BBC Blog Network

User Profile

SuperJulianR

Listed below are comments made by SuperJulianR between Thursday, 3rd September 2009 and Tuesday, 3rd November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Czech president swallows bitter pill 6:34pm on 03 Nov 2009 invitager @ 3

Actually, you are wrong. Because the UK parliament is sovereign, it HAD the democratic mandate it required to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without needing to hold a referendum.

Ireland has a proper written constitution, thus its Parliament cannot make a decision like that without holding a referendum. But then Ireland has a proper democratically elected Government, unlike the UK.
The Tories' 'Europe' moment 6:24pm on 03 Nov 2009 frenchderek @ 14

How right you are. The US once again sets our foreign policy, but as a supporter of full membership of the EU, that is great news.

Just need Clinton/Obama to decide that the time has come to pull their soldiers out of Afghanistan, and then our troops can come home too - a decision that our politicians (Labour and Conservative) are too spinless to make.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 1:40pm on 23 Oct 2009 There seems to me to be another reason why the BNP did so well in the Euro-elections, that has not been debated at all.

The cynic in me noted that one anti-European rightwing newspaper managed to time the MP's expenses scandal to perfection by drip feeding allegations against MPs from all three major parties over months leading up to it. The effect of this as, as they must have known, was to engender a large protest vote from the electorate.

Since all three major parties support UK membership of the EU, and that newspaper patently does not (at least not in anything like its present form), the net effect of this - as the paper must have known - was to bolster the UKIP vote - which would almost certainly have declined otherwise.

That paper was also mysteriously silent on the fact that UKIP itself was the subject of an even larger financial scandal, with a UKIP MEP having been set to prison for defrauding UK taxpayers out of over £70,000 in benefits - so UKIP are no paragons of virtue either.

Of course, UKIP were quite successful as the paper inquestion must have intended, but many of their 'supporters' were really only registering a protest vote. Inevitably, of course, the BNP profited too - probably by more than anyone expected.

It shows the dangers which arise when a national newspaper tries to derail the democractic process, and that the BNP are not the only nasty factor in UK politics.
Migration road 6:16pm on 14 Oct 2009 Freeborn-John @ 24

The topic of illegal immigration into the EU is highly relevant, first because it affects the EU (Gavin's blog is after all entitled "Gavin Hewitt's Europe") - and like it or not the UK is a member state of the EU.

Secondly, it is relevant because at least some of these immigrants will use landing in Greece, Malta or Italy as a staging post for illegal entry into the UK via France or the Republic of Ireland. The UK Government and much of the UK population clings to the deluded belief that opting out of Schengen means that they will be kept out of the UK and therefore 'not our problem'. Indeed, the justification the UK gave for the Schengen opt out was the UK's island status, presumably because Westminster and Whitehall mistakenly believe that the UK is an island, even though we have a land border!

Lawful UK/EU travellers are being subjected to ever tighter controls when coming and going from the UK in a largely pointless attempt to keep the migrants out of the UK. If it becomes too difficult for them to smuggle themselves in in lorries, trains and ferries, or over the Irish/UK land border, they will of course take to boats to come over the Channel. Our coastline is far too long to police, and basically they only need to get across 40 km of water to get to Dover. Or they can get into the border free Common Travel Area by boat to the Channel Islands, there are no controls from there.

Once all the high-tech wizardry of the dreadful E-BORDERS programme is in place, this article - and Schranzo's excellent post @ 30, show the future of immigration into the UK. I am surprised no one especially Free-born John can see this apparently - see the relevance now?

The ONLY way of controlling illegal immigration (or whatever you want to call it) is to make it less atractive to come here (housing, benefits, healthcare, jobs).
Will Czechs disappoint Tories? 1:42pm on 05 Oct 2009 In 1973, Ted Heath's Tory Government took us into the EU (then called the EEC). No referendum took place.

Labour was then in opposition, lead by Harold Wilson. His party was also divided on Europe, with a very vociferous anti-European contingent, and Harold Wilson promised to "re-negotiate our membership" and then put the question of membership to a referendum - effectively "after the event". He knew he had to appease his own "UKIP" wing (mostly a mottley crew of Trotskyites and extreme left wingers), but at the same time knew that, like it or not, membership was essential to the UK both economically and politically.

He won the election, and re-negotiated. Frankly, this was little more than window-dressing and we duly had a referendum to settle the issue of membership "once and for all". Harold Wilson had to support a yes vote otherwise he would have looked like a failure, and the people of the UK voted decisively to remain in the EU, by a majority of about 2:1.

