Consequences?

Apparently Cameron is threatening consequences if J C Juncker is appointed president of the European Commission. One wonder if it will be a childish tantrum, or a right royal snit or even heaven help us a shuffling of papers during a speech.
Telegraph.

David Cameron will threaten the European Union with “consequences” if Jean-Claude Juncker is appointed president of the European Commission.
As European leaders prepare to meet in Ypres and the diplomatic battle enters its final stages, it emerged that the Prime Minister has been warned by his Attorney General that there is no legal way to avert a humiliating defeat.
Mr Cameron is understood to have asked Dominic Grieve whether he could use the “Luxembourg compromise” to block a vote on appointing Mr Juncker to the EU’s top job, by insisting that Britain’s vital national interests would be damaged.
A source said that the Government “examined all conceivable options” but was told the Luxembourg compromise, a rarely-used device that lets member states defer European Union decisions, “is not applicable”. Kenneth Clarke, the minister without portfolio, angered senior Conservatives by downplaying their concerns.
The Prime Minister believes that Mr Juncker, an arch-federalist, will make it impossible to reform Britain’s relationship with the EU ahead of an in-out referendum in 2017. But Mr Clarke told the BBC that while Mr Juncker was “not the most vigorous reformer”, he was not an “arch-villain”. “No one knows what he’s supposed to have done wrong,” Mr Clarke added.

As ever Clark the arch-federast muddying the waters by implying that the government thinks Juncker has done something wrong and is being bullied and wrongly lambasted rather than simply what he is, a tool of the 'ever closer union' brigade.
As for consequences by Cameron, well it's difficult to see what he can do about what appears to be a done deal. Granted a lot of us would love to see a referendum with a simple in or out question but Cameron will only ever offer that if he thinks we'll vote for in as he's on record saying we're better off in. Nor can he now offer us a referendum on promised reform as the only reforms allowed will be those towards ever closer union and that as far as a lot of us are concerned isn't reform at all simply ever growing tyranny.
So expect some grandstanding gesture quietly shelved after a few days from Cameron, nothing will change and our disquiet will grow. Whether it will reach a peak, I don't know, at the moment staying/leaving is about 50/50 but i suspect a lot haven't made their minds up yet and a lot of our younger people have known nothing but the EU.
Still, Juncker may be the straw that breaks the camels back...

No you can't

David Cameron has promised he will make sure an EU referendum takes place according to the BBC, clearly a case of big words from a little man running scared of Ukip prior to the EU elections. With Ukip running high in the polls at the moment because of the elections coming up and being seen as a protest vote against the current coagulation by those who cannot bring themselves to vote for the Millipede's party Cameron has decided to promise something he cannot deliver unless he's the Prime Minister after the next General Election.
BBC.

David Cameron is to promise to "make sure" UK voters get a referendum on whether to leave the European Union.
Launching the Conservatives' campaign for the local elections taking place later this month, the prime minister will argue that this is a "fundamental principle" for his party.
Mr Cameron will say Labour "won't" deliver a referendum and UKIP "can't".
He will also argue that he has a record of "standing up" to Brussels over eurozone bailouts and EU budgets.
Councils in many parts of England will be holding polls on 22 May in England, the same day as elections for the European Parliament.
Mr Cameron, who is keen to prevent a surge in votes for UKIP - which campaigns for a withdrawal from the EU - will discuss the subject when he addresses Tory activists in the Midlands.

Weasel words as the next Parliament cannot be bound by the decisions of the previous one and currently Cameron is unlikely to be Prime Minister after the next election so this is an empty promise which looks good on paper but is essentially undeliverable unless he wins. Hence there is no 'will' make sure at all, simply a statement of what he 'might' do as we all know what a politicians promises are worth, particularly Cameron with regards to his beloved EU.
So running scared of Ukip are the establishment that amidst the smears there were some clues as to how the powers that be actually regard some of us...
Express.

UKIP voters need to be "educated" about the "lies" and "xenophobia" of Nigel Farage's party, Labour's former European Parliament leader has claimed.
Glyn Ford, who led the Labour group in Brussels from 1989 to 1993, believes pro-Europeans can "blunt" Mr Farage's victory in May's European election but only if they "reclaim" the EU issue.
His comments come in a special report written for left-wing think tank the Centre for Labour and Social Studies entitled "How can the European left deal with the threat posed by xenophobia?"
Speaking to Express.co.uk, Mr Ford was asked if he considered Mr Farage to be xenophobic.
"Yes, I do," he replied.
"He's not the worst, the nasty people are the ones who are trailing behind him."
He added: "Ukip are the BNP without the bother. They don't have a violent streak."
Mr Ford said he did not believe Ukip voters were xenophobic, but left-wing politicians such as himself "haven't been out campaigning".
"We haven't educated people as to what they are all about - Ukip voters need to be educated."

