Leaders' Debates: UK Democracy's Failings In Plain Sight

Within our 'representative democracy' expressed by so-called Parliamentary sovereignty the idea of Prime Minister debates, first instigated in 2010, is absurd if not downright objectionable.

The electorate in a General Election do not vote for the PM, instead they vote for their local MP which helps form a Parliament from which a Prime Minster is chosen.

One often consistent criticism of Gordon Brown's tenure up until the 2010 election was that he was 'not elected'. But of course he was elected - by the constituents of Kirkcaldy and by members of his own party - it was that he simply didn't have an electoral mandate (as neither did Major for example in 1990). Brown's position was less a reflection of the failings of himself and more a reflection of the failings of current Parliamentary system.

More seriously the lack of separation of powers represents a system where MPs become hopelessly compromised - by default. After being elected for 5 years their main objective is to achieve a ministerial career rather than attempt to hold the government to account. They want to join the government not listen to their constituents; which one pays more...?

The constituents of Witney, Doncaster and Sheffield will know this best - their own MPs wear two contradictory hats, a situation that Witterings from Witney knows only too well.

And with this in mind we see Cameron and Miliband, among others, engage in unedifying comments regarding a leadership debate without so much as a by-your-leave to the rest of us:

Did you notice that the letter sent to David Cameron about disputed formats for the election TV debates was itself a delicate contribution to pariah politics? Though identical in contents, as Rowena Mason explains, the missives were dispatched separately by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage. Ed and Nick did not sign the same letter as Nigel, oh dear no.

Thus it's acutely apparent that the entire idea of leadership debates is an admission by the establishment that Parliament is failing and that we, as an electorate, are now effectively voting for the executive - the government and the Prime Minister - by proxy.

This becomes even more (offensively) absurd when we consider that Nigel Farage, although leader of UKIP, is not currently an elected MP even though his party has two elected MPs and Farage himself is currently not on course to win South Thanet seat in May.

Thus more than ever the case becomes stronger that we need to directly elect our Prime Minister - and as a consequence separate out more formally the executive from Parliament. This idea is nothing new, it was proposed back in the 18th Century by Thomas Paine. Although born in England, via Common Sense, he was one of the fiercest critics of what he regarded as British tyranny.

The current, and rather childish standoffs over a Prime Ministerial leadership debate merely confirm that such reform is now very long overdue.

Nick Clegg In Oxford Review

Witterings from Witney and I attended Nick Clegg's debate today in Oxford having unexpectedly been allocated tickets in a ballot. We did wonder whether our allocation had occurred due to a lack of popularity for the event. Having attended this lunchtime our suspicions were confirmed, though there was a reasonable attendance, the hall clearly wasn't full or packed.

Indeed as we entered we were asked to fill in empty seats near the front - no doubt to make it look good for Clegg on television. Needless to say WfW and I ignored such requests and sat where we liked.

The 'comforting' title of "Meet Nick in Oxford" Lib Dem website had noted before the event:

If you are successful [in the ballot for tickets] you will need to arrive at 12.30pm as seats will be limited. The hour-long event is free and you will have to bring photo ID to gain access to the event.

What it didn't state was what time it would start, and nor could anyone at the event give any confirmation. But as it turned out it was 13:00 and even then Clegg was late (an old trick). Then the "hour-long event" suddenly was announced as a 45 minute one. In addition the requested photo ID wasn't asked for on entry (though we suspect that was requested in anticipation of disruption, which indeed happened at the end which we will return to later in the post).

So all in all not a good start. But then we were under no illusions that this would be a proper "robust Q&A" session. We also expected Clegg to insult those who wish to leave the failed anti-democractic project that is the EU, which he duly did on many occasions. However we anticipated that at least there would an opportunity to take Clegg to task during the Q&A session if selected, via a show of hands, to ask a question.

