In/Out Referendum - Now what?

So, David Cameron has fired the starting pistol on an In/Out Referendum.  He has indicated that he wants to re-negotiate the settlement that the UK has with the EU and so long as the UK gets want it wants, he will whole-heartedly work for a Yes/In vote.

I smell quantities of rats!

Firstly, the referendum is dependent on the Conservatives winning the next election.  The Lib Dems are dead-set against holding an In/Out Referendum.  Yes, I know that just a few years ago, as in just before the last election, Nick Clegg, their leader, was all for one but hey, this is politics!  We can't say what is the position of the Labour Party as it doesn't know - saying one thing one minute and the opposite the next.  I suspect that my dog may be socialist as she always pulls to the left but she too seems undecided.

Secondly, and most importantly what are we going to ask for?  What powers will we be seeking to have repatriated?  Most importantly, will these be known in advance of the 2015 General Election?  That is, in order to weigh the value of the Conservative position, we need to know what they will be re-negotiating.  For example, if they only wanted to re-negotiate the Euro arrest warrant, this probably wouldn't persuade me that the referendum had any merit.  Talking about the repeal of the Working Time Directive?  Now I am starting to get interested.  Did the Tories say that they are also going to tackle a whole raft of, named,  anti-business EU laws, regulations and directives repealed?  Okay, now I see you are getting serious and the In/Out referendum might actually mean something.  Keep filling out the subjects and I will start to see the breadth and depth of what the referendum might mean.

Thirdly, and linked to the above, will we have lines in the sand published in advanced?  I believe this is critical as it will stimulate this very important debate and will force the other political parties to say whee they stand.  For example, if the Conservatives say they will require that the Working Time Directive is repealed, then they can say why it should be and, will force the Labour Party  and Lib Dems to say why it shouldn't be.
 
Fourthly, and others have mentioned this, who will lead the Out campaign?  The euro-sceptics and those who want Out anyway and don't consider that any re-negotiation will satisfy them, need to come together very soon and coalesce around a respected leader.  The individual doesn't have to be UKIP or Conservative or Labour etc.  But a campaign leader does need to be appointed.  My vote would go for David Davis.

Fifth, what can we expect of that paragon of balanced reporting - the BBC?  That they are Europhile has always been very apparent, so how to get balance?  Maybe, we could just have Parliament pass a quick enabling law, prohibiting the BBC from reporting on anything about the debate or the European Commission?  OK, so that is extreme but maybe we could oblige them to put a warning strap across all of their stories?  You know, the one that always appears saying - Warning contains flash photography.  How about Warning contains pro-EU bias?

Sixth, how about we get the economic and trade arguments out of the way, at the start.  Put simply, the UK needs to continue to trade with our current EU partners now, during the debate and after any referendum.  Equally, those same partners need to continue to trade with the UK.  None of these economies can simply walk away from such large trading partners.  Any suggestion that the opposite is true is simply ignorant scare-mongering and puerile nonsense. 

Seventh, one of the major reforms that is needed is the establishment of democracy within the EU institutions.  At the outset, that means the abolition of the EU Commission - completely - and all of its attendant institutions which seek to rule without any democratic mandate.

No renegotiation can be seen as successful if the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy remain.  That must be a given.  These restrictive policies, must go.  Similarly, no acceptance of anything that doesn't require that audited accounts are published each year.

Of course any EU level budget can only, repeat only change, up or down, in line with the collective GDP position of the member states.  So if overall EU GDP grows by 0.5% so the budget can grow by that, if it contracts by the same amount, then the spending /budget must be reduced by the same amount.

All new members can only be accepted, if they are cash neutral as regards contributions.  They are neither a net contributor nor a net receiver of funds.

Within a reasonable time frame - ten years or at least not more than fifteen years, all contributors are net zero.
  
Finally and very importantly, any powers that are returned and so are part of the 'success' which prompts a Yes/In vote, must then remain with the UK Parliament and can never be returned to the EU without the express authority of the UK people - that is they have to have specifically voted for it not voted for a party that then decides to undo what has been 'won'.  We wouldn't want any kind of back-sliding or back-room deals such as - yes we will allow that power back and then in two years time, when Brussels issues a new directive, the UK accepts it and we are back to status quo ante.    

As I said at the outset, I smell rats.  I suspect that the Tory leadership consider this a good each-way bet.  If they lose the election, then they can say to their Euro-sceptic MPs - See, people just aren't interested!  If they win the election, then they can re-negotiate on unimportant issues - we managed to rescue the bent banana - and then present such 'victories' as meaningful and promote a vote for In, saying at the same time, this must close the issue, once and for all!

