12-12-2011

We should not spend too many words on the Veto by UK PM Cameron; he made an obvious mistake in his eagerness to please his paymasters the financial dictators in the City of London and his masters in the US. It was their day; however, will it be staying like this? The dimmest of the Conservative party and their even dim supporters will say that is the right move. However was it the right move?



The right move would have been to negotiate for a good deal, not to block every move possible what is done now. OK the ten percent of the Banking and Financial business in the UK will be happy, and reaping the benefits of it Cameron will be happy, however for Britain it could be the beginning of the end for the cosy low interest rates they get from the Bankers for supporting the USA and Israel.
EU contract's bid on's by Britain will now be ignored, the British business will loose out on contracts, already Shell goes where BP should have gone, and more will follow.



The bankers and Financial business of the city will be doing all right, buying selling and profit taken, however that does not bring in the Tax Britain need so urgently. That has to come from the normal other 90 percent of the business in Britain, and they are the ones who will be loosing out. That in turn will result in less Tax, less employment, and less business to go around. This in turn means more people on benefits and a higher benefits bill for Cameron.



On 12/12/2011 he attempted to defend the un-defendable. the dims of the Conservatives glorified the move from Cameron, Labour to say it short said he was of his rocket, and the LIBDEM the partners of Cameron did not even show up so embarrassed they where with to actions of Cameron.
The LIBDEM fails to understand that Cameron is not working for the United Kingdom but for the USA administration and their control of the financial business. While Labour attempt to work for Britain and the LIBDEM for EU, in Britain with the Conservatives in charge do not have that problem they simple following the USA orders.



It is imperative for the USA to keep the trouble going in the EU. It destabilize the European countries and shoves business to the USA who are benefiting by getting more people into work and have the business section now well going. This thanks to the trouble of the EU. This trouble of the EU was organized by the USA and the USA and Israeli controlled banks. Unless the EU shakes of the shackles of the USA/NATO and stand on their own two feet the trouble in the EU will be there to stay. They could do without traitors to the EU and the population of Britain. A better organized ECB, and close together with the Bank of China would eliminate the rating agencies who using the EU as a milk cow for profit. The development bank sees this, the IMF sees this, the Asian states see this, but EU is still blind.



Europe should be in three parts, an EU with the Euro, an EU without the Euro and EU countries for trading only. It would be one happy family under the restriction of non Euro and trading EU countries. Or as you can call it a hard core, a soft core and the softer outside. The hard core countries would have a leadership of political and fiscal control. The soft core would adhere to all the EU rules except the political/fiscal rules. The softer outside would have parts of the EU as a trading EU partner only. It would be logical that the softer cores cannot attend the meetings of the Euro countries as the have no part in the fiscal rules.



Here however is the problem of the very complicated form of the European collection of states, too many managers and no workers. Too many managers without responsible control over them and too many pocket fillers or commissioners. A simple democratic for of the hard core would solve the problem and would keep the bankers happy. One president, proper elected, one government, proper elected and one parliament proper elected. The rest to be made redundant.
The soft core could be controlled by a minister special directed to the soft core countries. A special trade minister for the trading EU countries. Sounds simple and it is, if done years ago as we wrote in 2004 all the problems as there are now would not exist.



However to say simple NO is not the way to deal with serious problems. Betraying your country never is. That "NO" will have in time a serious effect on Britain and Cameron cannot go on forever saying it is Labours fault. It was for that reason that Glegg did not attend the parliament session. David Cameron faced braying MPs, but without his deputy by his side. As Labour MPs chanted "where's Clegg?" at Cameron, he said: "The right answer was no treaty. It was not an easy thing to do but it was the right thing to do."
The prime minister offered no apologies and was accused of marginalizing Britain by Ed Miliband.



As Nick Glegg pointed out so clearly, "The prime minister and I clearly do not agree on the outcome of the summit last week". "I made it very clear that I think isolation in Europe when we are one against 26 is potentially a bad thing for jobs, a bad thing for growth, and a bad thing for the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. "I am not here to defend the European Union in and of itself: I am here to defend the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people in this country. That's what I care about, and that's why I think what we need to do now is build bridges, re-engage and make sure the British voice is heard loud and clear in the heart of Europe", he said on 12/12/2011.
"When I was told the outcome of the summit, after it finished, I immediately told the Prime Minister that I could not welcome it, that I thought it was bad for Britain. I have stayed with that view since, and I have simply amplified on my reasons for that since the summit."



That Nick Clegg didn't stick to Cameron's line about the negotiating position will confirm claims by Labour that the PM walked away without realizing what he was doing, something Ed Miliband accused Cameron of doing during the debate in the Commons. Clegg said: "The specific list of safeguards which were sought, which was a list of negotiating asks, were perfectly reasonable and perfectly measured in their scope. I haven’t changed my mind one bit from the moment the summit was closed." Glegg made it clear that it did not alter the coalition position, saying: "The coalition government is here to stay. On Europe, what I’m going to do is this – build bridges, re-engage, and make sure that the British voice is heard at the top table in Europe."



However the whole sorry episode made it clear that it is not Cameron who is controlling the politics in Britain but William Hague, the man who act as of he is the head of the CIA and the NATO is at the same time, and who went to the USA to collect the reward for betraying the British population, from Hilary Clinton. Two who only recognize a human when it is death. Clegg's absence will raise questions over the future of the coalition.



We just wait and see what is going to happen and how Cameron will explain the second recession what will start in January/February 2012 thanks to his narcissus spoken NO!