El Presidente
David Cameron warned today against what he described as an "all-singing, dancing and acting... El Presidente of Europe".
What he wouldn't do was repeat William Hague's alleged warning that a future Conservative government would regard the selection of Tony Blair as president of the European Council as "a hostile act".
Mr Cameron also refuses to say yet what he will do if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified - although there were hints. He spoke of the need for "realism not isolationism" and argued that on every decision in Europe, he favoured "co-operation and co-ordination".
I read this to be not a referendum and not a repeat of John Major's campaign of non-co-operation.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
You state, "I read this not to be a referendum". What you do not say is what you do read it to be?
I do not think that it is correct to dismiss one option without replacing it with another.
I am anti-EU so I want to know what is going to happen. The Government stance is proven by their refusal to go ahead with a referendum. The Lib-Dems are pro-EU; the unknown is the Tory Party. How can they expect support without declaring how they stand. I thought that you would, will now, give us your views.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think that an unelected el Presidente would be a bad thing as well.
To acclaim Tony Blair to this position would be a travesty, he walked away from British politics, took a position promising to change the Middle East. So in his last two positions he has gave up and achieved nothing are these the qualification for any position. Some realism on the part of the Home Secretary may help.
What is wrong with keeping ones powder dry until yoyu know what the problem is that you are facing. It strikes me as so much hot air pontificating what we will do if x happens. A bit like the spin of Mr Brown will save the world on Wednesday. Perhaps a quieter more rational approach will benefit us in the long run rather than the speculation on a hypothetical instance.
As an aside how much speculation is allowed with UK Civil Servants lobbying for Mr Blair, is that what we the tax payers pay them to do? Is this not a missuse of tax payer money?
Complain about this comment
I read it to conclude that we're all going to be Europeans now, whether we like it or not.
Perhaps in a few years we'll all be spending our worthless Euro notes with Tony's smug grin plastered all over them.
It's not Cameron's fault per se, he's just wising up to the reality that NuLabour haven't left us with a choice.
Complain about this comment
The absence of a referendum says much of senior politicians, Labour government, the supposely democratic system of UK and Europe. Are we only given choices when it is a Hobson's choice or where the outcome is of little real importance (like which party forms the next government)?
The seed of doubt have been sown in the hearts of those who would have voted for the treaty if they had been given the chance to listen, to debate and then to cast their Yes vote.
Politicans don't trust the people from whom they demand trust.
Sigh, this is going to end in tears for all.
Complain about this comment
One other downside of Blair being the EU president is that Cheri Blair will be the first lady of Europe.
Complain about this comment
I think Cameron is right about Blair becoming President and I think you are right in your interpretation of the hints from Cameron about what he would do when the Lisbon treaty is ratified.
Complain about this comment
Is there is possibility of any democratic process getting a look in, in this matter at all ??????
I'm not sure that Tony Blair would be very effective as a President of Europe anyway. His main appeal is that he can get important people to answer the phone, but his quest for a political "legacy" has ended in expensve failure on so many fronts.
He talks a good game, no doubt about it, and has positive presence, but his record on delivery is poor to say the least. He was elected in 1997 with a manifesto to make politics "whiter than white". After 12 years of new Labour government it looks like it will end with the expenses scandal blighting politics for years to come, and teh publics perception of politicians at it's lowest level ever. And don't don't get me started on the "ethical foreign policy" which will end up with him giving evidence at an enquiry into the Iraq war. Blair has changed Britain massively in his time, and mainly without the consent of the electorate. Even his own party wanted him out eventually.
the whole situation is beginning to look like an eleborate set up Mandelson, Blair, and probably Gordon Brown and David Miilband all looking for fur-lined positions in the EU when the elctorate are eventually given their chance to have a say on something.
If Europe wants a self important celebrity represenative to swan around looking important with no actual output then he could be their man.
Who can he claim to represent and what does he have a mandate to do ? Certainly not me.......
Complain about this comment
Is it true that Vaclav Klaus is to offer the Czechs a referendum on this Lisbon Reform Treaty? If so, then the treaty is dead. He may not have the support of either of his houses of Parliament, but he does have enormous support from his fellow countrymen.
But then the "leaders" of the EU oligarchy do not care about such things as what the people want. That is why they are brazenly talking about which candidate gets to be dictator of the whole EU!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Just a quick question.
Why is it you repeatedly focus on this single issue in front of the Conservatives? Wouldn't your time be better spent asking the government about the fact we are still in recession, whilst our European neighbours have already returned to growth.
Complain about this comment
Cameron needs to come up with a post-ratification strategy before the election otherwise many Tory supporters (including myself) will be voting UKIP.
Complain about this comment
I am appalled to think that yet another failed polititian is jumping on the euro gravy train (Kinnock, Mandelsion etc etc).
Aside from my personal disgust at Blair he is just about the least likey unifying figure on the scene.
I suggest that only qualification for the EU top despot is to never have been a politician or lawyer. Perhaps then we will get someone grounded in reality along the lines of Lech Walensa. Or, how about this....the people having a choice and voting for their preferred candidtate!!
Sorry i'm being silly, only the 'right' candidate will win, such is the history of democracy in Europe.
Cameron is in a no-win situation, as Brown is desperate to tie this up before the election as (and I would put money on this) he needs brownie points to get him a fat job in Brussels once he is soundly kicked out of office, but unfortunately not on the dole like so many of his 'subjects'.
Complain about this comment
#1 1. At 12:38pm on 27 Oct 2009, b-b-jack wrote:
"You state, "I read this not to be a referendum". What you do not say is what you do read it to be?
I do not think that it is correct to dismiss one option without replacing it with another."
But another opinion is inclusive, surely.
"I do not read this as a referendum"
"I read this as not a referendum"
Complain about this comment
There's a 40,000 signature europe-wide pettition against blair becoming president thats easy to find if you google.
I'm extreemely pro-europe & i've signed it.
The only slightly ironic twist is that there's a comments section, and about half the brits, who have obviously not bothered to read the the wording of the petetion have put something along the lines of 'no to blair, and no to the EU too'
which kind of muddies the waters on the overall message being sent.
nevermind...
Complain about this comment
#6 baronbash
I don't think she could ever be descibed as a "lady" - although the one consolation will be that for all her efforts, history will still only remember her just for being Tony's wife.
For me, the real issue here isn't the prospect of what Cameron will/won't or can/can't do about Europe, it's about how Blair and Brown betrayed us by promising the referendum in their manifesto in 2005 and then reneged on their promise.
Obviously the long-term strategy was for Blair to become EU president, this was probably part of his pre-arranged payback for going back on his referendum promise, at the expense of all of us who have been given absolutely no say in any of this at all.
What I don't get is why this has all been done tactically like a non-military coup, and without any form of reasonable debate at any stage. At no point have any party expressed an interest in debating this issue with the general public at all.
I'm skeptical about Europe for this reason alone. I haven't made up my mind on whether a federal Europe would be a good or a bad thing, but the fact that I'm not allowed to have a say one way or another leads me to suspect that it must be a bad thing. After all, if it was a good thing, then surely every pro-EU politican and media outlet would be shouting about it 24/7 in order to win over the doubters.
I know there are good points and bad points to it. This is why I want to see these issues debated thoroughly and in public, without propaganda and without people like Blair deciding what I believe for me.
Complain about this comment
Who else has been seriously considered for the role apart from the cheshire cat?
Complain about this comment
I dont care how many countries have ratified this treaty, Cameron should still be giving us teh promised referendum. This is his one chance to show a marked difference to Labour policy.
I also believe such a guarantee would earn the Tories a vast number of votes from other people such as myself who see this as one of the main issues. Equally, it's also an opportunity to lose a lot of votes to UKIP if he makes the wrong decision
Complain about this comment
William Hague sums it all up rather well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyASWt1Pwmw
Complain about this comment
Blair pretty much created the role with the full knowledge that he intended to become this entity.
There is no doubt about that.
What I find shocking is that we have an unelected Prime Minister paving the way for an unelected President.
And politicians can't figure out why we don't trust them?
Viva la revolution! Oops That will probably be censored, I mean moderated comrade.
Complain about this comment
The core point is simply one of democracy. At no point did I vote to allow people that I entrust to make laws on my behalf to pass that responsibility on to an unelected third party.
My parents voted for a free trade agreement, they did not vote for an all controlling, super state.
It’s the sheer arrogance of Blair, Labour and the EU that astounds me.
In its first 25 years the EU has issued 23,000 directives and regulations into UK law (a figure greater than the total number of Acts passed by Parliament in the whole of its life) There are around 650 new EU laws each year which bypass our Parliament
Its not as though I can even vote for the lawn makers at the EU is it. All the commissioners are totally unelected. In fact they just highly paid jobs for the boys.
I wont do Mandleson I'm still too angry, but just imagine if a country as transparent as the UK picks an individual like Mandleson just how does a country as corrupt as Italy choose theirs.
Watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6270446064124248#
Complain about this comment
17. At 1:21pm on 27 Oct 2009, I_Despise_Labour wrote:
I dont care how many countries have ratified this treaty, Cameron should still be giving us teh promised referendum. This is his one chance to show a marked difference to Labour policy.
--------------
You think it would be a good idea to have an utterly meaningless referendum on a treaty thats already been ratified?
There's just no arguing with that kind of bloody-mindedness.
Maybe if the treaty is ratified we could all put our fingers in our ears, shout 'la-la-la' and pretend it hasn't been.
Because that will be as exactly as effective (and far cheaper) as holding a referendum after the treaty has been ratified.
Complain about this comment
19 don't be silly we aren't comrades. Only the chosen "comrades" get to call each other that. We are just the lowly serf.
Complain about this comment
If the EU wants a "big-hitter" and somebody who can "sprinkle stardust" on the position, as Mrs Marr put it... why not Bono for President? It will have the added bonus of finally putting U2 to pasture. (One can but hope)
Complain about this comment
#18 carrots
That clip never gets old :)
Complain about this comment
I read a lot of comments on this blog about people being anti EU etc and I wonder why? 60% of our trade is with Europe and if we were to withdraw I would expect that figure to drop. This will lead to worse unemployment than we have now and just think how bad the debt will be. The fact of the matter is that China and the US will become the worlds superpowers in terms of economic activity over the next few decades. A small country like the UK or maybe just England and Wales, if the union breaks, stands no chance on its own. I think we need to live in the now not the 19th century past and engage with Europe.
David Cameron has boxed himself in politically on this issue and he needs to dig himself out fast. I understand why the desire to become leader made him make promises on Europe, and his partners in the european parliament are pretty questionable characters in my view, but if he wants to be a truely great PM he must put the interests of country above those of the tory party.
Cameron knows that as PM he will have to engage with Europe, although he won't say so out aloud. He also knows that the Lisbon treaty is a done deal. The sooner he accepts this fact and moves on the better. We are in the worst recession since records began -the important thing is getting the UK economy moving again because this pays our salaries, provides money for the NHS etc. This is more important than some outdated 19th century dream about pound sterling and empire.
I know a lot of people will disagree with me but our future is in Europe -we had a stay in/leave vote in the 70's its time we moved on and became a leading player in Europe.
I would like to see a British president of Europe and if not Blair maybe a tory -if we can think of one that is big on the international stage. Maybe Lord Ashcroft he likes living overseas :-)
Complain about this comment
This really is very good.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6270446064124248#docid=-4146920855839317023
And they wonder why we reamin euro sceptic, well they dont actually, they dont give dam because they know we cant vote.
Complain about this comment
What a farce. Just as the Tories get close to winning an election, they blow it again with nonsense about the EU.
All he needs to say is that we will have a referendum on Europe. Now that the spectre of Blair has been raised most people will vote NO!
To bleat on about being offended by Blair as President makes him sound like a bullied child, not a potential Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see you back, Nick. It's hard to work out whether it's because there are more mods on duty, or whether you have a limited ration...
What surprises me is not that Blair may be proposed as a "President", but that there is still no job description for the post.
You'd have thought that, as Brussels is great at doing detailed law-making, collectively those masses could have already worked out what powers or limitations this Totem should have.
I can't imagine the EU wanting a High Representative whose country doesn't support the Euro. (OK, Tony may have wanted to get the UK in, but he couldn't make it happen. Strike One.)
It's hard to imagine the EU sending Blair to negotiate with the Iranians who dislike his perceived attacks on other Islamic nations - whether or not the Iranians liked those nations. (Strike Two.)
I find it hard to believe that all those EU folk have no idea that the UK population seem to believe that Blair's war in Iraq was based on a lie. And he may be dragged into an inquiry that may, eventually, reveal the extent of the deception. Wouldn't they be a bit worried that he may sneak off and commit them to some other adventure by proxy? (Strike Three.)
Blair is a good operator, good persuader for a cause. But a very, very poor deliverer of results. Couldn't even stand up to a Minister in his own government (Brown).
Oh well, maybe that's what they want. Tooth paste kid, with no teeth.
Complain about this comment
The newly created post of an unelected President of Europe would indeed be a huge slap in the face for the millions of Europeans who do not want federalism and have been denied the opportunity of voting one way or another.
Can anyone imagine the heads of 27 countries being pushed into the background while El Presidente Blair floats around the world representing the whole of Europe. How could he have credibility with the likes of Obama and the other leaders who have actually had to go through the whole of the election process and will continue to do so.
Perhaps before his appointment the leaders of Europe will have to face up to the war in Afghanistan which of course Blair instigated with Bush as a so called war of the alliances. One of his first tasks as he cosies up to Obama will of course be to ensure that the rest of Europe play a full part in sending more of their own troops to actually fight in this war alongside the British and Americans.
Perhaps as David Cameron put it this morning there is not the political will to do this as there does not seem to be any political will to do anything that makes sense within the EU as a whole.
It has ended up as a rag bag of makeshift policies and needs radical reform if it is to survive.
As Blair and his cronies have already blown the prospects of this country for years to come anyone who thinks he can run a union of 27 countries must be out of their minds. One man alone and especially Blair cannot make something so fragmented seem credible to other leaders across the world.
There is a world out there to trade with and being restricted by an EU which after all these years still cannot get its act together is a restricting and daunting hindrance for those countries needing to trade their way out of this recession.
Complain about this comment
#19 sircomspect. To some extent I agree with you, however, we in this country have never voted for a prime minister. The PM is the leader of the party with the most seats. Or the leader of the party that organizes a coalition. So I can't fully go with the unelected PM. Perhaps a reminder to Mr Brown that he answers to Parliament and not to the "You Tube" viewing pyschophants may remind hin that this is a monarchy no matter how much he thinks he is President.
Complain about this comment
It seemed not that long ago that David Cameron was gesticulating to his party MPs to give Tony Blair a standing ovation as the ex-PM was departing on his last day in the House of Commons.
Ken Clarke hit the nail on the head when he said 'the sooner the power of the UK Government is similar to a parish council the better'.
An integrated EU will see the Euro become the benchmark currency for global trading, overtaking the dollar, and will ensure the only two world wars can never be repeated.
Is there any example to show the view of the right that isolation is good for business? The quicker we are integrated into the EU the better and what better man at the helm than our very own and distinguished Tony Blair.
Complain about this comment
@23 that actually means we have to listen to him though. And as any south park fan knows, we all know the reason why Bono has to be number 1 in everything he does...
Complain about this comment
One of the arguments put forward in favour of President Blair is that Europe needs a heavyweight figure who can play hardball with countries like Russia to stop them turning off Europe's gas supply.
Well lets consider Blair's record as a negotiator, this is the man who meekly signed away most of our EU rebate in exchange for a worthless promise to review the CAP which everyone knows will come to absolutely nothing! He also slavishly acquiesed to Bush when he could have put a much higher price on British support for Iraq.
Oh I'm sure Putin is quaking in his boots at the prospect of having to deal with President Tony!
Complain about this comment
Well, I would have thought a man who was ousted by a terminally weak and incompetent excuse in the UK would have been the perfect person to become the figurehead for the whole of Europe....
Complain about this comment
"tory_bliar wrote:
Cameron needs to come up with a post-ratification strategy before the election otherwise many Tory supporters (including myself) will be voting UKIP."
The ironic thing is that if large numbers of Tory voters do turn to UKIP all that will happen is that UK will take votes away from the Tories and New Labour will get back in!
Complain about this comment
@21 taxedintotheground
Not a believer in democracy then?!! Just because it's been ratified why should that mean that it cant be reversed if the people of this country realise that a single parliament should not have the power to give away our sovereignty?
Complain about this comment
25
Without Europe, we woudl be able to trade on our terms instead of terms imposed upon us. Would we benefit? Very hard to say, but given the generally accepted consensus on where the true power in Europe lies, it would be logical to assume that we would.
We are not now and never will be a leading player in Europe, we sacrifice a great deal of our ability to make our own decisions for a few dubious benefits. There is nothing to say that we must be part of a super state to survive, bigger is not always better.
And this really isn't the worst recession on record. Not by a long shot.
Complain about this comment
Some time next year we will finally get rid of our unelected prime minister.
Shortly afterwards the EU will give us an unelected president.
Strong stuff this 'democracy'
Complain about this comment
21. taxedintotheground
Well actually the one good think about the Treaty is that it introduces an exit clause for members wanting to withdraw from the Union.
This formalises the procedure by stating that a member state must inform the European Council before it can terminate its membership.
Complain about this comment
It seems that Mr Blair genuinely does want the job and obviously it would completely stymie Mr Cameron's government as Blair in Brussels would have more de facto power than Mr Cameron in London. Very smart and very clever but where does it leave the majority of people who are happy for the EU to be a free trade area but are extremely unhappy about a Federal Europe?
Sadly, the British people can't be trusted to vote the 'right' way on Lisborn so we won't get a referendum. The prospect of more Tony Blair and this time in a potentially Napoleonic role is simply too ghastly to contemplate.
Complain about this comment
"I_Despise_Labour wrote:
@21 taxedintotheground
Not a believer in democracy then?!! Just because it's been ratified why should that mean that it cant be reversed if the people of this country realise that a single parliament should not have the power to give away our sovereignty?"
Do you also think that we will be able to buy our gold back at the rate Brown sold it for?
At it's most basic level a deal is a deal - if Labour have signed us up to the treaty and the treaty has passed our options are limited.
Complain about this comment
36. At 1:55pm on 27 Oct 2009, I_Despise_Labour wrote:
@21 taxedintotheground
Not a believer in democracy then?!! Just because it's been ratified why should that mean that it cant be reversed if the people of this country realise that a single parliament should not have the power to give away our sovereignty?
---
no i just took the trouble to understand the terms of the treaty before commenting about it.
- once its ratified its pretty much set in stone. Nothing the UK does after that will make the slightest difference
you'd be far better agitating for a referendum on EU membership, which is what most people actually seem to want.
Complain about this comment
He spoke of the need for "realism not isolationism" and argued that on every decision in Europe, he favoured "co-operation and co-ordination".
I read that as the classic Tory line "in Europe but not ruled by Europe". Yeah that worked with Ted Heath, the Single European Act and Maastricht didn't it?
When are our politicians going to wake up to the fact that being in the EU is logically the same as being ruled by them, even more so after Lisbon ratification, which explicitly states that EU rules take precedence over UK ones.
Or perhaps politicians from the three main parties do know this but are not being honest about it - oh wait that can't be true can it?
Complain about this comment
Any idea what UKIP's position on Bliar for president is?
Whatever their publicly stated position, I'm sure that, quietly, behind the scenes, they must be desperately hoping and praying that he gets the job. It's hard to imagine a bigger boost for their cause.
Complain about this comment
My personal opinion is against any EU President and definitely not Blair. However, on a more practical aspect, shortly after taking office Blair will be attending hopefully open sessions of the Iraq Enquiry. That combined with many of the families of those killed during the war will bring the issues of both the war and questions about whether Blair lied or misled the UK regarding the case for his war. If Blair is EU President, the enquiry will be reported throughout the EU and the World and will undoubtedly bring Blair and his office (and thus the EU) into disrepute. Of course different countries will reach differently (e.g. the US might not be as concerned whereas others might be more concerned as the truth emerges through the Enquiry). This will have a serious detrimental impact on the standing of the EU throughout the world.
Then one has to look at the function of the EU President. The function is to act as a point of contact for non-EU countries, to represent the opinions and wishes of the various EU countries. It is not to act as a policy maker driving through the Presidents wishes and what the President thinks should be done. It is a representation role and in the UK we have seen how good Blair is at ignoring the wishes of those he supposedly represents and ploughing on with "what he thinks is right". His character is thus totally inappropriate to such a role.
Milliband is now insisting we should support a British President to ensure that the UK stays strong in Europe and has somebody representing UK wishes. But that is not the function of the President. Role of the EU President is not to give the country of his nationality a greater say in the EU - and that argument in itself should show other countries how inappropriate Blair is. The EU President should act for all EU countries equally. If the President were to act on behalf of the country of his nationality then it makes a complete joke of the idea of the treaty to give all countries a more equal say in Europe.
And of course the UK (in Blair's time) is the country that will not join the Euro currency, opted out of so much EU human rights legislation, argues against EU working treaties, etc., etc. Blair is hardy a "pro EU" individual.
Maybe we should look at his achievements on the world since being pushed out of No 10 - as Middle East envoy. What has happened in Israel/Palestine relations since he took this office. Things seem to have gone from bad to worse. Whilst probably not his fault, he seems to have achieved nothing as the situation deteriorates further.
Personally I think that, were Blair to be appointed EU President then the UK would not leave the EU. Other countries would throw us out.
And why do we not get a say in who is appointed to this position. Even in Zimbabwe the people get to vote for who they wish to be President. With our politicians clearly not following the wishes of the people (e.g. so many countries ignoring the results of referendums on the treaty), those same politicians appointing their friend is clearly totally non democratic.
Complain about this comment
It's deeply ironic that the one major party, the Conservatives, that kept to its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the new European constitution finds itself with a political problem. Yet Labour and the LibDems seem to have been allowed, by the media class, to revoke their manifesto commitment without penalty.
Once Lisbon is ratified it is logically impossible to hold a referendum on ratifying the treaty, though of course some other EU questions, including but not limited to withdrawal, could be put to the British people.
Labour and the LibDems are gloating at the thought of UKIP taking votes from the Conservatives at the next election and continuing in power. Indeed I'm sure this was one of the reasons the referendum was denied.
UKIP-inclined voters should vote Conservative at the General Election. Anything else would reward Labour and the LibDems for reneging on their manifesto commitment, and no doubt further embolden the euro-federalists.
Complain about this comment
So it could be Boney Blair and Cherie Antoinette........pleeease nooooo..........it would be too too too much to bear........
Complain about this comment
Blair has the support of S Berlusconi. That says it all!!!
All we need is the dodgy lord to get involved and the trilogy will be complete!!!
What about Prescott for President , at least we would have a laugh!!!
Complain about this comment
Isn't it about time that a list of all the reasons people hate the EU were published in one place so this debate can be concluded once and for all, because if it's worth going in arguments to counter them will prevail, won't they?
And then someone should be made to list the flows of cash FROM the EU to the UK so we know what the true, net contributions of different regions of the UK are.
Who would the big losers be if we went into the Euro? And who would win??
I do think though that the current system of Commissioners is unsatisfactory. When the influence was smaller, perhaps. But now? Those posts need either to be fixed-term appointed by an elected President or they must be selected from the body of MEPs.
Complain about this comment
Cameron should say he would take us out of the EU when elected if he is not able to renegotiate the treaty that was signed under the guise of the slight of hand by Labour. He'd get a landslide and the EU would be absolutely bashing the door down to get in favour with the UK. That would give us a greater role in Europe and would tell them we won't put up with their rubbish.
Come on Dave - do it!
Complain about this comment
I don't know why you are all talking about this. The Chair of the European Council (the Heads of Government meeting) and the Chair's office ( President= Chairperson the Eurospeak and the office is call a cabinet...) only serves for two and a half years and is supposed to enable the 'summit' meeting to work better (So no motorcade, no inaugural, no first lady or first gentleman, no pictures of the first family. TB says he doesn't want this fixing type of job and HoGs would not want to be upstaged by 'President Blair' The guy for the job is Peter Mandelson.or if they want a Tory Chris Patten both right leaning progressives both experienced fixers. Just for the record the E Council has been having meetings without any legal form for years. The Treaty give it legal form
If the Cameroon cannot come up with an acceptable policy the skeptics will all vote UKIP or even BNP.
Gordie is safe.
Complain about this comment
42. taxedintotheground
Well you didn’t read past Article 50:
Article 50 TEU
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Complain about this comment
re carrots (50) Yes we can leave. Does anyone believe (believe that is not wish) that the Cameroon will leave the EU? No referendum is needed for this since it is a prerogative matter. but of course lots of legislation will follow. As far I can see you don't need the European Councils permission.
...........................
May 10th 2010
Dear Tony,
just to say the UK is leaving next week.
Best wishes.
Dave
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many of the other 250million odd EU residents appreciate how lucky they are that the "elite" are busy stitcching them up with unelected representatives, or wasn't this part of the constitution/treaty? How many of them would relish the opportunity to "vote" for Bliar? Or, doesn't he relish the idea of testing the "court of pubic opinion", and no, it isn't a typo.
Complain about this comment
#25 Wirralwesleyan:
It's all well and good to say we should move on, but the simple fact is that on the continually closer political union of Europe the people of this conutry have not been given any say, despite a clear manifesto promise by Tony Blair in 2005. Maybe we are starting to see now why the promised referendum was not delivered. You simply cannot dragoon people into a political union against their wishes without serious political consequences, up to and including social disorder. We have had a warning already with the rise in support for the BNP. At some point the festering boil on the British body politic has got to be lanced or we will all pay a very heavy price.
If political union with Europe is such a good idea for this country, why are its proponents not willing to engage in public discussion on the subject, outline what they see as the benefits, and then, after those on the other side of the argument have had their say too, trust the electorate to make the decision; that is how democracy is supposed to work. It is ironic in the extreme that we are deploying British soldiers to risk their lives in Afghanistan to install democracy there whilst denying it to the British people here at home.
Cameron will have to find a way of squaring the circle if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified before our general election, whoever is installed as "president". Unless he can satisfy the millions of embittered and disenfranchised electors with a concrete promise that they will get a democratic say on the European union, he can kiss goodbye to their votes which will leach away to UKIP, or worse still the BNP. Either way it may result in a hung parliament, or even (whisper it very quietly) another term for Labour. The British public were betrayed by Blair in 2005 over the referendum - millions of votes are there to be harvested by the Tories, simply by behaving in a proper democratic manner and giving the people their say on Europe at the ballot box. It is their country after all. Simply trying to fudge the issue will no longer work, and if he does, then frankly he deserves to lose.
Complain about this comment
8. At 2:17pm on 27 Oct 2009, brownnothankyou wrote:
Blair has the support of S Berlusconi. That says it all!!!
