The Lord chuckled - by Richard... Wednesday, February 01, 2012

The Lord chuckled - by Richard... Wednesday, February 01, 2012

With a long-awaited debt swap deal largely almost secured, Athens' focus is now squarely on the reform front. Failure to persuade lenders it can follow through on its pledges could put both the bond swap and the country's latest bailout at risk.

That is the Reuters "take" but The Guardian is suggesting that it very far from being a done deal. Prime minister Lucas Papademos is calling for a "crisis meeting" to ask backers for further concessions after "tough and honest' discussions in Brussels and Frankfurt".

The clue to the problem, though, is in the Reuters report. A senior Greek banker says a final accord on the bond swap was on hold until Athens could show it was "serious about tackling reforms".

"The debt swap agreement is ready, but it will not be announced before the end of the week and until the government has made certain commitments on reforms, labour issues and the pension system," says the anonymous banker. "By delaying the debt swap, European partners are putting pressure on the government and political leaders to make certain commitments".

But WSJ is getting bored with it all, and is just taking the mick:

And Angela Merkel said, "Let there be jobs and growth." And lo, there were jobs and there was growth. And Angela Merkel said, "Let there be closer fiscal coordination on a non-Treaty, intergovernmental basis with penalties for sinners to be administered by the European Court of Justice." And lo, there was that, too. And Angela Merkel said, "Let Greece prove itself capable of meaningful structural reforms before we give them another, €130 billion bailout".

And the Lord chuckled.

The truth is that no one really believes anything about Greece any more – the media goes through the motions of reporting the latest twists and turns, but the real agenda is default, the expectation still being "when not if". Then, there is Portugal, and we start all over again.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

We are so lucky - by Richard...

… that we've had all this global warming. It is terrifying to think what it would have been like without it. And it's not just Norway. Alaska has suffered the coldest January on record in some part – although we can happily report that two ships going away from Nome have made it to open waters.

Elsewhere, it has been grim. Temperatures in parts of Ukraine fell to minus 16°C (3°F) during the day and minus 23°C (minus 10°F) in the night. Authorities opened 1,500 shelters to provide food and heat and closed schools and nurseries. More than 17,000 people have sought help in such shelters in the past three days.

In Poland, at least ten people froze to death as the cold reached minus 26°C (minus 15°F) on Monday. Warsaw city authorities decided to place more than 40 heaters in the busiest city transport stops to help waiting passengers keep warm.

City authorities in the Czech capital of Prague set up tents for an estimated 3,000 homeless people. Freezing temperatures also damaged train tracks, slowing railway traffic. In central Serbia, three people died and two more were missing, while 14 municipalities were operating under emergency decrees. Efforts to clear roads blocked by snow were hampered by strong winds and dozens of towns faced power outages.

And the "colleagues" will be looking forward to a bit of warmth (and Polish shale gas) as Gazpromreduces the flow of gas to Europe because of the cold snap. Supplies into Italy via the Austrian border have been reduced by ten percent compared with normal levels.

Although no one is panicking (yet), it is a timely reminder of how close to the brink supplies can get, when Europe relies on Russia for 30 percent of its gas.

COMMENT: "REALITY BITES BACK" THREAD

Share

Print ready

Kermits get the cream - by Richard...

France's Rafale has emerged as preferred bidder in a $11 billion contest to supply India with 126 fighters, says Reuters. They have undercut the rival Eurofighter and boosted French hopes of a long-awaited first export contract for its premier combat jet.

Clearly, the bribes aid we've given them hasn't worked out. But why on earth are we giving £1.4 billion in aid to a country that can afford to equip its air force to the tune of $15 billion, and isn't even buying British?

It gets even murkier when one realises that India itself is giving $5 billion in aid to African countries, aimed at expanding trade relations. The Indians are sensible enough to use their aid to get economic leverage … we just dole out money we haven't got, and get nothing in return – except Rajendra Pachauri.

And how droll it is that after Sarkozy sneered at Britain, claiming that "the UK has no industry left", we see a British prime minister claim today that "Britain actually has a higher percentage of industry than France does".

But, says The Boy, "we think that we need to rebalance even further; we want to see a growth in manufacturing, technology and aerospace … ". Sadly, it rather looks as if Sazkozy is doing the rebalancing.

And it was such a pity about The Boy's trade drive. It didn't seem to work too well, did it? The "partner of choice" seems to have moved over to the other side of the Channel - at least as far as the IAF is concerned.

(I don't know why, incidentally, that the video shows Mirage jets as well, but there you go ... it's Euronews.)

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

It gets more bizarre - by Richard... Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Gradually, the text of today's the Hansard is being put online . One of the latest offerings of interest is this:

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): Will the Prime Minister explain what it is that he has vetoed?

The Prime Minister: I have vetoed Britain's involvement in a treaty. As a result, it is not an EU treaty. We had in front of this House the Maastricht EU treaty and the Lisbon EU treaty; we had Amsterdam and we had Nice. All of those were treaties that Britain was involved in as a member of the EU, and they were EU treaties with the full force of the law. This is not like that; this is outside the European Union. It is an arrangement that has been reached by 25 other countries and we are not involved. As a result, we have safeguarded Britain's interests, which could have been put at risk by a new EU treaty.

The answer is gibberish. Consider, though, that the current intergovernmental treaty is effectively identical to the treaty that would have been produced as an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty, had not Cameron given the "colleagues" the opportunity to go outside the EU framework. It would thus be interesting to learn how, and in what respects, Britain's interests have been safeguarded by this version, when they would not have been by an EU version.

