Establishment Lying over the EU Bail Out Fund.

Bruno Waterfield in the Daily Telegraph this morning has charge and countercharge over who knew what and who did nothing to avoid Britain having to stump up, what is now known to be, billions and billions of pounds for the EFSF.

Happily, as is nowadays so often the case, unlike all the mainstream media, this blog was alert to the dangers and carried details of all the developments as they unfolded, while the rest of the nation followed the sycophantic garbage that was the media reporting on the formation of the coalition government.

Below I will supply links to my own reporting, during the actual events as brought out in Mr Waterfield's column today. The following passage contains the crux of the dispute:

Mr Cameron attacked Mr Darling for taking the wrong decision during an emergency meeting in Brussels on May 9 and suggested he ignored advice given to him by Mr Osborne. But Mr Darling said: "What we discussed was not voting against but abstention, recognising that Britain could have been outvoted."

Mr Cameron replied: "I have had a full discussion with the Chancellor about this issue and he was absolutely clear it was not something Britain should agree to."

A government document, signed by Justine Greening, a Treasury minister and seen by The Daily Telegraph has suggested that the Prime Minister's account is wrong. "It should be noted that while agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the administration, cross–party consensus has been given," said the briefing note, dated last July. 

 I summarised the entire disaster looking back to early May, on 21st December last year, and concluded that charges of negligence would eventually need to be brought against all those involved: I quote a small part of that posting, which is worth reading in full, together with its several links, for a full understanding of the depth of the lies now being told:

The use of Article 122 was widely known to have been an illegal ruse at the time. The incoming administration led by Cameron, Clegg and Osborne could have refuted Darling's concurrence to such illegality and instituted proceedings to exempt the UK from the disastrous financial consequences.

Can any now doubt that it was a complete dereliction of duty NOT so to do? Indeed can any voter not now perceive that all three main political parties in the UK are complicit in the illegal squandering of the nation's wealth at the behest of the Euro Group member states of the EU of which  assemblage Britain is not even a part?

It was absolutely clear that Darling should never have been allowed to attend the 9th May meeting, as I blogged on that very day, the country was without a government AND not part of the Euro Group which was the only portion of the EU then in crisis. That posting concluded as follows:

Alistair Darling belongs to a defeated party and should have no authority to attend an ECOFIN meeting charged with reaching a pan-EU agreement as commanded by members of the euro currency group.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg should clarify Darling's status immediately and if possible prevent his departure from the country!

Matters did not rest there however, for the Coalition had ample opportunity to clarify the situation when the new Chancellor attended his first ECOFIN meeting as I set out in my posting of 17th May, linked here.
Instead of so-doing he involved himself in the known illegality at a cost to the country which it remains impossible yet to calculate.

To conclude, let me highlight again in red, as I did last December, the main point at issue first posted on 9th May 2010, as is now confirmed by the Treasury Official Justine Green as revealed by Bruno Waterfield in today's Telegraph:

Alistair Darling belongs to a defeated party and should have no authority to attend an ECOFIN meeting charged with reaching a pan-EU agreement as commanded by members of the euro currency group.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg should clarify Darling's status immediately and if possible prevent his departure from the country!