What became quickly apparent was that this was most certainly not going to be a "Meet Nick in Oxford". Despite the Oxford Mail hosting the event and introducing Clegg, the decision to select which members of the audience would ask questions was left to Clegg himself. A situation very different to hustings meeting attended where a Chairman adopts that role to ensure fairness in question selection. Why did the Oxford Mail not adopt this role as it was the host?

It subsequently became rather revealing who was being selected. Despite WfW putting his hand up every time - and myself on a couple of occasions - neither of us were nominated. WfW in particular was quite obviously being ignored. Clegg noticeably avoiding eye contact at every opportunity perhaps sensing that WfW by clearly being a gentleman of much more experience might give Clegg a somewhat difficult time (and he was right).

Instead virtually every audience member chosen to ask was under 30 and mainly they were in their early 20s. They are likely to ask the easiest questions - as an example one question was whether an England World Cup win was more likely than a Liberal Democrat electoral success. This from a hall that had a fair number of Oxford University students in the audience. Is this really the level of our political debate?

Only three men in total were selected, the rest were women. And only one person was selected who was over the age of 30; a lady who turned out to be a local Lib Dem Councillor - to feigned surprise by Clegg. What a coincidence!

After every question Clegg then proceed to waffle on extensively, adopting the technique of filibustering to drag out the 45 minutes - it was like a glorified extended version of "Just A Minute".

Despite the billing that this debate was about Clegg's views on UK in the EU and the opening remarks by himself concentrating on the EU and the forthcoming Euro elections there were no specific questions on the subject. The closest we had was the last question about gay rights which was linked rather tenuously with our membership of the EU.

Largely we felt the whole experience was a waste of time, but as a consolation it did give an acute lesson in the art of stage management and audience manipulation. We were reminded of stage artists such as Sally Morgan who claim they have psychic powers. They don't of course, instead it's a combination of cold reading, educated guesses based on statistics and the use of information provided before the show. With this in mind it's worth noting that the application form to enter the ballot was headed with:

Your question to Nick

Thus giving Clegg advanced warning of questions to come. Doris Stokes would be proud.

On a final point, Clegg made great play about the Liberals historically being a party of democracy, liberty and freedom, but after the session ended a gentleman was rather roughly and physically bundled out of the building after he attempted to present Clegg with what was clearly Lib Dem literature (we're guessing as a protest against broken Lib Dem promises). This we suspect is why the photo ID request was made. And there goes the party of liberty...

In conclusion it was a stark reminder of what we already knew - those in favour of EU membership simply cannot be honest about it and lack the backbone to justify their position.

This piece has been cross-posted with WfW.

Nick Clegg In Oxford

Tomorrow (Tuesday) Nick Clegg will be hosting a debate on ‘Britain’s Place in the EU' in Oxford, as Witterings from Witney noted on his blog on the 12th:

Digressing slightly, Clegg is to hold what is being termed a ‘no holds barred’ Q&A session about ‘matters EU’ in Oxford on Tuesday 20th May. I have applied for a ticket, only to find that being granted one will involve a ‘ballot’ – consequently I am not holding my breath).

To try to increase WfW's chances of winning in the ballot I also applied for tickets via three different names including my own. Well as it happens and rather unexpectedly we've been notified today via email that every application has been approved - so we wonder how popular it will be. Given I've been accepted as well I intend to join WfW tomorrow attending the Q&A with a view to taking Clegg to task over lies regarding the EU in a public meeting.

And we won't be the only ones seeking to hold Clegg to account, the Oxford Activist Network intend to hold a protest against Clegg's presence in Oxford.

Any suggestions from readers on questions to ask Mr Clegg will be very welcome in the comments...

Lib Dems: Liars And Cowards

I suspect to no-one's great surprise the Liberal Democrats reveal that they don't have a principled bone in their body.

As an example, above is a picture illustrated by Clegg of their pledge on students fees which they then heavily reneged on and then, despite a promise to have a referendum on UK membership of the EU, they reversed so quickly the tyre marks are still visible on the tarmac six years later.

