The same old tired template

A retired politican, who toed the party line and dutifully trotted out the "illegal drugs cause harm so must remain illegal" mantra while in office/in power, now comes out and admits it's all stupid and that some things - like cannabis - should simply be legalised, regulated and - presumably - taxed.

Those still in office/in power, toe the party line and come out with the usual crap:

Prime Minister Theresa May remains firmly opposed to legalisation or decriminalisation of the drug because of the harm she says it does to individual users and communities.

See also, George Schultz (Secretary of State under Reagan);
Bob Ainsworth (former Home Office minister);
Paul Whitehouse (former chief constable, Sussex);
Tom Lloyd (former chief constable, Cambridgeshire);
Francis Wilkinson (former chief constable, Gwent);
Brian Paddick, (former Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police);
and so on ad infinitum.

Give it five or ten years, and former PM Lady May will no doubt admit that the whole thing is for shit and maybe we should legalise it.

Rinse and repeat.

Feeble arguments for staying in the EU.

Baldilocks, in The Telegraph:

For me, there will be two other major factors, which have not yet featured much in the early jousting ahead of the referendum, but which cannot be ignored.

One is that, amid all the clumsy bureaucracy and failed ideas, the EU has provided the structure and the standards for new democracies across central Europe to establish themselves after their many decades of tyranny and tragedy... We still need the EU to provide the safe harbour for the docking of fragile democracies, and it would be strange to champion that idea but abandon it ourselves.

This is true actually, if we gloss over the time lag between independence from the USSR (1991) and joining the EU (2004 or 2007) which suggests there is little or no link at all. Leaders of 'new' democracies in eastern Europe seemed to be pretty keen for their countries to become member states of the EU, and the EU in turn demanded certain reforms vis a vis corruption before they were allowed in, and so on. See also Turkey.

All good stuff, but those countries could not give a hoot whether the UK remains a member state or not, and it appears unlikely that the people in the UK are keen for the UK to open its borders to them. So on balance, that's still an argument for leaving.

The second factor is a related one: whatever the shortcomings of the European “project” it is manifestly not in our interests for either it or the United Kingdom to fall apart. Such will be the challenges to the western world in the coming years, from a turbulent Middle East and a volatile world economy, that the dismembering of our own country by nationalists or the breaking up of Europe into uncontrolled rivalry would make many dangers more threatening still.

What 'uncontrolled rivalry'? He is hallucinating. Each country's interests are what they are (although Merkel seems to have lost the plot and is acting counter to the interests of the German general public) whether they are member states of the EU or not.

If this 'uncontrolled rivalry' is fought out between large countries at EU level, it can then be imposed on all the other member states. Without the EU, would one country be able to force another country to set maximum working hours, to grant asylum to terroristsrefugees or pay welfare benefits to foreigners? Methinks not.

And by and large, western European countries have many more common interests than ones which divide them, in particular security. Which is why most are members of NATO, for example. Or free trade, which is perfectly possible without the EU.

So again, that's more of an argument for leaving.

There is no doubt that without the United Kingdom, the EU would be weaker. It would lose the fifth largest economy of the world, the continent’s greatest centre of finance, and one of its only two respected military powers. We will have to ask, disliking so many aspects of it as we do, whether we really want to weaken it…

Wot? It is highly unlikely that the other member states would dissolve the EU if we left, so he's talking crap. And if us leaving somehow triggered its dissolution, then that means we did the right thing. Yet another argument for leaving.

… and at the same time increase the chances, if the UK left the EU, of Scotland leaving the UK. Scottish nationalists would jump at the chance to reverse the argument of last year’s referendum – now it would be them saying they would stay in Europe without us. They would have the pretext for their second referendum, and the result of it could well be too close to call.

I see no harm in Scotland having another independence referendum every ten or twenty years, fair's fair, and personally I am not bothered whether the Scots want to remain members of the UK or not. I live in England and it is none of my business. But Scotland is an entirely separate topic so a non-argument in this context.

To end up destroying the United Kingdom and gravely weakening the European Union would not be a very clever day’s work.

He sure talks some shit. The UK would be no more 'destroyed' if Scotland, barely one-tenth of the whole, became independent than it was 'destroyed' when the most of Ireland become a separate country, or Czechoslovakia was 'destroyed' when it was demerged into Czech Republic and Slovakia, two countries which are doing fine and still co-operate quite closely in many ways.

Would the epically corrupt Hague really spend the rest of his life campaigning for Scotland to rejoin the UK? Has he ever pleaded with Ireland to rejoin the UK or with the two Czechoslovak successor countries to merge again, and can he explain why they should? Would he campaign for the UK to become a member state of the EU if it wasn't one already? More epic fails and non-arguments.

