The EU commission, we learn, is discussing "harmonisation of national rules governing access to mortgages". This is in the wake of the A little-known historical perspective is offered on the campaign in Afghanistan, over at Defence of the Realm. It provides a sharp contrast to this report, and makes this piece, by Lt-Col Robert Thomson, CO of 2 Rifles, look naïve to the point of being delusional. Seeing snow this early is not normal. This is only the third time in the last 60 years that there's been measurable snow twice in the Twin Cities in the first half of October. Not everybody's cup of tea and largely to be ignored but, as I have observed before, just occasionally she comes up with something of interest. In her "take" on MPs' expenses, for instance, she tells us:beneficialfinancial crisis which "exposed the excessive risks taken by credit institutions in the housing market."
Faced with a worsening economic situation in Europe, internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy sent member states and relevant market "actors" a document in July listing possible changes to EU capital requirement rules, aimed at reducing risk taken by credit institutions and reaching "maximum harmonisation" among EU nations in a number of areas.
The commission proposed a range of amendments to the current rules, meant to "remove options and national discretions," according to the text.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the EU is all about ... removing "options and national discretions". The subject, the circumstances and the problems might change, but there is always only one solution, to "remove options and national discretions."
But it is done little bit by little bit, always for the best possible motives and reasons, we are told at the time. Until, one day, we wake up and find we have no "options and national discretions" left at all. That day is close at hand and comes closer when the constitutional Lisbon treaty comes into force.
And as we gaze upon the benign face of our oppressor (pictured), and find we are completely out of "options and national discretions", what do we do then?
COMMENT THREAD
COMMENT THREAD
COMMENT THREADBeyond the soon-to-be-depleted piggybanks of Westminster, the Copenhagen climate change talks are in crisis and Afghanistan in such a grave state that Barack Obama's allies fear that the war, rather than the Republicans or the economy, may mean that he is fated to be a one-term president. British soldiers are dying, our alliances in Europe are under threat, and – with the ascendancy of China – our place in the world is shifting towards the shadows.
There is sense in that. MPs do not have time to indulge in "small-world politics" and, much though elements of the blogosphere and the chatterati may love it, many of us have little patience for such self-indulgence. The MPs need to sort this, quickly, get it out of the way and get back down to work – the little that is left from them to do.
Questions of size do not only concern the state. The contest is on between big and small-world politics. Rarely has there been a greater need for Britain to look outwards, and rarely have politics seemed so insular. Against a backdrop of global turmoil, the only sounds from Westminster are the rustle of Flymo receipts as MPs prepare to justify their gardening bills and the mutter of backbenchers who think they might like to unseat the Prime Minister after all.
A protracted orgy of recrimination over this issue will merely reinforce the impression that MPs have very little else to do – which is perilously close to the truth. It is not a good idea to confirm what at the moment is in many minds only a strong suspicion.