In other words people who vote Ukip are bigoted, ignorant or thick and they 'need' to be re-educated to vote socialist/mainstream because only the ones currently in control understand the real issues of why we should have our lives run by the unelected bureaucrats from Brussels.
Glynn Ford is a classic example of how the political classes think, they know best and the rest of us should put up and shut up. The EU and the establishment including the moronic egg throwing violent left absolutely hate the idea that people have their own minds and don't fit in with their cosy vision of a grey drab future for all but those in their comfy little club. The want to educate us to see their vision despite the fact that they despise us for having the power to vote them down (but not out of power unfortunately)
In the end I doubt Ukip can win an election, but they certainly can upset the apple cart to an extent that Cameron can make a promise he's unlikely to keep and Glynn Ford can tell us all that we need to be 'educated' because we don't share their vision of the future.

Is this a 'cast iron' promise Dave?

Apparently Cameron has promised to resign if we don't get a referendum on the EU, well we all know the strength of a Cameron promise don't we? He certainly reneged over Lisbon and I'm pretty sure now that he's only offering one now because he suspects he'll win and we'll remain in the EU, certainly the poll's would suggest that there's a slight majority of deluded voters out there who can't see what the EU actually is...
BBC.

David Cameron has said he would not serve as prime minister after the 2015 general election if he could not deliver a referendum on Europe.
The prime minister said he would not "barter or give away" his pledge to hold a vote on EU membership in 2017.
He made the "really clear promise" in a phone call with Tory activists ahead of next month's European elections.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said they oppose a referendum unless more powers are transferred to Europe.
The Conservatives' commitment to hold a referendum on Europe is likely to be a "red line" in any negotiations with other parties about a potential coalition should next year's election not produce an outright winner and there is another Hung Parliament.

Nice to see that the BBC are prepared to give the game away on Labour and the Lib Dems desire to give Brussels even more powers, I guess they figure it will leave them more time to enrich themselves at our expense or cover up their perverted crimes, not that the Tories are saints themselves.
The problem is, I don't believe Cameron can deliver such a promise, I rather suspect he's not going to be in power after 2015 anyway and so this is just words to firm up support in the mildly EUskeptic ranks of the Tories so they don't stick the knife in early. Nor do I believe he can legislate for a referendum in advance as the next Parliament can't be bound by the decisions of the previous one.
I simply can't, considering Cameron's previous record, see how he'll convince anyone of his desire to have a referendum after the next election, his past record isn't impressive and the suspicion remains that he'll renege if the results in poll's suggest that he might lose.
The only way we'll ever get a referendum is if the government thinks it will win, it's as simple as that and that's why Cameron for the minute is offering one.

Sorry, but this is why we have a government

I keep out of the debate for Scottish independence, mostly because I'm not being given a vote as to keep them or not, therefore it's irrelevant as to what they do as it's unlikely to affect me or indeed England too much at all. However a statement by a former Labour chancellor caught my eye...
Mail.

The English should have a vote on whether a separate Scotland could keep the pound, former Chancellor Alistair Darling has said.
Mr Darling - who leads the pro-union Better Together campaign - suggested that residents in the rest of the United Kingdom could seal the fate of whether an independent Scotland is part of a currency union.
Scottish separatists were given a boost last weekend when an unnamed minister said that ‘of course’ Scotland could keep sterling as part of negotiations.
But that claim - made by an anonymous minister to the Guardian - was slapped down by George Osborne, the Chancellor, and his Treasury deputy Danny Alexander.
Until then, the threat of an independent Scotland losing the pound had been a key argument for the Better Together campaign, which has warned Scots of the economic consequences of quitting the UK.
Only Scots will have a say on whether they get to stay as part of the UK in the September 18 referendum.

Now whilst I'm totally against unnecessary government interference in peoples lives, I do believe that in certain decisions it's up to our elected representatives to deal with them and this would appear to be one. I know a good many reasons for or against Scotland keeping the pound as a unit of their currency. It would certainly simplify any independence moves for one, at least in the short term. However tying yourself to another countries currency without having a say in certain factors like interest rates or indeed spending and borrowing which affects the level of that currency in the worlds market for you can bring problems on over which you will have no control at all because you won't be consulted and your needs won't be discussed.
In saying there should be a referendum though Darling is trying to cost the English taxpayer money to make a decision they won't have all the information to make.
Deciding on whether the Scots have a say in keeping the pound is up to the government. Certainly the Scots could keep on using it anyway, but as to having a say in how our economy is run with regards to their independence if they go for it, no, they won't get to do that.
Besides if Salmond gets his way they'll all be using Euro's anyway, assuming the EU let them in.

Debates

The Boy Clegg threw down a challenge to the Leader of Ukip the other day to debate an in out referendum on the EU. Farage's response was simply to say only of Cameron and Milliband were involved too.

Express.
NICK Clegg has challenged Ukip leader Nigel Farage to a "once and for all" live debate on Britain's membership to the Europe Union.
Ukip's new director of communications Patrick O’Flynn, the former chief political commentator for the Daily Express, said the idea was "interesting" but wanted further assurances about other participants.
He said: “A televised leaders’ debate for the European elections is a very interesting idea. But it would be ridiculous if Nick Clegg were to refuse to extend his invitation to David Cameron and Ed Miliband too.
“So we want to know from Mr Clegg that Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are invited as well and that he has in mind a comprehensive and live leaders’ debate on a major broadcast outlet. We would also like to hear from Mr Clegg that he is ready to resume his support for an In/Out EU referendum, which he supported before the 2010 general election, but abandoned soon after.