All we need is the dodgy lord to get involved and the trilogy will be complete!!!
What about Prescott for President , at least we would have a laugh!!!
===
And maybe Blair and Berlusconi's friend David Mills could be drafted in to sign off the EU accounts for the first time in 14 years.
He's a bit of a whiz with the old numbers, according to Berlusconi.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8328071.stm
Complain about this comment
hi Nick ... He (Mortimax) spoke of the need for "realism not isolationism" and argued that on every decision in Europe, he favoured "co-operation and co-ordination"
good on you, David
sounding a bit like a proper "PM in Waiting" with that
Complain about this comment
With regard to this whole Lisbon treaty thing, why should the ratification be the end of the process? After all, when the Irish voted NO, they were told to think about it and vote again. Precedent has been established. I think that the next government of the UK should promise to hold a ratification of the ratification referendum, and if that doesn't produce the right answer, keep holding one until it does.
if it works for them, why shouldn't it work for us?
Complain about this comment
Speaking as a lifelong Tory voter, Cameron will have lost my vote at the next election unless he comes 'clean' on the EU and our position with regards the new constitution - after all, that's what this really is. The ONLY possible option for someone in my position, a rabid anti-EU phobic is with UKIP.
And I think I am not alone. If it opens the way for Brown to have another 5 years, God forbid, at least I know I kept to some kind of principle and that Brown can be at the helm when either he has to make massive public sector cuts or the IMF do it for him.
There's always a silver lining!
Complain about this comment
52. At 2:24pm on 27 Oct 2009, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
42. taxedintotheground
Well you didn’t read past Article 50:
-------------
OK,
now explain to me what that has to do with the UK holding a referendum on the treaty after its been ratified...
Complain about this comment
Whether the treaty is ratified or not, has long since passed in importance.
Whoever becomes the new president of europe will be laughed at worldwide as not having been given the mandate of the people of europe to represent them.
The problem is its another layer of unaccountable politicians,who will milk the system for every penny they can wring out of it.
I was pro europe in the 1970's but didnt foresee the virus that has been created,and how it would infect us all.
Complain about this comment
carrots @ 18
William Hague sums it all up rather well
if that's what I think it is, it's a fabulous piece of comedy! (it really is too)
why do you think I call them the Clowns?
Complain about this comment
It was only a matter of time before the intellectual level of this thread was brought down. welcome comrades.
On a non-party political basis, is anybody seriosuly suggesting that only one person is suitable to hold the post of un-elected president of the USE? Is there nobody in Lithuania, Poland, Malta or Greece who would be better qualified than Bliar? is there?
Complain about this comment
53. At 2:30pm on 27 Oct 2009, cping500 wrote:
May 10th 2010
Dear Tony,
just to say the UK is leaving next week.
Best wishes.
Dave
-----------
Just to play devils advocate (as previously stated i am pro-EU but recognise the depth of burearocracy in its current form)
`Dear Dave,
sorry to hear you wish to terminate the relationship.
Please find enclosed a list of items and moneys which we have contributed to the union through the course of the marrriage.
Please let us know when you will be able to return these goods or how you are going to financially compensate us for them.
I understand that feel you may have contributed more to the relationship than you have received. If this is the case please have your lawyers contact our lawyers.
Thinking of you,
Tony'
Complain about this comment
#64 Mr Caesar,
I suspect, if you check deeply enough, that you will find that we have paid in a lot more than we've got out of the EU, and I also suspect that we might be buying more from them than they buy from us, and I also suspect that their fishing fleets (El Fishing veseels from Espana) might just be removing more fish from our waters (in the name of the common fishing policy) than our ships do. In short, we will be better off out than in, by any means of measurement that you choose.
Complain about this comment
Cameron appears to be speaking some sense at last. Thanks to the coward Brown signing up to the treaty, Cameron's hands will be tied and a referendum will be a waste of tax payers time and money.
Hopefully, the crowning of 'President' Blair won't happen before the next UK election and if the Tories win, it will never happen.
Complain about this comment
Hello, what's happened here Nick?
Have you found a topic that doesn't generate lots of comment from your attentive bloggers?
Are they all on half term?
Do they find themselves uncomfrtable with the subject, since they might be sees as supportive of Bliar, or at least supportive of an undemocratic movement to foist him, not just on us, but on the whole of europe as an unelected president?
Complain about this comment
65. At 3:11pm on 27 Oct 2009, U14147588 wrote:
#64 Mr Caesar,
I suspect, if you check deeply enough, that you will find that we have paid in a lot more than we've got out of the EU, and I also suspect that we might be buying more from them than they buy from us, and I also suspect that their fishing fleets (El Fishing veseels from Espana) might just be removing more fish from our waters (in the name of the common fishing policy) than our ships do. In short, we will be better off out than in, by any means of measurement that you choose.
----------
i wasn't actually trying to imply otherwise.
I was trying to portray a future scenario whereby The EU treat britains departure like a messy divorce and brings in the lawyers to try get as much out of us as they possibly can by way of a settlement.
Nevermind.
comrade.
Complain about this comment
surely....if the irish had concessions in order to get the treaty yes vote,and el gordo (he with the grin that behaves like a tick) signed the treaty b/4 this change then the uk should have to review the treaty again (all for 1 and 1 for all) otherwise what is there to stop the czech republic (say) getting an opt out of EU budgetary contributions or the Germans (signs are there to stop you getting run over by our vehicles) for that matter.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
why do you think I call them the Clowns?"
Because you are blindly biased and think you are being clever?
Complain about this comment
To have a someone with a uk perspective as president would only be good for the country.
Elected or unelected it does not really matter as long as the country gets going again.
Complain about this comment
67#
Well, working and soon to be living in Europe full time anyway, I cant say I really give a fig any more.
The interesting thing to watch from this side of La Manche is whether when the reality sinks in and things start being controlled from over here is whether it is going to be enough to finally rouse the electorate from their apathetic stupour that they have been in for the last 10 years.
This is what voter apathy gets you. Not an awful lot of sympathy, I'm afraid.
To those who are bothered about it, you may find your ire would be better taken out on your local MP than on here. Let him or her know how you feel. Give them the GBH of the earholes. Dont give them a moments rest. Get down to their surgeries and give 'em what for. Thats what they're there for. If they wont come to you, you go to them.
If enough of you do it and play your part, who knows where it might get you.
Oh and Nick:
You go missing for the best part of a week, the postal service is falling to bits, the Government back-track on the TA, theres the Neather question, the growth figures caught everyone by surprise, Gordon says theres less than 50 days to save the world - and this is the best you can do?
Wheres Laura when you need her?
Complain about this comment
"U14147588 wrote:
#64 Mr Caesar,
In short, we will be better off out than in, by any means of measurement that you choose."
We MAY be better off out than in - however if the treaty does pass into law we can't just take our ball and go home we will have to negotiate the way we leave, and the negotiations are unlikely to go in our favour.
UKIP probably won't explain this as it would seriously cost them votes (being that they are a single issue party).
We could end up out of the EU but still actually paying for it and hence getting all the negatives and none of the positives (and yes there are many) that comes from membership.
Complain about this comment
Spent a few days in Brussels over Easter on a study tour looking at various aspects of the European Commission and the European Parliament.
I didn't get to meet any MEPs (all on a holiday break) but the officials we met certainly seemed to know their stuff.
I got the impression, that any potential president from the UK with a dodgy history might not be welcomed with open arms by everyone! I think that no-one wants a repeat of the 'Italian situation' too close to the centre of European power!
Would replacing a house roof with public monies plus the destruction of evidence of dodgy 'expenses' claims just weeks before resigning fall into this category.
As a taxpaying citizen voter of the UK and the EU, I would suggest that Blair be overlooked this time around...... at least until we find out exactly how many MPs (past and present) are going to be doing porridge when the Fraud Act 2006 is finally put into operation!.......
Or can an EU president operate effectively from behind a locked cell door?......
And anyway....... would the support of ANYONE from this UK Fraudsters' Parliament be ANY recommendation for a post in Europe!
Complain about this comment
Interesting comment - David Cameron has found a third way on Europe for the Tories - and it may enable him to neutralise the difficult position he and the comments of Boris and William Hague have got him into. As many of the saner contributors have pointed out we have a vested interest in, and need to be leading from the heart of Europe. However as many of the manic right (many of whose gibbering you can read on this page) will not be satisfied unless there is a referendum. If enough of these defect to UKIP he may not win the majority he needs.
His biggest mistake was in posturing and trying to make political capital on Europe. Anyone with any sanity knows we need to be in there influencing it with the massive agendas on climate change, the Middle East and relations with the BRIC countries let alone security and banking regulation. All his 'one policy at a time' on Europe and the referendum has done is make it look like as if he is indecisive and led by events. So rather than being seen as a little Englander - he looks more like the village idiot.
It will eventually be a difficult lesson but he will learn that if you are a leader you will make yourself unpopular. Unless he is scared of saying how anti European he is.
Complain about this comment
#71 dear old departed soul singer
Don't, on any account, hold your breath whilst waiting for your aspirations to transpire. If you are already holding your breath, please, I implore you, start breathing again before its too late.
I can't help feeling that we are all being softened up for something much worse than Bliar as EU president, and that Sarkozy is going to leap out on us, going "Surprise"
Complain about this comment
3. At 12:42pm on 27 Oct 2009, Exiledscot52 wrote:
"I think that an unelected el Presidente would be a bad thing as well.
To acclaim Tony Blair to this position would be a travesty, he walked away from British politics, took a position promising to change the Middle East"
Did you not notice the Iraq war? Tony sure helped change the middle east!
Taking my tongue out of my cheek its unreasonable to accuse Blair of somehow 'failing' because the Israelis and Palestinians aren't holding hands singing 'Imagine'. Neither side seem to have any real interest in making peace as this would require some sort of compromise. If Blair COULD solve the Arab-Israeli conflict he'd deserve to be made unelected President of the World because it would be a miracle on a par with rising from the dead.
Complain about this comment
As I understand it the reason why Ireland had a referendum was that their constitution demanded it. Could Cameron once elected pass legislation (perhaps as part of the Human Rights Act) that any future EU Treaty would require the agreement of the British people - I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure something could be worked out.
This would get him out of having a meaningless referendum but he could state categorically that he has "drawn a line in the sand" for the future. It would get my vote because one of my complaints has been that each and every EU agreement has been sold as the last and has turned out to be only the next stage.
Complain about this comment
MWE @ 70
because you think you are being clever?
somebody has to be, Mark ... doesn't bother you too much, does it?
Complain about this comment
We held a referendum in 1975/6 on the EU or whatever it was called then. I suppose that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty precludes the UK holding another one? Also if the Irish and the Czech have made alterations to the treaty does this mean it is now different from the one that GB sneakily signed on our behalf? If it is can we declare it null and void?
Complain about this comment
I'm unclear will David Cameron call for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
If he is elected will he have a referendum?
Complain about this comment
I'm absolute flabbergsated that Tony Blair would even be considered for the job of President of Europe! Where were the powers that be when Blair connived his way through two stints as Prime Minister of Great Britain - do they not see the long term damage he has done to this country? Do they not see how he has de-stabalised peace throughout the world? Do they not see that he proved to be a wolf in sheeps clothing, only interested in promoting himself?
Surely the President of Europe (what a depressing thought that is!)should be above reproach. Em.....that's going to be difficult, but Tony Blair should not be in the running
Complain about this comment
I'm just a little concerned about seeking the deeper meaning of the word "rat-ify" but that looks like what this great morass of people - politicians and their groupies are doing: giving us over to the rats.
Complain about this comment
#73
Difficult to rerally understand your proposition. I accept it will require negotiation, but we are in a striong position becuase we are NOT in the euro, so our domestic finances (appalling as they may be) are ours, and we don't have to suffer the complications of re-instating our own national currency.
It's fairly simple - we stop paying. We are immediately better off. We re-establish control over our own coaastal waters, and don't issue fishing licence to what are now foreign fleets. We are immediatley better off. We can have a stronger (not difficult to imagine) border control, particularly at the channel ports, throwing the illegal immigrant problem firmly into the EU court.
Complain about this comment
There is a simple way to deal with any ratified treaty. Just tear it up and ignore it. And, yes we can, especially if the ECA is repealed at the same time as the Humans Rights Act. What are the EU going to do? Send storm troopers along the Channel Tunnel? And no, they cannot afford to impose sanctions either. We are just too used to being lead by a bunch of spineless self-servers.
Complain about this comment
#72 What back track on the TA? One drill night a month in order to save a poxy £20Million (slightly less than 1 mile of widening the M1) rather than no drill nights for 6 months is effectively the same nonsense. Its not so much a back track as a minor token.
My great-grandfather was TA in 1914 and went off to France with 800 comrades. He came back in 1919 with 2 of them still alive. My grandfather was TA until called up to the regular army and sent off to El Alamein and the invasion of Sicily, my father a TA doctor and served on Canberra in the Falklands and in Kuwait in the '91 Gulf war. I served as a radio operator in a TA medium armoured recon regt. and spent 5 months in Croatia in 1996.
I quit soon after coming back... I was sent out with no body armour whatsoever, with a defective rifle that jammed if I put more than 27 rounds in a 30 round magazine to operate radios that were effectively line of sight in a heavily mountainous country and with a fraction of the training I needed. That was with John Major in no 10 so this is hardly a new problem.
Virtually all our army specialists, especially medical and engineering are TA. WE HAVE NO REGULAR ARMY DOCTORS ANY MORE. Giving someone 2 hours a month training as preparation for maybe going to war is damn near murder. The govts decision is contemptable but I haven't heard Cameron or Clegg screaming abuse about it either.
Complain about this comment
#78 "As I understand it the reason why Ireland had a referendum was that their constitution demanded it. Could Cameron once elected pass legislation (perhaps as part of the Human Rights Act) that any future EU Treaty would require the agreement of the British people - I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure something could be worked out."
That would be utter madness for a politician to try and pass. English law works on precident so if he somehow passed a law (ignoring the fact that EU law supercedes national law) saying we needed a referendum on a major policy decision it would lead to a mass of law suits demanding that every major policy decision be put to referendum. Much as I like the idea of Athentian style democracy a referendum a day would get very tedious and very expensive.
Complain about this comment
81. At 3:55pm on 27 Oct 2009, balancedthought wrote:
I'm unclear
------------
Could have just left it at that.
Complain about this comment
#33 JPSLotus79
Yes Teflon Tony who in 2005 signed away our budget rebate when he increased our net contribution to Brussels from £2.8bn to £4.1bn?
When the deal was done Teflon Tony claimed that the extra lolly was in return for reform of the CAP. But it soon became clear that there was to be no such reform, the French and German leaders had met a few weeks before the budget deal and agreed a slight increase in farm spending, from 40 to 44 per cent of the total budget.
Yep let’s make Teflon Tony ‘El Presidente’ and commensurate with his new position he can wear the inaugural robes of a jester. After all he was a joke in the UK.
Next year whilst we the public are struggling under a massive mountain of debt a place in EU will cost the UK 60% more next year.
An increase of £23bn from £4.1bn - 6.4bn.
Complain about this comment
U14147588 wrote about not granting fishing licenses.....
Great but we don't have any ships to enforce them.....
Blair and Brown have sent them all to the gulf!!!!
Better still I don't think we have any AWACS type capability to spot them from the air either.
Complain about this comment
Nick you should mention Labour's multi-cultural experiment to let in masses of migrants under Blair, how strange there is no mention of it by the Labour bias BBC ???
Complain about this comment
Must have said something contentious or complicated in post 76.
Complain about this comment
#19 sircomespect: "Blair pretty much created the role with the full knowledge that he intended to become this entity.
There is no doubt about that."
This is I think the third time I have seen this statement of 'fact'. Do you, or indeed anybody else on here, have any evidence to support it? It is bad enough seeing the floods of one-eyed opinion that dominates this blog without having to put up with the wildest conspiracy theory masquerading as 'fact'.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 57 and 62
"why do you think I call them the Clowns?"
Well, you, saga, call them the clowns because you hope that a bit of name-calling will get you some propagandist advantage. You are wrong, of course, but that's why you do it.
I see you aluding to "Mortimax" again. That's something you should drop. You lost that argument, remember?
More generally, it is always worth remembering that on Europe, there are two imposrtant facts. One is our payments imbalance, which is about £5bn per year, as far as I recall. The other is our trade deficit with Europe, which is about £30bn per year. Therefore, not only do we pay more than average for the functioning of the EU, but we provide more of a market for EU production than they do for our production. In short, they need us, at least as much as we need them.
In consequence, when Cameron chooses to grasp the nettle and negotiate with Europe for repatriation of powers back to the UK, he will do so from a position of considerable strength. There is already some anecdotal evidence that Hague's campaign against Blair's presidency has gained useful ground. If the campaign actually wins and Blair is sent packing, then that will be an interesting foretaste of what is to come.
My own view is that the EU has the potential to be advantageous to us, but that can only be achieved by pushing it back to being, broadly, a free trade area, rather than accepting the march towards a superstate. If the Tories can show intent to negotiate and, if necessary, bully and shove, to get Europe back to where we need it to be, (rather than continuing Labour's uniformly weak and unsuccessful approach) then I foresee UKIP-style Europhobia becomming a thing of the past.
Complain about this comment
#75 balanced_thought wrote:
"Many of the manic right will not be satisfied unless there is a referendum"
Presumably the manic right include the writers of the Labour and LibDem election manifestos.
I'm not sure that the EU is a left/right issue. The opposition to the Common Market in the original referendum was led by Enoch Powell and Michael Foot on the right and left respectively.
Actually I would vote against the Lisbon Treaty, but against withdrawing from the EU. I doubt that the 'Out' vote would win a majority of votes in a referendum because moderate euro-sceptics would huff and puff, and then vote to stay in.
I think the Conservative Party will find a third way once Lisbon is ratified. Possibly we will be given a written constitution. The unwritten one makes it too easy for the likes of Blair and Mandeleson to disregard it.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
MWE @ 70
because you think you are being clever?
somebody has to be, Mark ... doesn't bother you too much, does it?"
I am sure that you would agree that there is a big difference between thinking you are clever and actually being clever Saga!
It annoys me a little as you generally come out with some valid points so when you resort to calling the Tories "clowns" or Cameron "Mortimax" it just seems a bit cheap - especially when there are few enough people on here willing to defend New Labour regardless of how bad things get.
Complain about this comment
25
60% of our trade may be with Europe but 80% of our imports are from there giving a massive balance of payments deficit approaching 60 billion a year. This is the real cost to us of membership. Also a large proportion of the 60% is financial and insurance services, not manufactured goods etc.
Our politicians should get us more bang for our bucks rather than tamely accede to every demand.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be this ridiculous idea among our politicians that we should back Blair purely because he's British, which is a typically provincial, short-sighted attitude. The role itself is a disaster, because there's absolutely no way any senior politician is going to be happy with a purely chairman-style role, so power is slowly but surely going to ebb away from the sovereign states and towards Brussels. But if we must have someone in the role, we most certainly do not want a lying, warmongering megalomaniac who has a proven track record for doing anything he can to add to his "legacy".
I don't know, it seems the political elite just decide what they want and go ahead with it, and there's nothing we can do about it. Surely no person of sound mind would want Tony Blair anywhere near any role of significant influence, so he certainly wouldn't be a popular choice. Then again, with the attitudes held by a lot of people in this country, a murderer would probably be more popular than a German or French candidate. The Swedes know what they're doing when it comes to politics - let's put them in charge.
Tony Blair ruling the EU - the very notion makes me fear for the survival of the human race, it really does.
Complain about this comment
4. At 12:47pm on 27 Oct 2009, djlazarus wrote:
" ....
It's not Cameron's fault per se, he's just wising up to the reality that NuLabour haven't left us with a choice."
SB2: Don't agree. It is never too late. It will just become more obvious that we have to leave if Blair or somebody like him is Lord of the European flies.
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair ... he's become such an unpopular figure, hasn't he? - absolutely nobody bar one or two New Labour die hards wants him to become the President of Europe - and no wonder
just think about it:
- the man who hijacked Labour and, togther with his careerist cronies, took that noble party so far from its socialist roots as to become unrecognisable
- the man who struck a deal with Gordon Brown which he didn't have to and then allowed him to range unchallenged over economic and domestic policy to the detriment of all of us
- the man who got so carried away with his success in Northern Irelend that he thought he could singlehandedly solve every problem on the face of the earth
- the man who, because of the above, bullied and cajoled us into an ill advised junior (to America) invader of Iraq role which has led to hundreds of brave British soldiers being killed and maimed for no particular reason that anyone can see
god
but you know what? I forgive him all of that because of one thing he did; one thing he did that was truly unforgettable - 1st May 1997 - that demolition of the Tories - sure, they'd have won anyway but the sheer "exterminate the clowns" scale of it! ... that was Tony
I was present (well of course I was!) for the birth of my first child but as a life enhancing "connect me with the Gods" experience, it wasn't even close
First of May, year of our Lord one nine nine seven:
the best night of my life bar none
Thank you Mr Blair, and good luck in your new job
Complain about this comment
9. At 1:10pm on 27 Oct 2009, purpleDogzzz wrote:
"Is it true that Vaclav Klaus is to offer the Czechs a referendum on this Lisbon Reform Treaty? "
SB2: I hope you are right. I believe it is what he should do. Do you have any source for the suggestion?
Complain about this comment
You think it would be a good idea to have an utterly meaningless referendum on a treaty thats already been ratified?
There's just no arguing with that kind of bloody-mindedness.
Maybe if the treaty is ratified we could all put our fingers in our ears, shout 'la-la-la' and pretend it hasn't been.
Because that will be as exactly as effective (and far cheaper) as holding a referendum after the treaty has been ratified.
****************************
Quite simply the only referendum that should be for IN or OUT of the EU.
Whether Cameron likes it or not he has to find out from the people what they really want. He wouldn't be obliged to act on the result, but at least he would know that he either has or hasn't a mandate to deal with Europe.
I'm sure that he and others at the Tory Conference were telling us about how Government had to get back to working for us.
Now's the time to put it to the test>
Complain about this comment
"U14147588 wrote:
#73
Difficult to rerally understand your proposition. I accept it will require negotiation, but we are in a striong position becuase we are NOT in the euro, so our domestic finances (appalling as they may be) are ours, and we don't have to suffer the complications of re-instating our own national currency."
We are not in THAT strong a position, a large amount of our trading is done with the rest of the EU and so they could threaten to make it harder for us to trade in the zone - this could put us at an instant disadvantage when it comes to trading with other countries in the EU.
An even worse case is that this could also apply to "British made" goods which would encourage multi-nationals to move to other European countries to remain competitive.
"It's fairly simple - we stop paying. We are immediately better off. We re-establish control over our own coaastal waters, and don't issue fishing licence to what are now foreign fleets. We are immediatley better off. We can have a stronger (not difficult to imagine) border control, particularly at the channel ports, throwing the illegal immigrant problem firmly into the EU court."
The problem is that you can't just "stop paying" - treaties are legally binding and there are usually stiff penalties for breaking them.
It is possible that exit from the EU could be handled cleanly but the likelyhood is that it probably won't be.
Complain about this comment
UKIP!
I suspect that the trouble with UKIP is that they have policies other than those about leaving the EU or the direct aftermath.
IMUO:
UKIP should not have a policy on nuclear power. Individual candidates might and they should have policies which reflect the area they are in.
Their policies should be:
1) Withdraw fro the "EU"
2) Change the lousy voting system which got us into this mess. I suggest the Single Transferable Vote system.
3) New elections when this is done with UKIP being disbanded.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym 87
Your argument against a law obliging a referendum on future treaties is that "English law works on precident (sic)".
In fact, the principle of precedent really applies to civil law only, and even then only in a quite limited way. It doesn't apply to the criminal law and, most pertinent to this case, it doesn't apply to constitutional law.
My understanding is that it is declared Conservative policy to bring in just such a law. I don't imagine it will be too hard to formulate it so that we don't actually have to have a referendum every week. I also imagine the sort of problems you anticipate, with legal challenge to every policy decision can be effectively drafted out.
There should have been a referendum over Lisbon. There should also have been a referendum over Maastricht. Cameron is effectively acknowledging the practical, which is that we can't go back over those decisions, but we can isolate them and prevent the fundamental anti-democratic error from being repeated.
Complain about this comment
80. At 3:51pm on 27 Oct 2009, Exiledscot52 wrote:
" ... if the Irish and the Czech have made alterations to the treaty does this mean it is now different from the one that GB sneakily signed on our behalf? If it is can we declare it null and void? "
SB2: I have declared it null and void!! For me it is null and void!!! I know that I am not alone!!!
Complain about this comment
In view of the fact that the Tories are completely split on the European question, Kenneth Clark has described their policy as 'barmy',the leaders of the countries in the EU, who will make the decision concerning the President, will not have the slightest interest in the views of ex members of the thuggish Bullingdon Club or fourteen pint a day little Willie Hague. It is expected that UKIP will do enormous damage to the Tory vote in the south of England in the forthcoming general election because of the stupidity of their leadership.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix
By your own account he trashed your party, sold his soul to Brown, would have difficulty controlling kids in a sweetshop, took us into Iraq and Afghanistan and you think he is wonderful? Sorry I can't see an election victory counter balancing that lot.
With his record according to you I might not shout too loudly about Northern Ireland.....
You have a particularly one eyed view of life and politics in particular.
I find your post interesting until you launch into such a diatribe.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 100
You seem to be saying that you hate the Conservatives so much that you don't care about collateral damage on any scale, so long as damage is done to the Tories.
It's an interesting watermark to all your other postings, I think.
Complain about this comment
Re the various comments about leaving the EU.
Should the UK choose to do it and then actually does do it, dont'cha think that others might then consider going down the same route?
The Governments of France and Holland have already learnt not to give their people a referendum because they get the wrong answer, but surely that also indicated an undercurrent of dis-satisfaction with the EU in other Countries apart from the UK.
Knowing that Europe is going to have to deal with large influxes of Eastern European migrants - should we exit - instead of just watching them transit through on there way here, might just make others tart considering their position in Europe too.
Once one Country breaks ranks it might just lead to a reversal back to the original idea of a trading bloc.
Mind you I can't see politicians allowing a gravy train the size of Brussels to hit the buffers without a fight!!
Complain about this comment
I thought that as we did not have a written constitution that the whole of constitutional law was in fact based on precedent?
Complain about this comment
braveSouter 107
"In view of the fact that the Tories are completely split on the European question, Kenneth Clark has described their policy as 'barmy',the leaders of the countries in the EU, who will make the decision concerning the President, will not have the slightest interest in the views of ex members of the thuggish Bullingdon Club or fourteen pint a day little Willie Hague. It is expected that UKIP will do enormous damage to the Tory vote in the south of England in the forthcoming general election because of the stupidity of their leadership."