Thus, as noted by EUReferendum and Autonomous Mind, in 2003 Clegg revealed that "Probably half of all new legislation now enacted in the UK begins in Brussels". This in complete contrast to his debate with Nigel Farage where he stated that (rounding up from 6.8%) that 7% of laws were made in Brussels.

A complete contradiction for sure on Clegg's behalf, which brings us neatly onto Dan Hodges who resides on the Telegraph. Let's remind ourselves of this article by Dan Hodges, who was hugely critical of Miliband's actions over Syria and as a consequence left the Labour party on 'principle':

I still have no idea whether he really supported or opposed military action against Syria, and now I never will. What I do know is that at every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.

This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.

Then we are also reminded of this article (as an example):

Lord Rennard sex scandal: Nick Clegg reminds us once again what an idiot he is 

So it is with some astonishment (or maybe not) that we see this today from Dan Hodges...

So that’s why I’ve decided to vote for Nick Clegg. The Lib Dem leader is the only one to have the courage to take a stand against Ukip from the beginning. Yes, there’s obviously an element of political calculation behind his decision.

He knows it’s good for the Lib Dem base – what’s left of it – to see him taking the fight to the anti-European Right. But moments when doing what’s right and what’s politically expedient at the same time don’t come along that often in politics. And when they do they do, those that engineered them deserve to be rewarded.

Which he confirms via his twitter account:

It's not unreasonable to conclude therefore that Dan Hodges has decided to go from one unprincipled leader to another. With this in mind I attempted to take Dan Hodges to task on Twitter over his conflicting views. I didn't expect to receive a response from the chap himself and nor have I as yet.

However my tweet of calling Clegg a liar to Hodges unexpectedly prompted a twitter debate with the Lib Dem MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and President of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Mr Farron I strongly suspect was clearly irritated by my accusation of calling his boss a liar (an accusation I fully stand by) but revealingly he sought not to engage with me on those terms, instead we had wonderful straw man tweets, the exchange can be found here.

However as an example when tweeting by myself that Norway has more say over EU law than the UK does, the response received was as follows:

I duly sent such links (via six tweets), many of the themes familiar with readers of this blog - and I was only just warming up as well - I had many more to go. Despite that the response in return was:

One notes during the exchange that I didn't mention "gold plating" once, then after asking for links which detailed my arguments, the Lib Dem President signs off with the following tweet:

Has to go to an event? Says the man who carries on tweeting not long after... Clearly when faced with the facts he can't defend his support for the "project". Which says it all...

All of this begs the question that if the EU project is so wonderful why do those in favour have to be so deceptive about it?

It's A Trap!

As noted before in the draft the Spinelli Group entitled “A Fundamental Law of the European Union” there is a form of a new construct 'Associate Membership' (page 284 - Protocol No 9 Associate Membership of the Union).

This is proposed as a solution for countries, such as the UK, which cannot go along with the further drive for political integration, but which still wants to remain members of the EU. It is also suggested that it could be suitable for non-members such as Norway and Switzerland. This though would be unlikely as the main sticking point for Norway and Switzerland to join the EU was they did not want to be ruled by a foreign court i.e. the ECJ. The 'Associate' option would require adherence to the ECJ.

The trade-off with the 'Associate’ option means limited participation with EU institutions and the deal itself can also be limited in duration. Therefore what it would clearly mean is the UK would be down-graded to that of a second-class member. Some are calling this option a trap:

I continue to be puzzled why you (and Richard) dismiss the Spinelli Associate Membership proposition as not to be taken seriously. On the contrary it is a huge trap...If you look at the proposed draft treaty, AM can be negotiated behind closed doors to be any type of relationship. This is the perfect way to stitch up a deal in which we basically still have a supranational government, but is then sold to the British public (like Wilson) as the beginnings of a wonderful new relationship – in the EU but not run by it.

A trap or not the first thing to note is the UK won’t have any choice; unless the UK joins the Euro (a very unlikely prospect), if it wants to remain EU members then the Associate Membership is the only option available unless we decide to leave.

