EUROZONE CRISIS AVERTED ....... FOR NOW.

While the leaders of the Eurozone countries pat themselves on their collective backs for having resolved their problems, it's worth rowing back a bit and thinking.

It seems that the agreement that's been reached is somewhat nebulous and consists more of words than deeds. Vast numbers have been discussed and apparently committed to, but with little or no indication as to where most of the money is to come from. The write down of Greek national debt, theoretically to be borne by an array of banks will, in reality be borne by savers and shareholders in the affected banks, but the huge sums to be made available as a safeguard against any future national disasters have no stated place of origin. President Sarkozy has reportedly said that perhaps the Chinese will invest but, if they do, this will be for their own self interest and not for any European good. The Chinese already own enormous amounts of US debt and any investment in Europe will do no more than increase their influence in western economies. Is this really what Europe wants ?

That said, what are the alternatives ? European governments have been profligate for decades; they've run up huge debts while also encouraging their banks to lend silly amounts to people who have no realistic chance of ever repaying the money. The consequence is that the western world, collectively, has far more debt than it can manage without outside help or internal collapse. The 'deal' reached by European leaders last night has been dressed up to appear like a genuine solution but it's more likely to turn out to be a sticking plaster, designed to placate the financial world for a short time, while a more long term resolution can be worked out.

Nonetheless, the world's financial markets seem to have been pleased with the outcome, at least for the time being, though how long it will be before they change their tune is anyones' guess. My guess, for what it's worth, is that sentiment may well begin to change within 2 or 3 weeks and could easily reverse altogether within the same number of months.

EUROSCEPTIC MPs RIGHT, BUT AT THE WRONG TIME.

Last night's House of Common's vote on whether or not there should be a referendum on the subject of the UK's membership of the European Union sent a pretty sombre message to the leaders of the Conservative party.

This issue has rumbled on ever since the fateful day in 1973 when we joined, having been cynically lied to by the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, as to the purpose and intended future direction of the Union. Year after year, 'Europe' has created more of its own institutions on the inevitable path towards its ultimate goal of a 'United States of Europe'. Year after year, these same European institutions have produced 'Directives' telling all of the member countries what do to; the UK government has dutifully accepted these Directives and we know have unlimited immigration for other member countries and are forced to comply with European requirements on working hours, a horrendous range of health and safety issues, nebulous rules on 'human rights' and so on. The one bright spot for this country is that, after the nightmare of the European Exchange Rate mechanism (ERM), we chose not to join in with the lunacy that is the Euro.

Over the years, many of those people who care about this issue have become increasingly sceptical about our membership of the European Union as it is currently constituted. Last night's vote was simply the most 

recent demonstration of this scepticism but, frankly, was badly timed. With the Union in almost total chaos over the utter failure of the Euro-project, there is, surprisingly a far more important matter at hand and that is the survival of our major trading partner.

I don't want us to be in the European Union. It is a socialist organisation with a centrist philosophy that will eventually rule every single aspect of our lives, if we let it. It will create a 'United States of Europe' which will have to meet the 'lowest common denominator' if if is to have any chance of success, and that inevitably means that resources will be spread ever more widely and enyone who currently has anything will almost certainly find that it's taken away. This is an appalling prospect and one that we have to resist as strongly as we can.

However, now is not the time. If the Eurozone countries fail to reach an adequate agreement on solving their financial mess, all the countries of the Union, and many others, will suffer, some of them quite horribly. The UK will not be immune to this and we may well suffer more than most. At such a time, to be debating whether or not we should have a referendum on our continued membership of the Union is nonsensical. The problem for David Cameron is that a substantial proportion of the Conservative party doesn't share this view and sees our membership, or not, as the most important issue at hand. Cameron can well do without this as he tries to ensure that his, and our, position is properly represented and listened to in the various European forums currently engaged in high-level discussions. His position has surely been seriously weakened by the rebellion of so many of his own party and this can only be to the detriment of the UK.

The MPs who rebelled last night were right but at the wrong time. We must try to ensure that the Eurozone resolves its difficulties quickly and permanently and without unhelpful distractions. Only then should we start the process of looking critically at our continued membership of this political club that can never succeed and will always be an unwarranted drain on our limited resources.

