Just a grade one deceiver who lied to us. He told us all there would be, "NO LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY". ''It is conceivable there would be a treaty just among members of the eurozone.'' " Perfectly conceivable, because on July 11th the eurozone states signed this ESM treaty just among themselves: "Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism" http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/1216793/esm%20treaty%20en.pdf "THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland (the "euro area Member States" or "ESM Members") ... ... HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ..." So the UK is not a party to that intra-eurozone treaty, has no say over its contents, and has no veto to exercise or threaten to exercise. "He added: ''But at some stage there will be another treaty because if there is fiscal union in Europe it changes our relationship to Europe." It certainly would mean a changed relationship, but that would not necessarily mean any further EU treaty change would be needed beyond THE RADICAL EU TREATY CHANGE ALREADY AGREED ON MARCH 25TH. The radical EU treaty change agreed through European Council Decision 2011/199/EU: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:091:0001:0002:EN:PDF to which Cameron readily assented without asking for or getting any other treaty changes to protect our national interests. Which EU treaty change was specifically designed to give the eurozone states the legal permission or licence under EU law to go off and agree intra-eurozone treaties among themselves. As is clear from the Preamble to the first such intra-eurozone treaty, the ESM treaty they signed on July 11th, which anticipates the coming into force of that EU treaty change agreed in March and cites it as the new legal base in the EU treaties for the eurozone states to conclude their own ESM treaty:"On 25 March 2011, the European Council adopted Decision 2011/199/EU amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ... " By Emily Allen Last updated at 5:16 PM on 9th October 2011 The Government has spent millions of pounds on advisers involved in a lucrative train-building contract, which has led to the threat of 1,400 job losses, an MP has said. Jonathan Ashworth, Labour MP for Leicester South, said £7.3m had been paid out to consultants involved in the decision-making process to award German firm Siemens a £1.4 billion contract to build Thameslink trains. The June decision has put in jeopardy the future of thousands of workers at Derby-based Bombardier, which is the UK's last existing train manufacturer. Under threat: The decision has put in jeopardy the future of workers at Derby-based Bombardier, pictured, which is the UK's last existing train manufacturer Mr Ashworth unearthed the figures this week when he received an answer to a question to parliament he entered before the summer recess concerning finances involved in the deal. The £7.3m sum is in addition to £15m that The Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT) said had already spent on advisors and consultants involved in the tendering process. Mr Ashworth said: 'I'm very concerned about the decision on Bombardier. 'I think the Government could have reviewed this decision and I've been pursuing the Government on this issue through parliamentary means. 'This decision on Bombardier is a very damaging decision for rail manufacturers, not just in the East Midlands but nationally.' A spokesman for the Department of Transport said: 'When undertaking a major procurement it is important to seek specialist technical, financial and legal advice to carefully evaluate bids and to ensure that the final contractual agreements deliver best value for the taxpayer. 'This would have been the case whether Siemens or Bombardier became preferred bidder.' There are now a lot of CYA excuses from the Europhile apologists,such as the former FT editor Train deal consultants paid £7.3 MILLION... and sent work to Germany putting thousands of Bombardier jobs on the line
however let me offer another interpretation.
I'm sure the Europhiles would be delighted if everyone would give up sovereignty voluntarily, but failing that they designed a flawed system which was intended to fail. The resulting crisis ( now impending) predictably is being used to advance their political goals.
I wouldn't for a minute a accept their excuses that rules were not followed when there was no effective enforcement mechanism in the first place. This was known or should have been known from the start.
Mundell was known as father of the Euro
Mundell Fleming
The Mundell-Fleming thesis, for which economist Robert Mundell won the 1999 Nobel Prize, states that in international finance, a government has the choice between (1) stable exchange rates, (2) capital mobility and (3) policy autonomy (full employment/low interest rates, counter-cyclical fiscal spending, etc). With unregulated global markets, a government can have only two of those three options.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DG23Ad04.html
Date: Sunday, October 9, 2011,
According to John Major the French and Germans did not adhere to the Maasticht Treaty as it was drawn up regarding the Eurozone. They were afraid that not enough countries would sign up to belong to the Eurozone so the rule book went out of the window, and that is why they (and us) are in the poo now! Barry
Sunday, 9 October 2011
"He told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: ''There won't necessarily have to be a treaty in this country for fiscal union.
Strange that Major didn't mention that EU treaty change, which having been agreed by EU leaders now awaits final ratification by all of the EU member states - in our case, after Parliament has approved it through an Act.
Strange that Major doesn't point out that Cameron had the opportunity to extract concessions before agreeing to that EU treaty change back in March, but chose not to do so, but could still be compelled to go back and do so if MPs refused to pass the Bill to approve it.
Strange that Major tells us about the possibility of an opportunity to re-negotiate arising some time in the future, an opportunity which may or may not materialise, while saying nothing at all about the immediate opportunity.
Full transcript of the interview is here:
Politics and Trains Lists (Apologies for any duplications.)
WRONG! - I don't know what you think, but I think this is just plain 'bad government'....(it's the blasted Civil Service - again!)
The plan "to destroy England" becomes a bit obvious, at times like this, but they always seem to sweat their way through the tight interviews and questions, about it all. It's almost (if not actual) treason, to take action like this. ! "Against the national interest", I say!
Mind you - they will probably be delivered on time, on budget - and be reliable and well-made, but that's a separate issue! It's the principle behind it all, that seems wrong to me. Why can't we build a decent train, at a keen price? We invented them!
=============================================================================================
We must accept euro project was badly designed
Posts