Blimey. Reality clearly has yet to visit you, Mr B.S.!
Complain about this comment
102. At 4:45pm on 27 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
Quite simply the only referendum that should be for IN or OUT of the EU.
Whether Cameron likes it or not he has to find out from the people what they really want.
----------
Thats exactly where i've reached.
I am pro eu membership (3rd time today i've mentioned it) but the UK has come to a point where the clamour for withdrawal is reaching a deafening pitch.
It may just be artificial, partially engineered by certain newspaper proprietors, with other global business interests who are on the record as saying they are against the EU because they feel it is damaging to those global businesses on a personal level.
It may be that UKIP have managed to convince the British public that the costs & benefits of EU membership really can be boiled down to a simple £60,000,000 a day with absolutely nothing to show for it.
It may just be that most people really just don't like the idea of working with strangers.
Whatever.we won't know without a referendum.
Until there is a referendum on UK membership in the EU the clamour of the antis will continue and the UK/EU relationship can never progress. All we can do at present is act as a negative force, holding back those countries who are commited to the union.
So, in conclusion,
Referendum on EU membership ASAP.
and god help us all.
Complain about this comment
With a lot of people saying here about not being able to leave the EU something I haven't seen mentioned is one of the founding principles of Parliament (and therefore technically our constitution) is that "No Act of Parliament may be made secure from amendment or repeal by a future Parliament"
As one post above mentions that an individual countries constitution can override the Lisbon treaty the next UK government can use this rule of Government Supremacy to undo all the powers ceeded to the EU from the UK.
There is a way out, but if we take it would the EU ever let us back in at a future time?
Complain about this comment
114. At 5:26pm on 27 Oct 2009, HardWorkingHobbes wrote:
....There is a way out, but if we take it would the EU ever let us back in at a future time?
*************
Would we want to go back in?
Actually I suspect that should one Country leave the EU others would follow.
Complain about this comment
100 sagaminx
I forgive him all of that because of one thing he did; one thing he did that was truly unforgettable - 1st May 1997 - that demolition of the Tories .......
I was present (well of course I was!) for the birth of my first child but as a life enhancing "connect me with the Gods" experience, it wasn't even close
First of May, year of our Lord one nine nine seven:
the best night of my life bar none
Thank you Mr Blair, and good luck in your new job
=====================================================
A remarkable post even by your own standards, and not the sort of thing that would be associated with a self declared "floating voter" such as yourself.
You really do need to get out more, you certainly seem desperately in need of some positive experiences.
Actually, many of us feel the same way that you describe about the GE. David Cameron will be remember for getting rid of Gordon Brown and his PG Tips advert of a government. Whatever happens after that is of secondary importance.
Complain about this comment
The one redeeming feature, if Bliar becomes EU president, is that it is but a short hop to the Hague when he is indicted for war crimes
Complain about this comment
ExiledScot52 111
"I thought that as we did not have a written constitution that the whole of constitutional law was in fact based on precedent?"
Indeed, we have an unwritten constitution, and therefore our constitutional principles are based on precedent. But we also have a whole load of constitutional law, which is all written and very specific. Examples of written constitutional law:
Magna Carta
The Reform Acts
The Representation of the People Act
The Human Rights Act
Complain about this comment
How dare these little men and women who run the petty little European states deprive the people of a say in electing the President of Europe!
If they pick one of their own he or she will be President of the clique that picked him or her, not the president of the people of Europe. They have set up a system that cheats the people of a vote! It is a stich up!
We should all have a vote - all 450 million of us. Don't say the electorate is too big, as India manages it with double the population!
It is just the arrogance of the arrogant little people who run our states that is barring the people from having a vote. We should demand a democratic vote!!!
(OK I know that is not the system, but the reason why even Tony Blair does not seem to keen on the job is that even he sees that it an almost complete lack of any democratic credibility.)
I am also all for continued membership of the EU and I see it as critical to the future of our small offshore island and its renewed prosperity. I will argue the point with any and all anti-Europeans if called upon to do so! Getting out is the first step on the road to oblivion and the destruction of our country.
Complain about this comment
If we must have a British ex-politician as president of the EU, what about Paddy Ashdown? He has the merit that he actually knows a thing or two about international relations and isn't detested by most of Europe.
Complain about this comment
The great problem of the EU is that the Council of Ministers consists of nationally elected politicians who naturally are mainly interested in getting decisions which will please their voters back home. The European Parliament is the same. There is no one whose primary concern is the collective interests of all EU citizens.
Having a President is a small step towards dealing with this problem, but he or she ought to be elected directly by all of the EU's voters, ideally by STV, not just by the Council of Ministers.
Tony Blair, who would not even get the support of a majority of UK voters is totally unsuitable.
Complain about this comment
at what point will the people of this country be allowed to have any sort of refferendum or open vote on these european policies.
and with tony blair been pushed as european president that has to be the lamest idea i have heard since the formation of the neu-labour party.
sadly the voters of this country have been knee capped by the government over european policies just becouse they know the majority would disagree with what they want and they would look foolish.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
jr perry @ 109
You seem to be saying that you hate the Conservatives
you're on the ball today I see, JR!
it's like a man who's been up in the attic for the last 20 years playing model railways, and then one day his wife bursts in, all surprised ... "you're fiddling around with those silly little trains again, aren't you dear?" she exclaims
Complain about this comment
I'd also like to ask why this is the top feature in politics for your blog Nick, when
Tessa Jowell's husband loses his appeal...
An MP is asked to pay back £60,000 for his abuse of the ACA...
Complain about this comment
If Cameron wants to be next PM of Britain then he had better promise and deliver a referendum on Europe. If he does not then a lot of winnable Labour seats will stay Labour when the punters vote for UKIP or , whisper it... the BNP and split the Tory vote.
Complain about this comment
124 sagamix
Of course if you had quoted the whole sentence.... The rest goes "...so much that you don't care about collateral damage on any scale, so long as damage is done to the Tories".
Hatred has a peculiar blinding, isolating, dementing quality, don't you think? Perhaps you have been up in that loft just too long.
Complain about this comment
#78, maidstonerichard wrote:
"As I understand it the reason why Ireland had a referendum was that their constitution demanded it. Could Cameron once elected pass legislation (perhaps as part of the Human Rights Act) that any future EU Treaty would require the agreement of the British people - I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure something could be worked out."
Maidstonerichard,
I am no lawyer. I struggled to read the actual Lisbon Treaty and check what the cross-references actually refererd to - and the more narrative version.
As far as I can see, there will be NO further need for additional treaties.
The Lisbon Treaty allows for an internally ratcheting structure. It can change just about anything it wants in the future, subject to some voting arrangements that require weighted majorities. I don't see where any popular or localised objections can be expressed with an absolute guarantee that a single state could say "STOP".
That's what I don't like about it. Over a few years, you wave goodbye to any pretence that this is a "popular" - i.e. citizen approved - way of doing business. Of course, from time to time the citizens will get to elect a bunch of MEPs. But an awful lot of authority seems to be vested in the Heads of Government (NOT Heads of State).
And I don't have to tell you that politicians at that level are not best known for avoiding anything that could grease their paths to power and a fortune.
I'm trying to find the last "wealth producing" action by the EU. Not a tax redistribution effort - that's easy.
I like the idea of pan-European co-operation. Old enough to have voted for an EEC. Still waiting for that. And I didn't really want a remote political mob to decide that my children will be subject to exactly the same regulations that have to apply in Greece, Sweden, Latvia or Portugal. (Doesn't work, anyway, as individual countries seem to pick and choose what bits they apply. Good old UK goes at it hammer and tongs. Any bit of legislation or regulation - whether from Brussels or Westminster - gets done to death before the "Oh, does that what it really mean" kicks in. We have enough bad legislation produced locally. Even that is poorly scrutinised, badly framed, awfully implemented and frequently creates a mess. It's hard enough coping with one overweening bunch of politicians, let alone a second tier of self-preserving types. I mean, just who would have made Kinnock an EU Commissioner?)
Too late. In case we forget, Blair promised a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. He backed away when French and Dutch voters voted NO. If the UK had been given the chance to vote then, maybe the slimy Giscard d'Estang may have been a little more frightened before he and his mates came up with a good wheeze to develop 95-98% of the same thing, but wrapped up in obfuscation.
I've always been a "European" - but I don't like European politicians any more than I like UK politicians. It's hard enough to put up with one bunch. Not too happy paying for even more.
Complain about this comment
119. At 5:53pm on 27 Oct 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:
....I am also all for continued membership of the EU and I see it as critical to the future of our small offshore island and its renewed prosperity. I will argue the point with any and all anti-Europeans if called upon to do so! Getting out is the first step on the road to oblivion and the destruction of our country.
********************************
Care to explain why those European Countries that aren't part of the EU are doing as well, if not better, than the UK then?
The EU does not exist to serve its people, only its politicians. That's why we're not included in the decidsion making process. We might spoil their scam.
Complain about this comment
62. sagamix
Evening Sagamix
Sure they are clowns all of them but they are our clowns and we get to elect them and boot them out of office whne they fail to amuse. So thats good.
Complain about this comment
How about the Swiss model, free trade and free movement of labour, nothing else, what’s wrong with that.
Given that the UK imports much more from other EU countries than we export, they are hardly likely to impose huge tariffs on our goods are they.
Europhiles claim that if Britain left the EU then countries from outside Europe (such as Japan and America) would invest less. This is nonsense. Britain attracts more outside investment than other European countries because its labour market is still relatively unregulated. If it was outside the EU Britain could take advantage of its independence to reduce the number of regulations limiting foreign companies. EU regulations are already regarded as a minefield. Just ask some of the foreign companies who have had eurocrats leaping up and down all over them. Many would jump at the chance to invest in a less regulated part of Europe.
We contribute far more to the EU than we receive. The only thing we need is free trade and free movement of labour. Like I said the Swiss model works fine.
Obviously calculation the cost of mebership is hard as there are many indirect costs as well as the massive direct ones. Just take the CAP
About 19% of the UK’s agricultural imports come from outside the EU and these
are subject to the Common External Tariff (an EU tax on imports from outside the
EU). So Britain pays twice, first into the CAP, and second through taxes on its food
imports from outside the EU
By 2007 Britain will have made contributions to the EC budget
of almost 66.3 billion net.
By 2013 this figure will be in the region of 299.8 billion gross or 102.2 billion net.
By 2006 Britain had an accumulated trade deficit with EU member states of 359.5 billion.
The Common Agricultural Policy at least 15.6 billion per annum.
The Common Fisheries Policy costs Britain at least 2.5 billion per annum.
Over-regulation is estimated to cost us at least 26 billion per annum.
Membership of the European Union costs Britain Ł60.1 billion per annum gross or Ł50.6 billion net
Some estimates run at nearly 120 billion per annum.
Complain about this comment
jr @ 127
Hatred has a peculiar blinding, isolating, dementing quality, don't you think?
never mind what EYE think, more to the point what do you think? ... you know, the strange old fruit who believes that Labour have rolled out a strategic grand plan (SGP) to keep millions of people poor and on benefits, and shipped in millions more from overseas to "ethnicise" the country; primary purpose of evil SGP being to cement a semi permanent electoral advantage for said Labour party
gee, you must Hate them for it!
Complain about this comment
I'm generally pro-European but the prospect of Blair as EU president may be enough to make me vote UKIP.
On the plus side, at least he'll be closer to The Hague!
Complain about this comment
David Cameron is right. Tony Blair should concentrate his energies on helping to sort out the Middle East.
It is essential that the UK plays a signficant role in building a peaceful and successful EC. We can't do this if we sit on the touchline grumbling about the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone think William Hagues Stand up routine in the commons on this subject was as funny as Conservatives MPs made it out to be? I don't wish to judge their attempts at laughter because they were trying really hard.
William Hagues stand up routine
carrots...
"..Britain Ł60.1.."
You can just type £ Now Carrots..
Complain about this comment
135. dhwilkinson
oH COME ON dhw THAT REALLY WAS VERY FUNNY.
££££
Complain about this comment
and if you look veryvarefully even miliband is laughing
Complain about this comment
132 sagamix
Cheap shot as ever, saga. As I said yesterday, you can show that each element is true, but it's the connectivity (the thing that turns it into a coherent plan, in other words) that you can never prove. As I also said, we never really see a coherent argument from you against the idea of a plan to form voting cohorts, just your little efforts to classify and lampoon the people who express it. If you had any real knowledge of modern political history, you would have come back at me with the accusation (far easier to prove) that the Tories tried to create their own electoral cohort through the sale of council houses. But you didn't think of that one, which was the most interesting result of the evening, I thought.
Complain about this comment
Those who object to a Blair presidency ignore the role of political personality on the world stage.It is not necessary to like a leader to use their skills.To need to like someone is to sentimentalize power instead of regarding it as a means,an instrument.
The question to ask is whether Mr.Blair is capable of changing the EU? It is a cumberson,unwieldy,bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organization.But it is essential that Britain as a medium power is part of a powerful federation in an era of globalization.
Mr.Cameron has belatedly recognized this, he is now signalling he is not about to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty if elected.
To have a nonentity as president while remaining a member of the EU is a contradiction.It leaves this unwieldy structure unreformed,unresponsive and vulnerable to crisis from within in the present economic climate.
Blair`s strength was as a pragmatic rather than ideological leader of the Labour party,he reversed clause 4,took the party to the centre and reversed 18 years of conservative government.I believe Mr.Cameron is an equally pragmatic leader,and should not be constrained by his eursceptics into entering into a powerful alliance with Mr.Blair to change Europe.
This alliance would be welcomed by the United States,deeply concerned by Mr.Hague`s assessment of a Blair presidency as a hostile act.A Cameron-Blair alliance is indeed the most likely outcome in the event of Mr.Blair becoming president.It would be both powerful and progressive.
Complain about this comment
131. At 7:17pm on 27 Oct 2009, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
"How about the Swiss model, free trade and free movement of labour, nothing else, what’s wrong with that."
SB2: 1) Are you sure that is all there is to it? I thought they paid the "EU" some money.
2) Free movement of labour goes too far and I think that Switzerland will be flooded. Hopefully partly with me.
3) We can have freeish trade vie the WTO and don't need any special relationship with the "EU" at all.
4) Switzerland is in Schengen. I don't know enough about Schengen. I do know that I find much of continental policing highly unacceptable and Sch3engen seems to be about policing. I am fairly confident that I would find it unacceptable if I knew more about it.
I favour leaving the "EU" and trading with them on the basis of WTO rules. I believe that we would still be able to sell stuff to the "EU". If however they were very silly and tried top block trade, that would make life difficult for a while but would still be worth it. I believe that the tax system is very flawed and that if we reformed that we would make up for any disadvantages from leaving the "EU".
I note that a massive load of stuff on sale in the UK comes from China. I have recently been told that it is the same in Austria. China is not in the "EU". You can trade with the "EU" from outside.
* Germans have stated that if we leave the "EU" they should deal with us harshly. I believe that would backfire on them but we would need to be prepared for it. I suggest that businesses that trade mainly with the "EU" should start looking outside the "EU". I suggest that Brits with homes in Spain should sell up and find something in Florida, Canada, Australia or New Zealand or even Japan or even ....
Complain about this comment
136 Carrots...
"oH COME ON dhw THAT REALLY WAS VERY FUNNY."
Look Carrots.. has caps and his lower case mixed up. LOL!
Thats how funny it was.
Complain about this comment
dhw 135
"Did anyone think William Hagues Stand up routine in the commons on this subject was as funny as Conservatives MPs made it out to be?"
It's very good quality satire, in my opinion. I just hope he wrote it himself. As with everything else in that vein, though, it has a finite shelf life. Maybe you've just seen it too many times?
By the way, you can also do apostrophes now.
"Hagues"-->"Hague's"
Complain about this comment
119. At 5:53pm on 27 Oct 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:
How dare these little men and women who run the petty little European states deprive the people of a say in electing the President of Europe!
...
We should all have a vote - all 450 million of us. Don't say the electorate is too big, as India manages it with double the population!
It is just the arrogance of the arrogant little people who run our states that is barring the people from having a vote. We should demand a democratic vote!!!
..."
So we should. But we need a vote on Lisbon first otherwise the whole thing is illegitimate.
Complain about this comment
El Presidente;
I think David "cocky" Cameron will avoid a debate on the EU for as long as he can. Once the EU have fully ratified the Lisbon Treaty how can he possibly have a Referendum -What would the Qustion be - Should we or should we not remain a Member of the EU? I don't think he will ask this do you Nick? Therefore is he going to state what his Party intend to do regarding Europe if ,as expected he becomes PM, again I don't think so.Europe has divided the Tories before and will do again,especially with Clark in the Cabinet.I believe he will continue to dodge the issue until he is forced to address it-probably well into next year.
Complain about this comment
Just thought I would add weight to the view earlier regarding this treaty. It is absolutely true to say that if it goes through it changes the EU forever. Now I am in favour of it - the EU that is - but if you are against it as many of the very UKIP / Tory / bloggers on here seem to be - Then the current conservative position that David Cameron is putting forward -saying that we can change it in the future is completely dishonest. If this becomes well known prior to the election the Pontius Pilot impersonation that he hopes to do if elected will not wash. You would see a major split / march of the right - what would bojo do?
It does look as if Europe would be a major distraction.
I have noticed a weird thing on this site. The overwhelming majority seem to be right wing with Saga and a couple of others being right of centre. If Saga puts forward a left of centre opinion he is being biased - but everyone else is just expressing an opinion - how does that work?
Finally regarding Tony being president I think he would be very good. His leadership during the Bosnian conflict saved many lives. (when Dame Pauline Neville Jones advised Major to sit on his hands) And although he was led by the nose by George Bush there have been less body bags since Saddam than prior. However it is true British arrogance to think there are not other good candidates.
Complain about this comment
Wee baldie was funny, but not as funny as saying appointing Tony Blair would be an act of aggression. The Anti Blair stuff by the shadow cabinet risks them looking vindictive - why bother aren't they trying not to be the nasty Party?
Complain about this comment
140 SuffolkBoy2
Never heard of the Swiss paying the EU anything, might be wrong though. Though I think that their goods attract a small tariff.
Remember we have a trade deficit with the EU. (For example, we have a deficit of over £3 billion a year trade with Germany alone.) The EU countries desperately need our trade. So good luck to Germany and being tough with us.
The EU may impose its external tariff on British exports to Europe. This would make very little difference to British companies - most of whose exports go outside Europe anyway. The World Trade Organisation restricts the EU to an external tariff of around 6% so the effect would, in any case, be quite small. (Britain would almost certainly be able to negotiate for itself a smaller tariff - in the way that Switzerland has. This would drive down the cost of leaving the EU still further.
Complain about this comment
I am pro the EU and pro the proposal that Tony Blair is put forward as our nominee for the President post.. it is about time we had more power in that organisation and would you rather we had someone from a small Eastern European State or France or Germany in charge...we are an appalling country at backbiting away at any success I always put it down to the jealousy of those who are unable to do anything themselves being convulsed with jealousy at the people who are able to do things
Complain about this comment
I think Cameron has hit the buffers on Europe..does he even understand what it is about..and he is in with the wrong crowd..so what will he do apologise to his followers on a big mistake ...doubt it ..he is from Eton you know and they are always right or so they have been told
Complain about this comment
145 balancedthought
"I have noticed a weird thing on this site. "
"The overwhelming majority seem to be right wing with Saga and a couple of others being right of centre."
=============================
Sagaminx is one of the few who wish to see the current government win the election and contiue in power - even if it's only because he dislikes the tories so much. Wanting Gordon Brown re-elected - and not electing a tory government, as per sagaminx's wishes, would mean just that - is hardly "right of centre".
There are many weird things on this blog, many of them coming from sagaminx, and it looks like you've joined him.
Complain about this comment
#139, bryhers wrote:
".... It is not necessary to like a leader to use their skills.To need to like someone is to sentimentalize power instead of regarding it as a means,an instrument.
The question to ask is whether Mr.Blair is capable of changing the EU? It is a cumberson,unwieldy,bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organization..."
bryhers,
Can you give me a real example of how Blair changed the cumbersome, unwieldy, bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organisation within the UK?
How many QANGOs do we have today, compared to when Blair became PM and Brown promised a "bonfire of the QANGOs"?
Every QANGO is simply a mechanism to distance Ministers and their government departments from the practicalities of processing tax-payers' money.
OK, they may be staffed at executive level by cronies - appointed by the Westminster set - but all the Ministers do is shrug and say, "Not me, guv. It's those other folk. Yeah, well, we may have appointed them, but they are just arms-length folk, aren't they?"
As if QANGOs were a necessary evil and the fact that they consume far too much in administrative costs just "happens". Like evolution threw up odd fungal growths that real people couldn't deal with?
How many of those hundreds of QANGOs actually cover areas that government departments used to deal with, in a fairly decent way, previously?
Why do you need a new CEO - in some cases paid more than the responsible Minister - to do stuff that the Civil Service could handle much cheaper?
Just political rhubarb, isn't it?
Goodness knows how many new EU bodies would be invented to try and match the UK system of maladministration. Just so the additional layers of politicians and bureaucrats can say "Well - see. We had good ideas, but those odd people we appointed didn't do as well as we hoped."
Just check how many layers of administration stand between a specialist nurse and the money delivered from the Secretary for Health (or whatever the heck the job title is now).
Is that what a "progressive" EU wants? Stuff the citizen, but force feed the bureaucrats like geese are stuffed to deliver foie gras?
I've had enough layers of government nonsense to last a lifetime. Don't need another load layered on top.
Complain about this comment
107. At 4:58pm on 27 Oct 2009, braveSouter wrote:
" ... fourteen pint a day little Willie Hague"
Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that he drinks that much?
If so, please post it here.
The allegation of heavy drinking by those who in some way oppose "EU"-integration has come up frequently in recent weeks.
It appears to be the result of some sort of coordination.
Have you been on some "EU"-lovers training course or been given literature suggesting this tactic or had it suggested to you in any way?
Complain about this comment
What a nightmare! Any system which enables a man like this to take on even greater power after he has spawned such a social and economic disater in his homeland (excepting his own well documented nouveau riches and property empire) should be classified as lunacy. But then we are talking about the EU.
Complain about this comment
The Coronation of Blair is a "hostile act".
If the motorcade ever comes through my town - then I will attack it with rocks, stones, cans, whatever comes to hand..............
Complain about this comment
FOM
"Can you give me a real example of how Blair changed the cumbersome, unwieldy, bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organisation within the UK?"
My reference was to the EU which you misquote by inserting the name of Mr.Blair.For purposes of record I wrote:"The question to ask is whether Mr.Blair is capable of changing the EU? It is a cumberson,unwieldy,bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organization..."
Do you have evidence that quango`s or NGOs are guilty of corruption? If so you should present it to the relevant authority, if not you should not make unsubstantiated allegations for partisan purposes.
To reiterate my substantive point.We do not want a nonentity as president of the EU,we want a president who will be an agent of change in a constructive relationship with whoever is British PM next year.
Complain about this comment
Yet another classic example as to why the UK will be run by unaccountable power crazed politicians in Europe.
First we have Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty without a referendum and against the will of the people.
secondly we have Bliar who stood at the last election only to resign as PM and hand over power to an unelected PM.
Bliar should not be standing for EU president but should be standing alongside Radovan Karadzic for crimes against the Iraqi people.
Never have we seen two politicans with such arrogance and contempt for the electorate as Brown & Bliar.
Complain about this comment
Just heard the leaked decisions on MP's expenses. People like McNasty can't have his second home in Harrow then as it is less than 60 minutes travelling time to Westminster. Ha.
Can't employ family members etc.
Wait for the explosions.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 152
Like any piece of cheap political propagandist sloganising, the association of Hague with heavy drinking has a grain of truth to it. Here's that grain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/871543.stm
As you can see, the story is nine years old and refers to a period a further 15 or more years before then. Hague said he drank heavily as a teenager. Sure, so what? So did I.
It has, unfortunately, become a trend that the left, entirely devoid of coherent arguments as to why they should retain power, have started to resort to cheap slogans and smears. There is a good smattering of these on the pages of this blog most days.
You might well ask, as you did, how someone who regularly writes as incoherently as the poster at 107 does, implying little underlying ability of any sort, came to dredge up something so old, so obscure and so vaguely connected to the present, and then twisted it artfully into a smear he deemed to be worthy of posting here. You suggest that, behind that effort, there was a degree of organisation, and that he had a bit of centralised help. You are almost certainly correct.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron,
"He was given a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor and he will have war anyway." - Winston Churchill
Robin Rowlands
Complain about this comment
155#
Blimey Bryhers, what did you say to get referred?? :-0
Complain about this comment
Well done Nick - you've managed to engineer an attack on the Tories whilst ignoring Labours many, many headline faults - again!
Any Journo of calibre would at least have mused on the one obvious question not asked. Was this the price of Labour renaging on it's promice to hold a referendum - TB for El Presindente?
Or pehaps Millbank have asked you to keep mum on that one?
Complain about this comment
So many commentators recently have said they were taken in and swept along by Tony Blair's charm and eloquence. They were invigorated by "Things can only get better" and the wave of excitement and goodwill among chatterers, actors, pop singers. Why are these people still in positions of responsibility?
The commentators, and all the others who were taken in, are now either disappointed or in denial. Before they rejoice in the appointment of President Blair, please let them review this disgusting man's record.
He is a purveyor of "terminological inexactitudes," has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has plunged our country into chaos on almost every front, and has betrayed our nation to the EU.
On top of this, he has become extremely rich. I'm sure his friends have also become rich. We've seen bankers and MPs castigated for their treatment of expenses, bonuses and the like, but their profit has been nothing compared with the Blair family, who seem to go without investigation.
I was brought up a catholic and am what the Church would call a "lapsed catholic." Nothing would persuade me to return, now that Tony Blair has been accepted into the church. I would have expected the Pope to know better. I hope he sups with a very, very long spoon.
Complain about this comment
148/149#
Oooh, you're funny!
In one post you go on about people being convulsed with jealousy and then in the very next one, you drag up the old class warfare guff about Eton! Whats that if it isnt convulsion with jealousy??? Would you have turned it down, if you were born into it and knew nothing else as a child?
Its a pity because what you say in the first part of 149 about Cameron is probably true.
Unfortunately, you seem to be guilty of the very same that you accuse others of, which taints your post.
Theres only going to be one person convulsed with jealousy if Blair gets to be President of Europe. And that one person will be Gordon Brown.
Do you have the slightest idea as to what the role of President Of Europe involves? What Blair or whoever will have to spend most of his time doing?
Ever worked in a multinational, political organisation and know what a pain in the butt it is to try and get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet? How much time you spend getting bogged down in minutae?