One can only imagine that Clegg is getting desperate to pick up the pro EU vote in the UK as Cameron and Milliband are struggling against Ukip to a degree over the EU with both parties having their own branch of EUskeptics within the parties who are clearly at odds with the leadership who seem to believe the sun shines out of the EU's orifices.
It has been pointed out to me that perhaps Clegg is being wise here in attempting to gain the pro EU vote for the EU elections, but overall a debate is highly unlikely way to gain votes as although Clegg did well in the last elections leadership debate his performance thereafter in Parliament showed that words alone do not make a good politician.
Whilst I must admit I'd like to see such a debate, I rather fancy that when the ground rules are sorted (should anyone agree to such a debate) that it would be deadly dull and the truth would probably be the biggest casualty.I don't want to vote on personalities, I want facts and facts about the EU are very hard to come by, we don't even know for sure how much it costs us to belong for one thing.
Still, it might be interesting to at least see Clegg and Farage go head to head...

Not really a surprise

The odious Keith Vaz made headlines last week greeting a Romanian jobseeker at Luton airport who was apparently one of the first of a veritable tidal wave of immigrants heading here to work/seek benefits.
So naturally it comes as no surprise that the guy who he greeted has done a runner...
Mail.

Romanian migrant Victor Spirescu’s career at a car wash lasted just a day before he quit, it emerged last night.
Spirescu, 30, arrived in Britain on New Year’s Day to be greeted at Luton airport by Labour MP Keith Vaz – the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee.
Spirescu was one of the first to arrive as controls on migrants from Romania and Bulgaria lapsed.
Earlier this week it emerged that Victor had a previous conviction for assaulting his former girlfriend in Bucharest in 2009.

Doesn't appear to be that nice a character so it's no wonder Vaz chose him.
Now as he's an EU citizen and not a criminal basically he can go where he wants and do as he wants so long as it's lawful in the UK. Which is probably why Viviane Reding the vice-president of the European Commission has told us all today that it's the fault of anti-immigration politicians who are going to wreck our future in the United States of Europe...
On top of that apparently Romania wants the term illegal immigrant banned and those who are illegals given access to the National Health Service...
Oh and Derby City Council have decided to spend £120,000 to fund a programme to help eastern Europeans find work at the same time it is sacking 350 staff.
And just to rub salt in the wound...

Mail.
The British people must not be given a say on whether to leave the European Union because it is a ‘lottery’ which way they will vote, Lord Mandelson claimed today.
The former Labour Cabinet minister said Britain’s EU membership is ‘absolutely fundamental’ and must not be put ‘in the hands’ of an unpredictable referendum.

 So even if we don't like where all this is going, there are those out there in the pro-EU ranks who are hell bent on denying us a choice if we should stay or go because it might produce a result they don't want.
And yet they wonder why the EU becomes more unpopular by the day...

Showing your true colours

When in negotiations, do you for example send in a guy who is known to sympathise with the opposition to do your negotiations for you no matter how experienced he is? Or do you send in someone who will fight like hell to get what you want, even if they aren't as experienced?
I rather expect that most would send in the attack dog, however when it's the EU and it's Cameron sending in a team to negotiate...
Mail.

David Cameron has risked angering Tory Eurosceptics by refusing to appoint a powerful figure to spearhead a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU.
The Prime Minister insisted Foreign Secretary William Hague and Europe minister David Lidington were ‘making good progress’ and headed ‘one of the most expert groups of people I could have’.
There have been growing calls from Conservative MPs suspicious of the Foreign Office’s attitude to Brussels for Mr Cameron to bring in a senior Eurosceptic to start talks with other EU leaders.
Eurosceptic Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell expressed concern about the Prime Minister’s remarks.
‘It is very unlikely that the Foreign Secretary or the Europe Minister are even minded to get a great new deal for us, let alone likely to get one,’ Mr Carswell said.

Sadly I believe Douglas Carswell is right, Cameron has no intentions of offering us any sort of deal with the EU that would actually repatriate powers, we may get a shiny new treaty that he can claim to support in his promised referendum, but it isn't one that the EUskeptics want or indeed possibly a majority of the UK public want. Cameron is desperately playing for time, there are doubts that he will win the next election, which is why he promised a forced upon him referendum, but also if he does win the election he needs something in order to fool the UK public in not tipping over the Brussels gravy train.
It's still my belief that Cameron will only offer us a referendum if he's positive that the result will be the one he wants, otherwise all we'll get is delays. The other outcome will be if we lose, we'll be given the opportunity to do it again as Ireland found out.
What we really need is to elect a party who will simply take us out, unfortunately none of the big three will do so...

Negotiating from a position of strength

When negotiating for something, it's always best to do it from a position of strength, however the Tory party despite having a significant EUphobe presence cannot deal with the issue of the EU as some see it because its leader wants to keep us in as he's repeatedly stated.
Express.

