fluffy Council of Europe things; a bit like “twinned with XYZ”, it is not an administrative unit; this one crosses national borders, Ukraine and Russia. Donetsk region and Luhansk region of Ukraine, join with the Rostov region of Russia to form the Donbass “Euroregion”.

    They all want independence just like Scotland; Catalonia; Kurdistan and a hundred other regions on this planet. If I were the US/EU puppet government in Kiev, I would do a deal with Mr Putin; Donetsk and Luhansk regions for a few hundred billion cubic meters of natural gas.

  33. Posted August 27, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    The EU policy of allowing a 3% budget deficit is forcing the governments of the Eurozone to depress their economies.

    All government spending comes back as taxes. Except, if the money which is issued into the economy by that spending is either saved or if it is spent on imports. Every transaction attracts a range of taxes: Income tax, VAT, fuel duty, Corporation tax, Capital gains tax etc etc. Government taxation sucks out all available money sooner or later. Usually after just a few transactions. Increasing taxes doesn’t increase the overall tax take. It just speeds up the removal of money from the economy.

    Just think of water being pumped from a bucket and returned to the same bucket via a hosepipe. The amount of water leaving the bucket is equal to the water being returned regardless of the time taken by that water to pass through the hosepipe.

    The budget deficit of any country has to equal the level of savings plus the amount of money lost to the economy in imports.

    Trying to reduce the deficit by reducing spending and increasing taxation is barking up the wrong tree.

  34. Gary
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    This is off topic, and I understand if you don’t post it, but it appears that Russia and China are now agreeing to trade oil for Yuan, and this is a bitter blow to the petrodollar. This could mean war, because any refutation of the dollar, in a dollar world caught on a ZIRP precipice , could push the entire western world over the financial edge. America is hopelessly dependant on being able to write unlimited cheques thus capping their rates, paid for by the world’s demand for reserve dollars. This is “incentivised” by the US military might. Now we have a direct challenge

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-27/gazprom-begins-accepting-payment-oil-ruble-yuan

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      Gary,
      Thank you for posting this very important development.

    • Posted August 27, 2014 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

      This kind of theory has been doing the rounds for a while. Supposedly Saddam Hussein had displeased the Americans by pricing his Oil in Euros rather than Dollars and therefore had to be deposed. It is conspiratorial nonsense.

      It really doesn’t matter to the Americans what currency anyone uses for the sale of their products. Even if the sale is conducted in US dollars a seller can exchange the proceeds for another currency afterwards. It might cause the international currency markets some concern if everyone wanted to dump the dollar simultaneously. But for every seller of the dollar there would have to be a buyer. International holders of dollars would act to manage any depreciation of the dollar value to protect their own holdings.

      Many in the US would actually welcome a lower dollar. Particularly their exporters. This is needed to reduce both their internal and external deficits.

      • Rob
        Posted August 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        It’s not that simple!

        I agree with you that America wants inflation, but an inflation which it can control. There have also again been recent talks of FED intervention to release “helicopter” money to consumers i.e. money created out of thin air transferred to consumers to spend. It was mentioned briefly a few years back but now talk has restarted.

        The existence of “petrodollars” though is one of the pillars of America’s economic might because it creates a significant external demand for American currency, allowing the US to accumulate enormous debts without defaulting.

        Haven’t you ever wondered how the US government has been able to grow so dramatically, and though everyone says it’s out of money, the growth only accelerates? No other government or military on earth is able to do what the US has done. If they tried they would quickly collapse in hyperinflation. But not the US, because their inflation is exported to the entire world through the petrodollar.

        Now I ask you, what could happen now that the petrodollar is under threat?

        • Posted August 28, 2014 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

          That’s not quite correct. The USA and UK National Debts are of similar proportions in GDP terms. 105% and 90%. Whereas Japan has a ratio of 236% according to IMF figures.

          None of these countries can ever involuntarily default on any debt which is issued in their own currency. That’s not to say that they can’t issue too much currency and create inflation but so far that’s not happening in any major economy. So there is no evidence that the US government want inflation. They could have it if they wanted. They could spend like crazy! Rebuild all their bridges and airports which are looking the worse for lack of maintenance. They could spend up big-time on a new space program.

          We need to remember that for every debt there is a corresponding financial asset. There been a desire, since 2008, to build up financial assets on the part of the private sector. Apple, reportedly, has a cash pile of some $175 billion. That has to be reflected in an increased debt on the part of the US government. So, to that extent, in a free society where individuals and private companies are allowed to build up those financial assets, the extent of government debt is largely outside its direct control.

          • Rob
            Posted August 29, 2014 at 8:44 am | Permalink

            Handing every citizen a handfull of newly created billion dolar notes backed by nothing would also create inflation, but that’s not the kind of inflation they desire. What is desired is as high a rate of inflation they can get away with without upsetting the apple cart. The same goes for the UK government. You only have to look at the history of the USA and the UK regarding inflation.

            I don’t understand your explanation of “…for every debt there is a corresponding financial asset.” What about the government debt for failed IT projects for example? That’s a debt with no asset to show for it.

          • Posted August 29, 2014 at 11:22 am | Permalink

            Rob,

            The principle that debts = assets , in financial terms, comes from double entry bookkeeping.

