The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.
The 'piffle cartoon' says:
- forced adoption of the Euro
The Treaty of Lisbon Says:
Unless the United Kingdom notifies the Council that it intends to adopt the euro, it shall be under no obligation to do so.
The 'piffle cartoon' says:
- forced into Schengen
The Treaty of Lisbon says:
The United Kingdom may, at any time afterwards, notify the Council of its wish to participate in ......... Schengen
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
He's flailing.
Chapter 1
Article 67
1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.
'respect for' clearly does not prevent their supercession. eg prisoner voting 'rights'.
Where does it say 'end of jury trials'?
It doesn't
You're embarrassing yourself.....
I think you have failed to understand the subordinate position of nations in the eu law making process. The eu institutions (courts, commission etc) make law, now and in the future, that we have agreed to implement.
The key word being "agreed"
Yep that's what Heath originally put into law.
And since then we have elected Parliaments that have been happy to follow that. Last year we elected a Parliament that voted for legislation to enable the referendum. And lo and behold one is taking place.
Its still gloriously unclear who will physically stop us from holding a referendum in future.....
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
He's flailing.
Chapter 1
Article 67
1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.
'respect for' clearly does not prevent their supercession. eg prisoner voting 'rights'.
Where does it say 'end of jury trials'?
It doesn't
You're embarrassing yourself.....
I think you have failed to understand the subordinate position of nations in the eu law making process. The eu institutions (courts, commission etc) make law, now and in the future, that we have agreed to implement.
The key word being "agreed"
Yep that's what Heath originally put into law.
And since then we have elected Parliaments that have been happy to follow that. Last year we elected a Parliament that voted for legislation to enable the referendum. And lo and behold one is taking place.
Its still gloriously unclear who will physically stop us from holding a referendum in future.....
Well, to you, obv.
Do tell......with a link, preferably.....
In the meantime, here's a link that might help you:
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
I think it was a reference to the Papandreou government. However, as I recall it was Papandreou who called it off following the IMF's warnings it would scupper the bailout deal and cause worse problems. He was then sacked for having no balls, replaced by Tsipras who went ahead, and the crisis deepened immediately.
The EU didn't ultimately stop the referendum or sack the government. If they had been able to do so they would surely have done so, given the terrible damage Tsipras and his plebiscite caused their reputation.
On 31 October, Papandreou announced his government's plans to hold a referendum on the acceptance of the terms of a eurozone bailout deal. The referendum was to be held in December 2011 or January 2012. However, following the insistence of EU leaders at the G20 summit in Cannes that the referendum should be on Greece's continued membership of the eurozone, and severe criticism of such a referendum by Greek Finance Minister Venizelos and within parliament, Papandreou scrapped the plan on 3 November.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
Papandreou
He cancelled the referendum after significant push-back from senior ministers in his government.
I managed to go through my entire time at school studying history with barely a mention of Hitler, there being many many period of fascinating history to learn about, and now you can barely read the paper or switch on the radio without some idiot politician referring to him. Is there something in the water at Westminster?
This referendum is beginning to make me lose the will to live. Both campaigns are utter shite. If only they could both lose.
O/T HMQ's Birthday celebrations on ITV from Windsor is well worth watching. Some superb horsemanship and some bizarrely entrancing acts: Switzerland's Top Secret Drummers, for instance......
Also O/T the roses in my garden - I have 16 varieties - are full of buds and beginning to flower. It is going to be a wonderful year for them........
That was simply superb.
I loved the Queen's 90th birthday show last night. Uplifting, entertaining, patriotic, exciting, deeply British, with a personal touch for her too running throughout - her love of horses, and family.
ITV are now streets ahead of the BBC in this sort of thing, IMHO.
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
He's flailing.
Chapter 1
Article 67
1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.
'respect for' clearly does not prevent their supercession. eg prisoner voting 'rights'.
Where does it say 'end of jury trials'?
It doesn't
You're embarrassing yourself.....
I think you have failed to understand the subordinate position of nations in the eu law making process. The eu institutions (courts, commission etc) make law, now and in the future, that we have agreed to implement.
The key word being "agreed"
Yep that's what Heath originally put into law.
And since then we have elected Parliaments that have been happy to follow that. Last year we elected a Parliament that voted for legislation to enable the referendum. And lo and behold one is taking place.
Its still gloriously unclear who will physically stop us from holding a referendum in future.....
Well, to you, obv.
Do tell......with a link, preferably.....
In the meantime, here's a link that might help you:
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
Papandreou
He cancelled the referendum after significant push-back from senior ministers in his government.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
In such a situation releasing the EUs shackles on Psrliament so that it is fully sovereign and ordinary people can elect radical representatives who will shove the Oligarchs off their perches and tilt their faces in the mud becomes irresistable.
It is only because until 1973 parliament had such awesome power that we avoided Europes civil wars and revolutionary bloodletting because we could achieve the same via the ballot box
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
He's flailing.
Chapter 1
Article 67
1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.
'respect for' clearly does not prevent their supercession. eg prisoner voting 'rights'.