DAVID Cameron last night hit back at opponents inside the Tory party over his battle to win better terms of membership from the EU.
The Prime Minister struck out amid claims that by repeatedly saying he wants the UK to stay in Europe he is weakening his own chances of getting a better deal.
Opponents inside and outside the Conservative party are increasingly concerned about current membership terms, which will allow in a new flood of migrants when Bulgarians and Romanians get the right to come to Britain from January.
“The Prime Minister couldn’t have been clearer – there will be a referendum by the end of 2017 at which point everyone will be allowed a say. Most people in this country want Britain to be part of a reformed EU, not staying in with the status quo or out altogether."

Unfortunately that last statement appears to be a bit of wishful thinking on Cameron's part as a poll back in July had 71% of the UK public eligible to vote actually wanted out of the EU. There is no reforming the EU, the bit of it that makes decisions isn't even subject to scrutiny nor recall via elections it's basically a self sustaining committee whose aim appears to be to enforce political unity across the board in all countries of the EU whether the voters like it or not. The EU parliament as such appears to be a rubber stamping body with no power to institute bills, merely discuss them.
It will be interesting to see how the EU elections go next year though (assuming they aren't cancelled as there are fears amongst the EUphiles over the rise of anti-EU parties across Europe) I rather suspect Ukip will do rather well at the expense of both Labour and Tories, possibly the Lib Dems being wiped out in the poll.
Still, I believe Cameron is merely stalling for time in the hope that somehow public opinion will change and the EU becomes popular again.
I have my doubts that he's in for a pleasant surprise (for him)

Yes... and?

You can always rely on the Lib Dems to come up with some entertaining if useless/pointless defence of the EU, the Human Rights Act, taxation, envirolooniism, defence, sex, politics etc. The list being somewhat endless and meaningless and is merely a demonstration of how out of touch with the general public/reality they are...
Still, this one's a corker...
Telegraph.

Gibraltar could be expelled from the European Union against its wishes because of David Cameron’s desire to hold a referendum, a Liberal Democrat MP has warned.
Martin Horwood, the MP for Cheltenham, said that a private member’s bill setting out demands for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union by 2017 could mean that Gibraltar is forced to leave the EU. He said that when the European Union (Referendum) Bill was initially drafted, voters in Gibraltar were excluded from any poll, despite being able to participate as part of the South West of England constituency in European elections. James Wharton, the Tory MP for Stockton South who is bringing forward the legislation, has now introduced an amendment which will include Gibraltar in any referendum after the omission was spotted when the Bill was in committee. Mr Horwood, who sat on the committee which analysed the Bill after second reading, warned that the people of Gibraltar may choose to remain in the EU and then be forced to leave.

It appears that Mr Horwood has failed to recognise that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority of one. Essentially, Gibraltar, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed England are all in exactly the same boat, same with the Channel Isles too I presume. It may be that any such referendum of  our membership of the EU may produce a result that the majority of people in a country disagree with. But that's the joy of our current democracy, the majority rules, though admittedly only in the case of England there may be a problem with the lack of democracy therein whereby the Parliaments/Assemblies of the other places can go it alone and leave the UK and overseas territories if enough of their people want and vote in a government of their own to do so, the people of England have no such recourse save only violent overthrow of the government at the moment as they have no parliament of their own.
So, that's the price Gibraltar will pay for being part of the UK if we leave the EU, so do they, of course they can leave the UK and apply for membership of the EU if they so desire.
That however is their problem should such an occurrence happen and they wish to remain part of the EU, not ours...

Sooner might be better

One of the biggest problems David Cameron faces over his beloved EU is that a growing majority of people don't share his views on it... that we'd be better off in. In essence that's why he promised a delayed referendum on it, knowing full well that he could change his mind after an election, plus give the EU some time to bribe or influence the outcome of such a delayed response.
BBC.

A leading Conservative backbench MP has said he will try to force the government to hold an early vote on whether Britain should leave the EU.
Adam Afriyie said voters were "not convinced" by the prime minister's promise to put the issue to an "in or out" referendum in 2017 - after the next general election.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he said he would push for a vote next October.
Mr Afriyie - who has denied newspaper claims he is being groomed to replace party leader David Cameron - said he would table an amendment to the European Union (Referendum) Bill on Monday.
"Only by setting an early date can we kick-start EU renegotiation talks and give the British people what they so clearly want - a say on our country's future with Europe," he wrote.
"The fact is, the British people are not convinced there will be a referendum at all if we wait until after the next general election. So many things can change.

Actually, oddly enough I'm pretty sure we will be offered a referendum, however, I suspect it will be couched in such terms to either confuse or confound those who want to leave. It would also be on top of a massive EUphile bribes and media campaign to convince us to stay.
Cameron's reaction was typical, if the motion was tabled he threatened to take his marbles and leave remove his promise of a referendum. He's far more concerned at keeping the status quo rather than actually dealing with a problem that's tearing his party apart both at grass-roots level as well as at the Parliamentary one.
What's really needed is simply a Parliamentary decision via a free vote to leave and use the corresponding section in the Lisbon Treaty to do so... that would be the treaty we were promised a referendum on by Cameron, but later refused as Gordon brown snuck in the back entrance to sign it. However as it is we'll get the usual squeals from the EUphiles about it being 'economic suicide' (it isn't) How much the EU does for us (well that's true they've certainly 'done' for us in the past) whilst not being able to give any real hard examples. Plus we'll get the usual Barroso/Rumpy Pumpy pronouncements driving a bigger wedge between what the politicians want and what the public actually want which is a free trade zone vs closer political union.
The biggest danger of demanding a referendum is that we'll get one. The biggest problem after that is that we know if we get one then the fix is in.