WHAT IS A TRILLION, ANYWAY ?

Eurozone leaders meet to discuss how to resolve their ongoing financial crisis and the commentators throw around numbers that are simply mind-boggling - not mere billions any more, but we are now into trillions of Euros, pounds, dollars, or anything else you care to mention. Does any of it make sense or even really matter ?

What we have is a crisis caused by governments and economists. Forget all the ire aimed at 'bankers', other than the entirely incompetent ones like Fred Goodwin and Eric Daniels, they've done no more than apply the rules that applied to their businesses, rules that were set by governments. Additionally, they responded to the pleas of their governments to lend, lend, lend, as much as possible so as to 'stimulate the economy', in pursuit of an economic theory that has now been shown to have been rather flawed, to ever greater growth. That they didn't really have the money to lend and that most of the loans were unsupported by sound business cases was of minor importance.

In the Eurozone, we have the scenario outlined above multipled by a factor of billions as a result of the utterly impossible Euro project. Anyone with a brain cell knew that trying to cram together many nations with disparate economies under a single currency was doomed to failure, and so it has proven. Perhaps those that chose this path actually did so knowing that it would fail and that they would then have an opportunity to propose even closer union as the only logical step - this has only just occurred to me as an option but it makes terrifying sense.

Thinking more about this, it's bloody obvious that the original perpetrators of the Euro knew full-well that 'stage 1' was doomed to failure; they also knew that the only realistic solution to that failure was a 'stage 2' that involved even greater union between the member nations. What they didn't, and couldn't include in their calculations, was the financial crisis that has occurred quite independently of the inevitable Euro mess. When both crises are put together, the result is a total melt-down of the Euro, which is exactly what has happened.

It is now being reported that the Eurozone leaders have been discussing a potential change to the European Treaty as part of the resolution to their problems, something that should automatically lead to a referendum in this country; being a cynic, I wonder if this is a manufactured move designed to 'head off' Monday's debate and vote in the house of Commons. Of course, DC has said that any change would be in our interest, no doubt another attempt at a Monday bypass; one also wonders whether his words may be a precursor to an attempt to say that a referendum is unnecessary as we won't be affected by any consequent change.

We all know what a bunch of prevaricating and disingenous crooks and liars our politicians are. We also know that whatever they come up with, it's us, the people, who will pay. Is it any coincidence that the country currently doing best in Europe is Belgium, and they've been without an effective government for months.

To answer my original question, "Yes, it does make sense, even if the numbers are beyond our comprehension and it matters far more than the vast majority realise or even care."

FORGET GADDAFI; TIME TO WORRY ABOUT TOMORROW..

One has to wonder why the western world is expending so much energy worrying about the exact circumstances of the death of Colonel Gaddafi.

This brutal, and wholly insane, dictator surely got his just deserts, delivered with far greater efficiency than any western nation would have achieved - arrest, charge, trial lasting years and, quite probably, the accused dying before a judgement was reached or sentence could be carried out. Gaddafi's end may have been unpleasant to western eyes but was no more than simple justice in the eyes of the millions whom he terrorised over more than 4 decades.

Could it be that the western nations are somewhat queasy because of their own ambiguous relationships with the deceased colonel ? After all, he was alternately 'western darling', 'personification of evil' and 'reformed villain to be courted', before finally becoming the most hunted tyrant on earth. When we remember that it's only a few short years since Tony Blair kissed and hugged him in the desert, it's perhaps not surprising that at least some western leaders feel the need to raise an eyebrow at the manner of the colonel's departure from this life but, frankly, they should keep quiet.

Gaddafi is dead and will be mourned by very few; what we have to worry about now is the future. History suggests that whatever comes after him is unlikely to be particularly benign and is quite likely to spiral towards another military dictatorship before too long; if the Libyan people manage to avoid such a fate they'll be setting a new benchmark for developing countries.

G.O.D TWISTS THE KNIFE IN FOX'S ENTRAILS.