But in many ways he’s right, the option is a trap…a trap for Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. All three, who are committed to remaining members, would be reduced to campaigning in a referendum on the new treaty arguing that Britain should become just a second-class member of the EU, excluded from its central counsels (And it's probably unlikely the treaty will even be ratified if it is subjected to a referendum, triggered by the 2011 European Union Act).

At a stroke it would shatter the illusion that we are fully paid up members, that we are at “the EU top table”, that "we’re in Europe, not ruled by it". 40 years of momentum of hanging onto the coat tails of EU integration, albeit reluctantly, will be brought to shuddering halt at ironically the EU's behest. We can imagine a scene of Cameron et al standing on quayside waving hopelessly as the EU integration ship sails off without us.

Concerns that such a membership will be a stitch-up are understandable, but regardless there can be no disguising the UK's downgrade - even the name gives it away; 'Associate'. Our country’s bluff will be called.

The EU is clearly comfortable with being open about the notion of a two-tier EU. This is a sign of confidence even arrogance in their own project. Such flexibility in the past has always been resisted on the basis that it creates a dangerous precedent where other member states start asking for a change in terms and conditions such that the entire project comes crashing down.

What gives the EU confidence is the belief that most members won’t adopt this option - thus leading to the unravelling of the single market - because it has devised the 'Associate' option as the worst of all worlds. As has been alluded to in the above comment, it is a terrible option; neither completely in nor completely out. And deliberately so as to make it a very unattractive option. One is reminded of the principles of the Workhouses in 19th Century:

Life in a workhouse was intended to be harsh, to deter the able-bodied poor and to ensure that only the truly destitute would apply.

However the unattractive nature of the Associate Membership option has the side effect of making leaving for the UK more attractive. Unable to join the Euro and so be an 'intimate' member of the club it reverses momentum away from the EU and instead towards exit, by virute of the option being an EU marker that says either you're with us or you might as well leave. Our country is about to come against, in a transparent way, the true nature of the EU project.

We are about to be dumped in the departure lounge and no amount of protestations and deception by our political class is going to be able to cover that up.

Whose Betrayal?

Criticising Nick Clegg is rather like choosing the (very easy) 'village cricket option' mode instead of ‘Test’ in the computer game Brian Lara Cricket when playing with England against the Netherlands – you’re guaranteed to win but it's so easy what's the point.

Yet the utterly completely shameless lying statements from Nick Clegg reported by the Telegraph so defies belief it still, unfortunately, prompts a response. The same man who wriggled so much on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and backtracked on student fees where he lost all respect among a significant sector of his party's support.

Now the former MEP, Nick Clegg accuses UKIP of "unpatriotic" behaviour for wanting to "drive Britain out of Europe":

“I’m relishing the opportunity to make that patriotic case because I think the view represented by Ukip and large parts of the Conservative Party and Paul Sykes is a betrayal of the national interest and an unpatriotic approach,” Mr Clegg told a press conference in London. 

It's odd that Clegg decides to adopt nationalistic language in order to criticise a party which wishes to maintain the nation state. It becomes even more odd when Clegg thinks not being part of the EU is “unpatriotic”. As he is well aware the EU was born out of desire to abolish the nation state and that apparent populist mechanism commonly known as democracy.

The founding father of the EU Jean Monnet disliked intensely the messy business of the nation state and more crucially democracy. He wanted a more “organised world of tomorrow”. This desire to abolish counties is reflected in the EU “colleagues” language of never referring to their country by name but instead “the country I know best”, as Mary Ellon Synon described at a recent Bruges group conference:

You see, the word "country" is almost never used at the commission. About the only time you will come across the word "country" in Brussels is when you are standing by the baggage carousel at arrivals at the airport. There is always at least one suitcase with a sticker that says: "Europe is my country". Exclamation mark.

No, in Brussels one says "member state". You may imagine it means the same thing as country or state, but "member state" does not. Note that adjective. Member modifies state. Like "wooden" modifies "leg". The noun stays the same, but the essence of the thing is gone.

