Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 3h3 hours ago I'd like to thank @BarrosoEU for making it crystal clear that free movement of people is a non- negotiable part of EU membership #marrshow
The veto which wasn't actually a veto? The whole point of the veto was that the system could not be done through EU institutions, and then they went ahead and let them do it anyway, thus negating the entire point of the veto.
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
Is that the one Tapestry was referring to the other day? Who in their right mind believes this stuff?
Dunno, I wasn't on. I came across it when looking for something else. I assume that your question was rhetorical, but the answer is a lot of people. It's quite straightforward really, there is simply a rubicund to be crossed -most people believe that our power elites may be incompetent or venal, but do not believe them to be fundamentally lacking in human empathy. Therefore conspiracy theories are dismissed not on their merits but because 'they just wouldn't ever do that'. When you cross that rubicund; when you lose that innocence, what is plausible and what is not changes radically.
The biggest argument against this one is its sheer audacity and the capacity for failure. That said, America and its hangers on are getting short on time (growth of China and BRICS) -they did just attempt to provoke Russia into outright confrontation, so perhaps batsh*t crazy is to be expected.
"Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS."
You make that sound like a bad thing. We sell sorts of stuff to countries that have the death penalty are you advocating that we stop trading with China, Japan or the USA?
I do not think we should support regimes with arms sales that use capital punishment for such "crimes" as changing religion, blasphemy or being gay.
Saudi Arabia do have capital punishment for these. If they are barbaric for IS they are barbaric for Saudi too.
on that basis we can also ditch most of the overseas aid budget - good move Doc.
I would not go so far as that. I would stop aid to governments in such regimes, but quite happy to fund NGOs working on issues in that country on human rights, minority rights judicial reform etc.
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union can only be amended under article 48 of the former, either by means of the ordinary revision procedure or by the simplified revision procedure. Both procedures require any treaty change to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The idea that any treaty change, as opposed to a putative treaty change subject to the ratification of every other member state, will be on the table by 2017 is absurd. A real change in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with require a treaty change. If Cameron has not obtained that by 2017, it seems likely that he will be forced by his own logic to recommend withdrawal in any referendum. The man may be a charlatan, but I do not see either how (1) he could plausibly recommend to stay in under such circumstances or (2) could present a renegotiation without a treaty change as substantive.
We should make changes to "free movement" unilaterally if the EU won't accept change. It would be then their choice to expel the UK. I think the Germans would worry about their car exports.
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
I'm struck by how insane but kinda clever that theory is. Not that I believe it, for the record.
Yes. And it would rather explain how the US think the best way of tackling the disease is to mount a de facto invasion. And why Cameron has dusted down his pompoms and is once again cheerleading for America on this.
And I do wholly believe that the main aim of the #BringBackOurGirls hype was to get the US into Nigeria -I said so here at the time. That became clear when the US vetoed a prisoner for kidnap victim swap that was being negotiated by the Nigerian President. So it would seem I'm rather talking myself into this one.
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union can only be amended under article 48 of the former, either by means of the ordinary revision procedure or by the simplified revision procedure. Both procedures require any treaty change to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The idea that any treaty change, as opposed to a putative treaty change subject to the ratification of every other member state, will be on the table by 2017 is absurd. A real change in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with require a treaty change. If Cameron has not obtained that by 2017, it seems likely that he will be forced by his own logic to recommend withdrawal in any referendum. The man may be a charlatan, but I do not see either how (1) he could plausibly recommend to stay in under such circumstances or (2) could present a renegotiation without a treaty change as substantive.
We should make changes to "free movement" unilaterally if the EU won't accept change. It would be then their choice to expel the UK. I think the Germans would worry about their car exports.
And the NHS and social care providers would be a lot more worried when Spain expels all of the British pensioner immigrants and they pitch up back in Blighty.
His "veto" was useless when it turned out he wasn't prepared to stop or even challenge the 25 signatories to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union using the EU institutions to enforce their treaty. Then there was the decision in 2010 to approve the External Action Service and the decision to commit United Kingdom taxpayers' money to bail out the Portuguese Republic, after the failure to challenge the completely unlawful route by which the Greek bailout was achieved (albeit the UK would have stood no chance in Luxembourg). Cameron is currently intent on transferring criminal jurisdiction to the CJEU for the first time in British history, and allowing the Commission to launch infringement proceedings in that court against the United Kingdom in criminal matters. If a Europhile is defined as someone who expands the powers and competences of the EU institutions at the expense of member states, then it is undoubtedly the case that Cameron is a Europhile, for the powers and competences of the EU institutions have not been restricted, but have expanded under his premiership.
The veto which wasn't actually a veto? The whole point of the veto was that the system could not be done through EU institutions, and then they went ahead and let them do it anyway, thus negating the entire point of the veto.
I'm glad someone said it, I didn't have the energy.
The veto which wasn't actually a veto? The whole point of the veto was that the system could not be done through EU institutions, and then they went ahead and let them do it anyway, thus negating the entire point of the veto.
Spectactulary missing the point.
But I'm back off to watch the football perhaps you might understand during my absence.
We should make changes to "free movement" unilaterally if the EU won't accept change. It would be then their choice to expel the UK. I think the Germans would worry about their car exports.
There is no doubt that the United Kingdom could as a matter of domestic law, albeit certainly not as a matter of European law, derogate unilaterally from any provision of TEU and TFEU. That is no argument for doing so, as it would give the French Republic, for example, licence to prevent free movement of capital between that country and the United Kingdom. If we don't like the terms of our membership we should not renegotiate it or withdraw. Breaching treaty obligations in the manner suggested is not something the UK has ever been or should be prepared to contemplate.
