Posts Tagged ‘David Cameron’


December 15, 2011

Has David Cameron put Britain offside and off-shore in Europe?

In his failed last-minute quest for special treatment over financ ial regulation, it would seem the Prime Minister has taken Britain out of the room where decisions on the future of  Europe will be shaped.  The consequences could well be a prolonged, bitter parting of the ways between Britain and the rest of the European Union, a divorce in which both parties lose.

Politicians and commentators across Europe have pronouced Britain’s move disastrous, that it has lost its  seat at the European negotiating table, and that retaliation from Europe will damage Britain’s economy.

And it’s not just Europe that is upset with Cameron’s decision.  So is his co-leader in the coalition, Nick Clegg, leader of  the Lib-Dems.

To be sure, I should point out that Euro-skeptics in Britain are cheering Cameron’s decision and so, I would guess, are a majority in the country itself.

Will the decision affect Britain’s trade with Europe?  If so, is this an opportunity for Canada to step up and increase our trade with the mother country?

Has Cameron isolated Britain?

What do you think?


August 12, 2011

The riots and ramapages in Britain are both disturbing and destructive.  To some extent, like the rebellion in Egypt, they are being driven by the social media like Facebrook and Twitter.  So much so that Prime Minister Cameron is considering banning some people from using the social media.

This morning’s Globe and Mail wants none of that:  “Banning or restricting the use of social media networks is a tool of dictatorial regimes and British Prime Minister David Cameron send the wrong mesage by announcing that he is considering it.  The free flow of information is a democracy’s lifeblood and it needs protection too.”

China heavily restricts the use of the media.

Should Britain do the same to help halt these riots?

What do you think?


March 18, 2011

After a delay of several weeks, the United Nations has authorized military intervention to help the rebels and unarmed civilians in Libya.  Prime Minister David Cameron says NATO planes will be in the air in a matter of hours.   Canada is sending six CF-18s – last in action in 1999 in Serbia.  Also we are sending 200 air personnel.

But is it already too late? 

Col. Gadhafi is shelling and strafing the last of the tattered rebels in Tobruk and Bhengazi.  In fact I don’t think we even know who these rebels are – are they friend or foe.

No wonder President Obama is taking a hands-off approach and taking a lot of heat for it.  Some Republicans charge he can’t make up his mind about Libya.  But he has made up his mind.  He has decided to stay out.  U.S. wars in two other Muslim states are enough.

Fox news reports that Hillary Clinton is so upset with Obama’s dithering that she is pulling her hair out and is thinking about resigning.

Meanwhile Obama and his family are jetting off to Rio for a little R&R.  Is that politically dumb?

What’s the bottom line here.  What do you wager that after the no-fly zone has come and gone. the mad Col. Gadhafi will still be in power in Tripoli?

Should Canada be sending planes and manpower?  Why?  What strategic interest do we have over there?

Should the United States stay out?

Is there any chance at this late stage that Libya can be helped?  If not it’s a fool’s errand.

Can Libya be helped?

What do you think?


May 10, 2010

I read somewhere today that the U.K. does not have a government yet.  Wrong.  Gordon Brown and the Labour party are still in power.  Brown is still the P.M.

But time is running out because of the huge financial problems in Europe.

And there are obvious troubles with the negotiations.

For several days now the Lib Dems have been negotiating with the Conservatives.  No deal so far.  The big stumbling  block is Clegg’s demand for proportional representation i.e. that it would no longer be first past the post (as we have in Canada) but that the number of seatswould be in proportion to the nu mber of votes.  This system would help the Lib Dems a lot, the old parties would be penalized.

Having failed to convince the Tories of their demand,  the Lib Dems have now turned to Labour.  Labour has said if  Clegg makes a deal with them, they will come up with rep. by pop.  Not only that , but to make the deal more palatable, Brown will resign as  PM and as Labour leader.

When the Tories heard that, CAMERON also offered to do rep. by pop. for the Lib-Dems.

If  Clegg joined the Tories, the two parties would have a majority in Parliament.

If Clegg joined Labour, the would not quite have a majority (326 seats) and would have to find some other votes from minority parties.

What do you think Clegg will do?

What should he do?