I have no opinion on whether Blair gets it or not. I'm living and working in Europe already anyway. Whoever gets it is likely to just be jumping on the gravy train and lining their own pockets. I cant forsee any of the candidates doing the necessary leading and banging of heads, somehow.
Complain about this comment
What next for the United States of Europe an Olympics Team or Police Force.
Complain about this comment
You are getting overheated I think the Hague drinking thing wasn't to make out he was a drinker - he couldn't be in such fantastic shape and do that. No it was the baseball cap wearing plonkerness of him for thinking people would be impressed by his drinking. He just misspoke as it were.
Stricklypickled
My point was re the bias on this blogg was saga is the only left of centre person on this site and so therefore his right to have an opinion is always questioned by you and other right wingers who are able to pass comment without your impartiality ever being questioned.
Re the expenses I think it would be great for all the miscreants, the flippers in the cabinet, and the ones who broke the spirit of the allowances Cameron Balls Mcnulty to all be flung out - but we have to get rid of second jobs, spouses being paid as well before it can be finished.
Complain about this comment
165#
But Saga only leans to the left because at heart, he's a self loathing Tory. :-)
Complain about this comment
To be an effective political player on the world stage, Europe must have a nexus, a political focal point.
The Americans bluntly say {especially in times of crisis} that they want their President to be able to pick up the phone and dial 'somebody in Europe' i.e. the President of the European Union.
It follows from that that the President of Europe cannot just be some bureaucratic figurehead but must have real power.
One way or another, it will be done.
The Prime Minister of England, which is what David Cameron will probably end up being, should be thinking two steps ahead and deciding to co-operate with the EU instead of marginalising England.
Indeed, I believe that is precisely what Cameron will eventually do, whilst simultaneously trying to face the other way to the Euro-sceptic wing of his Party.
Complain about this comment
165 balancedthought
"Re the expenses I think it would be great for all the miscreants, the flippers in the cabinet, and the ones who broke the spirit of the allowances Cameron Balls Mcnulty to all be flung out"
Maybe you didn't see, but the argument that there was any problem with Cameron's expenses was thoroughly fought out and concluded on this blog a couple of weeks ago. Relative to all the currently known facts, there is no problem with Cameron's expenses. Just thought I would mention it before there was a renewed flurry of defamatory postings, particularly from a certain familiar source.
Complain about this comment
John Constable
I completely agree - isn't it mad - Dave has got to show leadership on this. I think todays movement was the first step out of the mess he has created.
Complain about this comment
Worries over Europe are smaller potato's than the the tale here: - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6892830.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
Councils get ‘Al Capone’ power to seize assets over minor offences
"Draconian police powers designed to deprive crime barons of luxury lifestyles are being extended to councils, quangos and agencies to use against the public, The Times has learnt. The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London. The measure, being pushed through by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, comes into force next week and will deploy some of the most powerful tools available to detectives against fare dodgers, families in arrears with council tax and other minor offenders. The radical extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act, through a Statutory Instrument which is not debated by parliament, has been condemned by the chairman of the Police Federation. Paul McKeever said that he was shocked to learn that the decision to hand over “intrusive powers” to people who were not police was made without consultation or debate."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Bryhers wrote
The question to ask is whether Mr.Blair is capable of changing the EU? It is a cumberson,unwieldy,bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organization...
159 Fom wrote
"Can you give me a real example of how Blair changed the cumbersome, unwieldy, bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organisation within the UK?"
From your post you make cleaer you are referring to quango`s.These may be unpopular, but if you have evidence of corruption you should refer it to the relevant authority.
UK quango`s however are irrelevant to the scope and powers of a putative EU president.Perhapsa you could engage with the subject of my post rather than being diverted into peripheral issues.
Complain about this comment
can anyone tell me when exactly this role of president of the EU takes effect?
Complain about this comment
Blair's appointment (not election, mind) would be a disaster and a disgrace - is this the legacy Gordon Brown is going to leave us with? All political parties in the UK should oppose his candidacy, in my opinion, especially Labour - do they want to lose the next election that badly, that they would slap the electorate in this way? It might not be for one term, but two or more, that Labour risk being out of power with such a disreputable politicial at the heart of Europe - while its clear that Blair really was more of a Tory than a Labour Party member anyway, surely even the nasty party can do better than him? This hedging will not do the Conservatives any favours either - the electorate are looking for any reason now to vote for either Labour or the Tories come the next election - both parties hedging on a Blair presidentship has a very bad smell about it, in a place that already stinks ...
Complain about this comment
164. At 10:34pm on 27 Oct 2009, pez1960 wrote:
What next for the United States of Europe an Olympics Team or Police Force.
SB2: "European Gendarmes" have been training in Italy. There is a "European Police Academy" , I don't know where. There is Europol. There is loads more that I do not know. Time to leave this continent.
Complain about this comment
167. At 11:20pm on 27 Oct 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
" ....
The Americans bluntly say {especially in times of crisis} that they want their President to be able to pick up the phone and dial 'somebody in Europe' i.e. the President of the European Union. ..."
SB2: We should not tolerate a lousy, wasteful, sick, arrogant, horrendously expensive, megalomaniac, undemocratic, antidemocratic, dangerous monstrosity just to make using the telphone easier for them.
Complain about this comment
170. At 11:32pm on 27 Oct 2009, herosrest wrote some interesting stuff.
Time top leave this continent.
Complain about this comment
170. At 11:32pm on 27 Oct 2009, herosrest.
SB2 Can they seize Blair's assets?
Complain about this comment
***
David Cameron,
David Cameron should not delude himself or the Nation.
Europe is determined to become a superstate, however it can never be a Democracy.
---
If the time for small Nations has passed and we are obliged to join a superstate those who love Democracy and Freedom would look to conjoin with the United States and not Europe.
New Labour have shown us all too clearly where Europe is going - Nowhere.
Robin Rowlands
***
Complain about this comment
Cameron must still be hoping the Czechs ratify to avoid the referendum question since he obviously has no real wish to actually define the question and no wish to put the question many ask for , in or out of Europe since he not so stupid as to believe being out of the EU will be anything but very bad for the UK and probably rightly estimates that the sensible IN europe answer would not be a forgone conclusion.
We do so much trade with the EU that even if we got out all our manufacturing exporters would still have to follow the EU rules (the same way if you export to the US or are a US company you still have to follow their rules) but we would have absolutely no say in what they were anymore (you can argue we have little now but we have some). Exiting from Europe would complete the UK's demise to a bit part player on the world stage.
The comments on this board clearly show why he has been smart in not actually saying anything. He offers a referendum but does not actually say what the question will be. So everyone assumes the question would be, ratify Lison yes or no, in or out of europe etc. accroding to your prejudices. Most people liked to be asked what they think so a referendum plays well to more people than actually specifying the question, smart PR politics. Another reason to query Cameron the PM I believe.
He does however have one thing right, we would rue the day Blair became EU president he has no consideration for anything but himself. Labour are only backing it as a crude political move which belittles them further.
Complain about this comment
165 balancedthought
"My point was re the bias on this blogg was saga is the only left of centre person on this site ......."
===============================
But earlier in post 145 you said
"The overwhelming majority seem to be right wing with Saga and a couple of others being right of centre. "
So saga you think saga is both left and right of centre ? No that is perfectly balanced thought - no pun intended.
I do agree that saga is pretty much a lone voice on here, and not many agree with him. But being in a world of his own, it's not really that surprising.
As for the bias aspect IMO saga's posts are intended to be provocative, slightly mischievous and usually not meant to be taken too seriously. I quite enjoy reading them - even though I don't agree with most of them and can't understand some of them.
Complain about this comment
I certainly don't want a Federal Europe and prefer to return to to trading links situation that we had with the European Free Trade Area(EFTA).
I definitely do not want a President of the EU especially if it is going to be Tony Blair.
I hope that Lisbon treaty is not ratified and we can set about making the EU government more cost-efficient,effective and accountable.
I suspect that Cameron wants this too but is not going to commit himself until right before the election when hopefully the position with the Lisbon treaty will be a lot clearer.
From a voter's perspective I believe we will know more about Cameron's view once the election campaign starts as he will have to say what he intends to do and what the public will be voting for.
Complain about this comment
You know I might just have changed my mind.
When I read articles like this I think that we should hand over all our lawn making to the EU.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6892830.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
Complain about this comment
jr perry @ 138
Cheap shot as ever, saga
I was hosting a dinner party yesterday evening (all progressive types) and so was not able to gobble up your post and spit it back at you with my usual alacrity - apologies for that
want to ask you something, JR - a favour, actually - want to ask you if you'd agree to be my Defence Counsel if I'm ever up before the Man on some trumped up charge or other - reason I'd like that is I'm impressed with your technique, in any argument, of first of all putting all of the onus of making a case on your opponent, and then ... and this is the really clever bit ... then announcing at the end of any exchange that your arguments are patently superior and you have therefore won the day - I reckon with you in my corner I'd be bound to get off, don't you?
anyway, sale of CHs by the Tories ... there was the Shirley Porter thing; proven gerrymandering but more a little local difficulty than a massive scale GSP, I'd have thought, so not really comparable, and then there was the national Right to Buy policy of Thatcher, that WAS a GSP, of course, but I wouldn't start throwing around accusations that its primary purpose was to create a bunch of Clowns - there's 2 reasons I wouldn't do that:
(1) I'm a reasonable person, not a wild eyed, drooling conspiracy theorist
(2) Because of (1) I take the view that if a person wants to advance a bizarre conspiracy theory (this Labour dual headed GSP on immigration and the indigenous poor, for example) it for THEM to demonstrate some evidence - evidence of The Plan, that is, not just pointing to things which have happened which have an alternative, simpler (and therefore vastly more likely) explanation
Complain about this comment
When the "treaty" is finally ratified the subject of a referendum will die on the vine.
Conservatives don't want the subject of the EU to be brought up before the next election because like Labour their party is divided.
When/if the Conservatives form the next government the last thing they would want is a referendum - they know the "treaty" will be rejected and that would put them in the uncomfortable position of going back to Europe ....
Bottom line is the EU Juggernaut rolls on to its final goal of a United States of Europe ,and a Federal EU controlled by the German/French axis.
Complain about this comment
#172, bryhers wrote:
"Bryhers wrote
The question to ask is whether Mr.Blair is capable of changing the EU? It is a cumberson,unwieldy,bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organization...
159 Fom wrote
"Can you give me a real example of how Blair changed the cumbersome, unwieldy, bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt organisation within the UK?"
From your post you make cleaer you are referring to quango`s.These may be unpopular, but if you have evidence of corruption you should refer it to the relevant authority."
Perhaps you could engage with the subject of my post rather than being diverted into peripheral issues."
bryhers,
I absolutely engaged with your comment. I don't see any evidence that Blair streamlined the UK bureaucracy and made it less cumbersome. The reference to QANGOs was an illustration that we have even more layers of control mechanisms (each of which absorbs money prior to delivering services). I did not imply corruption (although in some cases there is near criminal irresponsibility in the way they operate. Check out the farms payments nonsense. So badly defined and executed that the EU imposed a fine of around £250MIL - which will of course be paid by tax-payers.)
The "sometimes corrupt organisation" has been in the headlines for months and I didn't feel it necessary to specify The House of Commons and Lords... Didn't do much of a job to bring transparency and straightforward operations there, did he?
Complain about this comment
dhw @ 135
Did anyone think William Hagues Stand up routine in the commons on this subject was as funny as Conservatives MPs made it out to be?
No - how could it be? - they were reacting like an Embassy Club audience for a Bernard Manning home fixture - but it was quite funny, it has to be said - let's never allow those on the right to say us lefties can't appreciate a good Clown
and a little joke of my own whilst we're on this subject:
Q: what would you rather see ...
(a) a William Hague stand up routine at The Apollo?
(b) William Hague as Foreign Secretary?
it's (a) isn't it? ... what they call a No Brainer, I believe
Complain about this comment
"...Need for realism not isolationism.." and "...cooperation and coordination.."
No hint at all.
The row back from offering the UK/England Public any sort of Ballot/Referendum choice on their future is underway.
NuLab reneged on the Constitution and then Lisbon Treaty manifesto promises of Referendum. Blair and Brown lied to the British public.
Cameron and his Conservatives are undoubtedly beginning down the path to that same corrupt abandonment of the entitlement of Rights and Responsibilities owed to all UK Citizens.
After June 2010 whether a NuLab or Conservative Government the UK/England Citizens will continue to suffer from the venal, self-interested liaison of Westminster-Brussels elites: They will be 'singing and dancing' as they line their pockets, but, the British Public will continue to pay the 2nd larrgest contribution for the band, dance hall, catering etc. and so the EU gravy train will roll on.
Complain about this comment
Another U Turn...on the territorials, although to be fair Brown has still reduced the budget, so is the BBC headline just spin
The blogosphere is also alive with rumours that Mandy is briefing against Brown and instead talking up the boy Millibland
What will PMQ's present today?
Complain about this comment
183. At 08:14am on 28 Oct 2009, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
You know I might just have changed my mind.
When I read articles like this I think that we should hand over all our lawn making to the EU.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6892830.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
==========================================
At last Brown has done something right. His appointment of Alan Johnson as Home Secretary, has shown Johnson up as venal, uncaring and undemocratic like the rest of the Nu Labour shower. That these draconian powers are available to all beggars belief and if enacted by councils up and down the land will cause the biggest erosion of freedom in our history.
I mean power to seize your property, assets bank accounts... Do you really think the legislation will be so well written to prevent any Tom Dick and Harry to take advantage of the poor and disadvantaged? I most certainly do not.
Complain about this comment
Re 183/190 It does cause you to wonder what planet these people are on. Surreptiously drive through legislation into areas that it was not designed to be used in whilst pushing one of their pals into a new job with an unlimited expense account.
Shows scant regard for the populous as a whole. MPs are exempt from capital gains on flipped houses whilst Joe Soap can have his assest frozen on the say so of his local authority for a £10 under payment on CTax.
If Brown talks about the banks treating customers fairly surely it is beholden on him and his government to do the same; or am I being particularly niave in my view?
Complain about this comment
The Tories and too some extent Labour when in government, still see this country as a major player in world affairs, which is plainly ridiculous! We are just about on a par with our fellow Europeans in terms of economic strength and population. Our place is in Europe, where we are geographically and culturally located. Our ties and negotiations with the United States should be through Europe and as Europeans. To see Gordon Brown and previous Prime Ministers trying to 'toady up' to American presidents is, frankly embarrassing and demeaning. Also, we are punching far too above our weight in military terms as a consequence of this inflated view of our world status. That is not to belittle in any way the very high quality of our military personnel.
David Cameron's alliances in the EU are worrying as well. We are asking to be marginalised by the more mainstream parties in the EU, Also, what do those alliances say about his real political beliefs and agenda for Britain? In all the Tory attitude towards Europe will have to change dramatically before I will vote for them, which leaves me in a quandary over who I should vote for !
Complain about this comment
Into all this discussion (again) about our position in the EU, notwithstanding the annointing of the chosen one, there is one overwhelming reason why I support the Union.
For 65 years there has been peace among the members. And that is the reason we're bringing in the Eastern Europeans: to avoid another Balkan atrocity, and to dissuade the Russians from territorial ambitions.
Reflect on that, EU sceptics, and remember that ONLY close engagement works, treaties and pacts didn't work before WWII and we ended up in a blood bath
Complain about this comment
I believe this is a done deal. It was why Blair sacrificed the U.K. rebate for nothing in return. Only time will prove me wrong. I have to say, however, that with the EU being regarded as probably the most corrupt organ of government on the planet each deserves the other.
Complain about this comment
187#
Got some bad news for you Saga.
The Neather episode is not going away.... someone has been digging. It would appear that the draft reports I referred to on Andrew's blog the other day have been leaked.
You might want to see if your mum has got an old tin hat left in the basement/wine cellar from the war.
Think you might be needing it when this one blows up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223296/Labour-think-tank-airbrushed-link-migrants-crime-immigration-report-Blair.html
Complain about this comment
193 invocator
Bringing in the Eastern Europeans will avoid another balkan atrocity.
What is the logic? Surely you need to bring in the Balkan states in order to do that?
But there is a problem in that some of these countries are Muslim, and that is the reason why Turkey finds it difficult to join the club.
And please remember that the EU sat navel gazing whilst the Balkan atrocities went on. It was the direct intervention of NATO, taking over from UN forces that stopped the wars and genocide.
Complain about this comment
#190, excellentcatblogger wrote:
"... That these draconian powers are available to all beggars belief and if enacted by councils up and down the land will cause the biggest erosion of freedom in our history.
I mean power to seize your property, assets bank accounts... Do you really think the legislation will be so well written to prevent any Tom Dick and Harry to take advantage of the poor and disadvantaged? I most certainly do not."
excellentcb,
I regret that the flood of laws and regulations means that very little is as well scrutinised as it should be before popping into effect. And the deliberate government policy of rushing laws, so they can then declare "See, we've done something" is part of the reason. All too often the laws are not tightly drafted. All too often they are simply "there" but not backed up by resources to enforce them.
And yet, this year, MPs had a massive summer break - and will have a longer Christmas break. I'd have given them two weeks in the summer and a week at Christmas. The rest of the time they should be made to read in detail every piece of legislation they have allowed to ooze into the public's life.
And until every single MP can provide a sworn affidavit that he/she has understood exactly what they've imposed on us, they should be blocked from passing any but the most "urgent" laws. (That would, of course, include the stuff that comes from Brussels.)
Complain about this comment
what chance do we have to stop this joke from happening ?
whilst under this government none at all and under the next it seems none at all so we the voters of this once great little island are stuffed unless the voters vote in real people that will be there for the good of the country first rather than the good of their party first.
Complain about this comment
#193 Actually what has kept the peace in Europe for 65 years has been NATO backed by American military muscle particularly it's nuclear weapons.
Complain about this comment
197. fairlyopenmind.
Ref MPs should be made to read in detail every piece of legislation they have allowed to ooze into the public's life.
Now that is a very good idea.
Complain about this comment
Blair as "El Presidente" is preferable to Cameron as PM. Unfortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Complain about this comment
to no. 4: [Perhaps in a few years we'll all be spending our worthless Euro notes with Tony's smug grin plastered all over them.]
The signature that appears on Euro notes is that of the chief of the ECB (European Central Bank), who is currently Jean Trichet. Blair is not running for any job in the ECB.
Complain about this comment
Nick - regarding the possibility of a referendum...
The problem is, once the treaty has been ratified by all the members states (including the UK), it is doubtful it can be un-ratified by a future government. This is why Brown's decision to sneak in back door and sign the treaty on our behalf without the promised referendum was so despicable.
David Cameron presumably knows that the other European leaders (who also denied their own citizens any say in the matter) are unlikely to have much sympathy. So what are the options? To leave the EU altogether and risk damaging future trade and investment, or trying to make the best of a bad job? Neither of those are palatable choices.
The idea of a European free-trade area (or common market) is basically quite sensible, but the increasingly political and unaccountable entity known as the EU is an affront to democracy.
Complain about this comment
sa488ny and #192.
Plainly the UK has not been a 'major player' on its own since the Potsdam Conference.
The UK was/is a 'major player' on the international stage in alliance with others whether that is direct Atlantic-relations or via NATO, the seat at the UNO Security Council, leading Commonwealth State, G8 member etc.
The status of the UK as a unified 4 nations firmly resolved to stand at the USA's side during the Cold War was essential, but those days are long gone.
The only place the UK has not and never could be any sort of 'player' is within the European Union.
The UK Parliament led by the nose by successive No.10 Governments of Conservative and Labour has devolved authority and powers to Brussels and in recent years to the 4 Nations of the UK.
On the whole the progression to the dissolution of the UK has been managed in a reasonable manner (exception being Northern Ireland's religious/sectarian-mob warfare): That trend continues and the sooner it is accomplished the better for all 4 Nation's Populace.
I say that because I really believe the only chance England and the English have of breaking out of the EU strait-jacket is when the other 3 (maybe not Wales if it chooses to stay-on) have gone their own way.
Whether England retains a Security Council seat is really of little import to its general political-economic-social progress. A 'special relationship' with the USA is useful but hardly essential particularly if England remains within NATO (lets face it, the recent years of cowardice and betrayal by France, Germany etc. whenever the 'frontline' forces are needed shows it did them no harm). The relatively loose economic-political-cultural ties of Commonwealth will surely continue with the House of Windsor at its Head.
The only fly in England's political-economic-cultural ointment is the EU: An institution founded by Paris-Berlin and based at Brussels as a sop to the Benelux - - it has brought nothing to England and the English that could not have been achieved without it. Indeed, by its aggravating EUrotocracy, corruption and patently undemocratic methods it has hindered the progression of the UK and of England (plus other nations, but that's upto them) - - when added to the fact Paris-Berlin-Brussels only interests in the UK are 1) the Financial Centre/Services sector, 2) the 60,000,000 market-place, and 3) a prosperous UK outside the EU is bad for the image of the EU, it is essential for England at least to quit the EU.
I submit an England of 49,000,000 can be a 'serious player' in terms of entrepreneurial talent, business acumen, liberty and individualism were its Citizens ever to be given the chance to make the choice.
If 4 million Scots and 1 million Irish who've complained for 300+ years about being in a Union of 4 really think they can be taken more seriously in a Union of 400,000,000 then good luck to them, but, that is surely not the way for England to go - - out of 4, into 27! Not only is the 'pure' and 'applied' maths all wrong, so, is the logic, reasoning, and above all the historical evolution.
England is a permanent part of geographic Europe and at times strategically, however, in terms of politics, economy, culture, heritage there is a diversion of experience that no blanket of one-size-fits-all rulings will ever surmount.
Of course it is all predicated on the Government based at No.10 finally offering the English the same 'Democratic-devolutionary' choices as they have undertaken with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 11 million UK Citizens have all had a say about their Political-National/International futures, however, the principle Nation that has basically funded all the rest throughout all those years has been denied that fundamental Democratic principle - - SELF DETERMINATION!
Oh well, a nice dream!
Complain about this comment
fubar @ 195
The Neather episode is not going away
given the disturbingly high number of BNP fellow travellers around the place (probably outweighing the real thing by around 25 to 1) I'm not really expecting it to
but you're right ... it IS bad news
Complain about this comment
Ah but then again
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece
Better watch out sagamix they might be in there right now reading your mail.
Complain about this comment
@197/200
Maybe if they had a little more experience thanhaving worked for the party at university, then in some office or other before being given a safe seat they might just have some experience of the real world. This might actually cause then to consider the consequences of the acts they are asked to vote on. How can anyone who has been given a living by either party since 18 be expected to have an open mind let alone look at an issue objectively?
Complain about this comment
#200, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
"197. fairlyopenmind.
Ref MPs should be made to read in detail every piece of legislation they have allowed to ooze into the public's life.
Now that is a very good idea."
And the sad thing, carrots, is that is the only reason we actually NEED MPs. The House of Commons is supposed to be a legislature. There to hold the executive to account. Examine any and each laws that will affect their electorates - who they are supposed to "represent".
I read (all paper seem to agree) that we've had an additional 3,000 offences "created" since 1997.
I bet not a single MP in the country could tell you what they all are... If MPs (whose life is based on legislating) don't know, how on earth can the public at large be aware?
Complain about this comment
205#
The Real Thing?
Complain about this comment
"sashmill wrote:
to no. 4: [Perhaps in a few years we'll all be spending our worthless Euro notes with Tony's smug grin plastered all over them.]
The signature that appears on Euro notes is that of the chief of the ECB (European Central Bank), who is currently Jean Trichet. Blair is not running for any job in the ECB."
That actually means very little - do you think that the Queen (who is on British banknotes) has her signature on them?
Our banknotes have a signature from a senior member of the bank that issued them (this is true of "English" notes and I assume it is true for Scottish banknotes) and a picture of the head of state.
The same could be true of European notes in the future.
Complain about this comment
'he [Cameron] favoured "co-operation and co-ordination"'
Perhaps. But co-operation and co-ordination work two ways. Take for example, the increase in our net EU budget contribution from £4bn to £6bn that was agreed by Blair. That was on the basis that there would be reform of the budget and CAP. That reform does not look as though it will happen. So should we still be paying over the £6bn?
And let me quote from Der Spiegel, the German magazine:
"Germany's Federal Constitutional Court proclaimed the truth on June 30. It ruled that the EU of the Lisbon Treaty does not satisfy the minimum requirements for democracy described in the German constitution, and the European Parliament is effectively little more than an expensive, Machiavellian glass facade." And yet the German politicans have pushed the Lisbon Treaty through.
As for Blair becoming President of the EU Council, perhaps we should remember history. The Roman Empire collapse when there was hubris and corruption at the centre and over-expansion at the periphery. Now why does that sound just like the EU?
Complain about this comment
@ 209
The Real Thing
not the funky nineteen seventies British disco group (!) the hard core BNP support I mean; the people who are really committed to the party - I estimate those at 200,000 and thus (at 25 to 1) there are approximately 5 million fellow travellers - haven't met them ALL yet so can't be 100 pc sure that's the precise number, but you know what I mean - it's a lot of people anyway, even it's only 4,999,996, and I guess that's why they feel so secure ... so comfortable ... in their peddling of softhead racist propaganda
Complain about this comment
180. At 07:14am on 28 Oct 2009, Whistling_Neil wrote:
....... Exiting from Europe would complete the UK's demise to a bit part player on the world stage.
****************************
Sounds like a good idea to me. What is so important about being a BIG PLAYER on the World stage - apart from massaging politicians egos?
Complain about this comment
197. At 09:53am on 28 Oct 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:
........they should be made to read in detail every piece of legislation they have allowed to ooze into the public's life.
*************************
You are joking of course!!
As MPS are told how to vote by the Whips, why on earth do they need to read anything?
Complain about this comment
#205, sagamix wrote:
"fubar @ 195
The Neather episode is not going away
given the disturbingly high number of BNP fellow travellers around the place (probably outweighing the real thing by around 25 to 1) I'm not really expecting it to
but you're right ... it IS bad news"
saga,
It's also sad news.
Politicians of all shades have backed away from open dialogue with the people, on the subject of immigration and population, for decades. You could blame Enoch Powell. He was a very intelligent and accomplished polotician but was far too graphic in his infamous "rivers of blood" speech.
Since then, nobody has wanted to be really open about policies - or their underlying justifications and thinking.
I fancy you'd find an awful lot of people who have concerns about population levels - and the need to plan services to meet requirements. That gets hard when numbers shoot up. Harder when there are more linguistic or cultural variations to adapt to.
That's absolutely NOT a racist attitude. I'm happy to have known and worked with plenty of different peoples. I believe that injecting different people into a population gives the gene-pool a chance to refresh itself.