In particular, no one at the podium, from commission president Barroso down, will ever speak of his own country. At the commission, any one in what used to be 28 sovereign states is only ever "a citizen of Europe". Should any eurocrat somehow find he is cornered into referring to his own country, he is trained to refer to it only as "the country I know best".

As a former MEP, Clegg is well aware of this, not least because his own party's MEP's adopt the same langauge, for example Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson (my emphasis):

I salute the efforts of Commissioner Frattini and of the Finnish Presidency in trying to coax and cajole the Member States forward. Mr Rajamäki spoke of breathing new life into the spirit of Tampere. It is desperately needed.

But the fact is that the country I know best threw a spanner into the works when it insisted on having three pillars. Other countries are now blocking the process of repair. Unless we are able to bring in the footbridge - the 'passerelle clause' - we will never have a credible policy in justice and home affairs. We will continue with a policy like a push-bike when what we need is a Ducati.

Member States sit in their medieval fastnesses with the drawbridges firmly up. In the name of national sovereignty they are enhancing global anarchy. Our citizens demand better.

Clegg claims that he "relishes the opportunity" to debate the UK's position within the EU but he obviously means nothing of the sort and it's another example of the unaccountable arrogance. It leaves one pondering that if Clegg et al think the EU project is so wonderful then why do they have to continually lie about it? A project based on a lie by definition is fundamentally flawed.

And it's most revealing that they effectively reveal their desperation to remain members so much that it means they are not arguing with UKIP or Eurosceptics, but end up essentially arguing with the founding father of the EU himself.

Oh the irony!

Put Up Or Shut Up

On one level, as Richard North says, the saga raises a wry smile at the massive pickle the Government have got themselves into over the release of Abu Qatada and the Human Rights Act.

One can also take a small crumb of comfort that this is yet another nail in the coffin that is our EU (and Council of Europe) membership. No longer is it about 'bent bananas' but real tangible, easily understood and toxic issues.

As always though there is a price to pay. And that price is the sight of the odious slime Nick Clegg faking concern:

Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said the government would appeal the ruling.

“We’re determined to deport him,” he told ITV’s Daybreak. “We strongly disagree with the court ruling, we’re going to challenge it, we’re going to take it to appeal".

“We’re absolutely determined to see this man get on a plane and go back to Jordan. He doesn’t belong here, he shouldn’t be in this country, he’s a dangerous person. He wanted to inflict harm on our country and this coalition government is going to do everything we can to challenge this every step of the way to make sure he is deported to Jordan.”

Utterly shameless, here he is in 2011:

Nick Clegg has issued a trenchant defence of human rights laws, setting out their strengths and saying his party will not let Conservatives water them down should there be a fresh push to renegotiate legislation.

I'm not a man usually prone to violence, but I'm thinking of ways that I can herd Nick Clegg et al over the nearest Buffalo Jump.

I'm heartily sick of it.

Ten Very Happy Years

Today is the tenth anniversary of the Euro's launch in the form of coins and banknotes, three years after it had existed as a virtual currency. The launch was celebrated by fireworks, parties and solemn speeches ushering in a 'brave new world'.

Strangely though ten years on celebrations across the EU have, in contrast, been rather muted:

In Brussels, there will be neither a ceremony nor even a news conference to mark the occasion. That set the tone for other countries, many of which were doing the minimum: preparing to circulate a 2-euro commemorative coin for the anniversary.

So it would be rather remiss of me if I didn't indulge in a little gloating, As Richard North at EUReferendum puts it:

"If you cannot have the occasional gloat then, frankly, life ain't worth living."

Today, several Euro members are on the edge of bankruptcy. Europe is pitifully reduced to asking the IMF and China for help and the euro itself is on the brink of unravelling.

Have I said "We told you so" yet?

The Mail is also jumping on the gloating bandwagon by laying the boot into the BBC:

What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, the BBC announced ‘Euphoria in Euroland’ as it hailed the birth of the euro.

