Hague hopes - by Richard... Saturday, November 20, 2010

Hague hopes - by Richard... Saturday, November 20, 2010

William Hague has raised doubts about the future of the euro, saying it was impossible to know whether the currency would collapse. However, he said he "hoped" that the euro would survive, but added: "Who knows?"

So, the Wondrous Willie hopes the euro will survive, does he? And why would that be?

Meanwhile, Tory ego Edward Leigh has warned: "The British people want to be assured at a time when very painful cuts are being made here that good money is not being thrown after bad in driving the Irish further into the sclerotic arms of the euro which caused the problems in the first place."

Excuse me? What "painful cuts"?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Tories is Euroslime - by Richard...

The Register is having great fun with former defence minister, Lord Gilbert, who has described the A400M military transport plane as a "Euro-wanking make-work project" in the written Parliamentary record. The Peer further goes on to say that he regards the decision on the A400M as the most bone-stupid in the 40 years that I have been at one end or other of this building (parliament). It is an absolutely idiotic decision.

With the price spiralling, it is actually working out at nearly twice the price of the more capable C-17, the last known figure being about £130 million compared with about £70 million each for the acquisition of the C-17.

All of this raises questions as to why this expensive white elephant was not cancelled during the strategic defence review. Lord Gilbert thinks he has the answer – it is pandering to the French who want the aircraft so that "Europe" is not dependent on the United States for military transport.

This, of course, is part of the story – except that it does not hold up. So many components and systems will be US-sourced that the aircraft could not fly without active US co-operation.

Nor is it a make-work scheme of any great value. If Gilbert had done his homework, he would have known that, when we bought the C-130J in 1994, Lockheed placed 100 percent offset contracts with UK companies, and we are major contractors in the global programme, getting about 10 percent of the value of every C-130J sold. We get far more from this than we will ever get from the A-400M.

The real reason, of course, is entirely political – the pursuit of European defence integration, in this case the European Air Transport Command, the proto-EU Air Force to rank alongside the EU Navy.

And this has been known all along by the Conservatives, which bought into what was then the Future Large Aircraft (FLA), announced by euroslime defence minister Malcolm Rifkind on 16 December 1994. And that is why the UK will not cancel its A-400M order, no matter what it costs. The Tories, since the very beginning, under Ted Heath, have been leaders of the pack in promoting European defence integration, and are the most enthusiastic proponents of it. And the FLA is a keystone project.

This is not going to change under Euroslime Dave's watch. He is truly the Heir to Heath. Along with promoting the European Carrier Group, he will be right behind the UK's entry into the European Transport Command.

Fatally, though, this is the elephant-in-the-room that the media does not talk about – not even The Register. Thus, rather like Charlton Heston as Detective Thorn in that epic film, who famously declares, "Soylent Green is people!", we need someone to shout out loud, "Tories is Euroslime".

They are selling out our Armed Forces from under our noses, and no one seems to give a damn.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

What have I missed? - by Richard...

The Government will publish its latest excess winter mortality statistics for England and Wales, covering the bitterly cold winter of 2009/2010, on Tuesday 23 November - this helpful piece of information supplied to you courtesy of Friends of the Earth.

They are urging the Government to ensuring all UK homes are made energy efficient, and thus avoid unaffordable fuel bills and high carbon [dioxide] emissions, the latter being necessary to avoid ... er ... global warning.

So, let's get this straight.

Friends of the Earth, who have been leading the way in demanding increased energy costs, in order to reduce energy usage and thus carbon dioxide emissions, in order to prevent global warming. And now they want improved insulation to prevent people dying of cold because they can't afford the increased energy costs needed to prevent global warming and are at risk of dying because of the bitterly cold winters we are now having.

We're all in favour of increasing insulation where possible and thereby reducing heating costs, but do I detect a certain amount of inconsistency in the Friends of the Earth position?

COMMENT THREAD