The saddest thing is that we have had a government since "the best day of your life" in 1997, that has manipulated information, been economical with the verite, accepted totally unsupported "facts" (a la WMD) or sometimes just made things up, so it would not be surprising if they did hide evidence about immigration.
I think you'd be surprised how many people in the UK have a "progressive" attitude. But who don't believe that a quick fix bit of law, change for the sake of change and absolutely wasteful mismanagement of economic resources = "progressive".
Complain about this comment
Who within the EU has voted to have a president. Where is the voice of the people in all of this.
If this travesty does go ahead then Tony Blair should not even be nominated until the Iraq War Enquiry has been completed.
Complain about this comment
What the EU needs is an auditor general to get a grip on the collosal waste of public money the EU is reponsible for, not an unaccountable, unelected and hideously expensive president.
Complain about this comment
"Zydeco wrote:
You are joking of course!!
As MPS are told how to vote by the Whips, why on earth do they need to read anything?"
What I love is when you have MPs who vote one way on something (like post office closures) and then are shown with local voters fighting against the closure of a local post office!
Complain about this comment
Once Blair is installed as President of Europe, it's mission accomplished for Mandelson and Brown. Is there any point therefore in delaying the General Election any further?
Complain about this comment
I think making Bliar the presidente will be a great idea - then at least we know who to overthrow in the forthcoming revolution and won't have to think about 'who should be first against the wall'.
Just imagine, a devout Catholic leading the people of Europe - it will be just like Roman times again.
Hail Ceaser! - be you a plebian or a slave sir?
Writingsus Maximus onodious wallius
Complain about this comment
It's bad enough that so many UK organisations can snoop on your phonecalls, email and browsing habits. But now it has been extended to include the EU.
Seems like Big Brother suddenly got BIGGER.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Complain about this comment
135. dhwilkinson:
Did anyone think William Hagues Stand up routine in the commons on this subject was as funny as Conservatives MPs made it out to be? I don't wish to judge their attempts at laughter because they were trying really hard.
You had to be there, dh...
Complain about this comment
#210 Mark_WE
On the plus side, if it ever happened, I'll never be short of toilet paper again ;)
I'm also taking some comfort in the knowledge that Gordon will be "actively campaigning" for Blair as president. If that isn't the kiss of death for his chances then I don't know what is! Plus the prospect of a hilarious press conference where he confirms this through gritted teeth will definitely be Sky+ and popcorn material!
In comparison, can anyone imagine the kind of uproar there'd be in the USA if Obama decided to hand over the running of the country to the UN, or NATO, or some other external, unelected organisation, run by, say, George Bush? Or Clinton? Do you think the American people would stand for it without being consulted at any point of the process whatsoever?
Complain about this comment
More important today than if Blair is to become EU President is the news that the good part of Northern Rock is to be sold off. This has to be the worst move for the taxpayer in history. It leaves all the bad part with the taxpayer, all the bad loans and mortgages which inevitably will become worth even less as time goes on. The good part should be sold with parts of the bad so the taxpayers liability is less.
This is again smoke and mirrors by the Government because they will claim they have got a good price for the good part of Northern Rock. This is easy to achieve, however what they will not be telling us is how much the bad part will be costing us as the toxic debt is sorted.
Again one has to wonder why this toxic debt was not identified well before the bail out was attempted and has cost the taxpayer so much. The answer of course lies in the Government wanting to prop up this debt until the time comes for an election so that the Conservatives take the hit.
The Government yet again will claim that any sell off is a good move for the taxpayer, that they are getting money back, but of course in actual fact it is just the opposite. The bad debt in time will be run off costing the taxpayer a massive amount of money.
Do we trust the government to get a good price for the this part of Northern Rock when so many other assets will be coming on the market is another question.
Complain about this comment
So what exactly is the 'progressive' answer to the notion that newlabour airbrushed key passages of a report on immigration, commisioned by the current government, that linked mass immigration to some crimes?
The answer is the 'progressives' have been 'progressively' airbrushing their performance for the past twelve years.
Never mind the report into immigration, serious enough in itself; but Gordon Brown airburshed and supressed a report into how muchg damage had been caused to the pension system by his foolish axing of tax dividend reliefs.
'That' dossier on the Iraq war.
Frank Field's early suggestions on welfare reform; airbrished and kicked into the long grass.
You could go on ad infinitum about newlabour's allegedly 'progressive agenda', including this appalling revelation that they thought mass immigration would rub the right's noses in it about racism but it is just too depressing to think about.
newlabour have systematically perverted the course of progressive politics to their own ends for twelve years and we are all paying a very sorry price for it.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Blair is backed for the post of President by Brown, Sarkozy and Belusconi.
With men of such absolutely impeccable credentials behind him, he can't really lose. Can he? 8-)
Complain about this comment
The only problem with Tony Blair becoming EU president is that he'll have US interests at heart, not European interests.
Complain about this comment
"ProEULobby wrote:
The only problem with Tony Blair becoming EU president is that he'll have US interests at heart, not European interests."
That is utterly untrue...
Tony will have HIS interests at heart :)
Complain about this comment
Fairly @ 215
indeed so
there absolutely IS an "adult" debate crying out to be had on Immigration - it needs to involve all those factors you mention; population levels, economic needs, concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas - yes, for sure
but the right don't want to have that sort of debate; they want the debate on immigration to be framed in the context, for example, of some systematic, liberal left Masterplan to ... and I quote ... "commit ethnicide" on the White British - they want a racially based debate in other words
well okay, they can fling that stuff around (it's a free country) but then they shouldn't get all outraged when other people call them on it - the refuting of pernicious nonsense like that is a necessary part of our adult conversation on immigration, it's not suppressing it as the BNP Fellow Travellers keep bleating
all the "suppressing" is actually coming from their side ... the FTs ... they are the ones who, whenever somebody challenges some of their crazy assertions, start jumping up and down and accusing that somebody of "playing the race card" and of trying to close down the debate! - unreal
far as I'm concerned, if I consider a view to be racist I will say so and I won't allow this obnoxious political correctness from the FTs to get in my way - if they can't handle that, then we'll have to have our "reasoned and adult" debate without them
won't we?
Complain about this comment
#229 saga
there absolutely IS an "adult" debate crying out to be had on Immigration - it needs to involve all those factors you mention; population levels, economic needs, concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas - yes, for sure
------------------------------------
One of the first times I've found myself agreeing with you here!
------------------------------------
but the right don't want to have that sort of debate; they want the debate on immigration to be framed in the context, for example, of some systematic, liberal left Masterplan to ... and I quote ... "commit ethnicide" on the White British - they want a racially based debate in other words
------------------------------------
Unfortunately you revert back to form with this extra bit on the end. You're misguided if you think it is the "right" to blame for the lack of debate. My personal observation is that the right are only given their ammunition in regards to the immigration issue as a direct result of the "left"'s unwillingness to have the debate you mentioned first.
If at any point over the past 12 years anyone in government has actively shown a willingness to have a sensible, reasoned debate on immigration, please enlighten me. Because all I can recall is a lot of head-burying in the sand, accusations of racism, and the repeated mantra that immigration is "good for the country".
I know that the socialist view of a debate is for citizens to be quiet and do as they're told, but some of us wouldn't mind some logic, rationality and a few facts to go on as well.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix.
Please enlighten me as to how it is the fault of the right that there is no debate when it is the government of questionably the left that censored the report?
Surely such an action will only inflame the situation leading to calls that it must be worse than it is because they hid the real figures?
My call is they have brought this on themselves. The cry it is the right wont debate does not hold water.
Complain about this comment
sagamix wrote:
Fairly @ 215
indeed so
there absolutely IS an "adult" debate crying out to be had on Immigration - it needs to involve all those factors you mention; population levels, economic needs, concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas - yes, for sure"
I agree that there is an adult debate, the problem is that some of the people involved in the debate are not adults. They use childish debating tactics such as trying to portray their opponents as racist or lying when confronted by the truth.
"but the right don't want to have that sort of debate; they want the debate on immigration to be framed in the context, for example, of some systematic, liberal left Masterplan to ... and I quote ... "commit ethnicide" on the White British - they want a racially based debate in other words"
So you are trying to paint the entire right-wing debate on comments made by the leader of the BNP - see what I mean about the childish debating tactics?
The latest news reports ARE suggesting that Labour have purposely allowed immigration to get out of control to portray the right-wing in a bad light.
That is not an immigration policy we should expect from a party who have been elected to put the best interests of this country first. This is a joke and if true Labour should be ashamed (if they can actually aware of that emotion)
Our immigration policy should be decided on what is in the best interests of this country (and that would be a policy somewhere "between closing the gates and kicking out all immigrants" and "letting everyone in")
Immigration mostly benefits the country as it can bring skills and investment, however unchecked immigration does not benefit the country.
Immigration is not just a race matter - we have Aussies, Kiwis, Yanks etc working in the service industry (e.g. bar staff) this is work that can be done by British workers and yet we allow people from these countries to get visas to work as unskilled workers?
However, you mention immigration and the "children" out there call you a racist.
"all the "suppressing" is actually coming from their side ... the FTs ... they are the ones who, whenever somebody challenges some of their crazy assertions, start jumping up and down and accusing that somebody of "playing the race card" and of trying to close down the debate! - unreal"
The ironic thing is that you are doing exactly what they claim, you are asking for an adult debate and the first thing you did was link the right-wing view with the BNP (and as we all know the BNP is a racist party - you are basically calling the right wing view point racist!)
"far as I'm concerned, if I consider a view to be racist I will say so and I won't allow this obnoxious political correctness from the FTs to get in my way - if they can't handle that, then we'll have to have our "reasoned and adult" debate without them"
We can try to have a reasoned and adult debate, but you will have to move away from the belief that if you consider a view to be racist it is. Of course there is the possability that the view is racist, but there is also the possability that your view is so blinkered that any view that you disagree with is considered to be racist.
To have an adult debate you have to attack the viewpoints not the person who holds them.
Complain about this comment
229#
"Message at Reception for Mr Pavlov..... your dog is drooling all over the floor again. Seems to be whenever he hears a bell. Cant you get that nice Mr Hain to tie his choke chain to the railings outside, like most yappy lapdogs?"
Complain about this comment
The thought of that ghastly man being President of Europe is just too much to take. I am terrified that he will launch an unprovoked attack upon the countries of the former Soviet Union. He has track record for starting and getting involved in wars that the very idea of him holding any public office anywhere gives me the shudders.
The alternative candidate could be Berlusconi as we could all do with a laugh at the moment. We at least know he is a philandering old fool. With Blair you just don't know what you are going to get at any one time.
Maybe we could make Berlusconi and Blair part of some sort of rotating Presidency so that one comes out when it is raining and the other when it is sunny. We could call it 2B EU! Given that it must be raining somewhere in the European Union at sometime or another we can then enjoy the sight of these two odious men scrapping over who is to be in charge that day. It is the closest that the EU will ever get to being a democracy!
Complain about this comment
Mark @ 232
"Immigration is not just a race matter"
the way you phrase that ... the "just" ... implies very strongly that you think Immigration is mainly a race matter
do you?
"you will have to move away from the belief that if you consider a view to be racist, it is"
so in order to take part in "your" debate about immigration, I have to agree not to say what I think
and you're one of those accusing the left of suppressing the debate!
hypocrisy of quite staggering proportions
Complain about this comment
The fact is that Mr. Blair, by virtue of his political experience, status and connections, is the only serious contender for the top job as President of the European Union.
Using acronyms, POTUS (President of the United States) will then be able to speak directly to POTEU (President of the European Union).
On that basis, the position of POTEU must eventually have similar powers to those exercised by the POTUS, e.g. Commander-in-Chief of the EU Military.
If the EU is to mature politically, these sorts of developments must happen and within a reasonable timescale.
Huge flaws do exist in the EU, e.g. the unaudited accounts, the undue weighting given to the Commission in Brussels, the tendency towards bureaucratic, autocratic behaviour, possibly due historically to the Catholic roots of many EU countries, which the English people find particularly hard to swallow. Others may think of more to add to the list.
Nevertheless, what has been achieved so far with the EU in political and economic terms, is quite remarkable considering the diversity of the peoples involved in the project.
For us English, our new place in the sun is within the EU.
It is just hard to find many professional senior politicans in England who will espouse that sentiment, apart from Ken Clarke and David Miliband, and even the latter persists with flogging the zombie political entity "Britain", which is not particularly helpful to the currently disenfranchised English people
Complain about this comment
fs @ 233
"your dog is drooling all over the floor again"
very thought provoking
you know my point about the Fellow Travellers' inability to have an adult conversation about immigration? - well I was expecting to have to work a bit to make the case, but it would appear not because here comes good old Fubar!
keep it coming
Complain about this comment
236. At 1:11pm on 28 Oct 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
............On that basis, the position of POTEU must eventually have similar powers to those exercised by the POTUS, e.g. Commander-in-Chief of the EU Military.
**************************
And we all know what Blair's record of being C-in-C leads to, don't we!!
Complain about this comment
@ 200 carrots
I'd settle for the legislation actually applying to any of them.
When do councils start confiscating MP's assets then?
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Mark @ 232
"Immigration is not just a race matter"
the way you phrase that ... the "just" ... implies very strongly that you think Immigration is mainly a race matter
do you?"
No I am countering your suggest that the right-wing is opposed to immigration because of race.
Hence suggesting that people oppose immigration because of reasons other than race.
However, you don't seem to be able to have a debate on immigration without tying it to race.
Let me state clearly in capital letters. IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RACE ISSUE.
""you will have to move away from the belief that if you consider a view to be racist, it is"
so in order to take part in "your" debate about immigration, I have to agree not to say what I think"
I am not saying that you can't say what you think in a debate, but there is no point having an adult debate if you just call anyone who disagrees with you a racist - it is a childish tactic.
You need to move away from the childish tactics to have an adult debate. Just calling someone a racist because you disagree with them is the same as calling someone a "poo-poo head".
"and you're one of those accusing the left of suppressing the debate!
hypocrisy of quite staggering proportions"
I am not accusing the left of suppressing debate, I am just saying that you can't call for an adult debate and then use childish tactics to portray those with an opposing view as wrong.
I am quite happy to have an adult debate with you, just that if you want to have an adult debate you need to attack people's views not call them names.
Complain about this comment
#229, sagamix wrote:
"Fairly @ 215
indeed so
there absolutely IS an "adult" debate crying out to be had on Immigration - it needs to involve all those factors you mention; population levels, economic needs, concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas - yes, for sure"
Saga,
But every time somebody has tried to have an adult debate over a 20 year or more period, it has been shouted down as "racist". That allows idiotic, narrow-minded bigots to stir up poorly educated people to join a group like the BNP.
(That crack about "poorly-educated" is more about the lack of any appreciation of the nature of the people-world as it has developed during the 15-16,000 years of real human population development and growth. I do believe quite a lot of them can read, write and do sums... Although it seems far too big a group of our teenagers can't do that too well!)
But the people who turn to the BNP tend to be fighting for access to housing, medical care, education etc in what they perceive to be circumstances that wouldn't be so tight had there been less immigration. (Doesn't mean their perceptions are right, of course!)
Blair could have introduced the same "limitations of access" on new to the EU Eastern European states as France and Germany, but chose not to. So we've had quite a lot of bright, hard-working people often doing things for which they are over-qualified, doing jobs here because the indigenous youngsters think it is demeaning to pick fruit or get their hands dirty. It's just MADNESS.
Now we're aiming for 50% of youngsters in higher education. Does anybody believe that there are now proportionally more "gotta have a degree" jobs available than there were a couple of decades ago? We'll have (are already gettin) a generation that thinks it's been deprived, because they racked up debts in order to start work 3 years later than others and wonder where that rediculous "degree-related income benefit" disappeared.
Ross Brawn seems to me to be one of the best engineering managers in the world. (That's to do with understanding the raw stuff and the people who make it happen.) He didn't take a degree.
I know I digress, but over the years we've had masses of highly qualified and competent immigrants who took jobs well beneath their capabilities (and dignity) to try and get by. If our own people had the same spirit, there would have been no "social and economic benefit" from immigration - because there wouldn't have been jobs for them.
Complain about this comment
lazurus/exiled @ 230/231
"all I can recall is a lot of head-burying in the sand, accusations of racism, and the repeated mantra that immigration is "good for the country""
I really don't know what you mean - we are all free to debate immigration (we're doing it now, for example) and any political party of whatever hue can put forward policies pertaining to the matter - it can be debated in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, on the television, on the radio, on the internet, in the papers, at home, at work, in the street, in a cafe, down the pub - it can be wherever and it can involve whoever - we are such an open and tolerant nation, in fact, that even a group like the BNP can run for office in a general election - and the "debate" can incorporate any sentiment under the sun; the only proviso being that it doesn't break the "incitement to racial hatred" law - unless you're saying you want that piece of legislation reversed, I just don't see what your problem is
Complain about this comment
237#
Saga mate, the only person who is waving the race flag in the debate about immigration is you.
Look around you.
No-one else is doing it.
It CAN be a factor to be considered but MIGRATION as opposed to just IMMIGRATION is a very much broader subject, including returning ex-pats, free movement of workers within the EU, Students, all manner of things.
If you'd read the report, like I suggested on numerous occasions, you would have seen that.
But you are proving that you are pathologically incapable of discussing this subject on any terms other than your own and your own terms are that whenever ANYONE mentions the subject of immigration that you instantly accuse them of pandering to the BNP and soft-headed racism and run away from the subject screaming.
To me, that is a pavlovian reaction, for obvious reasons - bell rings, dog salivates - immigration mentioned, the left scream racism - the connection is appropriate.
I'm not explaining it to you any more, but if you dish it out, dont be in the least bit surprised if you get some of it back. Like I said the other night, if the temperature gets too warm in the kitchen for you, you know where the exit is. You dont have to join in.
Complain about this comment
Maybe that was part of the deal. Blair gives Prime Minister position to Brown. Brown backs Blair as President of Europe.
Control freaks.
After the most tumultuous downward spiralling economic and social situations brought on us by Labour we want to change ship and captain.
We are the ones who have to live with what they have done. They will retire to a bunker in Scotland with their huge stashes of cash when the time comes.
I vote we put a label around their necks: "Not wanted on voyage".
Complain about this comment
Can't stand Tony Blair and his ilk! I'm finding it really difficult to
understand how a man like him, IMHO, could end up in Europe's top job,
not elected by us plebs (suckers!) but by a clique of 27 people (I mean
the European heads of state) with massive vested interests!
Complain about this comment
fs @ 243
I'm not explaining it to you any more
very wise to bow out, babe, because you're not capable of explaining it to anyone - don't think you even know what the "it" is
right, coast clear! ... what say we have an adult debate about immigration?
hit me
Complain about this comment
233 Fubar Sauders
#"Message at Reception for Mr Pavlov..... your dog is drooling all over the floor again. Seems to be whenever he hears a bell. Cant you get that nice Mr Hain to tie his choke chain to the railings outside, like most yappy lapdogs?"
Did I see something about adult debates, surely not.
Complain about this comment
Various.
You may not want a federal Europe or a president, but this is what you are probably getting.The question to ask is whether it is in the British and European interest to have a nonentity or some one with clout?
I would put the probability of a Blair presidency at .25 or possibly .3.
If this happens I predict that Mr.Cameron as incoming prime minister will quickly form a pragmatic alliance in the British interest.
In his speech yesterday opposing a Blair presidency, he gave strong indications that his policy on a referendum is pragamtic rather than principled, which will disappoint some of his eurosceptics.He will also need to extricate himself from his weird alliances on the European far right to be taken seriously by the Franco-German axis.
He should have no difficulty in emancipating himself from the Poles and Latvians and in forming a positive relationship with a British president.
,
Complain about this comment
Nick. Two points about your appearance on 'The Daily Politics' today.
1. Congratulations on acknowledging that the Tories will be in No.10 after the election.
2. Did you have to make your glee quite so obvious when describing the possible scenario of PM Cameron having to greet 'President' Blair?
I hope you will be able to take a more neutral, impartial point of view in the run up to the election.
Complain about this comment
Mark @ 240
"IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RACE ISSUE"
thank you Mark, and the upper case is well merited - so we agree on a very key point
let's take the next step (like the adults we are) and see what happens
Immigration is principally an economic issue; the main factors one needs to bring into play are:
(1) population levels, current and projected
(2) strength of our economy, current and projected
(3) regional variations on the above
(4) skill surpluses and shortages
(5) our obligations under EU and International Law
(6) concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas
how's that?
would you add any?
take any away?
Complain about this comment
@242
Sorry perhaps I am being particularly slow this afternoon, but was it not you Sagamix that raised the race card?
All I was doing was pointing to the difficulty of holding a sensible debate when the true figures and findings of various enquiries are being censored because they don't meet the "truth" that the government would like us to believe.
How can a meaningful discussion take place if one side attempts to manipulate the facts?
Complain about this comment
235. At 1:05pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
Mark @ 232
"Immigration is not just a race matter"
the way you phrase that ... the "just" ... implies very strongly that you think Immigration is mainly a race matter
do you?
"you will have to move away from the belief that if you consider a view to be racist, it is"
so in order to take part in "your" debate about immigration, I have to agree not to say what I think
-------------------------
Actually saga, he's shown that you fit exactly the nu-labour approach - if anyone brings up the subject of immigration then they're a racist.
------------------------
and you're one of those accusing the left of suppressing the debate!
------------------------
Saga its Labour who are in power - how ever much they'd like to blame the tories. Its bad enough still blaming thatcher after however many years; but blaming the CURRENT OPPOSITION for labour incompetence is truely pathetic. The reason there is no debate is Labours fault - its as simple as that. Which party is in power? Which is hiding the facts?, which is shouting 'racist' as loud as they can when anyone tries to start the debate?
--------------------------
hypocrisy of quite staggering proportions
---------------------------
hypnocrisy is very much a socialist disease. I've pointed it out in your rants often enough.
Complain about this comment
fairly @ 241
"every time somebody has tried to have an adult debate over a 20 year or more period, it has been shouted down as "racist""
you're my favourite grumpy old man blogger and you make some good points in your post (as is often the case) but I'd like to pick up on this one, if I may
I don't see it - pls see my 242 for detailed rebuttal
I hear the sentiment a lot but I think it's nonsense - I reckon what the person saying it usually means is not that the debate has been censored but that it hasn't reached the conclusion which they personally would like to see
(ooo I do like this, btw! ... all very adult, isn't it? ... and with Mark too in case you hadn't noticed)
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair would make a excellent president of Europe, first and foremost he is a great believer in Europe. I am so tired of hearing all these people moaning about how he took us into war, it was decided by parliament to go to war not Tony Blair, with the Tories being the most Gung Ho! about it, as for him ruining the country for twelve years he was only PM for ten years and he wasn't thrown out he made that decision himself much to the regret of the majority of Labour suporters, to get back to ruining the country for which he was the longest serving PM during that time the country took massive strides foreward we also had the longest period of full employment the longest period of the lowest inflation ever recorded and the lowest record of interest rates ever recorded, no point in going on some smart assed Tory will twist and turn the facts to suit themselves. the rest of Europe want him its only the Tories that does'nt. Lets have a Tory applicant for the job, probably one of the holocaust denying friends that they have cosied up to recently..
Complain about this comment
We have a Pope who is an ex Nazi, so why not Blair - the war criminal - as a President? Brown will need some influential friends after he loses power.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix
As all your comments on different blogs veer ultimately to the race card, could you please cast your beady eye over the link to photographs of Joao Barroso's European Commissioners?
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm
Is it just me but they also seem to very white? Is this a mere coincidence? Not exactly representative of the indigenous European population is it?
Complain about this comment
exiled @ 251
"How can a meaningful discussion take place if one side attempts to manipulate the facts?"
firstly I'm not "playing the race card" I'm calling something as racist only if I feel it is; if you're moving away from the stale old chestnut that an adult immigration debate has been prevented by people chanting racist every time the "I" word is even mentioned, then we (too!) are getting somewhere - and just to show you that we are, I completely agree with your highlighted sentiment that manipulation of important and relevant facts about any matter is anathema to proper debate about that matter
so let's move on:
what are the important and relevant facts (about immigration) which you believe have been manipulated? and by who?
Complain about this comment
It seems the debate has stalled at deciding who is a racist and who is not and trying to prove that point. A much more important debate is how in the future we are to accommodate all these people including our own, because we certainly will not be able to send them back. The economy is dire, unemployment will increase, inner cities will have less access to funds, our services will come under pressure, housing shortage will be a problem etc. It is the practicalities that should focus the mind not, who is a racist or not.
If deprivation takes a hold in Britain and it is also proved that the Labour Party for political reasons did allow too many people in this Country, be prepared for the massive backlash. I notice the media is keeping very quiet on this subject at the moment. At this point the BNP will be the least of our worries.
The economy is being ignored and we are not emerging from recession, which all sensible people knew we would not. Its time to stop listening to pro Government economists like Hutton. We must start cutting our debt and the public sector, this will hinder any recovery. With tax rises on the way and the VAT cut reversed, printing money is the only option we have left to keep going and we can not do much more of that. The reason to cut immigration to my mind is not based on race it is based on sound economics. We can no longer afford any more people in this Country who we will be inviting here to live in poverty. Anyone who cannot see the sense in that, is not using their heads.
As to Tony Blair any organisation who is prepared to invite a man to be its head when there are questions on how he got involved in a possible illegal war and has been implicit in bringing a Country down, does not get my vote. A President is a bad idea anyway each Country has its own representative, Blair could not possibly encompass all their views. It is possible with a man like Blair he will act exactly as he did in Cabinet and listen to no one except himself. Thererfore as he has taken Britain the wrong way he will take the EU the wrong way.
In my opinion the sooner we divorce ourselves from the EU the better and take a position such as Norway enjoys.
Complain about this comment
"245. At 1:57pm on 28 Oct 2009, Poprishchin wrote:
Can't stand Tony Blair"
It does seem a bit wierd.
Bernie Madoff in the US ran a financially bogus arrangement for a company which seemed superficially successful but was based on lies and an unsustainable model. He was jailed for 150 years.
Tony Blair did the same thing for a whole country and some people want to make him president of Europe.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Immigration is principally an economic issue; the main factors one needs to bring into play are:
(1) population levels, current and projected
(2) strength of our economy, current and projected
(3) regional variations on the above
(4) skill surpluses and shortages
(5) our obligations under EU and International Law
(6) concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas
how's that?
would you add any?
take any away?"
I would say that they are all very fair points. Apart from the very small minority of people who are actually racist (or xenophobic might be a better term) I think most people's concerns are that immigrants are taking jobs and opportunities away from them.
There seems to be the impression that immigrants can turn up on our shores and within days get benefits, houses and jobs which are somehow unavailable to British people, while this isn't true what is true is that more people means a smaller share of the pie for everybody.