Crass exaggeration and hyperbole does not amount to an argument, you self-pitying bald fucker. Having thought about your arguments while writing this post, I now look upon Brexit even more favourably than I did this morning.

"William Hague: All women should feel shame of rape in war zones"

From The Evening Standard:

All women should feel “shame” at the world’s failure to prevent
rape being used as a weapon in war, William Hague will warn today.

In a hard-hitting speech in Washington, the Foreign Secretary will condemn as “unladylike” the “shying away” from confronting sexual violence in conflicts.

He will tell of the 50,000 women raped in Bosnia during the Balkans war 20 years ago and who have still not obtained justice for the crimes committed against them.

He was also due to highlight the “endless list of conflicts”where women, children and men have been brutally assaulted including in Rwanda, South Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Liberia.

“It is still considered unusual for a woman to raise these issues,” Mr Hague was set to say in his speech at Georgetown University.

“But rape and sexual violence are crimes which overwhelmingly happen to women. And that they should happen, while the world does nothing, should shame all women.

“Indeed to shy away from talking about these facts is in itself unladylike.”

"Edward Snowden banned from flying to insignificant little country on other side of world"

From the BBC:

An insignificant little country thousands of miles from Hong Kong, where NSA whistleblower is currently in exile, which he has never expressed any intention of visiting, fearing a fate similar to that of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, has warned airlines not to allow an ex-CIA employee who leaked secret US surveillance details to fly there, according to reports.

The Associated Press news agency reported seeing a document from the insignificant little country - whose foreign policy seems to consist of doing absolutely everything which it thinks the USA or the EU want it to do - at a Thai airport telling carriers to stop Edward Snowden, 29, boarding any flights.

The travel alert - reported to feature the overly grand emblem of its Home Office - said Mr Snowden "is highly likely to be refused entry to our pathetic little island..."

Bangkok Airways, Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines confirmed they had received the notice, which was not supposed to be seen by the public, AP reported, although they confirmed that they had no scheduled flights to the country in question anyway as "nobody in his right mind wants to go there".

"Syria: Arms embargo relaxation would ease distress, says Hague"

From the BBC:

A failure to supply weapons to rebel fighters in Syria would add to the risk of "extreme economic distress" in the UK's defence industry, William Hague has warned.

The foreign secretary said movement of arms would have to be "very carefully controlled" to ensure that full payment was received by hard-pressed UK weapons exporters. But the government had to "weigh some risks against other risks", he added.

The prime minister has urged the European Union to end its embargo on the supply of UK and French arms to Syria. Currently the UK's arms manufacturers are sending "non-lethal" equipment to help the forces opposed to President Bashar al-Assad, but they have requested permission to provide further assistance.

Up to 70,000 people have been killed in Syria and a million refugees have fled the country since the crisis began two years ago.

The latest UN figures show that two million have been internally displaced, while 400,000 have fled abroad since the start of the year, with the largest number seeking shelter in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. The UK has provided £139m to help build contacts with possible customers in refugee camps.

One man has secured his Olympic Legacy

Spotted by Bob E in The Daily Mail:

Lord Coe is set to scoop a multi-million pound windfall from selling his private business to an advertising company that played a major role in the Olympics.

The former Olympic gold medallist and head of the organising committee for the 2012 Games could stand to gain almost £12million over the next four years from the sale of his management consultancy firm, the Complete Leisure Group Limited.

The buyer, Chime Communications, is an advertising and public relations group founded by Margaret Thatcher’s former spin master and 1980s PR mogul Lord Bell.
The agency raked in more than £30million from a number of contracts during the Olympic Games.

Given that former MP Lord Coe owns more than 90 per cent of the shares in the group, he will walk away with millions. Foreign Secretary William Hague is also set to benefit financially, as he is a minority shareholder in the venture.

Next week? That could be years away!

From the BBC:

William Hague has warned Tory Eurosceptics hoping to get powers back from the EU that the opportunity for doing so could be "many years" away.

Many Tory MPs believe that the UK has an opportunity to repatriate some powers if eurozone states seek closer fiscal integration and a treaty change. But the foreign secretary told the BBC: "We are not at that point."

Funnily enough, the EU is currently trying to bully the eurozone states into 'closer fiscal integration' (via things like the ESM, and secondary to that, the EFSF, both of which are completely not allowed under the existing Treaty as it stands) and, because this requires an amendment to the actual EU treaty, the amendment itself does require the agreement of the UK parliament (which they are currently looking at).

On the one hand, it isn't up to the UK to interfere in treaties between other countries, but on the other, now would be an absolutely ideal time to ask the EU to 'repatriate some powers' to us.