This one is a long way from settled.  Who said the 'devil is in the detail'?

BBC Madness

If you have read my blog before you will be aware of my concerns about the biased BBC and the iniquitous TV Tax - also called the license fee.

However, even the most (blinkered) ardent supporter of the BBC must have been taken aback and stared with incredulity at the claim that in the past two years the BBC contributed more than £8 billion to the UK economy!

How did it do this?  Well it is called the 'multiplier effect'  This says that for every pound that is spent it generates economic activity of twice it's value.  In the case of the BBC the premise is that when it buys a TV camera for example, the money it pays, goes to generate salaries for the makers of the camera and their workers etc., and these then buy food which generates economic impact for the makers and transporters of food, etc.  and on and on it goes.

This is fatuous nonsense and the fuzziest of fuzzy maths.  If we take the BBC's view to it's logical extension, all global activity can be traced back to the spending that the 'beeb' is making.

Is it any wonder that the BBC push socialist policies, which posit that spending can occur without  actually having the money to pay for them?  According to BBC economic theory, all it takes is £1 and then you double-up and double-up and double-up until that fancy new BBC News Centre or Newscaster's salary has been paid for.  You can do the same with hospitals!  Need to finance a Trans-Gender outreach worker? - all you need is to spend a pound and in no time the funding is there.

In case you think I am making this up.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/entertainment-arts-21041587

The report said: "The effect of initial BBC spending is 'multiplied' as it ripples through the economy from region to region and sector to sector (and to the employees of those sectors). This is known as the 'multiplier effect'."
The BBC's chief economic and policy adviser Najma Rajah explained: "The basic premise is that when the BBC spends a pound, the impact of that pound is 'multiplied' as that pound spent by the BBC creates value elsewhere in the economy.
"So, for example, if the BBC were to buy a camera from a supplier in Manchester, the camera supplier would receive some money in return for the camera.
"The camera company would then use the income generated from the sale of the camera to pay their suppliers for the components that went into the camera and to also pay their employees and so on."
Rajah added: "A really good example of how this multiplier effect works is when the BBC commissions a programme that is made by an independent television production.
"The programme might be filmed in Scotland using local runners, electricians, make-up artists etc. who are paid and then will spend their wages in Scotland to the benefit of the Scottish economy."

 So there you have it (are you paying attention Mr Salmond?) another series or two of Monarch of the Glen and a couple from Rab C Nesbitt and Scotland's economic future is secure - maybe Salmond is right - they don't need the oil industry!

 Now ardent supporter, you might ask yourself why the BBC needs to have it's own chief economic and policy adviser?  Why doesn't it spend less on justifying it's own existence and maybe more on original programming?


Repeal the TV Tax now!

Rulers and the ruled

If you had any doubts about the madness that is infecting the UK, today, this week's events in Parliament should provide clarity.

At the start of the week, the Labour party (joined by some Lib Dem malcontents)  opposed the Coalition's proposal to limit welfare benefit handout increases to 1% over the next three years.  Their opposition wasn't because they thought that benefits should be progressively cut in the same period, by say something like 10% per year. 

Oh no!  The opposition was that they felt this would hurt the poor and hard-working families. 

For those unfamiliar with the stupidities of the UK welfare system, the Socialists have developed and honed a process where the government impoverishes you by taking so much in taxes and National Insurance (Social Security) and then let's you apply to get some of your own money back as tax credits and other welfare handouts!   

OK, so you might expect a Conservative-led Coalition to end this farce and leave money in the pockets of those that have earned it but that would be expecting too much.  Two and a half years into a five year Parliament and nary a sign that common sense will surface.

Why?  Well consider the following.

The week has ended with MPs suggesting that they should receive an average 32% increase in salary.  There is no decimal point missing!  You read it correctly - thirty two percent.

Consider this.  The average salary in the UK is £26,500.  Currently MPs receive a salary of more than £65,700 or 2 1/2 times the average.  Now Conservatives want to take that to £96,740, the Lib Dems to £78,361 and Labour to £77,322. 

Oh, and on top of their generous salary, they receive expenses to cover travel, offices and assistant's salaries, etc. 

Is it any wonder that the finances of the UK government are in such an appalling state, when the economic incompetents that rule us have only one concern - their own pocket? 

Many of these are the same MPs who had their greedy snouts so far into the trough that they must have been gagging on the expenses that they were fiddling.  These are also the same MPs who are now pushing to muzzle a free press (including newspapers that exposed the MP expenses fiddling) - Would any writer ever dare to come up with such an unbelievable story-line?

