George v. The euro straw man

MUCH CyberTory indignation this morning about the (farcical) suggestion that Damian Green was arrested because he was “about to” commit a crime.

But it seems the Tories themselves think this is a good principle to follow. Because now “Boy” George Osborne has condemned the government for something it has yet to do – join the euro.

Not only has the government not joined the euro, but it was recently made clear, following comments by Jose Manuel Barroso, that the government’s policy on the euro has not changed.

So to sum up George’s strategy: support the government’s policy of staying out of the euro, support the government’s policy of having a referendum if there is ever a decision to join, ignore ministers who point out that this policy stands, then attack ministers for… what, exactly?

Maybe GO is hoping he’ll fare better against a straw man than he has against actual, real politicical opponents.



Filed under Economy, Europe, George Osborne

14 responses to “George v. The euro straw man

  1. But surely the Government’s policy is that it wants to join the euro and that joining is for the long-term benefit of the UK; its just a question of timing.

  2. Brian Hall

    The apt question would now be, do people trust the government to hold a referendum when it involves Europe? Probably not; but I’m sure you aren’t as cynical as I am Tom.

  3. Where have I heard before that HMG was considering taking DNA from people before they were “about to” commit a crime?

    Oh yes, "Home Secretary Jacqui Smith signalled that ministers are looking at proposals to bring in a DNA database for children. Home Office officials said plans to include primary school children on the DNA record would be kept ‘under review’."

    Fingerprinting children so they can access school dinners was clearly only one step in the conditioning process.
    All sorts of alleged corrective measures are being suggested to try and clear up the mess that the liberal PC nonsense has created in the first place, but the result will be more state control of those made dysfunctional by the regime’s tactics. It affords the ‘authorities’ more opportunities to condition vulnerable young boys and girls with their ‘support’ and ‘therapy’ and have the state take control as virtual surrogate parents.

    Tom, in the words of your cousin Rolf – can you tell what it is yet?

    Hint: initials P.S.

  4. Last week Barroso told French radio that, the UK was “closer than ever before” to entering the single currency, and that “people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it”.

    Brown & Mandelson????

  5. Jane

    It has always been government policy that the UK would join the Euro zone when conditions were favourable. I hope this happens soon and the return of Peter Mandelson together with the credit crunch has brought the matter into the public domain again. As I am sure you are aware Tom the Financial Press has also been debating the issue relating to whether we would have fared better if we had been in the Euro Zone. No doubt Mr Osborne is getting information about this matter being “discussed” otherwise he would not be raising it even though he is Shadow Chancellor?

    However, I do not feel that comparing what Jacqui Smith said yesterday and the Euro is reasonable. The Home Secretary stated that because her department dealt with …issues related to National Security…. that somehow justified the arrest of not just the Home Office official but the MP. I note she also said that the CPS were consulted in relation to the arrest of the Home Office official but not Mr Green. The implication for me was that somehow national security was being compromised and, yes, I did listen to her statement. As I have stated earlier Tom, I do not appreciate this link – it is a weak case for the prosecution. Having once sat on the Bench, I can tell you that this is unacceptable. We cannot arrest someone because there is a likelihood of an offence against the State being committed in the future. We can of course impose control orders, lock people up in Belmarch or deport them under terrorist legislation should it be determined that they pose a security risk. As far as I understand it, the Home Office Official and Damian Green do not pose a risk to National security and it is therefore inappropriate for the Home Secretary to mention this. I am now left feeling that somehow, the Metropolitan police were misled and believed the documents leaked did pose a risk to the public – hence their apparent overkill in relation to these matters.

  6. richard

    Everyone with an ounce of political sense knows that the fabled “5 tests” are nothing but an almost wholly subjective measure and a smokescreen for Labour choosing not to give the public a referendum on the issue.

    If, for some bizarre reason, the public suddenly started to swing in favour of joining the Euro then lo! the five tests will magically be met.

  7. Chris' Wills

    @ Brian Hall

    Forgive a minor quibble.

    The EU (EEC when I was young) is not Europe.

    The UK was part of the European continental land mass (apart from the large part of Scotland north of the Great Highland Fault) before we joined the EEC; just as Russia West of the Urals along with Ukraine, Belorussia, Norway and Switzerland (along with lots of other countries in Southern Europe) are also European.

    There are a number of European institutions; ECHR and FEANI amongst others that transcend the parochial EU.

  8. Johnny Norfolk

    You see Tom you promised us a referendum on the treatyIf you had any honesty as a party you would have given us a referendum on Lisbon as it was very similar and it would have been the right thing to do.
    But no you did not do it, so I do not trust Labour one inch that you will find a way and stop us having a referendum on the Euro.

    Just look what you have done to our country, do you think any right minded person will ever trust you again.

  9. richard

    My guess is that they’ll simply rename the Euro something else, thus negating Labour’s original promise to have a referendum before taking us in.

  10. Tacitus

    Oh dear Tom … as noted by others above, the waters are never clear when Mandy’s about, are they? He should learn to keep his mouth shut (I refer also to his crass remarks re Green).

  11. Tacitus

    Oh what a surprise. The committee of wise men to look into this farrago, appointed by our notoriously impartial speaker, will have a Labour majority.

    Well, WHAT a surprise.

    Tom, if you don’t understand how profoundly your government has undermined parliamentary process, and our confidence in it, then I have to say, you are either stupid or wilful. Or just another party stooge.

  12. yozza

    It seems to be a new Tory ploy to condemn the government for things it hasn’t done, or perhaps thought about doing but didn’t. It used to be the Lib Dems who indulged in the vacuous and plain silly, now it’s the Tories.They really are unfit to govern…

  13. Chris' Wills

    Now I don’t deny that Tom is totally honest about his voting intentions about the Euro and a referendum on its adoption or otherwise.

    I would, however, point out that this is somewhat strange as he doesn’t see the need for one in relation to the constitution (treaty, if you prefer obfuscation).

    If it had been approved the treaty would have removed this choice from Tom, it would effectivelly grant the EU statehood with the present national members being relegated to parts thereoff; with fewer rights than US states in regard to the overarching federal USA of which they are members in theory, though states rights have eroded in the USA over the years.

    [Art.I-1 provides that: “Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union.” ]

    So it starts with a lie, as the proposed citizenery weren’t asked in most countries and in those that did put it to a vote there was a large No, as also happened with the treaty.

    [Article I-6: “The Constitution shall have primacy over the laws of the Member States.”]

    Bang goes statehood and sovereignty

    [Article I-12: “The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.”]

    No power for national parliaments except what the masters deign to devolve.

    [Article I-36 of the Constitution allows the Council of Ministers to delegate law-making powers, such as making regulations, to the non-elected Commission as regards “non-essential elements” of EU laws. The Council decides what is “non-essential”]

    Unelected apparatchicks get to make the rules for the most part, can’t see ministers bothering with petty details.

    Now Tom may argue that this is from the constitution not the treaty, however the treaty doesn’t differ from the constitution; excepting that the constitution didn’t try to dissemble or conceal its aims or if it did it did a poorer job.

  14. Andy

    Yep, Johnny Norfolk has it right – when you renege on Lisbon, why should we believe any other “promise” of a referendum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s