So I think what Hague actually means is "The current amendment to the Treaty seems fairly minor and technical to most people, who all assume that the ESM, EFSF etc is a done deal anyway, so we can get away with not calling an in-out Referendum holding any sort of referendum whatsoever, because we only promised you one of those if there was a 'major transfer of powers'" which, to be fair, is probably true if you squint at it sideways in bad visibility.

But what the "many Tory MPs" said is absolutely true on face value, no squinting involved. They must really hate Hague by now.

William Hague on top form

From The Telegraph:

[William Hague] also pledges new action against any moves to use the Lisbon Treaty to end national vetoes in key areas of policy in favour of “qualified majority voting” (QMV).

“If, for instance, Europe were ever to decide that foreign policy is no longer by unanimity but by majority voting, that would constitute, to us, the transfer of a new competence and power to the EU, and that would trigger a referendum. So we are very serious about the referendum lock and defining that carefully in law.”

He's being rather disingenous here, because foreign policy decisions can already be taken by majority voting in the Council [i.e. Council of Ministers], with the fallback that "for vital and stated reasons of national policy" the representative of a member state can try and stop a vote being taken and get the decision referred up to the European Council.

See Article 31(2) of the TEU. I can't give you a page number, as they have published the TEU and the much longer TFEU as one long pdf file without page numbers to make things more difficult to find. But Article 31(3) then says that The European Council [Which means Rompuy plus Barroso plus heads of all member states] can allow the Council of Ministers to act by majority voting anyway...

2 ... the Council shall act by qualified majority:
- when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position on the basis of a decision of the European Council relating to the Union's strategic interests and objectives, as referred to in Article 22(1),
- when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position, on a proposal which the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has presented following a specific request from the European Council, made on its own initiative or that of the High Representative,
- when adopting any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position,
- when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 33.

If a member of the Council declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The High Representative will, in close consultation with the Member State involved, search for a solution acceptable to it. If he does not succeed, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity.

3. The European Council may unanimously adopt a decision stipulating that the Council shall act by a qualified majority in cases other than those referred to in paragraph 2.

From an email by Denis Cooper.

William Vague

Reader's Letter Of The Day

From The Telegraph:

SIR – William Hague says that “Tories seeking a referendum will have to be patient” (report, September 26). No, we won’t. We will vote for someone who will give us a referendum or, better still, get us out.

Brian Gilbert, Hampton, Middlesex

Have you asked him?

William Hague completely loses the plot

From his letter in today's FT:

There is an attractive alternative text at hand, in which the EU ... gets on with delivering on the issues where it can make a positive difference to people's lives: making Europe's economies more competitive, tackling global warming and alleviating global poverty...

Wot?

1) The best way for governments to make economies more competitive is to butt out, in terms of the EU this means scrapping - the EU-wide Value Added Tax (the worst tax of all); all the stupid regulations; and all the trade barriers. So there's not much chance of that happening.

2) Temperatures have stopped rising, so even if there were anything that anybody could do about it (which there isn't), there is no need for it to be done.

3) Trade not aid, that's simple enough. Again, all the EU has to do is ... nothing.

I've long had doubts about Hague, but he is either totally deluded or the EU have already bought him off somehow.

Email to William Hague

"Dear Mr Hague

I note that on March 11th you replied to an intervention by Bill Cash as follows:

11 Mar 2008 : Column 167
"Mr. Hague: Given the growth of the EU’s powers, British sovereignty and the ultimate supremacy of Parliament need a constitutional safeguard, but I also say to my hon. Friend that the legal implications of any such provision must be absolutely clear. More work would need to be done in the future on the context and formula by which it is achieved, but I have great sympathy with the constitutional safeguard of ultimate supremacy."

I wonder whether the Conservative party is now doing that work, and whether it will be attempting to insert such a constitutional safeguard into the European Union (Amendment) Bill during its passage through the Lords?

Yours faithfully

Dr D R Cooper"

William Hague is a deceitful, evasive half-wit

Andrew Marr kicked off by asking him, quite reasonably:

"Now we all understand why the Conservative Party doesn't like this treaty and why you want a referendum. What we don't understand is what you're going to do if this goes through Parliament and becomes law, and you're returned to power. Are you then going to pull Britain out of this treaty that you regard with such distaste?"

I watched the original interview, and I have read the transcript on the BBC website* and I struggle in vain to find anything like a "Yes", a "Perhaps", a "We'd have a retrospective referendum, like in 1975" or a "Don't know", let alone a straight "No".

* Apparently I have to 'credit The Andrew Marr Show' for using this excerpt. Fair enough, I just did.