And yes, you probably guessed it, they knew, when they put themselves forward for election, what the salary was, that was on offer.  Ask yourself this, what chance of getting an increase would you have if, today, you went to your boss and said, I know we agreed the starting salary 2 1/2 years ago but now I want a 32% increase.

Any MP that votes in favour or even has the audacity to speak in favour of getting such an increase should have the courage to force an immediate by-election and put the matter, this single issue, to the public - the people who vote him/her into Parliament - and, just as importantly, those taxpayers that pay these high wages. 

If these greedy, stupid, hypocritical and mendacious people can't survive on £65K then they should quit and go and find another job that appropriately rewards the talents and skills that they (alone) think they have!  They should do it, today!

I do accept that many of  those  called for the resignation or firing of Stephen Hester indicated that they could do his job for a lot less than his £1 million pay packet.  Of course that is largely complete twaddle.  MPs though?  They can be easily replaced - it isn't as if the job requires any particular skills - although lying, cheating and thieving doesn't come easy to everyone - just consider the backgrounds and experience of the shower currently sitting in Westminster - how are they more qualified than anyone else?  How many of them have ever held down a real job or managed a business or department or any kind of budget? 

This ruling elite is on a tax-payer funded gravy train , along with their mates in Euro-lalaland and just about  all of them are at 'it' and serving only their own financial interests.

This is what the UK has come to!




 

Gay Bishops

Now that the Church of England has advised that it will allow homosexuals to become bishops, as long as they are celibate.  Where can we expect this to lead?

As a Roman Catholic, I hesitate to wander onto the Anglican patch and comment but.........

And yes, I realize that this will cause all of the stories of the failings of individual RC priests who have been unmasked as paedophiles to be thrown-up as evidence of 'pots and kettles'.  Personally, I don't think that the incidence of paedophile  priests is higher than in the general population.  I think, as a RC, that the most worrying issue (apart from the obvious breach of trust and the actual crimes committed against the children) was the action of some bishops in seeking to cover-up and  dodge the issue.

Anyway, so to the CofE. 

This has been on my mind for a few weeks and the latest announcement brings this forward.  What will be the CofE position on the marriage of homosexual vicars and now, homosexual bishops?  Will these be sanctioned and/or performed on holy ground? Who will verify celibacy, and how?  CCTV in the Bishop's bedroom?

How does the CofE, in its small minded and highly parochial desire to be 'in' with the latest fashion, think that its approach will go down with the wider Anglican community?  Do these foolish people think that the Anglicans in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa will simply accept this?  Just like they accepted the homosexual Episcopalian American bishop?

Say what you like about the Roman Catholic church, our Holy Father doesn't pander to special interest groups and rush to follow the latest social trends.  Yes, that may seem to make us 'old fashioned' or, to some 'reactionary' but better the certainty of that, than the moral decay that the CofE chases in following the latest mores. 

2013 Resolutions

At this time of year, people resolve to do or not do, certain things.  Here are my non-personal ones.

1. I will try not to wonder why a Conservative-led government allows itself to receive all of the opprobrium being heaped upon it for making austerity cuts, when it isn't actually reducing Public Expenditure. 
2. I will also try to accept that the Lib-Dem 'tail' wagging the Tory 'dog' is a good thing for the UK and democracy.
3. I will await the answer to my question on who actually wants homosexuals to have a so called marriage and what this 'ceremony' confers that is different from what homosexuals already have.
4. I shall eagerly hope that Arsenal find where Ivan has hidden the finances and then spend those  to bolster their defence and mid-field with 'take-charge' players who can dominate.  At the same time, I await the appointment of Jack Wilshere as club captain.
5. The much-anticipated EU speech, by David Cameron will surely allow me to rest easy that the UK will finally be given the option of an In/Out referendum and I won't need to bang-on about this.  Do you think?
6.  What to say about Scotland?  I do resolve to offer the hope that the politicians will provide its people with a balanced argument relative to the subject of independence.  With wily Alex there though, I somehow already doubt my hope will be responded to.  
7. Green taxes - I will continue to highlight these iniquitous taxes that add to the burden for people, increase so called fuel poverty and signally fail to reduce so called greenhouse gases. 

OK, the truth!  I will break #1 very soon (sub-consciously, I have probably already done so!).  #2 - isn't going to happen!  #3 - I won't hold my breath.  #4 This is a regular resolution or is it hope?  #5 Can but hope.  #6 When a nation has a chip on it's shoulder, balance is maybe too much to wish for.  #7 Reading Hiding the Decline by A.W. Montford to be better prepared for the 'green' liars and their allies at the biased BBC.

Enjoy 2013 and keep on thinking Right!!