But with the single currency now facing collapse, the Corporation’s coverage of today’s anniversary has been notably more restrained, as senior executives prepare to defend their ‘pro-Brussels bias’ during a showdown meeting with Eurosceptics.

So here, as a bit of New Year's fun, are a few quotes from some of our great and wise 'leaders' such as Nick Clegg:

The euro, despite the foolish assumption of many commentators that it should be judged according to its external level with the dollar, has already provided great internal stability to the eurozone

And:

The euro has done more to enforce budgetary discipline in the rest of Europe than any number of exhortations from the IMF or the OECD. If we remain outside the euro, we will simply continue to subside into a position of relative poverty and inefficiency compared to our more prosperous European neighbours.

Or this from Chris Huhne:

If we get rid of sterling and adopt the euro, we will also get rid of sterling crises and sterling overvaluations. This will give us a real control over our economic environment. Our manufacturers, farmers and other trading businesses would be able to rely on the exchange rate against our main continental trading partners staying unchanged forever.

And this from Michael Heseltine (my emphasis):

We see [the dangers] today in the exchange rates where our own non-membership of the eurozone is threatening great swathes of British manufacturing industry. The effect of [the introduction of euro notes and coins] will unleash a range of competitiveness which is simply not understood.

You see the most extraordinary things said about the plans to encourage British industry to change its capacity to trade in euros, as though changing over your tills and cash registers is somehow a contribution to the sacrifice of your sovereignty. If you have 300m people who have nothing but euros to spend you have to be barking mad not to be able to take the euros.

And Peter Mandelson:

The price we would pay [by not joining] in lost investment and jobs in Britain would be incalculable. Outside the euro, there is little we can do to protect industry against destabilising swings in the value of sterling.

Not forgetting Tony Blair:

Even if it [taking Britain into the euro] is unpopular, I will recommend it if it is the right thing to do.

Europe's economic fundamentals are sound: sounder than they have been for over a generation. The EU's economies are growing and it is important to underline that they are now creating jobs in Europe faster than almost anywhere else in the developed world.

And:

The decision to launch the single currency is the first step and marks the turning point for Europe, marks stability and growth and is crucial to high levels of growth and employment.

Let's have this one from Yves-Thibault de Silguy a former EU Commissioner in 1998:

Britain can not survive as a serious international power unless it joins the single currency. We can live without you, but you can't live without us.

Or Charles Kennedy:

The euro, despite gloomy predictions from anti-Europeans, has proved to be a success. We cannot afford to be isolated from our biggest and closest trading partner any longer.

Or Wolfgang Muchau in the Financial Times in 2006:

There is not the slightest danger of a break-up of the Eurozone. On the contrary, I expect the Eurozone to be exceptionally stable in the long run. Make no mistake, the Eurozone is here to stay.

And:

The world’s two large reserve currencies, the dollar and the euro, offer more protection from speculative attack than a free-floating offshore currency unit. The UK will at some point have to make a choice whether it wants to be in the Eurozone or whether it wants to seek an alternative use for those rather tall buildings in the heart of London.

Nostradamus has a better accuracy rate than that.

Still, the Euro managed to limp along and make it to Christmas, but the expectation must surely be that the crisis will return with a vengeance in the first few weeks of the New Year, certainly the noises are that a breakup in one form or another is being anticipated.

So will the Euro survive 2012? We'll have to wait and see but the chances are not good.

"Awful Auction"

From the Financial Times:

Bond yields on short-term Italian debt rose above 8 per cent on Friday as Rome was forced to pay euro-era high interest rates in what analysts called an “awful” auction.

Italy raised its targeted €10bn in an auction of two-year bonds and six-month bills but at sharply higher yields.

“Rates have skyrocketed. It’s simply not sustainable in the long run,” said Marc Ostwald, strategist at Monument Securities in London.

It's all falling apart, but those that advocated this stupid, ridiculous and unworkable currency will get away scot free; it's the rest of us that will suffer the consequences when it all goes wrong.

