- This topic has 15 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
…he ain’t even PM yet and his already up to the same bollocks as this shower of shite we’ve already got…
<i>When the Lisbon Treaty was being negotiated in 2007, Mr Cameron gave what he said was a “cast-iron guarantee” of a referendum on any document emerging from the process. He repeatedly mocked Prime Minister Gordon Brown for backing away from his promise of a public vote on the European Constitution – which Labour insists was a different document from Lisbon, but Tories claim was effectively the same </i>
Nu-Tories same as Nu-Labour…only posher <!– s:roll: –>
<!– s:roll: –>He’s also going to cut back on NHS spending by 1/3 by being more efficient; the NHS is stretched to the limit as it is..if we work any harder we’ll be dropping dead on the job and they’ll be stepping over us. Will be ok for those who can afford to go privately, though….
If any of these jokers would have the cojones to dump the utterly useless expense of Trident, you could easily maintain the current NHS budget for next year and well beyond.
Not surprised but very disappointed that Cameron’s ducked the referendum. Don’t know (and probably wouldn’t understand) all the legal / constitutional arguments regarding a post-ratification referendum, but there’s now a BIG democratic deficit in the UK (and the rest of the EU – now often called the EUSSR).
The sight of the lying, treacherous, deceitful, ignorant tw*t Gordon Brown laying a wreath at the Cenotaph in memory of those who died defending Britain’s fundamental freedoms makes me sick.
Sure, Cameron’s ducked the referendum decision, but the number 1 culprits are BROWN, BLAIR and zaNULABOUR; they couldn’t have flushed the UK down the toilet more effectively if they’d tried. Totally useless.If my memory serves me well wasn’t it the Tories who took us into Europe? Cameron will say anything to get elected. The rest of the party will say nothing to get elected!
If my memory serves me well wasn’t it the Tories who took us into Europe?
The political landscape and philosophies of Heath, Wilson, Europe, the World back then bears little resemblance to that nowI voted a confident ‘Yes Please’. For one whose parents were teenagers during WW2 and who had numerous relations fight and die in it, a unified Europe in the guise of a ‘common market’ ‘european economic community’ or ‘european union’ seemed a great leap forward.
On balance, the 35 years since has seen a slow shuffle forwards but given a referendum now I would vote a dithering uncertain ‘Yes suppose so’
Perhaps an expanded EFTA would have been quite sufficient
Cameron’s climbdown, like any political reneging on ‘promises’ doesn’t surprise me, but in truth a unilateral post-ratification referendum would be pointless and a gross waste of time and money wouldn’t it?
Time and money that would be better utilised attempting to stave off national bankruptcy
So he’s probably made the sensible decision and could be congratulated for the swift announcement.
the dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity
…those songs of innocence and experienceGood points Drone – especially on how the political views on Europe have changed.
Although, as now, there were big splits within the parties it was generally Labour who were "anti" and the Conservatives who were "pro". Can’t recall what the Liberals thought but then, as now, their views are irrelevant
That referendum is probably the only time in my life I have voted for something that was Labour policy – but my view then was a resounding no and absolutely nothing that has happened in intervening years has made me question how I voted.
Indeed the way we are handing power over to Europe makes me even more anti, if that were possible.
Hard to comment on this with any authority – as I have no idea what the actual material difference will be to me.
We have lived with unelected EU commissioners for years, and this Treaty would appear to add another tier, with the ‘Presidential’ role.
Having unelected officials is not a good thing in a strict ‘democractic’ sense. But we’ve lived with the situation for years without complaining too vigourously. Threats of potato-crisp bans and straight banana’s never came to anything.
At face value, the selection of a new tier of the same gravy-train, lifer-politicos, will make no material difference to me.
Like I say, I don’t know enough about what the impact might be, to talk authoratively on the subject. However, I feel that might be because the dull detail goes largely unreported, whilst the more esoteric debate about erosion of sovereignty rages.
IMO, we are not really being well-served by our media and other information outlets, because they focus on the ‘sexier’ sovereignty debate. What they should be telling us is what the
material impact(s
) are on day-to-day life in Blighty, not merely regurgitating the propaganda from both sides.
This is not a new approach either. This dumbing-down has been going on for years, with information slowly morphing into infotainment. IMO, this is a bigger threat to our democracy, than anything contained in the Lisbon Treaty.
In practical terms, Drone is right. It’s a fait accompli, and we should not compound the fact by entering into a fight we cannot possibly gain from.
Whatever ones views on the EU, pro or anti, the foisting of the Lisbon constitution on a state that had been promised a referendum on such a treaty by all 3 main parties, is simply wrong. No other word for it.
If the EU treaty was such a good thing for the UK, they should have pressed ahead with a referendum and made the case for an acceptance vote. That they didn’t, tells you all you need to know about the morality and democratic principles of New Labour (and the Lib-Dems who voted against a referendum when it was put before Parliament, thus knowingly scuppering its chance of success).
Labour knew they couldn’t sell it to the electorate, so never gave us suckers a chance to vote on it.