The Cabinet Secretary's report on the Liam Fox affair seems to leave no room for doubt. Despite his protestations, Fox has been found guilty to such an extent that any future roles in government must be considered highly unlikely, at least over the next few years. While the report apparently clears Fox of making any personal profit from his dealings with Mr Werrity, it makes it clear that the former Secretary of State for Defence broke the 'Ministerial Code' as well as ignoring the advice of his officials and continuing to behave in a way prejudicial to his post. The report was, in fact, so damning that the Cabinet Office repeatedly delayed its publication while they tried to work out how to respond to it in a way that would prove least harmful to the Government itself.

As I have written previously, Fox is one of those unbelievably arrogant people who, having reached a position of great power and authority, seem to think themselves so far above the rest of us that they can do whatever they like without fear of ever being called to account. People like this are singularly unsuited for high office and yet they seem to attain it, and then hang on for dear life when it all goes wrong. In the end, they do nothing but harm to themselves and their careers, their office and, in cases involving politicians, their parties.

The old adage of 'All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' continues to be true and its truth is continually reinforced by the likes of Mr Fox and his chums. 

CORNERED FOX HAD NOWHERE ELSE TO RUN.

Finally, and not before time, Liam Fox has resigned. That he hung on so long says a huge amount for the arrogance and total lack of any sense of morality that is so prevalent in modern day politicians.

Whether Fox really resigned or was sacked, he had to go. For a minister in such an important position to be guilty of, at the very least, 'poor judgement', is wholly unacceptable and he should have gone as soon as the details of his actions began to emerge; given the apparently dubious nature of Mr Werrity's business affairs and relationship with Fox, it's surely questionable whether Fox should have been appointed in the first place.

Whatever the truths in all this, we've hopefully seen the last, at least for some years, of the incompetent Mr Fox, for which we should all be grateful.

PACK CLOSES IN ON FOX.

As the furore over Liam Fox rumbles on, Government and Tory politicians do their level best to divert attention. Today, it's reported that Chris Grayling, that fishiest of Tory ministers, is supporting the continuation of Fox's career by saying that he thought the days when the private lives of politicians were considered of relevance to their professional activities were long gone. He might wish !

Comments like this show just how wriggly our politicians are. I really couldn't care what Fox, or Grayling or any of the rest of them do behind closed doors and with the lights on, off, dimmed or turned to some extreme part of the spectrum, except when it impacts on their public roles. If Fox has been abusing his public position by involving a close personal friend in matters of state in which he has no place, that bothers me; if he has compounded the problem by being disingenuous about the situation, that bothers me even more. If Fox has been in a sexual relationship with someone, and then lied in order to cover it up, that would bother me, not because of the relationship but because of the lied. Fox has admitted to 'serious errors of judgement' and, in a Secretary of State for Defence', that horrifies me.

In a case like this, simply saying 'Sorry' is not enough. Any of Fox's friends and colleagues who claim that it is are clearly living in a very different world from the rest of we poor mortals, whose feet would not have touched the floor as we were thrown out on our ears by outraged bosses for any similar offences. Fox has to go, and the sooner the better.

FOX THERE FOR THE KILL.

Now I read that Liam Fox has apologised for 'errors of judgement' in mixing his professional and personal lives.

Being a doctor, Fox must have had drilled into him the importance of never doing such a thing. As a politician, he must surely be aware of the necessity of never allowing such a thing to happen.

Do we really want, as Secretary of State for Defence, a man who has ignored such basic essentials of his training and background ? Can we afford to have such a man as a senior minister or even as a Member of Parliament ? What does his acknowledged behaviour say about his intelligence and understanding of the responsibilities of his position ? It's either extreme arrogance or stupidity, both of which are unacceptable.

If he isn't sacked, what will that say about his boss ?

FOX CAUGHT IN THE HEAD-LIGHTS.

Yet another political figure has been caught with his trousers down, metaphorically speaking. This time it's Liam Fox, Defence Secretary, but in real life a doctor. Why didn't he keep with the occupation that the country paid a fortune to train him in ?

Fox is someone I've never really warmed to and who comes across as a typically oily politician. His recent misdeameanours are likely to spell the end of his ministerial career, for now, but no doubt he'll be back as soon as his mates think we've all forgotten what all the fuss was about. How different from the world of half a century ago, when John Profumo vanished from political life and spent the rest of his time doing good deeds. If only today's self-serving and grotesquely obsequious 'public servants' would do the same.

No chance there, then.