Opinion – In his anger, Cameron has made Britain a toxic brand | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian – John Gelmini

Dr Alf makes good points.

Britain is not a “toxic brand” as Jonathan Freedland puts it but the UK, under the present Prime Minister, is seen more and more for what it is, a small middle ranking power,  on the edge of Europe,  living in the past, wallowing in past glories and pretending to be important.

David Cameron has insulted the Chinese five times and cost the country billions in trade and contracts that have gone to other countries that very sensibly have chosen to speak in private and keep their relationships with the Chinese businesslike.

He says he is going to “look into” or “renegotiate ” things, when he has no legal power to do so on the basis of treaties to which he has signed-up.

When he does try to renegotiate he loses, comes away with nothing and then claims great negotiating success.

He now claims that his “boss” is the British people, when in fact his boss is the Queen of England and through her the Bilderbergers who selected him in the first place, are behind all the moves towards EU integration and the various treaties including Maastricht, Rome and the Lisbon accords.

What Jonathan Freedland is saying, in code, is that Cameron is disappointing the Bilderbergers and their attendees among the” Great and the Good”, which of course includes the directors and liegemen and woman of Guardian Media Group.

David Cameron has allegedly been promised a big UN job on the basis of controlling his back benchers, hood-winking the UK public, trouncing UKIP and keeping us in the EU.

To date, his performance on all counts, has been lamentable.

He fails to make the case for the EU even though I personally cannot see any merit in it, he pretends to offer a referendum even though he knows he will not be there to conduct it and he pretends that the “British people” are his masters whilst making decisions in secret, being told what to do in secret and then making those same British people pay for his “private meetings” whilst acting in his official capacity.

The EU demand for £1.7 billion gbp extra is a nonsense because nobody has ever signed off the EU accounts as kosher so nobody really knows who owes what to whom, despite the EU employing over 500 accountants.

As for David Cameron not knowing, he was clearly angry which suggests that George Osborne dropped him in it to further his own leadership ambitions by giving his supporters a signal that Cameron was not prepared when he went to the EU.

Certainly he was made to look foolish and Mrs Merkel was said to have made him look foolish by saying that the rebate was part of a process that he already knew about.

We have a better person in the form of Boris Johnson to replace this loser and the Conservative Party if it is to stand any hope of even jointly retaining power must muster the “men in grey suits” and consign “Call me Dave” to political oblivion.

John Gelmini

In his anger, Cameron has made Britain a toxic brand | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Press room of the European Commission inside t...

Press room of the European Commission inside the Berlaymont building, Brussels. Taken on EU open day 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: East entrance of HM Treasury Français...

English: East entrance of HM Treasury Français : Entrée Est de HM Treasury (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

European flag outside the Commission

European flag outside the Commission (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This article by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian is well worth a read. Check it out!

via In his anger, Cameron has made Britain a toxic brand | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian.

I am not sure that I accept much of Freedland’s argument. It’s too rambling and unfocused for my taste. However, I agree with the conclusion that Cameron could have played the hand more effectively.

Personally, I would have focused on three aspects of this story.

Firstly, why did Cameron not know about the extra bill? Had it been suppressed by the Treasury? Or had it not yet got picked up in the accounts?

Secondly, how is it possible for the European Commission to ask for a revision? Unquestionably, there is a budgeting process? If extra costs are envisioned, clearly the normal practice is to propose corresponding cuts?

Thirdly, if there were to be any supplementary costs, certainly the whole bill should have been presented to Germany, whose austerity policies have caused the mounting crisis?