Cameron may be the loser in afait accompli
by the EU, and a referendum on the Lisbon treaty may have become unrealistic, but his "further actions" anounced yesterday amount to two-fifths of fu@k-all. AT the very least he should have stated that, either as a manifesto commitment itself, or by way of a referendum, his party sought a mandate to renegotiate Britains terms of membership and, if unhappy with the outcome, woukd call an in/out referendum by a certain time.
It really doesn’t matter a tinkers-toss Grasshopper whether or not the EU has been beneficial to the UK. The removal of democracy needed the assent of the people – and that hasn’t been sought. THAT IS THE ISSUE.
Brown laying a wreath at the Cenotaph in memory of those who fought for our freedoms! What an irony.Insomniac, I realise that it is an affront to democracy – indeed, I said this in my earlier post.
My points were:
1. We have already ceded many powers to the EU, and our ‘democratic choice’ has been eroding for quite some time.
2. What is the material effect of that further erosion created by Lisbon – beyond that which is already manifest? I don’t know what the effect is, because it goes unreported.
3. The fact that the effect goes unreported – in favour of an esoteric debate about ‘democracy’ and ‘sovereignty’ – is the fault of the media, and limits our ability to understand the issue.
4. Because our understanding is limited, the debate is reduced to one of philisophical side-taking, rather than about the actual impact of the Lisbon Treaty.
Maybe I haven’t been following this closely enough. Can
you
tell me what the material effect of Lisbon is, beyond the nebulous debates about democracy and sovereignty?
Yep Grasshopper, I’d have to agree with you for the most part regarding the 4 points you outline. My earlier post may, when I started out, have intended to cover these, but my strong anti-EUSSR feelings let me stray from the point (a common failing of mine). So, your 4 points outlined in your last post:-
1) Further erosion of powers to EU. Agreed; that’s what it is.
Is that necessarily a bad thing one might ask? Indeed, has our accepting supremacy of Brussels over Westminster law done the Country or the individual any harm – even if EU legal supremacy was acheived without any sort of mandate from the people? (As an anti EU you know my opinion on that).
2)What is the material effect of that further erosion created by Lisbon – beyond that which is already manifest? I don’t know what the effect is, because it goes unreported.
I’ll comment on that at the end, as it’s a major issue with me.
3. The fact that the effect goes unreported – in favour of an esoteric debate about ‘democracy’ and ‘sovereignty’ – is the fault of the media, and limits our ability to understand the issue.
4. Because our understanding is limited, the debate is reduced to one of philisophical side-taking, rather than about the actual impact of the Lisbon Treaty.
Okay – I’ll buy that; the level of debate re. the impact of the Treaty is limited. The reporting of what it will mean usually (and naturally) centres on the constitutional effect rather than its effect on the average Joe. I say naturally as this document (The Lisbon Treaty) is deliberately couched in a kind of esoteric, "bureaucratese" from which, I gather, it would be extremely difficult for a Philadelphia Lawyer to grasp what the bottom line is. The average journalist / BBC reporter, doesn’t seem able to grasp the bottom line, but are capable of making a constitutional/sovereignty based argument.
This all ties in to the question of what it all means to the man on the street. Will we notice any difference because of it, and if not, (or only an itsy-bitsy bit) why all the fuss? Why not just let the buggers get on with it?
Now I admit I’ve only read bits of the Lisbon Treaty – and found it so utterly boring and meaningless that I soon gave up. Was this the intention of those who drafted it? Stop the plebs knowing what the real deal is? I don’t know; it’s certainly plausible as the French and Dutch rejection of the original constitution in their referendums (referenda ?) really pissed them off.The Lisbon Treaty: How will it impact on the common man?
Maybe it won’t for 90% of the population. We’ll still all have food on our plate and a roof above our heads and our jobs to go to. (Although Post Office workers can point to previous EU legislation as a catalyst to job losses in their business). There’s no way of knowing if taxes will be more than they might have been had the UK not embraced Lisbon. So, big deal?
Well, yes actually. 90% of legislation does not effect 90% of the population, but that doesn’t mean that 90% of legislation is therefore good or shouldn’t be opposed. 90% of the powers the National Socialists imposed upon a supine population in 1930s Germany made little everday difference to MOST Germans.
Yet the EU has already now made it possible for a UK citizen to be extradited for something that is not a crime here: that’s outrageous. Doesn’t bother 99.99% of us, but then most Germans weren’t jews in the 1930s either.
Immigration. Bear in mind we now have NO veto. Imagine a situation where a couple of thousand illegal immigrants end up in say, Greece. They can be scum, rapist, muslim-fanatical low life. The EU country can’t send them back because of Human Rights legislation or maybe it’s just too impractical or expensive or drawn out. So, quite legally under EU law, they allow them all to become EU citizens and give them all a passport and the absolute minimum state support, knowing full well that they’ll all clear off to their intended destination in the first place – the UK. And we’d HAVE to accept them. Sounds far-fetched? It’s already being considered by some EU states (although they don’t acknowledge the – "they’ll be the UKs problem" angle.)
