On top of the Ken Clarke extravaganza, who is given a free ride on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme for nearly twelve minutes, we are seeing evidence of the corporate scare machine cranking up into high gear, in what appears to be an attempt to head off an EU referendum altogether.

Mostly, they are not even attempting to arguing the case for remaining in the EU (mostly, one assumes, because the case is so poor). Rather, they are attacking the very idea of having a referendum. The corporates – in their own minds – are supreme, and the thought of us little plebs being allowed a vote fills them with terror.

Thus we have the parasites PwC spreading their anti-democratic poison in the corporate rag MoneyMarketing. Parasite-in-chief, PwC hedge fund leader Rob Mellor, is allowed to bleat: "A UK asset management industry outside of Europe may face obstacles to the continued management of assets for EU-based investors. This is a fundamental risk to the growth of the industry".

View full article here

The media give Clarke air time, the man who didn't read the Maastricht Treaty, but ignore an excellent speech yesterday by John Redwood which as far as I am aware has gone unreported?

I followed the BBC News link and came across this as the first paragraph:



Is this some Freudian slip or do we already have Labour ministers working behind the scenes?

If we have information on his nationality, e.g if he is Dutch, that’s relevant. Having foreigners tell us what to do on this is out.

He’s talking shyte. But the non anglo-saxon nature of his name, per se, no more invalidates what he is saying than Helen’s family name invalidates what she says.

Added :

There’s also the converse of this. We have a Canadian coming in to head the BoE. Mark Carney doesn’t sound worryingly foreign. There’s also been speculation that a Yank would head the Met and we could have foreign chief constables. It’s obvious where this is going. As things get difficult, TPTB want people at the top of public organisations to have zero roots with the people. They might well do it in 2 steps, with anglo-saxon types to begin with, then EU-ers later.

So, you could say that the name/nationality distinction is nit picking, but I’m suggesting it matters.

Edited by user 31 January 2013 17:32:54(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

According to Who's Who of Economics - John Van Reenen born 1965, Carlisle, UK

http://books.google.co.u...z2h5yShyXjhwCw&hl=en

Edit - speeeeling

Edited by user 31 January 2013 19:58:39(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

His position is that in 1975 he read the treaties and decided that the European Project was not about a free market but was a political project and so voted against it.

He has consistently voted against ever closer union since then.

He has no faith in the Euro, seeing it as a political measure designed to create a crisis to force further integration.

He has long advocated going to 'Europe' with a set of demands to renegotiate and putting the question of the continued membership on those terms to the British people in a referendum. A refusal to negotiate would be the degenerate case of renegotiation and should be put to the British people in a referendum.

The present Tory policy of offering renegotiation after they win, is the best they can do with current political realities, and is a vindication of the policy he's advocated all along.

Sounds good so far as it goes, but there's lots of wriggle room. The grey area is the political will and the propaganda effort involved. Assuming the political will to go to Brussels, demand this and that. be refused, and put the outrageous refusal to even consider the British position as a choice in a referendum, assumes rather a lot.

I think it's a clever version of walking the Tory tightrope.

I've no doubt he wants us out, but he's a Tory first. If he wanted an easy life, he wouldn't run a blog and hewouldn't answer questions as he does and he'd leave 'Europe' well alone.

As for his dishonesty over 'Europe', well he's a practical politician and a Tory MP. Dishonesty over 'Europe' is what the Tories are about. One might ask why anyone seeing the EU as the fundamental issue in British politics and wanting out, would be a Tory MP. There's a dilemma - apart from on narrow grounds of seeing their pals desert them and losing a good living - do they stick to a practical force in politics which might conceivably be steered in the direction they want, or do they make a break and join UKIP? Redwood and Farage would be a poisonous and probably explosive combination.

If you are a Tory MP opposed to the EU, you may be doing it as a Judas Goat, expecting to lead a short life with no prospects of advancement, or biding your time as Redwood seems to be doing.

I don't know quite what to make of the man, but I am tempted to make comparisons between him and Patterson.