Greed and no shame

Those whom believe they have a mandate from the public due to winning a sort of popularity competition are often enough highly profligate with public taxation, particularly on themselves and various groups and pets they favour.
It seems as if as soon as they dip their fingers into the public purse they start being profligate by offering gifts and favours to anyone they like.
Express.

TOWN hall chiefs will be accused tonight of wasting millions on perks, including company cars, golf lessons, pedicures and luxury foreign trips.
One council even had its own ambassador to foster relations with its twin town in France.
Local authorities also spend millions gagging their own staff to prevent them telling all, an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme claims.
The documentary will show how over five years Lord Hanningfield, disgraced former Tory leader of Essex County Council, spent nearly £300,000 on hospitality and travel with his council purchase card.
It included £136,000 on trips to 24 countries, including £7,700 on a three-day seminar in the Bahamas and £2,000 to stay at a five-star hotel in India.
But the peer, jailed in 2011 for falsely claiming £28,000 in parliamentary expenses, defended his spending. He said he entertained people who helped Essex save money, explaining: “It’s worth spending £100 to save a million, isn’t it?”
Of his stay in India, he added: “If you’re going to stay there, you’ve got to stay somewhere you’re not going to be ill.”
The How Councils Waste Your Money programme is based on hundreds of Freedom of Information requests.
The documentary comes just days after the TaxPayers’ Alliance revealed that central and local government wasted more than £120billion of taxpayers’ money in just one year – or £4,500 for every household.

A classic case of not seeing the taxpayers money being in any shape or form 'real' but rather an extension of the magic money tree formula that seems to so enamour the public services that infest the corridors of power in this country.
What people want, particularly people who actually pay into the system is the basics to work. Bins to be emptied, street lights to work, police to be dealing with crime (actual crime not political correctness crimes) Stuff like that, the basics in other words.
What we don't want are payments to special interest groups, payments for translation services, gifts, perks, junkets, freebies, or public funds used for political purposes.
The only way to deal with this is each year form in which the public can tick just which services they are going to fund via their council tax. Certain things like the police etc can be mandatory, but any special interest groups are fair game for the taxpayer.
It's called referism and it's probably the only way we'll ever get these twats back under control.

Not going to happen

I suppose it was inevitable, an Argie Pope is visited by the head honcho of the (failing leftist) Argie regime in an attempt to try and get the British to ignore a referendum in which out of the thousand votes cast only three wanted to be part of Argentina.
BBC.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.
Visiting the Vatican, Ms Fernandez said she had asked the Pope to promote dialogue between the two sides.
Argentine Pope Francis was elected last week and will be formally installed as pontiff at a Mass on Tuesday.
In the past he has said the Falkland Islands, a UK overseas territory, belong to Argentina.
Before Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected, the 76-year-old was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Relations between him, Ms Fernandez, and her late husband and predecessor as president, Nestor Kirchner, were tense.

One wonder just which bit of the 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum, on a turnout of more than 90%, in which 1,513 were in favour of remaining British, while just 3 votes were against, the damned woman is struggling with? No wonder their economy is going tits up if she has problems understanding basic maths.
But no, ever a one to try and 'use' a figure of power Kirchner is up to her old tricks in trying to divert attention  away from domestic problems. So quicker than you can say General Galtieri she's off to Rome to politic with a Pope who oddly enough despised her and her husband, despite being some sort of Argentinian nutter who believes an island 351 miles from Argentina (way outside the 200 mile coastal limit) belongs to a country who never owned it in the first place. One could even point out the delicious irony that Argentinians themselves have displaced the native populace in Argentina whereas the Falklander's have done no such thing. The other thing about claiming proximity is that it could set off all sorts of spurious claims, after all, the USA has invaded Cuba a few times and is only 80 miles away from it and so could claim some sort of 'ownership' too.

"We want a dialogue and that's why we asked the pope to intervene so that the dialogue is successful."

No, what you want is your own way, you simply cannot accept any other decision other than the Falklands being handed back to you, that's not dialogue that's a demand. Well we know how you view the wishes of the people, lets see just how the Pope sees the wishes of the people.

Cast iron promises

The old joke (not a funny one, not any more) about how can you tell if a politician is lying (because you can see his lips moving) seems to have popped up in the news today over Cameron's speech about the EU.
Oddly enough he seems to have caught Millipede E out, though not the boy Clegg both of who have gone back to their fallback positions of not saying anything to rock the EU at all.
BBC.

David Cameron has said the British people must "have their say" on Europe as he pledged an in/out referendum if the Conservatives win the election.
The prime minister said he wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU, before giving the "simple choice" of a vote on accepting the result of the talks or leaving the EU.
The news was welcomed by eurosceptics who have long campaigned for a vote.
France and Germany both warned the UK could not "cherry pick" EU membership.
During noisy Prime Minister's Questions exchanges in Parliament, Labour leader Ed Miliband said Mr Cameron was "running scared" of the UK Independence Party, whose poll ratings have been rising.
Mr Miliband, who said he opposed holding an in/out referendum, said Mr Cameron "is going to put Britain through years of uncertainty, and take a huge gamble with our economy."