Immigration is an issue much like Europe where the media likes to portray the negative aspects and ignore the positive benefits, and like Europe when the issue is brought up the name-calling starts before a debate is allowed to develop.
I support being in Europe, but I oppose the Lisbon treaty (only because we haven't been told enough about it to make a firm decision) and the Euro (for much the same reasons).
A proper debate and clear information on what it means for us is required before any vote.
Immigration is much the same - I support a policy where skilled immigrants are allowed in IF there is a need for their skills. However, if there is not a need then we should be tougher. A skilled enginner from India is much more use to this country than a coffee shop worker from the US.
EU law has required us to open our borders to unskilled workers from Europe, we shouldn't open our borders further to unskilled workers from countries outside the EU.
Complain about this comment
sweet @ 242
"Actually saga, he's shown that you fit exactly the nu-labour approach - if anyone brings up the subject of immigration then they're a racist."
no, that is not my approach; if you read my posts rather than just knee jerk to my pen name you will see that quite clearly
hey and listen, I have 3 ... yes THREE! ... adult debates on immigration going now (with Fairly, Mark, Exiled) and there's room for you too
why don't you kick off by telling me what YOU think the "Immigration problem" is and how you would like to handle it going forward?
looking forward to hearing your views on this very important matter
Complain about this comment
Immigration is not a race issue. It is about numbers.
However, the crass way the government has allowed it to happen and then told everybody they are a racist if they discuss it has actuall CAUSED it to become a race issue.
Just like the BBC telling the world what Carol Thatcher and Anton Du Buerk said in the green room has made the words Golliwog and Paki, high focus and caused even more racial tension.
Funny isn't it that the organisations supposed to be the most responsible have turned out to be the opposite?
Complain about this comment
254
'... it was decided by parliament to go to war not Tony Blair...'
Yes, they made the decision on the back of 'intelligence' put forward by Tony Blair, and his creature Alistair Campbell, that was about as factual as the porn Alistair Campbell used to write for Reader's Wives or whichever bongo mag he scraped his living from back then!
Complain about this comment
"[Blair] was the longest serving PM during that time the country took massive strides foreward we also had the longest period of full employment the longest period of the lowest inflation ever recorded and the lowest record of interest rates ever recorded" Grandantidote.
Bernie Madoff ran one of the most succesful investment companies in recent decades. Consistently they out-performed the competition, consistently they increased the value of Madoff Investments.
Unfortunately the whole thing was based on a unsustainable lie and when it inevitably collapsed, it left those who believed in it facing potential ruin and years of hardship.
(Hey, is that wierd or what, Grandantidote, you can add this last paragraph to either your or my post!)
Complain about this comment
#200 carrots
"Ref MPs should be made to read in detail every piece of legislation they have allowed to ooze into the public's life."
Sounds good, but let's be honest, if MPs don't even debate every piece of legislation in full, why waste time reading it?
Also, increasingly we see ministers using secondary legislation to bring in new regulations, using powers they have awarded themselves to bypass the need for parliamentary debate altogether.
As for the Lisbon treaty, then Minister for Europe Caroline Flint admitted she hadn't even read it. But even if she had read it, it's very doubtful she would have understood it - as admitted by the Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution.
The former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato is reported as having said:
"They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister – imagine the UK Prime Minister – can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum."
Of course, if MP's had to actually scrutinise anything before voting, it would just slow everything down - meaning they would have to pass fewer laws. Most of our MPs are just lobby fodder. They do as they are told and walk through the lobbies.
Complain about this comment
246#
I'm not bowing out of anything mate, I'm just not discussing it with you because you wont accept any other voice apart from your own.
247#
Who rattled your cage? I wasnt addressing you.
Complain about this comment
"what are the important and relevant facts (about immigration) which you believe have been manipulated? and by who?" Sagamix.
How about:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223296/Labour-think-tank-airbrushed-link-migrants-crime-immigration-report-Blair.html
God only knows that I am not happy about quoting from the Daily Mail and think that the issue is not as they imply, but if you do present me with an open goal, I will take it. This IS one of the points, that with Labour clearly doctoring reports and not wanting the issues debated AT ALL, then it opens the door for those from the far right to sieze on the information to further their cause. Labour are currently and as run by Blair and now Brown a fundimentily untruthful party. They may have started 'spin' by saying "what is the truth and how best can we present it" but they have now turned that to "what story can we get away with"
Complain about this comment
254 grandantidote
"Tony Blair would make a excellent president of Europe, first and foremost he is a great believer in Europe. "
===============================
Of course he is, he always knew when he was PM that a job on the EU gravy train would be his pension plan and feed his ego.
"I am so tired of hearing all these people moaning about how he took us into war, it was decided by parliament to go to war not Tony Blair, with the Tories being the most Gung Ho! "
=============================
He was the PM , and his team produced the "dodgey dossier" for the WMD 45 minute claim - ie false prospectus. Have they found them yet ? He didn't mention parliament when he was prancing around the world with George W Bush.
"as for him ruining the country for twelve years he was only PM for ten years "
================================
Only 10 years then, wow that makes all the difference!
"he wasn't thrown out he made that decision himself much to the regret of the majority of Labour suporters"
===========================
Hmmmmmm, thats not how I seem to remember it. Though many of the new labour MPs regret it now, when they saw the real qualities of Gordon Brown.
"to get back to ruining the country for which he was the longest serving PM during that time the country took massive strides foreward we also had the longest period of full employment the longest period of the lowest inflation ever recorded and the lowest record of interest rates ever recorded, "
==========================================
No more boom and bust as well! Even in the boom we were borrowing well beyond our means. It's all worked out very well hasn't it ? The biggest debt ever, and unemployment stadily climbing. No sign of a ressession in the public sector though, or in the EU either.
"no point in going on some smart assed Tory will twist and turn the facts to suit themselves."
=====================================
No need to twist anything. I think the facts are fairly clear to most people, with teh exception of people such as yourself and sagaminx.
"the rest of Europe want him its only the Tories that does'nt."
============================
As the whole of the EU is a democracy and voter free zone, how can you possibly know this? Were they given the chance to vote on it ?
=========================
Complain about this comment
ecb @ 256
"Is it just me but do they also seem to very white?"
not quite sure what point you're making, sorry
do you want to join in with our adult debate about immigration where nobody (least of all me) is "playing the race card"?
if you do, I extend the same invitation to you as to my good friend Sweet ... pls see 261
Complain about this comment
*260*
...........EU law has required us to open our borders to unskilled workers from Europe,................
*********************
Funny how EU law forced us to open our borders, but other EU Countries were allowed to impose restrictions. What did we do that meant we had to do it, while others didn't?
Couldn't be that the Government was up to something, could it?
Complain about this comment
Is this the same Sagamix who claimed that the second most important day in their life was in 1997? Calling to move on and forget that those who she hailed as saviours are in fact manipulating the facts.
again I would put forward that you have not moved, fine to live in the past but you dont decry them for what you said is anathema to you!!!
A touch of hypocrisy I would say.
Complain about this comment
Zydeco @ 238
I would not worry about Mr. Blair as President of the EU (POTEU) having to make any decisions of a militaristic nature.
By the time the EU has a coherent, highly integrated military force capable of even controliing its own space let alone anywhere else, Mr. Blair will be long gone from the POTEU role.
But the actual requirement for the existence of such an EU military force cannot denied, as evidenced by the total humiliation of the EU as it stood impotently on the sidelines whilst the Americans and NATO came in the sort out the EU's own backyard in the Balkans during the Bosian conflict.
That episode alone must have focussed minds amongst the EU's policymakers and made them determined to sort out a capable EU military wing, which is slowly coming into being.
Apart from any other consideration, on weapons systems and manpower cost grounds alone, the EU Member States should look favourably on closer integration of EU military forces.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Immigration is principally an economic issue; the main factors one needs to bring into play are:
(1) population levels, current and projected
(2) strength of our economy, current and projected
(3) regional variations on the above
(4) skill surpluses and shortages
(5) our obligations under EU and International Law
(6) concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas
*************************
Saga. You might like to add 'Language and Integration' to your list.
Both are sigificant factors in others 'perception of immigration'
Complain about this comment
#250, sagamix wrote:
"Immigration is principally an economic issue; the main factors one needs to bring into play are:
(1) population levels, current and projected
(2) strength of our economy, current and projected
(3) regional variations on the above
(4) skill surpluses and shortages
(5) our obligations under EU and International Law
(6) concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas
how's that?"
saga,
Immigration is primarily an economic issue at heart. But it can have other overtones, some very tangible, some perceived.
What stopped Blair and Co properly addressing your list, sharing a dialogue with the people, since 1997?
I don't recall any open debate, do you?
Complain about this comment
I was not aware we were discussing imigration.
My point is/was about the manipulation of the facts to avoid such a debate by government has actually caused the rise of the BNP.
A government you are happy to champion.
So I am to take it that you support these action taken by the party you support.
With the acceptance that they are capable of doing such a thing, is it also fair to say that we the public can not believe any figures they produce?
Hardly an edifing position for the elected government of the UK. Sounds much like the "previous" of ZANU in Zimbabwe.
Complain about this comment
sc @ 258
"It seems the debate has stalled at deciding who is a racist"
no Susan, we've moved beyond that I'm pleased to say - we're discussing immigration in a calm and rational way and the only "race" aspect to it (since people are pretty much agreeing that Immigration is an economic not a race issue) is that any participant has the right to express their view that a sentiment is racist if he or she feels that it is - guess you'll be fine with that since I know you accept that there ARE racist views out there, and I'm guessing you support somebody's right to describe them as such if (but only if, or course) they hear them
excellent; so let's take a look at what you're saying, shall we?
and it's all good, isn't it? - you clearly feel that it's primarily an economic issue too (don't you?) so we're on the same page
where we may differ is in our view of how to handle immigration from this point onwards
you (perhaps because of your very gloomy view on the economy) would like to see us pretty much close our borders, wouldn't you?
(on the way in, I mean, not both ways)
Complain about this comment
261. At 2:42pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sweet @ 242
"Actually saga, he's shown that you fit exactly the nu-labour approach - if anyone brings up the subject of immigration then they're a racist."
no, that is not my approach; if you read my posts rather than just knee jerk to my pen name you will see that quite clearly
hey and listen, I have 3 ... yes THREE! ... adult debates on immigration going now (with Fairly, Mark, Exiled) and there's room for you too
why don't you kick off by telling me what YOU think the "Immigration problem" is and how you would like to handle it going forward?
looking forward to hearing your views on this very important matter
===================
Of course saga, not that I expect you to actually take any on board.
1) Firstly this is a small island with a straining infrastructure. We cannot afford for people to arrive quicker than the infrastructure is improved. And obviously the size of the island cannot be increased.
2) We currently have high unemployment. Giving a job to someone from elsewhere in europe while paying someone else to sit and watch daytime tv is simply not good economics. Also I believe that paying someone from elsewhere in europe while paying child benefit for their foreign children is taking money out of the uk rather than it being spent here and raising vat etc.
Obviously accepting people for areas where we need the skills does not fall under this concern.
3) It is clear that many people feel that the current immigration levels have caused crime increases and social problems. Labours determination to hide crime figures shows that this is probably true to some degree, but I have to admit that I have not personally been affected. Our open door policy can only encourage undesirable people who are moved on from other countries to come here, and its not the UK taxpayers job to rehabilitate such people. This is, I believe a more minor issue that points 1 and 2.
You could argue that if all countries were as welcoming as us then immigration probably wouldn't be a problem and in an equal world people would have the freedom to move around as they please. Unfortunately that is not the world we currently live in.
Complain about this comment
272. At 3:05pm on 28 Oct 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
Zydeco @ 238
I would not worry about Mr. Blair as President of the EU (POTEU) having to make any decisions of a militaristic nature.
By the time the EU has a coherent, highly integrated military force capable of even controliing its own space let alone anywhere else, Mr. Blair will be long gone from the POTEU role.
But the actual requirement for the existence of such an EU military force cannot denied, as evidenced by the total humiliation of the EU as it stood impotently on the sidelines whilst the Americans and NATO came in the sort out the EU's own backyard in the Balkans during the Bosian conflict.
That episode alone must have focussed minds amongst the EU's policymakers and made them determined to sort out a capable EU military wing, which is slowly coming into being.
Apart from any other consideration, on weapons systems and manpower cost grounds alone, the EU Member States should look favourably on closer integration of EU military forces.
*****************
How do you get round the fact that some members of the EU have forces that are exempt from combat, under their 'neutrality' clauses?
If one is to have an EU Army, surely all have to play an equal role?
Or is it only some who have to put their lives on the line?
Complain about this comment
exiled @ 271
Is this the same Sagamix who claimed that the second most important day in their life was in 1997?
second? ... pls reread 100!
anyway, from this and your next one (275) I see you've bailed out and want to go back to party political point scoring
which I like (oh yes I do!) but I want to just finish this rather "sobersides" Immigration thing first, if you don't mind
Complain about this comment
Returning to the original debate, rather than sagamix and his politically motivated racist jibes, it appears that the new 'el Presidente' of Europe will not be Tony Blair.
Given the support for Tony Blair being offered by Gordon Brown and his prior attempts at supporting newlabour candidates anywhere form the Mayor of London to Crewe and Nantwich, I think it fair to predict that Tony Blair will not now win the role of European President.
Luxembourg looks set to win this 'non-role' and make sure it remains one.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
zed @ 273
"You might like to add 'Language and Integration' to the list"
happy to ... very important
so how should we incorporate those into our immigration policy?
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Immigration is principally an economic issue; the main factors one needs to bring into play are:
(1) population levels, current and projected
(2) strength of our economy, current and projected
(3) regional variations on the above
(4) skill surpluses and shortages
(5) our obligations under EU and International Law
(6) concentrations of poverty and unemployment in deprived working class areas
how's that?
would you add any?
take any away?"
Well, "1" is clearly not being addressed at the moment as there are NO rules on limiting the number of immigrants. If the whole of France, Germany, Spain and Poland decided to move here tomorrow, I think that might cause a problem. There are projections of an increase in the UK population of over 5 million in the near term. We don't currently have the housing or the infastructure to cope with the existing population.
2, 3 & 4 - The question. Is immigration NEEDED? Not is it a nice theoretical idea in a pink-tinged Labour heaven but is it NEEDED? Are there currently 5 million highly skilled job vancancies that can only be filled by the huge cadre of highly skilled foreigners who wait patiently just off shore, ready to come here when (and only when) we need them? Regional variations? Should we not be encouraging people to move within the UK (taking one unemployed person to fill one vacancy) rather than letting te unemployed person stay on the Government's books?
5 - Under EU law there is freedom of movement but I think there ought to be SOME element of constraint. Under International law, that would be asylum seekers and I have no problem with genuine cases.
6 - Indeed, and I am not sure how cramming more people into the same run down areas is going to help that.
Oh, you did leave "7" off the list, I am sure by accident. The clash of cultures. Are you happy with 'honour killings'? They're very much part & parcel of some cultures and tolerated by some country's Governments. If a majority in a local community said they were OK, would you defend them? Some elements of some cultures have some views on alcohol and women which seem at odds with our liberal views that women are equals and we should buy them a pint. IF those two cultures clash, what should we do about it? Do you think that it is GOOD for a society that different cultures with very different views on life, should live (a) Side by side, with 'The Dog & Duck' next to the local Mosque and drunken revellers mixxing with radical Muslims at chucking out time or (b) each should create their own ghettoes viewing the other with suspiscion? Bare in mind that we are talking about the real world here, with real people many of whom are not as enlightened as you and I. And even if your answer is that the two cultures have to learn to live with each other, who should learn what? Should the 90% bow to the views of the 10% or vice versa? What happy middle ground would you propose and would it be middle ground (which would in effect mean a destruction of the local (majority) culture) or would it sway more towards to majority culture (which, let's be honest the minority would be very unlikely to accept).
Real world solutions, Sagamix, not what life ought to be like or should be like but dealing with how it has been and is.
Complain about this comment
"Zydeco wrote:
*260*
...........EU law has required us to open our borders to unskilled workers from Europe,................
*********************
Funny how EU law forced us to open our borders, but other EU Countries were allowed to impose restrictions. What did we do that meant we had to do it, while others didn't?
Couldn't be that the Government was up to something, could it?"
My understanding was that all countries were supposed to do it, however on occasion countries in the EU sometimes turn a blind eye to EU laws they don't consider in their best interest
Complain about this comment
grand @ 247
"Did I see something about adult debates, surely not"
quite!
funny isn't it?
(except it's not, of course)
Complain about this comment
If imigration is an economic issue which we agree. The figures pertaining to immigration have been manipulated at source. Crime figures have been manipulated at source. When someone stands up and asks can we sustain the influx, he is descried. How can we have a serious debate?
The government must think we can not handle the true figures WHY?
Complain about this comment
With little or no accountability in governments, the addition of another layer appears to fit the pattern. Since all the world governments claim they were unaware of the coming financial crisis, even after being warned as early as 2001, maybe there is a need for a responsible government looking out for citizens, as none exist today. Maybe someone could nominate a bank president, they could certainly be trusted.
Complain about this comment
Mark @ 260
"I would say that they are all very fair points"
thank you!
"Apart from the very small minority of people who are actually racist I think most people's concerns are that immigrants are taking jobs and opportunities away from them
I agree
There seems to be the impression that immigrants can turn up on our shores and within days get benefits, houses and jobs which are somehow unavailable to British people, while this isn't true what is true is that more people means a smaller share of the pie for everybody"
yes, important to recognise and keep nailing the "front of the queue" myth - and smaller share of the pie? well possibly but you must remember that up until a very short while ago (the onset of the credit crunch which the Authorities did not see coming) we had a growing economy and severe skills and labour shortages - that may have changed now but it was judged (and perfectly sensibly at the time, I'd have thought) that we needed a healthy dose of incomers in order to support our growth; to keep our "pie" growing if you like
"Immigration is an issue much like Europe where the media likes to portray the negative aspects and ignore the positive benefits, and like Europe when the issue is brought up the name calling starts before a debate is allowed to develop"
very much so - the media has a lot to answer for in my opinion - but, you know, that's the way it is; one just has to try and counter some of the wilder stuff - as regards the name calling; yes and it doesn't help - it's bad for someone on the left to shout racist at the very mention of an immigration debate (and I hope you accept that I'm not such a person) and it's equally bad for those on the right to seek licence to discuss immigration in a racist way without being called on it - let's have none of either, eh?
"I support being in Europe, but I oppose the Lisbon treaty (only because we haven't been told enough about it to make a firm decision) and the Euro (for much the same reasons)"
fair enough - if we ever do have a vote on either, I too would want it to be on the basis of sufficient information and an open, rational debate - here's hoping
"A proper debate and clear information on what it means for us is required before any vote"
that's what I just said, didn't I?
"Immigration is much the same - I support a policy where skilled immigrants are allowed in IF there is a need for their skills. However, if there is not a need then we should be tougher. A skilled enginner from India is much more use to this country than a coffee shop worker from the US"
agreed
"EU law has required us to open our borders to unskilled workers from Europe, we shouldn't open our borders further to unskilled workers from countries outside the EU"
yes, we should take a look at that issue
there you see ... an Adult conversation about the "Big I"
and with a Clown too!
Complain about this comment
~284 sagamix
It is impossible to have an adult debate with members of a politcal party who are in continual denial about the facts.
Whether in regard to their denial of their attitude towards immigration, the catastrophic national debt or the dysfunctional education system you can't start a debate with people who walk away from the damage they have inflicted on this country.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
RR @ 280
rather than sagamix and his politically motivated racist jibes
don't fancy a bit of reasoned non partisan debate then, Robin?
well thank heavens for that (!) I'd have thought the sky was falling in or something
Complain about this comment
280. At 3:22pm on 28 Oct 2009, rockRobin7 wrote:
" ...Call an election."
How right you are!
I believe the Swiss have a system by which they can chuck out a government half way through their term.
Whether that is true or not we clearly need that ability in the UK.
Complain about this comment
You all miss the point of one Tony Blair being EU President. He is an ideal canditate for this all important appointment.
Just read his CV.
Useless
Economical with the truth.
Knows how to stick his nose in the trough.
Vacuous.
Knows nothing of Democracy.
Has an all grasping wife.
Has squared everything with his chosen God of the moment so it makes it all right.
Deals in the American Dollar for his income.
Has achieved nothing, other than turn this country into a bloody mess.
So don't be too hard on the man, it is awfully hard work being the way he is.
Complain about this comment
Zydeco @ 278
You ask me various questions about the fact that some members of the EU have forces that are exempt from combat, under their 'neutrality' clauses and say that surely all must play an equal role.
Look, as a very insignificant dot on the political landscape, it is not my role to suggest resolutions to implementation issues such as this and to do so would be a complete waste of energy because nobody would be listening - it would be just more noise in an already very noisy place.
I am content to posit broad political themes that I am for or against, as I think that fellow political bloggers are more likely to be engaged at that level.
Also, I may occasionally argue a point on here with fellow bloggers and that is the extent of my involvement with the world of national/international politics.
Complain about this comment
#253, sagamix wrote:
"fairly @ 241
"every time somebody has tried to have an adult debate over a 20 year or more period, it has been shouted down as "racist""
you're my favourite grumpy old man blogger and you make some good points in your post (as is often the case) but I'd like to pick up on this one, if I may
I don't see it - pls see my 242 for detailed rebuttal
I hear the sentiment a lot but I think it's nonsense - I reckon what the person saying it usually means is not that the debate has been censored but that it hasn't reached the conclusion which they personally would like to see."
Saga,
I'm sorry, but you give "progressives" a bad name.
You obviously delighted in that great new dawn when "Things could only get better".. but don't seem phased by the complete mess this country was allowed to sink into.
You seem to respond as though it's fine to become bankrupt, but have written nice poems about poverty, rather than rich and spending money on the poor.
Saga, I've seen stuff put together by MigrationWatch absolutely rubbished and attacked as racist. I don't follow that group, don't know it's internal composition. Maybe there are some racist people there. But on the whole their statistics stand up to scrutiny.
If any government can't work out how to develop the skills and competence of its own children and adults, but then trumpets the econmic benefit of immigration and the in-comers who do the jobs our people don't want, they are crazy. Doesn't matter whether a migrant is white, black, asian, african, whatever. If he/she has needed skills (or desperately requires shelter), fine. But just fling up the hands and say "Oh well, our people are too thick and lazy to do any but sitting down in comfy offices jobs" is rediculous.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix
You know Saga I am struggling to understand where you are coming from in this debate. Please try and outline what you want people on here to say. Do you want them all to accept the fact that they are racist because they believe immigration has gone too far. What is it you are after from this debate.
Furthermore I would have thought you would have been condemning certain immigrants yourself. You purport to be a new man in the sense you support Harman in her equal rights for women. Many immigrants treat women as second class citizens do they not? For all Harriet Harmans fine words I do not see her doing much about this situation.
Complain about this comment
andy @ 267
God only knows that I am not happy about quoting from the Daily Mail and think that the issue is not as they imply
I agree with both of those sentiments
nevertheless, as I said to "exiled" at 257, I am happy to condemn this government (or any other) if they suppress important and relevant factual information about any issue, including immigration - the dodgy dossier and Iraq, for example ... seeing as we're meant to be talking about "you know who" ... I consider that to be a nasty stain on the tablecloth
Complain about this comment
220. At 11:33am on 28 Oct 2009, writingsonthewall wrote:
I think making Bliar the presidente will be a great idea - then at least we know who to overthrow in the forthcoming revolution and won't have to think about 'who should be first against the wall'.
Just imagine, a devout Catholic leading the people of Europe - it will be just like Roman times again.
Hail Ceaser! - be you a plebian or a slave sir?
Writingsus Maximus onodious wallius
===
Dear self-styled odious wally!
You really are Wolfie Smith aren't you, Owen?
Good luck with the revolution to you and the rest of the Tooting Popular Front!
Complain about this comment
AndyC555
It's an acrostic thang!
Complain about this comment
262. At 2:42pm on 28 Oct 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
"Immigration is not a race issue. It is about numbers."
It is about all sorts of things.
The parts of the UK I see when flying in to Stansted are clearly overpopulated.
BUT the population of the UK is increasing. I object to that. I believe the population of the UK should be declining slowly. That means less immigration.
I also believe the population of the world should be declining slowly.
BUT in many countries too many people produce children they cannot feed. We need to encourage them to stop doing that. When we let their children into the UK, those children will send money back home giving the people back home a financial incentive to produce yet more children.
We need to do something helpful other than letting in all those people.
I do have ideas as to what helpful things we should do, but it takes too long.
Complain about this comment
Saga, I'll wager you were one of the 15 to complain to the BBC about "chocolate hobnobgate" weren't you?
After all, you have a talent for seeing racism where none exists!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223457/HobNobgate-This-really-takes-biscuit---BBC-thought-police-tried-cover-gentle-quip.html
Complain about this comment
Good news, Harriet Harperson's "astonishing and obnoxious" anti-men amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was defeated in the House of Lords yesterday.
A victory for common sense and equality of the sexes, don't you agree Saga?
Complain about this comment
29. At 12:09pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
Fairly @ 215
...far as I'm concerned, if I consider a view to be racist I will say so and I won't allow this obnoxious political correctness from the FTs to get in my way - if they can't handle that, then we'll have to have our "reasoned and adult" debate without them
===
Saga, I think you have just answered my "chocolate hobnobgate" question for me ;-)
Complain about this comment
Earth to all MPs: A one hour commute is average for most UK earthlings
Complain about this comment
andy @ 282
"Oh, you did leave "7" off the list, I am sure by accident. The clash of cultures"
no, we have that now - pls see 281
it's important, I agree
so how would you incorporate the "different culture" factor into immigration policy?
"Are you happy with 'honour killings'? They're very much part & parcel of some cultures and tolerated by some country's Governments. If a majority in a local community said they were OK, would you defend them?"
defend someone's right to carry out an Honour Killing? ... of course not!
in the UK, the last time I checked, murder is not just frowned upon it's pretty much prohibited; I'm happy with that
your more general points are then about the challenges which come with a ethnically and culturally diverse society - and there are some, of course there are - my view is that the benefits of such a society well outweigh the negatives, and so the challenges are there to be overcome
as I think I've mentioned previously, my way forward is to keep the door open for new migrants (but with sensible controls, that's important) and to tackle (via public/private investment) the triple header of education, jobs and poverty in the most deprived areas - that a Labour government ... a Labour! government ... has not done better on that agenda is a real disappointment to me
(with apologies to Neil Kinnock ... LPC of nineteen eighty something ... you remember that, Grandantidote?)
Complain about this comment
292. JohnConstable
John, you've got the right idea my Sir. Don't get too involved. Keep everything in perspective.