In 2010, we will have an election, which the Tories will probably win. Lisbon will already have come into effect, and so David Cameron will be faced with an "after the event" referendum, held not to consult the voters but to appease his "UKIP" wing (mostly a mottley crew of right-wing hardliners) - so he will have to re-negotiate its terms. He too will presumably realise that membership is essential both econonmically and politically. The EU need not give him much, but, he would have to campaign for a yes vote otherwise he will look like a loser.

Feeling of Deja vu, anyone?
Paper trail 7:27pm on 30 Sep 2009 72 Electric Hermit

That rather goes to prove the point, as well as how times have changed since 1950!

The Tories could really steal a march on Labour, by being lead in Scotland. Beats me how in the days of a devolved Parliament (leave aside the possibility of independence) any party can really be run from a capital city 400 miles away in England, and still stay in touch with sentiments and issues that are relevant to Scotland.

The world moved on in 1999, but only the SNP moved on with it. No wonder they have ended up as the largest party and forming the Government.
Paper trail 6:20pm on 30 Sep 2009 The Conservatives could at least make it easier for the Scottish Sun to support them by setting up a distinct and separate Scottish Conservative Party, affliated to but to some degree autonomous from the English/Welsh party.

They have little to lose (one seat, maximum?) but potentially a great deal to gain if the new party forged a Scottish identity and thus gained more support north of the border. A friendly party to join in a coalition with them would make sense. The German CSU is exclusively and distinctively Bavarian, but works with Angela Merkel's CDU in government and it works well.
Damaged Special Relationship? 7:32pm on 03 Sep 2009 Funny that apparently the UK was supposed to swallow the fact that Americans openly collected money for terrorism in Ireland and Britian, supported Noraid nothwithstanding that British and Irish people were beig murdered with that money, and swallow the fact US Courts refused to extradite terrorists and murderers to the UK - all part of the special relationship.

But a Scottish Government freeing a man on compassionate grounds - that is another thing altogether. But then again, he killed Americans, whose lives are much more precious than British and Irish lives.
An Emergency Fund? 7:04pm on 03 Sep 2009 How typical of a body like the Human Rights Commission to come up with a report that recommends committing countless millions of Pounds of other people's money in an effort to house everyone in the UK - why stop there? Why not house the whole world? Provide a World Health Service (now that even failed asylum seekers are entitled to free treatment, we almost do)

Do these people not know that the UK is almost bankrupt and borrowing money for our grandchildren to repay?

No other country does this. Basically, if non-EU residents (or A2 residents such as these who do not have full EU rights) do not like it here or cannot pay their way they are free to go home to where they came from.

It is no wonder the UK is such a magnet for illegal immigration, no wonder asylum seekers queue up in France to get over here rather than claim asylum in France or wherever else they first landed, as they are supposed to do - they know there is a better life here courtsey of people like the Human Rights Commission.

Result - we erect ever higher barriers to enter the UK, all legal entrants to the UK are put through ever more inconvenience at queues at ports and airports just trying to go about their daily business,in a vain effort to keep out those who are trying to get here illegally.

This is of course especially relevant to Northern Ireland. If the UK Government has its way (it has thankfully been thwarted by the House of lords for now) it will check passports between NI and Britain, so illegals will obviously find it best to go to the Republic, then cross the open land border,and claim asylum in NI...rather than try to cross the Irish Sea again.

The solution is not to close borders - and certainly not the Irish land border - but to open them, but at the same time make it much less attractive in terms of health care, housing and benefits once they get here, and to stop employers employing them. The message would soon get around that the UK is not a soft touch anymore and the flood slow to a trickle.

My message may sound heartlees, but in reality it is not all. If we in the UK wish to help people in poorer countries get better education, housing and healthcare, I am all in favour - but by providing that help in their own countries, where money can be spent more fairly and will go alot further in helping a larger number of people.

I realise of course Mark that, as Romanians, the people you refer to were legally here, so my comments on illegal entrants will not apply to them, and their own particular need was not forseeable by them.
Why 'Team GB'? 5:56pm on 03 Sep 2009 It would make far more sense to field separate English, Welsh and Scottish teams than a UK (or GB) one - just as those nations do in so many other leading sporting events. It would get around the ridiculous situation of having to field an 'England' football team under the incorrect banner of being a GB team, too - there is no such thing as a GB football team, of course.

I believe the Scottish Government looked into fielding a separate team for Scotland, but were rebuffed by the IOC on the basis that only a 'state' as opposed to a 'nation' is allowed to field a team.

So how does that fit with Northern Ireland (a small part of the state known as the UK) being included with a separate state (RoI)? Sounds like pure politics on the IOC's part to me...

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

SuperJulianR