We'll forego all the usual caveats about risk to the economy as in reality a phased withdrawal would leave us in a position to negotiate our position vis the EU in a manner similar to either Switzerland or Norway, both of whom trade equably with the EU, yet have the right to veto any EU proposals thrown at them should they so desire.
Cameron is taking a bit of a gamble here, but with his party increasingly unpopular as well as a limited resurgence to Ukip he's having to go down a path which he clearly is not happy with in order (he hopes) to garner some votes.
However we all know about cast iron Dave's promises, there's a lot of wriggle room in his promise of a referendum, certainly enough to refuse us one if things change such as the EU giving him a new deal.
This plus if anyone thinks the EU will fight fair over any referendum offered means that those of us who oppose our EU membership will have a massive fight on our hands particularly as the government such as it is will probably recommend that we vote to stay in, or at least the likes of Cameron will.
As far as I can see, the only way we'll be offered a referendum is if the government is convinced it's going to remain in.
Otherwise, we simply won't be asked.

Yes or yes, yes

For a while now I have been against any further referenda with regards to the EU, I simply don't trust the EU or politicians to either word the question simply enough or allow a balanced debate on the issue. What I want is a Prime Minister and a government with the balls to just simply say in a manifesto that if elected they'll take us out.
My suspicions on referenda were confirmed by this report...
Express.

GOVERNMENT lawyers are studying the mechanics of holding a European Union referendum after a push towards political union in Brussels. Officials and legal advisers are understood to be wording a question for the British people in what could be the first national poll on the country’s relationship with Europe since 1975.
But supporters of the Daily Express’s crusade for Britain to quit the EU are expected to be disappointed.
It is understood voters will be asked to endorse David Cameron’s desire to stay in the EU while keeping out of a closer political union being formed within the 17 nations in the eurozone.
A senior Government source said a vote would be on a “recommendation that Britain stays in the EU without joining a political union.”

In other words, not in or out, but closer union or stay as we are, which is not what those who wish for a referendum to be asking. Not that I'd expect an in or out referendum to be worded fairly, something along the lines of do you wish to stay in the wonderful EU and all the benefits it brings vs do you want the UK to languish isolated in the world as a pariah state if we leave the EU. Because that's the mentality of those who wish us to remain (and pay for) ever closer union within Europe. They don't want an in or out referendum on anything like fair terms, they don't dare, but they'll fudge and prevaricate to allow a referendum on minutiae most of which would be overruled by the EU anyway, it's how they work after all. They operate very much on a don't like the answer well keep asking until you do.
You can pretty much rely on the fact that when it comes to questions on the EU that they won't be answered truthfully, will be brushed aside and in the case of referendums not allowed or constantly re-asked until the voters give them the answers they want.
We simply need a government to take us out, we don't need to be asked and we shouldn't vote for any party who won't take us out!

Or you could just do your job...

We elect our MP's supposedly to represent our interests, unfortunately as happens often enough our MP's simply represent their own or their parties interest. Doesn't even matter if they promised it in a manifesto, after all, the Labour party via a court case made certain that manifesto promises were not subject to legitimate expectation. In other words a politicians promise isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Mail.

David Cameron is facing renewed pressure to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU after Germany said it would let its people have one.
German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said yesterday that closer integration in Europe could only go ahead with a ‘yes’ vote from the German people.
Later this week, the EU Commission will press for closer banking union at a summit in Brussels in a desperate bid to raise market confidence in Europe. The plans, which represent a step towards a European banking super-state, include an EU-wide guarantee scheme for bank deposits and a single bank regulator.
In an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel, Mr Schaeuble acknowledged that a referendum would be needed to cede national sovereignty to Brussels.

If you think that the EU will allow any result other than the one it wants, then you're seriously deluding yourself. If you think that a politicians word on a referendum is truthful, again you're seriously deluding yourself. The EU only permits referenda that it thinks it will win and then orders them held again (and again) if it doesn't go their way. Once it does, no more referenda (of course)
What we need is a government and a set of politicians who have the balls to defy the EU and tell the country if you elect us we'll take you out of the EU, a parliamentary vote not subject to EU bribery of the populace.
Frankly if Cameron allows us a referendum on an in/out vote about the EU it will only be on the grounds that he expects it to be an 'in' vote, he'll also campaign for one too, mark my words.
What the people want and what a politician will give them are two seperate things entirely. We know this all too well.

That's what they want...

You know, I really think that politicians are only open to the suggestion of some sort of referendum on a subject that they know the side they back will win. It's human nature really and it's not the sort of area in which they'd be prepared to gamble, unlike a trip to the bookies. However some Conservative MP's really don't get it about any sort of EU referendum...
Mail.

Britain was left out in the cold yesterday as EU leaders signed a controversial treaty which critics say could herald the dawn of a two-tier Europe.
Furious Tory MPs last night argued Britain would be pushed to the margins of European decision-making and renewed their calls for a referendum on whether we should now leave the EU.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel described the new Fiscal Compact – a desperate attempt to save the single currency – as a ‘great leap’ and a ‘milestone’ towards stability and political union.

