Treasury notes reveal Osborne’s position on euro bailouts

Charles Martel

"But the note certainly dispels the notion that Osborne was in favour of signing Britain up to this bailout mechanism."

Indeed, because Gideon Osborne would never be so upfront about throwing our money away, he is busy raising our contributions through the backdoor (e.g. IMF).

Cynic

Darling has sold the country down the river and should be made personally accountable. Strip him of his pension and just leave him the basic OAP. Why are we still shackled to this leviathan called the EU?

Dennis Churchill

The E.U bailouts and contributions are an Open Goal as far as the Conservative party is concerned. Unfortunately they can’t take the shot because of the LibDems and their own Vichyist tendency.

Axstane

As a result we are forced to issue still more Treasury Notes.

denis cooper

The Treasury notes record that Osborne asked Darling "to be careful not to commit the UK to proposals that have a lasting effect on UK public finances", which was very proper.

However there is nothing recorded about Osborne querying the legality of the proposals, even though that was already a matter of public debate in this and other EU countries.

In December Lagarde admitted that they had knowingly breached the EU treaties:

"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone."

and of course that "we" included Darling.

Also according to the Treasury notes, Darling "noted that there was an established Parliamentary committee scrutiny process so any decisions would be subject to Parliamentary approval".

The eventual outcome of that scrutiny process was that the EFSM was "legally unsound", but that was after the event when it was too late.

DavidDP

Osborne did not throw himself on top of Darling and physically prevent him from going to Brussels. That shows how clearly Osborne is really pro-EU.

Boudicca

If Osborne told Darling not to sign the UK up to anything that would have a lasting effect on the country's finances and was ignored, then the agreement is nul and void.

No Government can bind a successor and the Coalition can disregard the agreement which Darling signed.

It should be cancelled immediately and no more UK taxpayers money should be used for these illegal bailouts. Time for Osborne to grow a pair!

Meanwhile, at the very least Darling should be called to face the approprite Committee and be required to explain himself. He is responsible for saddling the country will several billions more debt on top of the hundreds of billions Labour was already responsible for.

TrevorsDen

Mr Martell you're a pillock.

Mr Cooper, Osborne did actually query Darling's right to make a commitment. I am not sure he had any other authority and idle comment is not legally binding.
The answer from the cabinet secretary makes one wonder about his sanity, a 'government' without a majority in parliament has hardly any mandate and indeed one must wonder where the Archbishop of Canterbury was whilst all this was going on.

strapworld

Trevors Den. Before you throw out your customary insult, just sit back and consider what that individual has written.

I agree with Martell as it happens and also with Mr Cooper.

The Cabinet Secretray, if you had any understanding of British Constitution, is quite correct. That said I do believe he should have followed up that statement with a proviso that it would be foolhardy to go into negotiations without taking into account the view of the other party's- who may form the next government, as no future government can be bound by the outgoing governments decisions.

So I also agree with Boudicca. And that, dear Trevors Den, raises the question WHY has this government NOT disregarded the Darling agreement? and, in effect, told the country porkie pies by saying we ARE bound by Darling's agreement.

It is time for Brown and Darling to face criminal negligence charges.

cuffleyburgers

Osborne seems to have made the minimum effort required to go down in writing as having protested feebly but without actually risking looking obstructive.

In other words the cameron government in a microcosm.

I agree that Brown and Darling should go before a commons committee and be severely questioned and humiliated for this appalling act which is costing is literally bilions.

However the bigger problem is how to get rid of CMD who has shown himself to be an equally big traitor as either Blair or Brown before him (I'm looking at you Trevorsden!) and indeed whether we should continue to tolerate even being governed by this lot and take to the streets with extreme prejudice and violence where necessary.

When you are sold down the river by your elected representatives they lose the right to govern - in the words of the loathsome blair, "the rules of the game have changed".

That is what has happened and we are fools to ourselves to continue to pay these slime the respect they crave.

All their "the right honourable member" (only the last word is correct) etc is a rather tasteless joke considering the way they have betrayed their consitutents, knowingly since at least before Maastrict and the intelligent ones of which there are relatively few back to Heath's great betrayal.

We cannot afford to way for CMD to choose the time of the next election, it's time to force the issue and take our country back

Framer

Alastair Darling agreed that the UK would participate in EU eurozone bail-outs the day after he had been defeated in the general election. This has cost us more than all the cuts since announced.

Alastair Darling was also the Chancellor who cost us £7,000,000,000 when he decided to bail out every depositor in the Icelandic banks (over and under the previous £50,000 deposit limits), despite advice to the contrary from the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury who insisted on an instruction in writing. (Oddly £500m has not been reclaimed, but the government insists on still proffering it).

Darling remains the BBC's favourite who has never experienced a hard interview.

But the question these disclosures raise is why the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury lamely let him commit the UK, after Labour's defeat, and not, at least, insist on his right as the departmental accounting officer to have an instruction in writing. He didn't, probably at the behest of Gus (‘we will have a coalition not a minority Tory government’) O'Donnell.

Charlie

Personally I blame Clegg's crew - if they had spent less time horse trading, playing both sides off each other, the new government (regardless of composition) would have had to make a decision they would have been accountable for. As it is we have the worst of both worlds - scorched earth and muppets at the wheel.

denis cooper

TrevorsDen -

"Osborne did actually query Darling's right to make a commitment."

No, he didn't query that.

Firstly he accepted that Darling was still the Chancellor, as he had made clear to the Swedish Finance Minister, and he only asked Darling "to be careful not to commit the UK to proposals that have a lasting effect on UK public finances".

Secondly he did not query whether Darling had the right to commit the UK to proposals which would be illegal under the EU treaties, and therefore also illegal under our current national law to approve those treaties.

He only suggested that since the UK government was in transition, "purdah" as he put it, there might be grounds for Darling to ABSTAIN in a vote taken at the ECOFIN meeting; he did not suggest that the illegality of the proposals would be grounds for Darling to REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE VALIDITY of the vote, and nor did he warn that as Chancellor he would not be bound by any such decision.

"idle comment is not legally binding."

I'm not sure which "idle comment" you mean, but in the preceding months Merkel had been among those who said that the EU treaties did not permit the kind of bail-out proposals which were being mooted, and she cited an analysis by German government lawyers - not the kind of people who are normally given to "idle comment".

I realise that Osborne had a lot on his plate, but it's inconceivable that he could have remained unaware that some of the EU leaders were working up to breaking the treaties.

This is not just a financial or economic matter, it's also a fundamental national constitutional matter.

UK ministers like Darling and now Osborne are authorised by the UK Parliament to act within the EU in accordance with the EU treaties which the UK Parliament has approved, down to the last comma, and they have no legal authority to agree to EU measures which contravene those treaties.

Magnolia

Cost of first Greece bailout
Approx £8 billion
Saving from change to CPI in Emergency Budget
Approx £8 billion
Let's not pretend that we aren't being taken for patsies by our own side.
In June 2010, I asked "Where are the Tories?"
I'm still asking.

PhilW

Until I read this I was under the distinct impression that Osbourne was forced to accept that Darling was the de facto chancellor still in place by reason of the delay in forming the new government.It now appears that Darling took it upon himself to sign us up to this bail out egged on by the Cabinet Secretary.If the legal status of Darling's remit is questionable then surely it's the Cabinet Secretary who also needs to be summoned before a committee to explain his motive or has Darling just conveniently passed the buck after throwing another huge spanner in the works for the next government to take the blame for?