Buried in the Treaty’s small print is a ruling that gives new rights to EU leaders to overturn decisions made by Britain’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal We’ve totally lost all real, effective control of our borders. When were WE. the electorate asked about that?
The Lisbon Treaty will also transfer powers over energy reserves to Brussels, potentially (although not necessarily) forcing up household gas and electricity bills. Potentially, we could have an EU edict dictating how much energy and at what price we can use and what we must export to the rest of the EU. Won’t happen? Ask our fishing industry what they think about the appropriation of UK resources.
The Lisbon treaty does though make it clear that each member states’ representatives must act in the best interests of the EU (national interest takes second place) and to that end under the new treaty, 55 national vetoes – allowing Britain and any member state to block EU measures that are against their national interests – are SCRAPPED outright.
Bear in mind that the EU is aiming to establish an EU defence force and conformity of politcal, legal and commercial practices (cf Postal Services).
How long before, if this beast isn’t brought to book:
a) A common EU funded Polical Party financing system is introduced – say, all parties will be funded by the taxpayer in proportion to their votes at elections.
b) Any party that actively campaigns against the EU will be banned from receiving taxpayer(EU) funding.
c) Such parties will be banned from having candidates in elections.
d) All state advertising will be placed only with organs that do not criticise or campaign against the EU. Any businesses that advertise with such organs will be denied EU funding and may lose out on EU contracts
e) Any organ that critices or campaigns against the EU must apply for a licence to publish and any business or individuals purchasing such an organ must register and apply for a licence to buy them from an EU quango.
f) Such organs will be banned.
g) A new EU-based search engine will be introduced.
h) Any ISP that does not bar anti-EU sites will have its licence revoked.
i) Any internet user, not licensed to visit anti-EU sites, will be committing a criminal offence.
j) All EU nations’ armed-services/security forces/police forces must pledge allegiance to the EU above the nation state and Sovereign.Picture a not wholly unlikely scenario in a couple of years time. Holland is due a general election. There is currently a strong anti-muslim feeling amomgst many Dutch. An anti- Muslim party wins. The EU rules the newly elected party illegal. The natives riot. The EU calls in its "army" and we have British troops shooting at Dutch protesters in Eindhoven.
Or, the EU and its unelected President and Foreign Secretary decide the EU army must enter a vigorous war in some far flung part of the world. UK warships, planes and troops are seconded to prosecute this war. The Argies then invade the Falklands knowing we don’t have the forces left to defend them. The UK asks for permission to have its forces back to retake the Falklands and the EU says No.
Okay, these may seem far fetched (although the amendment to political party funding and banning on anti EU parties from funds and representation IS no long-shot).
And uniformity of the legal systems is serious. Most EU states do not apply "Habeas Corpus" but "Corpus Juris", which I think means the court decides when and how the body faces justice (although that might not be a truly accurate definition; my latin is v. poor). Did you or me vote for that?
But, maybe many Germans considered the events that led up to the 2nd World War and the Holocaust as unlikely when Hitler amended the Reichstags powers.
Minor, gradual changes in laws and power can ultimately have BIG consequences – even if those consequences were never intended or even imagined at the outset; that’s a real danger. One that history should have taught us – especially here in Western Europe.
That’s why I’m not too concerned about whether the Lisbon treaty means I’ll pay more for my soup, or have to have an HIP when I sell my house. The sovereignty thing and democratic unaccountability are (like to finish on a good cliche) the elephants in the room.A really generous reply, insomniac – and eye-opening as far as I am concerned.
It does seem a little odd that the UK – having
never
had a written constitution – is having one imposed on it, by many of the countries we fought to ensure that we never needed a written constitution. Go figure.
Practically speaking, we would appear to have two options. One is to accept Lisbon; and the other is to have a referundum on
full
withdrawal from the EU.
Any referendum about the specifics of Lisbon is essentially a waste of time. A ‘Yes’ vote imposes it, whilst a ‘No’ vote would simply leave the UK in it’s traditional role of heckler at the show. An increasingly isolated and impotent heckler at that.
Exit from the EU would appear to be the only reasonable (and honest) policy for those who find fault in Lisbon; which prompts the question – "What is the material effect of
leaving
the EU?".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/6528811/EU-reform-that-sweeps-British-justice-aside.html
This link is to an article in
The Daily Telegraph
concerning plans to "harmonise" the justice systems across the EU.
Off topic, there’s a fascinating article in the current edition of
The Spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5504183/reaching-through-the-iron-curtain.thtml…concerning the relationship between The Labour Party and the (then)Soviet Union, the tendrils of which still wriggle in the heart of many of today’s top New Labour members, who supposedly ought to be putting Queen and country first. It’s quite a long read, but interesting.
Grasshopper writes:-
Practically speaking, we would appear to have two options. One is to accept Lisbon; and the other is to have a referundum on full withdrawal from the EU.
That’s spot-on Grasshopper. And, if the whispers in the tory blogs are to be believed, one that the eurosceptics in the party feel more likely than ever to come about.
<!– s:roll: –>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.