Do they really imagine that EUphile Cameron will actually allow a referendum on something unless he knows he's going to win? The EU, financial problems notwithstanding, will literally spend billions to make sure one of its net contributors stays in the EU, they've done it in Ireland, they did it in Croatia and if we give them an answer they don't like they make sure it's done again and again till we vote right, for a given value of right, meaning their way and no others.
Why don't they just exercise the power we gave them in our name and say, enough is enough, here's two years notice to sort things out and for us to negotiate an entry into EFTA. That way they still get to trade with us and we can watch the rioting as they go into revolution as their masses tear down the system they built despite the wishes of their people.
I rather suspect though any calls for a referendum are simply false flag operations, the Tories, like Labour and the Lib Dems are in thrall to the EU state and have no intentions of ever leaving, indeed any attempts to leave or go against EU wishes and you end up with a new Gauleiter, as Greece found out.
Yet we (though not me personally) keep voting for the bastards and then keep wondering why they keep selling us down the river.
If our politicians had our best interests at heart they'd take us out, that they haven't tells us all we need to know.
To finish, allow me to present a video by ArtCo he doesn't blog on a regular basis, but when he does the result is stunning...

Of Roses Rape and Revolution

 

Oil on Hardboard (yes I know, skint again)

44" by 36"

Took a few months as I was in a bit of pain at the time. Anyway hope you enjoy.

Being careful about what you wish for

Politicians love to fool us or themselves by taking a position and then assuming things will go the way they plan. Take the so called leading EUskeptic Douglas Carswell and his call for a referendum on the EU caused no doubt by Cameron's acceptance of the non treaty he did not block by his non veto back in November.
Telegraph.

The Prime Minister is facing a revolt among Tory MPs over the “circumventing” of his veto which blocked a new EU treaty to deepen further fiscal union among eurozone countries at a summit last month.
Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said: “It looks like the veto has fallen apart ... we are back to ministers and mandarins cutting deals in Brussels and shutting the interests of the British people out."
Some Tory MPs were due to meet in Westminster to decide how to how to make clear their unhappiness ahead Mr Cameron's statement to the Commons.
Mr Carswell said a referendum on Britain's place in the EU was necessary.
"What happened yesterday was final proof that we cannot trust politicians to make Europe policy. We now need a referendum," he said. 

The problem is of course is that the EU cannot be trusted on referenda, they'll either keep asking until they get the answer they want as they did with Ireland or they'll stack the deck against the answer they don't want as they have with Croatia where the normal requirement for a 50% turnout threshold was abolished. The government gave money for the Yes campaign but not the No campaign. Their post office gave out Yes leaflets free, but not No leaflets. There were also free or discounted TV and radio Yes advertisements due to the largely German-owned media who campaigned for a Yes vote.
Even before the campaign started their Ministry of Foreign Affairs had paid for advertisements and one of their Ministers stated that pensioners could lose their pensions in the event of a No vote.
The campaign itself was limited to four weeks in midwinter (including the Christmas holidays) and at the end of it the vote split 66% Yes, 33% No on a 43% turnout. (H/T Norman Tebbit)

Anyone think it would be different here particularly with a well funded EUphile minority in Westminster?
Unless the EU is kept out of funding a stay in campaign (almost impossible they could claim an interest) then a leave campaign will face an uphill task to make up ground though admittedly there would be a slightly more friendly dead tree press to highlight any really over the top shenanigans though you could lay money on the BBC being so pro stay that would balance out the equation. There's a strong possibility that the Trade Unions will throw their weight into a stay in campaign as well.

You could also lay money on the question asked being highly controversial somewhat along the lines of "Do you wish to remain in the EU with all the benefits to the UK that this brings" or "Do you wish for the UK to struggle alone in a hostile world" exaggerated yes, but you can bet the question will be something along those lines.
We should always bear in mind that the only way the EUphiles will allow a referendum is if they think they'll win.
Douglass Carswell and others in favour of a referendum on the EU should be very careful about what they wish for.

Legal or not?

(Scottish blood runs in my veins) Cameron has stepped into the Scottish independence debate by saying it's up to Westminster as to whether or not a referendum would be legal.
Telegraph.

David Cameron went on the offensive over Scottish independence today - pledging to publish legal advice reported to show Westminster must give permission for a referendum.
The Prime Minister said it would give "clarity" to the people of Scotland as he renewed his determination to see a vote held "sooner rather than later".
And he accused First Minister Alex Salmond of seeking to delay a vote because he knew Scottish voters did not "at heart" want a full separation.
Mr Salmond wants the poll in the second half of his current term - which ends in 2016.
Mr Cameron told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show that the uncertainty over when a referendum would be held and what the question would be was damaging the Scottish economy.
"We owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive so in the coming days we will be setting out clearly what the legal situation is," he said.