There are some on here who HAVE got the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything, but they really do need to get a life.
Complain about this comment
48. At 2:08pm on 28 Oct 2009, bryhers wrote:
Various.
You may not want a federal Europe or a president, but this is what you are probably getting.The question to ask is whether it is in the British and European interest to have a nonentity or some one with clout?
I would put the probability of a Blair presidency at .25 or possibly .3.
If this happens I predict that Mr.Cameron as incoming prime minister will quickly form a pragmatic alliance in the British interest.
In his speech yesterday opposing a Blair presidency, he gave strong indications that his policy on a referendum is pragamtic rather than principled, which will disappoint some of his eurosceptics.He will also need to extricate himself from his weird alliances on the European far right to be taken seriously by the Franco-German axis.
He should have no difficulty in emancipating himself from the Poles and Latvians and in forming a positive relationship with a British president.
===
Bryhers, if Labour want to be taken seriously by the Franco-German axis, maybe they should check up on some of the Central European types with whom Labour MEPs cohabit.
They include Romania's Social Democratic Party, whose Radu Mazare is deplored by Jews for dressing up as a Nazi at a fashion show; the Slovak Social Democrats (SMER), who share power with the neo-Nazi Slovak National Party; the Bulgarian Socialist Party, whose leader condemned his nation's first gay pride march as 'the manifestations and demonstrations of such orientations'; not to mention a former member of the IRA.
They are no better, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
yb @ 301
"I think you have just answered my "chocolate hobnobgate" question for me"
c'mon yellow, that's so lame it's going to have real problems hobbling from the paddock back to its box; why not engage with an issue just for once? (your teeth won't fall out, I promise!)
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 303
So how do we overcome these culture differences when the Government refuses, first of all to discuss immigration because they call everyone racist if they do. Secondly why is Harman not coming down harder on these immigrant men who treat their wives like second class citizens or is that just a policy for the English.
Complain about this comment
sc @ 294
You know Saga I am struggling to understand
I know Susan, I know
it's okay
Complain about this comment
"your more general points are then about the challenges which come with a ethnically and culturally diverse society - and there are some, of course there are - my view is that the benefits of such a society well outweigh the negatives, and so the challenges are there to be overcome
as I think I've mentioned previously, my way forward is to keep the door open for new migrants (but with sensible controls, that's important) and to tackle (via public/private investment) the triple header of education, jobs and poverty in the most deprived areas" Sagamix
Oh come on, do give us the HOW. "the challenges are there to be overcome". HOW?
You just don't have the answers, do you?
It's like someone wandering between the armies before a pitched battle and saying "hey guys, you should, like, all just get along"
Complain about this comment
281. At 3:22pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
zed @ 273
"You might like to add 'Language and Integration' to the list"
happy to ... very important
so how should we incorporate those into our immigration policy?
*************************
Well the former is often a barrier to the latter. But having said that there is a perception(I hate that word) that privileges and priority are oftimes given to those without the necessary language skills. Education is probably a good example, where for instance a whole class has to be slowed down to accomodate those without English, rather than setting up special language classes to get people up to speed. At the same time allowing others to progress with their education..
Complain about this comment
yellow @ 3C
"Harriet Harperson's "astonishing and obnoxious" anti-men amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was defeated in the House of Lords yesterday. A victory for common sense and equality of the sexes, don't you agree Saga?"
sorry, what was it trying to achieve?
(I'm a bit "immigrationed up" at present!)
was it something to do with the very low level of rape convictions as a percentage of both charges made and cases brought?
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 308
Saga a one line answer taken out of context will not get you out of answering difficult questions this time.
I asked you why you, do not condemn certain immigrants who treat their wives like second class citizens when you support Harman in her equality for women.
Furthermore I would like to know if you believe it is ok in our society for women to wear the Burka when the rest of us have to identify ourselves on a regular basis.
Why is the Government not coming down on these issues much more strongely if they want to overcome differences in culture.
I am starting to believe you obsession with this subject is attention seeking.
Complain about this comment
254. At 2:26pm on 28 Oct 2009, grandantidote wrote:
Tony Blair would make a excellent president of Europe, first and foremost he is a great believer in Europe.
...the rest of Europe want him its only the Tories that does'nt. Lets have a Tory applicant for the job, probably one of the holocaust denying friends that they have cosied up to recently..
===
Hello Grand, it seems it's not just the Tories who don't want Blair as EU President:
"The candidacy of Mr Blair is supported by eastern and southern Europe but opposed by the Netherlands and Belgium, founder states of the Common Market. It is also opposed by the European Left and much of the European Parliament. His support of the war in Iraq and free market capitalism damns him in many eyes.
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reservations but has been holding out in the hope of Germanyafter the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. The prime positions are Foreign Minister and High Representative for External Affairs, a job that may carry more power than the President of the Council of Leaders."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6877203.ece
===
There, that wasn't a rant, was it?!
By the way, Labour has some pretty dubious European friends as well.
Complain about this comment
303. At 4:29pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 282
"Oh, you did leave "7" off the list, I am sure by accident. The clash of cultures"
no, we have that now - pls see 281
it's important, I agree
so how would you incorporate the "different culture" factor into immigration policy?
"Are you happy with 'honour killings'? They're very much part & parcel of some cultures and tolerated by some country's Governments. If a majority in a local community said they were OK, would you defend them?"
defend someone's right to carry out an Honour Killing? ... of course not!
in the UK, the last time I checked, murder is not just frowned upon it's pretty much prohibited; I'm happy with that
your more general points are then about the challenges which come with a ethnically and culturally diverse society - and there are some, of course there are - my view is that the benefits of such a society well outweigh the negatives, and so the challenges are there to be overcome
========================================================
There are many words and phrases that change meaning over time to contain more 'weight' than the original word. For instance the way the word diverse is spouted by politicians assumes that diversity is a positive thing - of course without a subject to be more or less diverse this is meaningless. Your use of the word 'progressive' also implies more than the word really means.
So Saga, getting back to the point I really wanted to make:
What do believe are the benefits of a ethnically and culturally diverse society?
Complain about this comment
fairly @ 274
I don't recall any open debate, do you?
yes, I recall hundreds of them; and we're having one now, aren't we?
you (and Robin and Exiled and one or two others) have raised the point about how important it is to have the facts on the table; I very much agree with that - I also agree with Mark's well made point (at 260) that one has to pretty much ignore large sections of the media if one wants to have any sort of informed discussion
if you believe the likes of the Sun and the Daily Mail (and many do, I'm afraid to say) then your typical new migrant waltzes straight into a six bedroom mansion with hot and cold running chocolate
all that softhead stuff detracts from the "adulthood" of our national Immigration debate
Complain about this comment
Sometimes, mixing cultures has unexpected results. Suppose the black American singing Diva Beyonce married white British TV presenter & former tennis player Andrew Castle.
You'd end up with a Beyonce Castle.
Complain about this comment
Much is written above about Tony Blair
I regard hate as a most wasteful emotion, like envy, but my God I hate Blair.
Why ?
Because he gave me hope and not only did he not deliver he lined his own pockets and continues to do so.
But giving hope and not delivering is unforgiveable.
Complain about this comment
sc @ 312
"will not get you out of answering difficult questions"
nothing I like more than difficult questions, Susan ... I simply live for them
so ask me a few if you like, but please (please!) make sure they're not puerile and irrelevant
Complain about this comment
Andy @ 309
"You just don't have all the answers, do you?
no, that's very true!
but please refer back to my 303 (written to you, as it happens) where I offer a couple of suggestions
Complain about this comment
311. At 4:53pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
yellow @ 3C
"Harriet Harperson's "astonishing and obnoxious" anti-men amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was defeated in the House of Lords yesterday. A victory for common sense and equality of the sexes, don't you agree Saga?"
sorry, what was it trying to achieve?
(I'm a bit "immigrationed up" at present!)
was it something to do with the very low level of rape convictions as a percentage of both charges made and cases brought?
===
No.
"Former judges, including a retired law lord, have helped sink Government plans to stop men using a wife's infidelity as a partial defence for murdering her.
Harriet Harman had wanted to change the law to stop men potentially escaping with a charge of manslaughter if their wife was having an affair.
The Equalities Minister, Labour's deputy leader, claimed the change would end the 'culture of excuses' among men who kill.
But the move was described as 'astonishing' and 'obnoxious' in the Lords yesterday as peers rejected an amendment in the Coroners and Justice Bill by 99 votes to 84.
It would have prevented a jury from considering whether sexual infidelity led to a 'loss of self-control'.
A second controversial change to the law is likely to go ahead, however. It will allow women who kill abusive partners in cold blood to escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.
They must establish only that they were responding to a 'slow burn' of abuse.
The change would sweep aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a 'sudden' loss of control."
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 318
Explain to me how it can be irrelevant when you have stated that there are culture differences that need to be overcome.
I have given you two, I could give you more, but two will do, cultural differences which cause problems in our society. You have stated many times that you support Harriet Harmans stand on equal rights for women, this is a cultural difference as many immigrant women are treated like second class citizens by men. How are we to overcome this if we are not allowed to speak of it and if the Government does not condemn it by forcing a change.
The next one is the burka should this not be outlawed as identity has become so important in this Country.
Insults from you do not help, I notice you resort to them whenever the question does not suit.
Complain about this comment
Gee am I glad that Duff Gordon backed Teflon Tony!
I can’t work with ‘Mr Flash’ says Merkel as Blair bids for presidency.
Mrs Merkel, who is having dinner with French president Nicolas Sarkozy tonight, has been influenced by Tory leader David Cameron's firm opposition to the Blair bandwagon. A diplomat also said she does not like the idea of “having to listen to Mr Flash all the time”.
Moreover, the former German president Richard von Weiszaecker, a conservative who is close to Mrs Merkel, said that Mr Blair's record on giving the Iraq invasion “extraordinarily intensive backing” counted badly against him.
Duff - Midas in reverse.
Complain about this comment
anybody @ 314
"What do believe are the benefits of a ethnically and culturally diverse society?"
sorry Sweet! and I didn't get back to you on that summary of your views at 277 either, did I? - I read it though and didn't agree with too much of it - never mind ... because that's what makes the world go round, isn't it?
variety, I mean
and that, I guess, is how I'd answer your question - I'm a big fan of celebrating people's differences rather than trying to suppress them - I feel the idea of living in a country with a kind of uniform, homogenous feel to it a very depressing prospect - I also think for us to try and recreate such a thing (go "back to the future" as it were ... seen it?) would require a fair amount of inappropriate state power - the means to achieve it (even if I wanted to, which I don't) would be distinctly dubious - but anyway, as I say, I'd rather concentrate on the plus side; the variety, the energy, the different perpectives, the colour which the influx of newcomers from all corners of the world bring to our national life - we are more open and tolerant than many other countries and I'm very proud of that - the negatives (such as they are) are in my view trivial compared to the positives - I recognise that plenty of people feel differently (especially those at the sharp end of poverty, deprivation and unemployment) but I'd like to tackle those issues in the ways I've suggested (directed economic measures) rather than by blaming "too many foreigners" - for me, that's the wrong way to go
Complain about this comment
The Conservative Euro-sceptics on appear to want Britain to continue as America's poodle in world affairs.
Now which Prime Minister had the chance not to join America's war in Iraq etc and to join the Euro? I don't get the Tories fear of Mr Blair. He was so in league with Tory policy of Britain being America's poodle that he ought to be the Tory choice!
Maybe the Conservatives ought to come clean - they want Britain to a county of Alabama!
Complain about this comment
#315, sagamix wrote:
"fairly @ 274
I don't recall any open debate, do you?
yes, I recall hundreds of them; and we're having one now, aren't we? ...
if you believe the likes of the Sun and the Daily Mail (and many do, I'm afraid to say) then your typical new migrant waltzes straight into a six bedroom mansion with hot and cold running chocolate"
saga,
I'm sure there are even people who believed that when the PM of the UK stands up in Parliament and says there is "compelling evidence" of WMD in Iraq, it could be true.
I mean, a "progressive" party wouldn't spin a nation into war, would it? Not when it's led by a lawyer - a barrister no less - obviously used to testing the strength of evidence before presenting it to a court...
I read a lot of newspapers. Some for fun. Some because they probably get a bit nearer to "fact-based journalism" than others.
I don't like it when governments tamper with reports they commission using tax-payers' money. Lots of government has to be based on "how you feel about stuff". But if you junk elements of the evidence to "fit" a viewpoint, before allowing the public to see it, you are in trouble.
Once upon a time, information used to flow like glue. Now, it leaks or wriggles it way into a public gaze.
I've read lots of stuff I don't like, in working and private lives, as it makes me re-think a considered opinion.
It just seems that the predominant flavour of the New Labour administration is a nasty taste in the mouth... You're not quite sure if it's something that was placed in your drink while you weren't looking, or something you deliberately swallowed, because you thought (had actually been told) that it would be OK.
I've lived cheek by jowl with immigrant families who clubbed together to buy a house, then another and more. While "indigenous" locals doing similar jobs "invested" in flash cars, TVs, stereos/videos, football club replica shirts, special trainers, etc. etc, while in rented accommodation whether private or public.
Guess who I sympathise with more?
Just worries me a litle, saga. Population projections are speculative (like economic models - or even the Global Warming stuff). But "serious" papers suggest that the UK could have a bigger population than Germany in a few decades time. How can we afford it?
Complain about this comment
yellow @ 320
ah okay, I see ... thanks
well I'm not a criminal lawyer but I thought that "provocation" is generally speaking always a possible line of defence to turn a murder rap into a lesser charge - if you're saying that this change in the law (the one that's been knocked back) would have allowed a woman who killed her partner to maybe use infidelity as a defence BUT would have forbidden a man from doing the same, then that seems most unreasonable and I would therefore agree with the noble Lords - but is that the case? ... or was it removing the infidelity defence from both genders?
on your other point, the woman getting off free if it's demonstrated she was the victim of abuse and feared further violence; well that's a very difficult one - really tough cases those, I'd have thought - there was a very good 5 part Mon to Fri drama on telly recently which was all about just such a case; did you see it by any chance?
Complain about this comment
Tony B-Liar does not have Brtians best interests at heart. He does not have Europes best interests at heart either.
The only reason he wants the Euro president job is for what he and his wife can get out of it. It's the same reason he wanted to be PM.
The man is a liar, a con man and a total incompetant. If he gets the job than may God help Europe. And us.
Complain about this comment
268 Strictlt Pickled
#Of course he is, he always knew when he was PM that a job on the EU gravy train would be his pension plan and feed his ego.
---------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Tony is very perceptive, four years ago he had worked out that the Lisbon treaty [didn't exist then] would be ratified and that he was a very strong contender for president of Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
#Hmmmmmm, thats not how I seem to remember it. Though many of the new labour MPs regret it now, when they saw the real qualities of Gordon Brown.
The biggest mistake he ever made to the great relief of David Cameron.His choice no one forced him although you would like to think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
#He was the PM , and his team produced the "dodgey dossier" for the WMD 45 minute claim - ie false prospectus. Have they found them yet ? He didn't mention parliament when he was prancing around the world with George W Bush.
"as for him ruining the country for twelve years he was only PM for ten years "
================================
Only 10 years then, wow that makes all the difference!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He and his team,
and I thought the intelligence service worked for us I hadn't realised that he controlled them and told them what to write in a report, did you believe in the 45 minute warning, I certainly didn't I doubt that TB believed it but that was the information put in front of him, many believed it including most of the Tories the labour members were less easily convinced, if he had'nt passed this information on and there had of been a attack what would you have had to say?. five inquiries not enough for you EH!
yes ten years I thought that you sort the truth, if your glib remark sums you up then so much for the rest of your post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#No more boom and bust as well!
The child Camerons war cry,under the Tories we suffered boom and bust without to much boom on a three monthly basis, the only bust under Labour has been through the biggest recession the World has ever experienced, not a bad record compared to the Tories tenancy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"no point in going on some smart assed Tory will twist and turn the facts to suit themselves."
I was right wasn't I three up to now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the whole of the EU is a democracy and voter free zone, how can you possibly know this? Were they given the chance to vote on it ?
#Yes you have a fair point there.
The general consensus is that he probably will be offered the job if the Lisbon treaty is ratified as seems likely,even by your opening remark you seem convinced, also much to the annoyance of David Cameron whose tenure of number ten will be short lived if he makes it at all, the old guard will not take long to put the poor chap to one side.Perhaps he was lining the job up for himself, no chance!.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fairly @ 325
"I'm sure there are even people who believed that when the PM of the UK stands up in Parliament and says there is "compelling evidence" of WMD in Iraq, it could be true"
well not me - I didn't even believe it at the time - was just a logic question for me - if there really HAD been a load of WMD ready to be used in Iraq (nuclear and chemical weapons and the like) we wouldn't have been so keen to go in, would we? - too dangerous - that's one of the main reasons countries want to develop WMD after all; to deter the likes of Bush and Blair (and outside forces generally) from stomping into their house
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 323
All very noble sentiments and I guess we would all agree with that if it were true.
However, it is not, there are divisions in our society, which high immigration levels have brought about. The 3 main parties have closed the debate on immigration, by dealing with any voice of descent with a label of racist, much as you have on here.
You have still not answered me on how you intend to overcome these culture issues you have spoken of without the Government bringing in measures to do so. Without the 3 main parties acknowledging there is a problem more people will turn to extreme parties to solve the issue. Your attitude will ensure this happens much more quickly.
Though you have softened you stance you still have not provided any answers except that you expect people to accept what you say without question. Sorry that is not good enough.
The economy you speak of cannot help because it is dire and likely to get worse. If we continue to add more people to this problem it will only make the situation more difficult.
Complain about this comment
As Harriett Harman is mentioned above I cannot resist quoting from Caterine Bennetts column in last Sundays Observer.
The article was yet another on the myth of "trafficking" and sex workers in general. Based on a recent report on the issues.
" Intentionally or not Davies's story does more than further embarass already ludicrous figures such as Hariett Harman and Jacqi Smith. "
And this from a respected female journalist.
Complain about this comment
Despite the woman interviewed on BBC News last night unchallanged singing Blair's praises as a great statesman and wonderful choice if the El Presidente position arises, we all know the truth. He and his wife would only be in it for the money. Blair was totally incapable as a PM and would be in any position of high office.
Afganistan are looking for a President so I strongly suggest his name is put forward for that job.
If he ever ends up in the EU spot the UK must break all ties with Brussels and get out immediately.Leave the pigs around the trough as long as we do not have to pay for their excesses.
Complain about this comment
hi Susan @ 321
(1) men who treat women as second class citizens?
that's a despicable thing to do - not confined to any particular ethnic group either! ... but yes I know what you mean; there are some particularly unattractive customs, aren't there?
what to do about it, I'm not sure - we have our laws and they should be upheld without fear or favour - over and above that, I don't know - what would you suggest?
(2) and the burkha?
no, I wouldn't ban it - I think what people wear is pretty much their own business - but I think there's a case for some sort of limitation in cases, for example, where the woman is doing a job and the nature of that job means that the covering of the face is inappropriate
what about you? would you more like to see a complete ban?
Complain about this comment
xtun @ 332
you may be right that the extent to which organised sex trafficking occurs is exaggarated, I don't really know ... interestingly, the Daily Mail is running a story alleging that the government has been guilty of doing the opposite; of playing it down
to steal one of your little catchphrases, if I may ...
"It's a Funny Old World"
Complain about this comment
305.From Yellowbelly 1959
"Bryhers, if Labour want to be taken seriously by the Franco-German axis, maybe they should check up on some of the Central European types with whom Labour MEPs cohabit."
"They include Romania's Social Democratic Party, whose Radu Mazare is deplored by Jews for dressing up as a Nazi at a fashion show; the Slovak Social Democrats (SMER), who share power with the neo-Nazi Slovak National Party; the Bulgarian Socialist Party, whose leader condemned his nation's first gay pride march as 'the manifestations and demonstrations of such orientations'; not to mention a former member of the IRA."
"They are no better, in my opinion."
Don`t you just love the Bulgarian Socialist Party,come on,you would have to have a heart of stone not to admire this desperate attempt by a man who presides over a medieval culture of abductions and vendetta
to be politically correct.As for the Slovaks, proportional representation means you get in bed with the strangest people, among whom are Roumanian social democrats whose membership consists entirely of vampires.
Meanwhile Mr.Cameron`s MEPs abandoned a respectable centre-right coalition to join some Latvian SS celebrators and a Polish nude prime minister.I know that Mr.Cameron fears his eurosceptics, but if he is to be taken seriously in Europe he needs to leave these people pronto.
With friends like that who needs enemies
Complain about this comment
323. At 6:00pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
anybody @ 314
"What do believe are the benefits of a ethnically and culturally diverse society?"
sorry Sweet! and I didn't get back to you on that summary of your views at 277 either, did I? - I read it though and didn't agree with too much of it - never mind ... because that's what makes the world go round, isn't it?
variety, I mean
and that, I guess, is how I'd answer your question - I'm a big fan of celebrating people's differences rather than trying to suppress them - I feel the idea of living in a country with a kind of uniform, homogenous feel to it a very depressing prospect - I also think for us to try and recreate such a thing (go "back to the future" as it were ... seen it?) would require a fair amount of inappropriate state power - the means to achieve it (even if I wanted to, which I don't) would be distinctly dubious - but anyway, as I say, I'd rather concentrate on the plus side; the variety, the energy, the different perpectives, the colour which the influx of newcomers from all corners of the world bring to our national life - we are more open and tolerant than many other countries and I'm very proud of that - the negatives (such as they are) are in my view trivial compared to the positives - I recognise that plenty of people feel differently (especially those at the sharp end of poverty, deprivation and unemployment) but I'd like to tackle those issues in the ways I've suggested (directed economic measures) rather than by blaming "too many foreigners" - for me, that's the wrong way to go
===========================================
You asked me what I thought the immigration issues where - I told you and you just disagree? Perhaps you'd like to be more specific?
Do you believe that our little island is ever expanding and can take a population with no bounds whatsoever?
Do you believe that keeping one person on benefits while paying someone else to do the same work is cost effective, and good for the country?
At what point do we actually have to take action to curl the number of people on this tiny piece of land? Once we get to standing room only?
As to your respons above, you gave exactly the kind of description of why diversity is good that I expected. Absolutely no information at all - just waffle and the usual buzz words. How exactly do you 'celebrate difference' - do you have a party with all your 'progressive' friends? How about you try again, and this time come up with something measurable? You know, something that actually make a difference in the real world as opposite to wishy washy concepts that make on sense outside of the 'socialist fairy world' some people seem to inhabit.
Complain about this comment
# So you agree that Tony is very perceptive, four years ago he had worked out that the Lisbon treaty [didn't exist then] would be ratified and that he was a very strong contender for president of Europe.
====================================
Oh yes, Tony Blair is extremely perceptive, especially when it comes to looking after his own interests. The Lisbon Treaty didn't exist then as you say, it was the European Constitution then (or whatever it was called) and he knew all about. Of course it has been rebadged, and people like you are obviously naive enough to think that it's not the same thing. The EU has long been acknowledged as a retirement refuge for failed politicians with Mr and Mrs Kinnock and Peter Mandelson being thebest examples. Are you seriously saying that Tony Blair did not have an eye on a cosy little slot inthe EU, with chauffuer driven cars, huge salary and grandiose lifestyle to pander ot his ego ? Blair knew eactly where the EU was heading, it isn't a secret and slowly moves onto it final goal with glacier like enivitability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
#Hmmmmmm, thats not how I seem to remember it. Though many of the new labour MPs regret it now, when they saw the real qualities of Gordon Brown.
The biggest mistake he ever made to the great relief of David Cameron.His choice no one forced him although you would like to think so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't actually like to think anything, its just what I remember happening at the time. Of course it was his choice to go when he did, though he could see what was coming to him from Gordy and his pals very soon if he didn't. I didn't want Blair to step down, as I thought Gordon Brown would make a dreadful PM. I was right there.
He and his team,
and I thought the intelligence service worked for us I hadn't realised that he controlled them and told them what to write in a report, did you believe in the 45 minute warning, I certainly didn't I doubt that TB believed it but that was the information put in front of him, many believed it including most of the Tories the labour members were less easily convinced, if he had'nt passed this information on and there had of been a attack what would you have had to say?. five inquiries not enough for you EH!
==========================
The dodgey dossier was presented in a manner to reinforce the decision which I believe had already been made. Of course Blair knew that it wasn't really true! The intelligence service may well have said this, but with many caveats which were airbrushed out of the picture. Factual accuracy never came into it. Five enquiries are actually not enough for me. A single WMD found would have been though. Have they found any yet ???? I don't think you can blame the tories for this one, "being less easily convinced" by Blairs deliberate attempt to mislead them.
#yes ten years I thought that you sort the truth, if your glib remark sums you up then so much for the rest of your post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry you have lost me here. I accept your point that Blair didn't ruin the country for 12 years but only for 10. You may feel better about this - I don't!
#No more boom and bust as well!
The child Camerons war cry,under the Tories we suffered boom and bust without to much boom on a three monthly basis, the only bust under Labour has been through the biggest recession the World has ever experienced, not a bad record compared to the Tories tenancy.
=================================
Noone forced Gordon Brown to say "no more boom and bust". Not a bad record ???? You must be joking !!!!!!!
As the whole of the EU is a democracy and voter free zone, how can you possibly know this? Were they given the chance to vote on it ?
#Yes you have a fair point there.
The general consensus is that he probably will be offered the job if the Lisbon treaty is ratified as seems likely,even by your opening remark you seem convinced, also much to the annoyance of David Cameron whose tenure of number ten will be short lived if he makes it at all, the old guard will not take long to put the poor chap to one side.Perhaps he was lining the job up for himself, no chance!.
========================
David Cameron for EU President - That's one conspiracy theory I hadn't considered ! I like that one !
Complain about this comment
#330, sagamix wrote:
"Fairly @ 325
"I'm sure there are even people who believed that when the PM of the UK stands up in Parliament and says there is "compelling evidence" of WMD in Iraq, it could be true"
well not me - I didn't even believe it at the time - was just a logic question for me - if there really HAD been a load of WMD ready to be used in Iraq (nuclear and chemical weapons and the like) we wouldn't have been so keen to go in, would we? - too dangerous - that's one of the main reasons countries want to develop WMD after all; to deter the likes of Bush and Blair (and outside forces generally) from stomping into their house"
Saga,
The West (and the locals) already knew that Saddam possesed and had used chemical weapons. So that was a genuine risk. That was never really doubted, was it? Did you doubt it, saga? I thought the filmed evidence was fairly compelling.
Don't recall the Services blinking when they were very aware that chemicals could float about.
I rather think that Saddam blinked and realised that, if he had used them to great purpose, his nation would have been totally flattened.