Mary Ellen Synon reckons The Boy fudged it just to make sure he was not faced with an EU referendum. Cameron's "courage" was Cameron dodging a bullet, she says. "Which is to say, a quick manoeuvre to his own political benefit". It was not so much Britain's interests that he was safeguarding, as his own.

And we get a flavour of that in this exchange:

Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between a veto and an opt-out?

The Prime Minister: There is a very important difference. Let us consider what happened with Maastricht, for instance. There was a European Union treaty to which Britain was a full signatory. We opted out of certain parts of it, but we were still subject to a huge amount of additional EU law. That is why there were so many agonised debates in the House about whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. The same can be said of all EU treaties. The difference in this case is that there is no EU treaty. We are not going to put something in front of the House, and nothing will be voted on, so it will not affect the UK.

One gets a clear sense of relief from Cameron that the treaty does not go in front of the House, and "nothing will be voted on". That gets him off the hook, even if he is now impaled on another one.

COMMENT: "MISLEADING THE HOUSE" THREAD

3Share

Print ready

Kidnapped - by Richard...

Confirming our suspicions that Myrtle has been kidnapped, we now find that his impersonator is writing in The Guardian. That settles it beyond doubt.

Do we start a campaign for real Hannan?

COMMENT: "NOT THAT STUPID" THREAD

Share

Print ready

Global warming is bad? - by Richard...

Hotter summers could lead to between 580-5900 deaths above the average per year by the 2050s, says the Defra Climate Risk Assessment. But it also says that milder winters could lead to 3,900-24,000 fewer premature deaths by the 2050s, significantly more than those forecast to die as a result of hot weather.

Do we really want a government policy dedicated to increasing the price of energy when we are expecting this?

COMMENT: "REALITY BITES BACK" THREAD

Share

Print ready

Misleading the House - by Richard...

When I checked the business for the day on the parliamentary website, there was no reference to a statement on the European Council meeting. With a number of newspaper sites also reporting that there would be a statement "tomorrow", I have misled myself and others into thinking the statement would be tomorrow. However, the statement was today, at just after 3.30pm, and is now up on the No 10 site.

True to form, we are told by The Boy that, "I went to the Council last December prepared to agree a treaty of all 27 countries but only if there were proper safeguards for Britain". He then tells us, to the raucous cheers of the MPs: "But I did not get those safeguards. So I vetoed the Treaty".

Then we get:

As a result Eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements outside the EU treaties for strengthening budgetary discipline, including ensuring there are much tougher rules on deficits. So at this Council 25 EU Member States agreed a new Treaty outside of the EU. Britain and the Czech Republic have not signed up. And we will not be taking part.

So, as we saw last night, The Boy is directly claiming to have "vetoed the Treaty".

There is no equivocation or qualification here but, in order for him to have "vetoed the Treaty", there must have been a treaty to veto. Further, as we know, a veto can only be exercised within the context of an IGC. A European Council acts by simple majority.

We know, however, that there was no IGC convened, and as the government's own spokesmantells us, "There was … no text of a Treaty which was vetoed; it was rather the process of amending the European Union Treaties to this end which was vetoed".

By any measure, The Boy is misleading the House, even without taking into account the spokesman's error, whereby a process cannot be vetoed. Have we got to the final stage in the deterioration of Parliament, where a man purporting to be a prime minister can make things up as he goes along?

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Shaping up - by Richard...

It is not only the Tory europlastics who are going to be after The Boy. According to The Guardian , the Baby Miliband is going to have a go as well, with claims that the country has been "sold down the river".

Miliband is a bit late noticing that - it happened decades ago. But the pincer movement "could be uncomfortable for the prime minister", says the paper, although I somehow doubt it. There will be the usual low-grade huff 'n' puff, but all we will get out of it will be some well-rehearsed soundbites.

Miliband is already saying of The Boy, " … it's a phantom veto and, frankly, he's completely mishandled these negotiations." He accuses Cameron of "publicity-seeking opportunism", which is a bit rich coming from that quarter, and probably easily slapped down.

However, for those interested in low-grade entertainment, and can't deal with X-factor, this is shaping up to be an interesting bit of drama.

COMMENT: "LA REVOLTE" THREAD

Share

Print ready

Après moi la révolte? - by Richard...

Despite the hubris (or because of it?), The Boy is facing a gathering of the clans over his U-turn. "Right wing Tory MPs", we are told, "were due to meet in Westminster to plot how to make clear their unhappiness ahead of a statement by Mr Cameron in the Commons tomorrow".

So it is tomorrow that The Boy will attend upon The House to give his account of the proceedings in Brussels, and it is then – presumably – that we will see the fruits of the Tory "revolt". In fact, though, nothing much will happen. The Tory europlastics are far too compromised and, insofar as they are still blathering about the famous (non-) veto, they lost the plot before the game had even started.

We are now in the land of make-believe: a pretend rebellion over a pretend veto, with a pretend media keeping the score, the result of which will be completely irrelevant as the "colleagues" continue to run rings round The Boy. And that is the only constant here ... the "colleagues" set out to get their treaty. They got it. End of. At a European level, the rest is histrionics.

However, there is another reality here. "Cast-Iron" Cameron has been seen yet again to mess up over "Europe". The popular perception is that he promised a referendum on Lisbon and then resiled. He "vetoed" a treaty and then lets it get through. For his next trick?

I wonder if The Boy is aware of the phrase "three strikes and you're out"? He ain't doing so well is the lad - his credibility is shot to pieces.