Technically I suppose he's right, though the way he's going about it will no doubt get right up the nose of Scottish Nationalists as he seeks to goad Salmond into falling in with his timetable rather than the Scottish First Ministers timetable. In fact I cannot see anything more likely to boost the nationalist cause more than a Tory UK Prime Minister telling them what they can and cannot do.
That aside though, it doesn't matter what Cameron thinks about referenda, he's hardly got a great track record on them himself, but if the Scottish government decide to hold one it doesn't matter about the legality or not, what will matter is the result. If a majority of the Scottish people decide that going it alone is what they want to do, what exactly is Cameron going to do about it? Send in the troops?
My own personal opinion on the matter is that if the Scots want to go their own way, that's a matter entirely up to them, my only (slight) peeve is that the English and other don't get their own referenda to decide as to whether or not the Union is worth keeping. I suspect a federal UK could work, but if others want to go it alone, then that's up to them, not the Prime Minister and Cameron stepping in to say that we'll tell you what the rules are is not helping at all, it just gets peoples backs up.
As it is, for all Cameron is currently the Prime Minister for the entire UK, Scotland has it's own parliament and runs most of its own affairs, his interference I suspect is nether wanted nor welcome.
I could only wish that England could do the same.

It might be inevitable, but don't expect it to be easy

It does say something about politicians that sooner or later (usually later) they get the message about something the UK public has wanted for years. You can only lie, obfuscate and change your mind so often before an election before stuff comes back to bite you after all.
So it is with referenda and the EU and certain missed opportunities for a Tory leader who increasingly is looking ineffectual and out of touch with the national wishes. We want a referendum on the EU, he wont allow it and with the possibility of a new set of EU treaties being brought in to set up another doomed project of EU countries Cameron instead of saying we'll ask our people, has indicated he'll veto the procedure. Something that is going to make him very unpopular with both groups.
Express.

AN EU referendum on Britain's membership is now 'inevitable', a senior cabinet minister has claimed. Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson claimed proposals for closer fiscal union in the eurozone made it crunch time for Britain's future in Europe.
It came as Prime Minister David Cameron came under renewed pressure over Europe today on the eve of the latest summit, with London mayor Boris Johnson also demanding a referendum if the talks result in a new EU-wide treaty.
Mr Cameron promised the House of Commons during PMQs that he would safeguard Britain's interests at the European Council summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, when leaders of the 27 EU states will discuss a Franco-German plan for closer fiscal co-ordination between the 17 countries which use the euro.

The Euro is of course pretty much doomed, the politicians don't seem to realise as with the Exchange Rate Mechanism crisis of a previous Tory Administration, that it is now the markets who will decide if a fiscal union will work, certainly not the politicians, after all, their pronouncements are often too little too late as they seek to conserve their power rather than do what's right.
Many of us predicted this outcome years ago, though mostly we take no pleasure in it as lives will be ruined, pensions lost and businesses ruined, though admittedly the EU seems to be perfectly capable of managing that quite well by over regulation anyway.
So will we get a referendum?
Don't hold your breath, chances are we'll only get one if the politico's know they'll win, at the moment though they know they'll lose. So if we do, expect the question not to be a simple in or out, more of a "Do you wish to remain in the EU with all the benefits to you that it confers" and "Do you want the UK to go to hell in a hand cart if we leave the EU"
That's what we can pretty much expect, well that and the EU pouring millions (which it hasn't really got) into buying us off, like they did with the Irish, who probably now wish they'd voted no a second time.

Mind you, it might all come to nothing if the Dutch have a referendum

Mislabelling a product

I'm often astonished to the lengths that parts of the MSM will go to try and be kind to their favourites when they are clearly facing a major problem as certain chickens come home to roost. Take the Torygraph and David Cameron (please) on the possibility of a commons vote on the EU.
Telegraph.

This is rapidly turning into David Cameron's biggest embarrassment. If Ed Miliband had the guts to take the Eurosceptic line (as more than a few Labour MPs would like) the PM would be threatened by his first Commons defeat.
The problem for the Prime Minister is that he is a "pragmatic Eurosceptic". In principle, he thinks Europe has too much control over Britain's affairs and is in desperate need of reform. But in practice, he has no intention of doing anything about it because a) he's in a Coalition with the pro-Europe Lib Dems and b) he genuinely values his relationships with Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, who would be outraged by the opportunism.

Now whatever David Cameron is, and I can think of a few descriptions of his views that fit the bill a lot better, a EUrosceptic he isn't, nor from what I can tell is he pragmatic in any way shape or form otherwise he'd be backing the bill simply to see what parliamentarians want and then the people. As it is, he's decided to oppose it an make himself even more unpopular within his party amongst some members who were convinced once he was in power his true EUsceptic nature would come to the fore.
He even appears to be the one behind a spoiling attempt by George (useless) Eustice (pictured below)

To tag some sort of amendment to the motion, which oddly enough appears likely to fail as the Lib Dems of all people look as if they will veto it.
As it is, it looks like 80 MP's of all parties might vote for the motion and rumours have it up to 15 frontbenchers were ready to resign their posts and vote for the motion too, though only time will tell on this as the pressure from the Whips office would appear to be immense and many MP's wont like the threat of their careers being ended when the planned reduction in parliamentary seats comes about simply for following their beliefs, though that's exactly what they should be doing.
In the end though I reckon it will all be for nothing as Cameron will simply ignore the result.