Our wonderful intelligence services appear to have used a single, un-supported, "witness" statement to allow all that "45 minutes to nuclear weapon deployment" stuff to spin way out of hand.
Wonder how that was allowed to happen? Wonder why it was only after all the grand-standing, gotta go with George Dubya, parliamentary approval stuff that the intelligence guys backed away?
Wonder why the Scarlett bloke who allowed an inflation of the "evidence" was promoted to a more significant role?
Wonder why a senior Judge could not understand that if his approach (i.e. you can spin whatever you want, into whichever colour, if you are in government) would play out, if transcribed into the broader political and social framework?
(Sorry. Withdraw that. We've seen it.)
I was rather sorry that along the way, the preening Al Campbell managed to squash the BBC. Because a reporter, on an early morning radio show, used the term "sexed-up" about some doubtful evidence. He was right, but the Beeb was badly damaged.
I'm not quite sure I understand your "progressive" approach, saga.
You seem to suggest that a logical appraisal means that if any nation has WMD in any form, no outside nation (or the UN) would or could intervene to try and help its citizens. On that basis, if every state had WMD, we should all be peaceful, n'est ce pas?
So the nasty people in one "nation" could do whatever it wanted to its own population without fear of external intervention.
You may be right. Rwanda, after all, managed to tolerate the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its citizens using old fashioned technology. Can't recall any big international desire to get involved. Looking at it doesn't really help, does it? Perhaps we should re-focus our concerns on weapons of individually wielded destruction?
Not sure what this has to do with immigration - though we have (quite rightly) granted assylum to people from severely troubled nations when possible.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Mark @ 260
"I would say that they are all very fair points"
thank you!"
You're welcome.
"yes, important to recognise and keep nailing the "front of the queue" myth - and smaller share of the pie? well possibly but you must remember that up until a very short while ago (the onset of the credit crunch which the Authorities did not see coming) we had a growing economy and severe skills and labour shortages - that may have changed now but it was judged (and perfectly sensibly at the time, I'd have thought) that we needed a healthy dose of incomers in order to support our growth; to keep our "pie" growing if you like"
Even before the credit crunch we still had large numbers of unemployed, ideally it would be better for the economy to fill the skills gap by training up people from this country rather then importing people from other countries to fill the gaps. Not always possible but it is preferable.
"very much so - the media has a lot to answer for in my opinion - but, you know, that's the way it is; one just has to try and counter some of the wilder stuff - as regards the name calling; yes and it doesn't help - it's bad for someone on the left to shout racist at the very mention of an immigration debate (and I hope you accept that I'm not such a person)"
I don't think you are someone who will just close down debates by calling someone racist as while we differ in opinions you usually prefer to address points fairly rather than refer to name calling (apart from when you refer to the Tories as clowns or Cameron as Mortimax)
It is just as bad for the right to call a left-winger a communist as it is for a left-winger to call a right-winger a racist. It just kills debate.
"and it's equally bad for those on the right to seek licence to discuss immigration in a racist way without being called on it - let's have none of either, eh?"
The majority of people don't refer to immigration in racist terms because as we agree the issue is much deeper than that.
"there you see ... an Adult conversation about the "Big I"
and with a Clown too!"
I don't actually consider myself to be a Tory, I will probably end up voting for them in the next election but that is only because our local (Labour) MP is useless and seems unable to vote against party lines and the Tory candidate is best placed to defeat her.
I have a problem with the party political system as my views cross party boundaries and are more complex than right or left.
Complain about this comment
sweet @ 337
you gave exactly the kind of description of why diversity is good that I expected
and there I was hoping to surprise you! ... ah well
best I can do for now, I'm afraid; how about you flip it back to me? - you tell me why you think diversity is a bad thing
Complain about this comment
For the American Indians,the Maori, Australian aborigines and Africans,the immigration of English,French and Spanish people was a very bad thing indeed,for some indigenous people it ended in genocide.
A reverse colonization is taking place across the world by invitation rather than conquest.
Racial politics rests on perceived differences and a misunderstanding of Darwin.Instead of the struggle betweeen natural species for survival,the racists substitute a race struggle,or what the Nazi`s called a rasenkampf when they murderously invaded Russia.
In fact we are one species with small differences and commensurate abilities which similar environments promote.
Whatever the cultural and economic restrictions on the inflows and outflow of people, (which should not be minimized),the constants are unchanging.
Complain about this comment
4. At 12:47pm on 27 Oct 2009, djlazarus wrote:
I read it to conclude that we're all going to be Europeans now, whether we like it or not.
It's such a shame that so many people can only see this issue in black and white. The Community needs re-shaping, but it makes more sense to me to try and change it from within.
Perhaps in a few years we'll all be spending our worthless Euro notes with Tony's smug grin plastered all over them.
They'll soon be worth more than the Pound. Unless of course you consider the picture more important than the purchasing power.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 334
Harriet Harman should put her money where her mouth is because she is not making sure that minority groups treat their women with respect as far as equality is concerned. She is busy making the rules but not enforcing them.
Too right I would ban the burka until recently Jack Straw was strong on this as well. How times change. There are two reasons why I would.
Why should a young women be tied behind what is a shroud for reasons men choose. This both inhibits their ability to contribute to society in a proper way or work for a living.
Secondly all of us in Britain have to identify ourselves for security reasons, the faces hidden behind this mask, could be a terrorist who would know. This proves there is one rule for them and one rule for us with Government. This in itself leads to a feeling of resentment.
Complain about this comment
And EL presidant could then create another Leo Blair Kidnapp plot
to silence protest groups.
Now that would be a smart move to silence democracy once and for all
Churchill would leap out of his grave
#334 and #344
(1) men who treat women as second class citizens?
what about the Women who treat men as second class citisens then ?
Complain about this comment
345#
Wot, like Harriet does?
Complain about this comment
334 Saga
321 & 344 Croftie
As well as being fascinated by the Indian Soho rd in Brum I find other parts of that city just as fascinating because of the I assume Muslim
population and most of the women wear head to toe black with a letterbox eye slit. The little army of kids they seem to have around them wear western dress except girls over about 10 wear a sort of burka.
Some, this were it gets odd to me, wear pale blue but with a mesh piece
over their eyes. Why different dress requirements? How they drive in this mesh screen get up and see where they are going I do not know but they do.
I was also at Brum Airport recently and saw two males in western dress followed by a dozen women all in line and head to toe black with the eye slit opening.. I would have loved to see what happened at passport control.
I enjoy people watching, dont always understand what I see but it gives me food for thought.
Oh yes those orthodox Jews in London with the ringlets and the hats and the little lads dressed the same. Just as fascinating. Just as their women all wear wigs coz only their husbands can see their hair.
Religion ! Or is it what men make of religion ?
Complain about this comment
335 Saga
We agree!!!!!!!!
It certainly is a funny old world.
Have looked at the Daily Mail article and that is quite a different thing. The Mail article is about the coercing of young 12 to 15 yr old British girls into prostitution by immigrants, mainly Iraqui. Charming eh!
The Nick Davies report stated that despite the massive high profile police operation into sex trafficking not a single unwilling worker had been found.
The Mail report is much more worrying. Why and how can these girls, 32 in Sheffield be taken out of normal life, home ,school etc and transported around the country by the pimps. It appears not to be children "in care" either. ? There are some questions here.
And what a nice way for these Iraqis to repay our hospitality.
Complain about this comment
341. At 7:51pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sweet @ 337
you gave exactly the kind of description of why diversity is good that I expected
and there I was hoping to surprise you! ... ah well
best I can do for now, I'm afraid; how about you flip it back to me? - you tell me why you think diversity is a bad thing
================================================================
I've noticed a major flaw in your thinking for a long time saga, and its clear from your question.
I asked you to explain why diversity is a good thing. From that question you assume I think its a bad thing - I don't.
My issue is not with the diverse mix of people and cultures in society. My issue is the way in which words such as diversity, rights, prejudice etc are wheeled out to flatten debate (similar to the immigration/racism issues above).
For instance I recently saw a newpaper article in which someone got sacked somewhat unfairly due to a personality clash with their boss. Of course this kind of stuff happens all the time, but to make it newsworthy rather than using the phrase 'he didn't like me' the paper used the phrase 'he was prejudiced against me'. Do you see the problem here? In the real world, nothing has changed, but by changing the language one side of the argument has become almost impossible to defend.
Its this kind of rubbish that stops me calling myself a liberal, even though most of my views would suggest I was.
Complain about this comment
@ 340
I don't actually consider myself to be a Tory
I know, Mark, was just kidding around - anyway, nice to have that little exchange; we must do it again sometime!
Complain about this comment
God, listening to two MP's wives beating their gums on the 10 o clock news...
Tough. No sympathy whatsoever for the troughers.
Complain about this comment
343. At 8:05pm on 28 Oct 2009, Its_an_Outrage wrote:
" ... The Community needs re-shaping, but it makes more sense to me to try and change it from within ..."
We have been trying to changer it from within for thirty-six years with no success.
We need to be free of its sick influence and the quickest way to achieve that is to leave.
We will change it more by leaving than by staying in because we will no longer be paying for the CAP.
Complain about this comment
254. At 2:26pm on 28 Oct 2009, grandantidote wrote:
"Tony Blair would make a excellent president of Europe ..."
1) The "EU" is not Europe.
2) If your lousy dictatorship will not give us a vote on Lisbon, then it should give us a vote on "Our President" and I ought to be able to stand.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 344
"Too right I would ban the burka"
that's a little authoritarian for my taste - I do, however, see an argument for limiting the wearing of it at work if the woman in question is in a job for which the covering of the face is clearly inappropriate - a teacher, for example
"all of us in Britain have to identify ourselves for security reasons, the faces hidden behind this mask could be a terrorist who would know? This proves there is one rule for them and one rule for us with Government"
don't quite follow, sorry - I'm guessing the "them" are muslim women - okay, so under what circumstances would you have to formally identify yourself "for security reasons" where a muslim woman would not?
Complain about this comment
sweet @ 349
okay, I'm sorry and thank you for the correction; so we BOTH think diversity is on the whole a good thing - gee, my head is positively spinning with all this agreement going on! - sounds like your main issue (looping back to 277) is the overall population and the ability of our small island to support it - that's a real concern, of course ... and one which I share ... but it's difficult (isn't it?) to come up with a fixed upper limit for our population; have YOU got one in mind from your calculations?
also, you now raise the following observation:
"I recently saw a newpaper article in which someone got sacked somewhat unfairly due to a personality clash with their boss. Of course this kind of stuff happens all the time, but to make it newsworthy rather than using the phrase 'he didn't like me' the paper used the phrase 'he was prejudiced against me'. Do you see the problem here?"
I'm not sure I do really, no, but perhaps I'm missing your point; is it the racial and sexual discrimination laws you're talking about? do you feel they are abused to such an extent that they should be repealed?
Complain about this comment
#354, sagamix wrote:
Sorry - I realise this was a private exchange, but I just had to chip in.
"susan @ 344
"Too right I would ban the burka"
that's a little authoritarian for my taste - I do, however, see an argument for limiting the wearing of it at work if the woman in question is in a job for which the covering of the face is clearly inappropriate - a teacher, for example
Saga,
I guess you extended the burka to include the veil (hijab), so maybe a pupil, or a worker, or somebody getting on a bus (when you couldn't tell if there's a actually a beard hidden away) or a politician (can't tell which face they present anyway, so maybe that's superfluous)... Or anybody driving a car, where lateral vision is rather important.
"all of us in Britain have to identify ourselves for security reasons, the faces hidden behind this mask could be a terrorist who would know? This proves there is one rule for them and one rule for us with Government"
don't quite follow, sorry - I'm guessing the "them" are muslim women - okay, so under what circumstances would you have to formally identify yourself "for security reasons" where a muslim woman would not?
Saga,
If you are a man, trying to enter a bank or a shop wearing a balaclava, you are likely to have problems. What's the difference between that and a veil? People can't tell who you are. That's why neither form of dress seems suitable in our society.
If a girl or woman insists that a veil has to be worn - that's fine. Just don't expect to get a job, or walk about without being challenged for some indication of identity every few yards. And don't expect that there will always be a female member of staff on duty when you are required to show your face to match it with an ID card. (Or should the cards only show the eyes?)
It may be an accepted practice in some countries for women to be hidden from view. Most of Western civilisation is based around ready recognition, because we (men) don't expect/demand ladies to be hidden from view. And women (I believe) don't like blokes lurking around with only their eyes visible.
(Mind you, to be honest, there are quite a lot of both men and women I'd prefer to see covered top-to-toe. Though on occasion, you'd probably think there were at least two bodies lurking in there. The curse of the fast-food chainers...)
Complain about this comment
Getting late. But I wonder if Nick decides to post tomorrow whether he would go for the disastrous mis-management of Nimrod aircraft air worthiness, the U-turn on T.A. training, or how hard the MPs will be hit because they can't hire their wives.
Maybe it will overlap with other blogs and turn to the splitting of wholly or partially state-owned banks and the long-term risk the tax-payer will carry.
Or revert to the EU President of the Council issue - and mention to Der Spiegel's report that Frau Merkel referred to Blair as "The Flash"?
Complain about this comment
FOM @ 356
"If you are a man, trying to enter a bank or a shop wearing a balaclava, you are likely to have problems"
I've never had any problems doing that ... then again they all know me round here in North London, so that's probably why
Complain about this comment
357 fairlyopenmind
Naw it will be on Barbara Windsor leaving Eastenders, real bringing down govt stuff.
Complain about this comment
Looks like another trougher ready for act of contrition:
Tony McNulty told to apologise and repay.
Tony McNulty, the former Labour minister, will be ordered to repay more than £13,000 he claimed in expenses for his parents’ home.
A parliamentary inquiry will also order the MP to make a public apology in the House of Commons.
Complain about this comment
#358, sagamix wrote:
FOM @ 356
"If you are a man, trying to enter a bank or a shop wearing a balaclava, you are likely to have problems"
I've never had any problems doing that ... then again they all know me round here in North London, so that's probably why"
So how do they recognise you in your balaclava, saga?
You sure you don't have a body double?
No probs about somebody cashing one of your cheques because they "all know you round North London"? Man, you either have a personality over spill or you've lost it.
Complain about this comment
@ 361 ... "So how do they recognise you in your balaclava, saga?"
ah well that's the thing; it's a special one with the official "clear thinking progressive" logo on it and everyone in North London knows that a person wearing that (even if it's not actually me) can only be up to something good and worthwhile
Complain about this comment
I see Tony McNasty is getting his just desserts now.
I have seen his "second home" in a run down slummy area of Harrow. Wonder what opulent furnishings he claimed for?
Complain about this comment
355. At 10:45pm on 28 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sweet @ 349
okay, I'm sorry and thank you for the correction; so we BOTH think diversity is on the whole a good thing - gee, my head is positively spinning with all this agreement going on! - sounds like your main issue (looping back to 277) is the overall population and the ability of our small island to support it - that's a real concern, of course ... and one which I share ... but it's difficult (isn't it?) to come up with a fixed upper limit for our population; have YOU got one in mind from your calculations?
---------------
Nope, I have absolutely no idea what the limit should be - it doesn't help that the population is spread so unevenly.
---------------
also, you now raise the following observation:
"I recently saw a newpaper article in which someone got sacked somewhat unfairly due to a personality clash with their boss. Of course this kind of stuff happens all the time, but to make it newsworthy rather than using the phrase 'he didn't like me' the paper used the phrase 'he was prejudiced against me'. Do you see the problem here?"
I'm not sure I do really, no, but perhaps I'm missing your point; is it the racial and sexual discrimination laws you're talking about? do you feel they are abused to such an extent that they should be repealed?
-----------------------------------
I think you have missed the point. I have no issue with having laws about these things. In the example I gave above their was no perceived racial or sexual discrimination, but the word prejudice was thrown into the mix like a spell in a harry potter movie. My issue is with how the language (or using particularly 'dense' words) is used to stiffle debate.
Complain about this comment
@ 361 ... "So how do they recognise you in your balaclava, saga?"
That sounds like a line from a song to me.
Saga, Further to my post 364, having just read your balaclava bit, I shall give you an example to explaim my language post.
I remember, as a motorcyclist when Sainsburys decided that all motorcyclists had to take their helmets off to buy petrol - this is an absolute pain especially in the winter. Now if you were a lawyer who was trying to get sainsburys to change their mind would you say that sainsburys were causing motocylists undue hastle, or would you say the sainsburys discrimminated against motorcyclists? And which would get the response you wanted in the media?
Complain about this comment
Tony McNasty - what a snout !!!
Complain about this comment
What i really do not get is how come we are not allowed a referendum ? dont we count ? do we have no say in the running of our country , there is no democracy in this country anymore , we are being sheepherded into the EU like it or lump it , our politicians smile and wonder why we dont understand .. well heres some news we do understand and it has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with multiculture claptrap , we have been conned by the best , and the trouble with the Brits is we just take it ohh well . pass us a lager .
Complain about this comment
This story just highlights how ludicrous this country has become...
Schools reporting 40,000 racism cases a year
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6456599/Schools-reporting-40000-racism-cases-a-year.html
'At the same time, diversity “missionaries” sent into schools to teach pupils about bigotry are said to be increasing the divide between white and black children by forcing them to see everything in terms of race.'
Complain about this comment
360. At 00:41am on 29 Oct 2009, Roll_On_2010 wrote:
Looks like another trougher ready for act of contrition:
Tony McNulty told to apologise and repay.
Tony McNulty, the former Labour minister, will be ordered to repay more than £13,000 he claimed in expenses for his parents’ home.
A parliamentary inquiry will also order the MP to make a public apology in the House of Commons.
********************
I don't want insincere apologies, I want prosecutions!!
Complain about this comment
365. At 08:28am on 29 Oct 2009, sweetAnybody wrote:
...I remember, as a motorcyclist when Sainsburys decided that all motorcyclists had to take their helmets off to buy petrol....
*********************8
A lot of garages still do make this request - and try walking into a bank wearing one!!
Complain about this comment
sweet @ 365
yes I see what you mean; but language gets abused the whole time, don't know if it happens more now than in days gone by - maybe it does - some of the New Labour spiel can be irritating, for example - the Yvette Cooper "it's right" to do this and "it's right" to do that ... all a bit of a turn off, isn't it? - but then again, so are lazy soundbites such as "fixing our broken society" and ... if you want a classic example of repeated misuse of a word ... Britain is "bankrupt" - no point getting too hung up about it though; best to just concentrate on using language properly oneself - and your case study? it's a no brainer; they are not "discriminating" against motor cyclists because the helmet is a tangible parameter which ONLY motor cyclists bring into the equation - what they ARE (arguably) doing is your alternative ... making life difficult for motor cyclists without sufficient reason
Complain about this comment
sweet 365
I know it was not my question, however it is an interesting one. The average man in the street would want to know why Sainsburys decided to bring in this rule of motorcycle helmets and the reason it had become necessary in our society. If a reasonable explanation was given the general public at large would accept it.
Now if however someone came along who decided to challenge this view because it broke their human rights or for religious reasons, as the reason he would not take the said helmet off. The angle would be Sainsburys disciminate against motorcycle helmet wearers. Thus ensuring the original true reasons why the helmet was to be taken off would be lost.
It is a very useful tool used many times by lawyers to pursue cases which the individual will win simply because they shout the loudest and the Government likes to pander to minorities.
Complain about this comment
371. At 09:23am on 29 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sweet @ 365
yes I see what you mean; but language gets abused the whole time, don't know if it happens more now than in days gone by - maybe it does - some of the New Labour spiel can be irritating, for example - the Yvette Cooper "it's right" to do this and "it's right" to do that ... all a bit of a turn off, isn't it? - but then again, so are lazy soundbites such as "fixing our broken society" and ... if you want a classic example of repeated misuse of a word ... Britain is "bankrupt" - no point getting too hung up about it though; best to just concentrate on using language properly oneself - and your case study? it's a no brainer; they are not "discriminating" against motor cyclists because the helmet is a tangible parameter which ONLY motor cyclists bring into the equation - what they ARE (arguably) doing is your alternative ... making life difficult for motor cyclists without sufficient reason
------------------------------
Yep, that was my point - the word discrimination is used incorrectly to strengthen the argument. The words prejudice and discrimmination were almost solely used for sexual and racial issues, now-a-days they are used indescriminately whenever someone feels hard done by. And don't get me started on peoples 'rights'!
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 371
No, the use of language is only wrong when you abuse it by telling untruths. Therefore the soundbites such as 'Britain is bankrupt' 'broken society' and 'fix the roof when the sun was shining' are appropriate because they are true.
However soundbites such 'There will be no more boom and bust' '50 days to save the planet' and 'Britain is leading the World out of recession' are not appropriate because they are untruths.
Do you see the difference Saga?
Complain about this comment
372. At 09:27am on 29 Oct 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
Thanks Susan - much clearer than my attempts at making sense.
The thing that always bugged me about laws like motorcycle helmet laws is that I never could work out what they were trying to achieve. Do robbers see the sign on the door and take their helmets off too?
Complain about this comment
Sagamix "please refer back to my 303...where I offer a couple of suggestions"
So i refer back to 303 and what do I find?
"my way forward is to keep the door open for new migrants (but with sensible controls, that's important) and to tackle (via public/private investment) the triple header of education, jobs and poverty in the most deprived areas"
So, 'sensible' controls. But you don't say what those controls would be. What is 'sensible' Sagamix? The current Government has no limit whatsoever on the number of immigrants. Is that sensible?
And you're going to tackle by investment the triple header of education, jobs and poverty.
But no real detail of what you propose. Sounds awfully like the standard Labour approach of "chucking a load of money at the problem".
In other words, as I have said, you just don't have the answers.
I look forward to your response, which will probably consist of you cutting and pasting this final paragraph and you adding a 'pithy' one liner underneath.
Complain about this comment
No comment about McNulty then Sagamix? You seemed awfully agitated at Cameron's lodgings but less so, it would seem, about a man claiming 'second home' costs on his parents' house when it was 8 miles from his own.
Couldn't have anything to do with the respective parties they belong to, surely?
Complain about this comment
sc @ 374
"Do you see the difference Saga?"
yes; you like lazy Conservative soundbites but not Labour ones
sa @ 373
"And don't get me started on peoples 'rights'!"
deal
Complain about this comment
I find different words annoying, status and prestige, for example.
Who decides that a banker, dont laugh, has more status than a dustman?
I know which I couldnt do without.
Prestige. Applied to everything anyone is trying to sell, usually sell to people of "status" , ie more money than sense.
There was a lovely case in Brum a little while ago where a developer advertised his city centre dwellings as not only luxury but having the prestigious B1 postcode. I mean how can the Royal Mail sorting office code give one prestige? Ignoring living in some converted office block in the middle of the pubs and clubs. , Then they complain about the noise and the pubs cant play live music any more. I digress.
The beauty of it all was nobody had consulted Royal Mail and the postcode issued was B16 . Did those of status who had bought jump up and down and scream.
Complain about this comment
372 Croftie
But would they dare demand the removal of a Burka?
Still shopping will be easier on Saturday. All the PC crowd boycotting the supermarkets still selling hob nobs.
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 380
No they would not have the courage to ban the burka. Its the old saying isnt it. Give an inch and they will take a yard.
If you establish the rules of entry into our Country from day one, then you are able to make hard and fast rules after that. If you establish no boundries for new comers they will then make their own.
Its a bit like Harman and she is the best example going. The hypocrisy of this woman knows no bounds, she preaches equal rights, however who is she telling to change, those who already embrace equal rights. She does not tell minority groups they must abide by our rules.
As I have said the people of this Country are being suppressed at school, in the media and all forms of commuication going, that to speak of these issues is racist. That is Labours way of dealing with everything, pin a label on the population and it will silence them. However no one silences the minority groups or those that shout loudest.
The English are now denied a voice of any kind. There was only one thing which Nick Griffin uttered on Question time that was absolutely true. When Jack Straw mocked his indigenous people of Britain. He said Straw would not dare tell American Indians or Maoris they are not indigenous. You try telling a Scot that he is not Scottish for a start.
Complain about this comment
couple of Andys:
@ 376
"I look forward to your response, which will probably consist of you cutting and pasting this final paragraph and adding a 'pithy' one liner underneath."
would I do that to you, Andrew?
@ 377
"No comment about McNulty then Sagamix?"
well what can you say? the consensus is that he looks suspiciously like a Man on the Make who has shown rather more concern for advancing his own interests than in advancing the interests of either the country as a whole, or of any particular section within it; in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I guess I'd be inclined to join that consensus
Complain about this comment
381 A great number of Scots are not truly Scottish as a great number of Welsh are not truly Welsh or the Northen Irish are not truly Irish and the Engishman is almost certainly not truly English unless the word English means a collection of many races.
There is no one that can be called truly English I call myself Welsh because my family have lived in Wales for 200 hundred years but my family originally came from Devon and I have traced my family back to the Norman conquest when they invaded Britain then currently occupied by the Saxons, so I think that jack straw was absolutley right.
Don't know why these other races of people were mentioned in your piece they had lived in their respective countries since time immemorial, not quite the same as the collectively called English.
Complain about this comment
"it's a special one with the official "clear thinking progressive" logo on it"
God, its so tempting to ask, nay even speculate as to what that logo resembles.... Do I rise to the bait???
Nah. Not today.
Complain about this comment
If the treaty is to be ratified and Britain like the other members are committed then a president of Europe is a sensible thing. We do need a figurehead who can represent a United Europe. It would be good to have a British president, however not Tony Blair. He lied to us and embarked upon an illegal war, and during his time in government ruined this Country. Its rumoured that he sold us down the river a long time ago with a nod and a wink that he would get this job.’
Complain about this comment
grandanidote 383
As usual you miss the point entirely.
You are allowed to call youself Welsh as are the Scottish allowed to call themselves Scottish, in England we are only allowed to be called British. The English identity is being taken away from us. It has nothing to do with heritage it is to do with political correctness.
The same as the Welsh and the Scottish have their own parlaiment so should England. You perhaps do not understand the problems England faces as you live in Wales.
Complain about this comment
Fubar @ 384
"Nah. Not today."
damn sight better for your blood pressure!
rather good piece from you (I thought) over on Andrew re the shambles that is the MoD; would appear the government department that one would hope and expect to be amongst the MOST competent is actually one of the least
Complain about this comment
386 Susan Croft
#As usual you miss the point entirely.
no I am afraid that you are missing the point.
#in England we are only allowed to be called British. The English identity is being taken away from us. It has nothing to do with heritage it is to do with political correctness.
I'm sorry but the english rugby team the football team and many others would vehemently disagree with you, you rather oddly think that you are only allowed to call yourself British, well I call myself British as many Scots an Northern Irish do, thats a collective name for us all,You are the only person that I have ever heard of that b