In Or Out - Lib Dem Style

From England Expects:

From Norman Smith BBC News Channel chief political correspondent, today:

All three major parties now imposing three line whips on their MPs to vote against EU referendum motion on what's a "backbench debate"

No, No, No!

Sadly I'm not referring to Thatcher's most famous Parliamentary moment but Nick Clegg's response on this morning's BBC Today programme when questioned over the Euro.

I linked to it in an earlier post, but only now have I've had a chance to listen again properly. It's in fact a wonderful example of weapons-grade weasel words. My earlier thoughts that he claimed no-one predicted the Euro crisis are slightly incorrect. That's the impression Clegg wants to give however he specifically argues that no-one predicted that the current budget rules, particularly by France, would be flouted. A different assertion altogether.

When pressed by Justin Webb that 'Tory Eurosceptics' predicted a crisis Clegg goes into a 'no no no' moment and says:

"That is complete nonsense, people criticise the Euro for wholly different reasons they didn't predict that the Stability and Growth Pact and the rules enshrined in that... would have been so summarily ignored"

By concentrating on such a narrow aspect of the Euro crisis, and ignoring wider concerns expressed at the time, Clegg is trying to maintain that he's been right all along if only everyone abided by the rules... or to put it another way it's a desperate attempt at trying to get out of a 'told you so' moment.

Meanwhile, due to the crisis, the Greeks have resorted to eating from bins*:

Today Greeks are also looking through bins. Many of them are looking for things to sell, but others are searching for food.

For 25 years, Iranian born Samat Eftehar has owned a tavern in Exarchia. "It is still a lively little neighbourhood. I have known most of the people here for years. Some of them who were already on low salaries have had their wages cut. They are decent people, and now they are forced to eat from bins," he says.

Giorgos Arabatzoglou works as a street cleaner for Penteli district in the north of Athens: "Even in this well-off suburb, people are going through the bins, especially on market days. And it’s on the increase,” he says. “We are always finding torn bin liners, so we think more people are rooting: not just in the supermarket bins, but also outside souvlaki shops. Recently, I saw the extraordinary spectacle of a well-dressed young woman, rooting through a pile of expired yogurts trying to find the one with the most recent date."

I doubt somehow that multi-millionaire Clegg gives a damn - his Euro ideology is more important.

*hattip: Muffled Vociferation

Thick

Tory Nadine Dorries is one of those MPs who's so thick that even the other MPs have noticed, so it is of no surprised that she is getting all excited over Mark Pritchard's article yesterday in the Daily Telegraph. She blogs:

I am very definitely one of those calling for a referendum as backbench MP and secretary of the 1922 committee Mark Pritchard has done in today’s Daily Telegraph.

The time for all backbench Tory MPs to start pushing for a referendum is now. Not at conference where such meetings will be tolerated, but back in Westminster when Parliament resumes and conference is forgotten. Westminster is the kitchen and we backbenchers will have to turn up the heat to get what we want.

Pushing for a referendum? Hmm so let's have a look her voting record on EU matters now her party is in Government:

1. She voted to approve of the Lisbon Treaty:

   Nadine Dorries MP, Mid Bedfordshire voted to establish the European Union External Action Service.

2. She approved that the EU should have economic governance over the UK:

   Nadine Dorries MP, Mid Bedfordshire voted to approve the Government's position that any sanctions proposed by the EU in relation to economic governance do not apply to the UK.

3. And voted to approve UK bailouts of Eurozone countries:

   Nadine Dorries MP, Mid Bedfordshire voted to dilute proposed opposition to EU bailouts of countries in financial trouble.

Does she really think we're all taken in by her nonsense? Apparently so. Talking of thick MPs, Clegg today claims no-one predicted the Euro crisis (circa 12 mins in).

Meanwhile the Euro turmoil continues with the imminent default of Greece, a surprising downgrade of Italy's credit rating and the China State Bank halting FX swaps with UBS and big 3 French banks.