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union can only be amended under article 48 of the former, either by means of the ordinary revision procedure or by the simplified revision procedure. Both procedures require any treaty change to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The idea that any treaty change, as opposed to a putative treaty change subject to the ratification of every other member state, will be on the table by 2017 is absurd. A real change in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with require a treaty change. If Cameron has not obtained that by 2017, it seems likely that he will be forced by his own logic to recommend withdrawal in any referendum. The man may be a charlatan, but I do not see either how (1) he could plausibly recommend to stay in under such circumstances or (2) could present a renegotiation without a treaty change as substantive.
We should make changes to "free movement" unilaterally if the EU won't accept change. It would be then their choice to expel the UK. I think the Germans would worry about their car exports.
The argument fairly used against some of the more vociferous BOO people on here when they suggest unilateral withdrawal from some aspect of the EU we do not like is that it would put us in breach of our treaty obligations and commitments. Indeed such a rebuttal was made only a few days ago regarding Lisbon.
If we do not agree with some aspect of the EU and cannot get it changed then the answer is to leave entirely, not to start picking and choosing which bits we want to follow and which we want to ignore.
The veto which wasn't actually a veto? The whole point of the veto was that the system could not be done through EU institutions, and then they went ahead and let them do it anyway, thus negating the entire point of the veto.
Spectactulary missing the point.
But I'm back off to watch the football perhaps you might understand during my absence.
No it is you who missed the point.
Cameron's 'veto' was nothing of the sort and was utterly meaningless in terms of actually changing anything about the direction of the EU. To use it as an example of his Euroscepticism is simply daft. As such it is probably a perfect metaphor for what will happen over his 'renegotiation'.
The UK would have "zero" influence if it voted to leave the EU, the outgoing president of the European Commission has said.
Jose Manuel Barroso said Britain could not negotiate with the US and China "on an equal footing" on its own.
He also said free movement of people within the EU was an "essential" principle that could not be changed.
I agree with more or less with 1 and entirely with 2 above I reckon 3 we may see some restrictions but not enough to satisfy the little Englander view that is becoming increasingly popular.
The UK would have "zero" influence if it voted to leave the EU, the outgoing president of the European Commission has said.
Jose Manuel Barroso said Britain could not negotiate with the US and China "on an equal footing" on its own.
He also said free movement of people within the EU was an "essential" principle that could not be changed.
I agree with more or less with 1 and entirely with 2 above I reckon 3 we may see some restrictions but not enough to satisfy the little Englander view that is becoming increasingly popular.
The fact that you agree with Barroso on this shows how detached from reality the Europhile position has become.
The presenter believes the answer to Britain's over-population problem is restricting the size of British working-class families rather than curbing immigration.
I think UKIP will live off this story for many a day. Who are the fruitcakes and buffoons now?
I have always been quite a fan of Bill Oddie but I think he might well have jumped the shark with that one. Quite mad.
Actually Bill Oddie does suffer with mental illness. A friend of mine was in rehab with him
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union can only be amended under article 48 of the former, either by means of the ordinary revision procedure or by the simplified revision procedure. Both procedures require any treaty change to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The idea that any treaty change, as opposed to a putative treaty change subject to the ratification of every other member state, will be on the table by 2017 is absurd. A real change in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with require a treaty change. If Cameron has not obtained that by 2017, it seems likely that he will be forced by his own logic to recommend withdrawal in any referendum. The man may be a charlatan, but I do not see either how (1) he could plausibly recommend to stay in under such circumstances or (2) could present a renegotiation without a treaty change as substantive.
We should make changes to "free movement" unilaterally if the EU won't accept change. It would be then their choice to expel the UK. I think the Germans would worry about their car exports.
And the NHS and social care providers would be a lot more worried when Spain expels all of the British pensioner immigrants and they pitch up back in Blighty.
In Little Englander land they believe English people will still have free movement and only the nasty foreigners who pay for oldie benefits will be banned.
Obviously our exports will still be allowed but BMWs and Audis will be stopped at our borders.
Since we are talking about vetogasm, I think it is pretty disgusting that our representatives in the EU Parliament can have secret votes where we don't know how they voted.
Since we are talking about vetogasm, I think it is pretty disgusting that our representatives in the EU Parliament can have secret votes where we don't know how they voted.
Comments
I'd like to thank @BarrosoEU for making it crystal clear that free movement of people is a non- negotiable part of EU membership #marrshow
The biggest argument against this one is its sheer audacity and the capacity for failure. That said, America and its hangers on are getting short on time (growth of China and BRICS) -they did just attempt to provoke Russia into outright confrontation, so perhaps batsh*t crazy is to be expected.
And I do wholly believe that the main aim of the #BringBackOurGirls hype was to get the US into Nigeria -I said so here at the time. That became clear when the US vetoed a prisoner for kidnap victim swap that was being negotiated by the Nigerian President. So it would seem I'm rather talking myself into this one.
But I'm back off to watch the football perhaps you might understand during my absence.
If we do not agree with some aspect of the EU and cannot get it changed then the answer is to leave entirely, not to start picking and choosing which bits we want to follow and which we want to ignore.
Cameron's 'veto' was nothing of the sort and was utterly meaningless in terms of actually changing anything about the direction of the EU. To use it as an example of his Euroscepticism is simply daft. As such it is probably a perfect metaphor for what will happen over his 'renegotiation'.
Jose Manuel Barroso said Britain could not negotiate with the US and China "on an equal footing" on its own.
He also said free movement of people within the EU was an "essential" principle that could not be changed.
I agree with more or less with 1 and entirely with 2 above I reckon 3 we may see some restrictions but not enough to satisfy the little Englander view that is becoming increasingly popular.
Obviously our exports will still be allowed but BMWs and Audis will be stopped at our borders.
They call opponents detatched!
I have 3/1 on the draw.