            If we imagine the creation of a new currency, as almost was the case in Germany after WW2, we can see that before its creation every financial asset (in that currency) is zero and every financial liability is zero too. But of course there are real assets in the economy which all add to a finite worth.

            So the Government creates the currency and starts spending it into the economy. Everyone who receives that currency acquires a financial asset and the government retains a financial liability. So a sovereign currency issuing government always ends up in debt. As holders of the new currency wish to save then the government has to assume the extra debt so that the savers can hold financial assets.

            Of course, this doesn’t excuse wasteful government spending. If money is spent well they may have a real asset to show in the books. Like a reservoir, a railway or a road, but regardless of, that they still end up with a financial liability due to their spending which can only be reduced by the imposition of taxes.

            To completely extinguish their financial liability Governments would have to tax away every single penny of financial assets held by others, which would cause the currency to become extinct.

  35. ian
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Merkel pulling the rug from under obama, saying US can”t solve all the world”s problems with hegemony. just when obama was ramp up war talk and petrodollars having bad time. merkel turning back to putin. Omaba boast yesterday US indispensable. UK politician and media on the wrong side as usual trying to play war games with no brains. I think blackrock hiring was it for merkel.

  36. Posted August 27, 2014 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Sometimes I find it wise not to immediately comment on Johns’ blog , although I have my own opinions on most things which I am reluctant to express; there is no true freedom of speech.
    One thing which always grate against my understanding is the perceived justification for coming from a humble back ground. What the hell is a humble background??, a lack of brass? a lack of a few extra years of study? who you mix with? Who says what is humble; the arrogant puffed up who think that they are in some way superior? or the John Prescott type who fights against some inferiority complex of his own making where he needs to put others down to make what he perceives to be ordinary on a pedestal and stupidly defend his own position?The people who try to clan and put individuals down (probably getting some erotic kick out of it).” See clearer Lear”

    Someone said to me last night “are you JUST a Nurse, are you allowed to do such and such” the arrogant twit does not seem to understand that we could all say are you just this or that , or Are you Just A doctor , or are you JUST a Phd. What we work at has no bearing on individual importance . We are just cogs in a large wheel.

    There is no one superior to another , but violence , arrogance and rude competition is anti social and against the collective betterment of society.

    • cliff. Wokingham.
      Posted August 28, 2014 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      A very good post Margaret.

      As the song goes; “It ain’t where you start, it’s where you finish” which matters.

      Many times during my working life, I had the “Oh, you’re just a nurse” line thrown at me. I concluded that it was something left over from the days of Miss Nightingale, when most nurses were basically bed makers and general dog’s bodies. This is sadly, many people’s view of how nursing still is. I don’t think people know that, in general terms, nursing is basically a graduate profession these days and just how much skill and knowledge modern nurses now have.

      I watched a programme last night entitled Secrets from the Asylum and it brought back memories of when I first started out in psychiatric nursing; I am glad those days are gone.

      My only fear now is that we may loose many, would be good nurses, due to the higher educational requirements that the profession now requires. I think we made a mistake doing away with the SEN route into the profession. I know there has been a move towards a more professional HCA register and training programme, but I still believe we threw the baby out with the bath water getting rid of the SEN pathway. Perhaps they’ll be ressurected in much the same way Matron has been recently.

  37. Freeborn John
    Posted August 27, 2014 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    And next May we will take Cameron’s government down for his slavish desire to reaffirm Britain’s EU membership for decades to come. Unless you want to lose a 6th election in a row in 2020 please elect a real eurosceptic leader to replace Cameron next year.

  38. Posted August 28, 2014 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Reply to your reply to my comment at 9:25 a.m. on 27 Aug. which I quote:
    “Reply I support the one political leader who can bring us a referendum so we can vote to get out of the ERU. I do not compromise my principles on the EU, and decline to vote for EU power.”

    It all hangs on that word “can”, doesn’t it? If you substitute the word “might”, you would be nearer the truth of the matter. Given the stated view of Cameron that we are better off as a member and the craven and self-serving attitude of the majority of the party you support, who agree with him, and similar attitudes by Labour and Libdem parties, ably supported by the socialist BBC and, no doubt, massively funded by the E.U., any referendum campaign is vulnerable.

    Your continued membership of Cameron and Co. is a compromise of your principles on the E.U. As a greater than anyone commenting on this blog said ” No man can serve two masters…..You cannot serve God and Mammon.”

    Parliamentary procedure is a servant to good government, not the deciding factor.

    John Wrake.

  39. Posted August 28, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Douglas Carswell has resigned and joined UKIP. Among his reasons is that David Cameron will not attempt to negotiate real change in Europe. So it looks like David Cameron will attempt to ‘Do a Harold Wilson’, negotiate trival change and present it as substantial.

    I’ll spell it out. Make it absolutely clear that Mr Cameron will not be in charge of the renegotiations. That requires a change of leadership.

    • cliff. Wokingham.
      Posted August 28, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      I admire the fact that Mr Carswell has switched on a matter of principle to UKIP and that he has also decided to give his electorate the opportunity to re elect him on the UKIP ticket…..I wish that EVERY MP who changes party mid term resigns their seat and calls a byelection to put their change to the people who elected them.

      I wonder if others will follow.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page