Where does it say 'end of jury trials'?
It doesn't
You're embarrassing yourself.....
I think you have failed to understand the subordinate position of nations in the eu law making process. The eu institutions (courts, commission etc) make law, now and in the future, that we have agreed to implement.
The key word being "agreed"
Yep that's what Heath originally put into law.
And since then we have elected Parliaments that have been happy to follow that. Last year we elected a Parliament that voted for legislation to enable the referendum. And lo and behold one is taking place.
Its still gloriously unclear who will physically stop us from holding a referendum in future.....
It will be the panzers of the Superstate Foreign Legion, led by the clone of Hitler.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
Papandreou
He cancelled the referendum after significant push-back from senior ministers in his government.
I am pushed back, you retire he is sacked.
He made the statement, he was gone in days.
correlation is causation (here)
His cabinet rebelled. Did the EU force Mrs T out? Somehow I think I may know your answer :-)
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
I think it was a reference to the Papandreou government. However, as I recall it was Papandreou who called it off following the IMF's warnings it would scupper the bailout deal and cause worse problems. He was then sacked for having no balls, replaced by Tsipras who went ahead, and the crisis deepened immediately.
The EU didn't ultimately stop the referendum or sack the government. If they had been able to do so they would surely have done so, given the terrible damage Tsipras and his plebiscite caused their reputation.
An international body interfering in the democratic affairs of a sovereign state.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
Papandreou
He cancelled the referendum after significant push-back from senior ministers in his government.
I am pushed back, you retire he is sacked.
He made the statement, he was gone in days.
correlation is causation (here)
His cabinet rebelled. Did the EU force Mrs T out? Somehow I think I may know your answer :-)
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
Papandreou
He cancelled the referendum after significant push-back from senior ministers in his government.
I am pushed back, you retire he is sacked.
He made the statement, he was gone in days.
correlation is causation (here)
His cabinet rebelled. Did the EU force Mrs T out? Somehow I think I may know your answer :-)
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
...Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”
...Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
Donald Trump is not fit to lead the free world. He is a narcissistic, thin-skinned bully, a serial liar, a man who shows not the slightest respect for the office to which he aspires.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
That would be the same Boris leading the Leave campaign who described himself eight months ago as "basically pro immigration" and calling for an illegal immigrant amnesty?
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
...Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”
...Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
...Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”
...Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.
On 31 October, Papandreou announced his government's plans to hold a referendum on the acceptance of the terms of a eurozone bailout deal. The referendum was to be held in December 2011 or January 2012. However, following the insistence of EU leaders at the G20 summit in Cannes that the referendum should be on Greece's continued membership of the eurozone, and severe criticism of such a referendum by Greek Finance Minister Venizelos and within parliament, Papandreou scrapped the plan on 3 November.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
That would be the same Boris leading the Leave campaign who described himself eight months ago as "basically pro immigration" and calling for an illegal immigrant amnesty?
Of course the prevailing wind was different that day...
But, but, but ... Hitler
Of course, like many Leavers on here, eight months ago Boris was a fully signed up supporter og government fiscal and economic policies predicated on EU membership and large scale immigration.
Forced adoption of the Euro? Forced end of common law/jury trials? Forced accession to Schengen?
Is this a message VoteLeave support?
It's the policy of influential REMAINERS - check out Heseltine, Mandelson etc
We're for national parliamentary democracy . Are you?
I am and I see no threat to it from continued EU membership. We are sovereign, as this referendum demonstrates.
We are sovereign in any area until it becomes an EU Competence. Then we are not.
As and when referendums become an eu competence, we will hold them when we are permitted to.
That is only the case until we decide otherwise, as this referendum shows.
I doubt we could choose to exercise a power where they have rescinded its means. Would our civil servants allow a minister to issue an order for a referendum that the eu had declared was illegal? Probably not if one takes the current assertions of ministers as the reality.
The EU has no power to declare a referendum illegal.
They haven't issued a law to do it, yet.
However they have certainly demonstrated a power to do so. eg when they sacked one of the recent greek governments for simply saying they would hold a ref.
No government was sacked, a referendum was held.
Papandreou
He cancelled the referendum after significant push-back from senior ministers in his government.
I am pushed back, you retire he is sacked.
He made the statement, he was gone in days.
correlation is causation (here)
His cabinet rebelled. Did the EU force Mrs T out? Somehow I think I may know your answer :-)
On 31 October, Papandreou announced his government's plans to hold a referendum on the acceptance of the terms of a eurozone bailout deal. The referendum was to be held in December 2011 or January 2012. However, following the insistence of EU leaders at the G20 summit in Cannes that the referendum should be on Greece's continued membership of the eurozone, and severe criticism of such a referendum by Greek Finance Minister Venizelos and within parliament, Papandreou scrapped the plan on 3 November.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
Of course, like many Leavers on here, eight months ago Boris was a fully signed up supporter og government fiscal and economic policies predicated on EU membership and large scale immigration.
That was before his Damascene conversion to the cause of Boris for leader the plight of the British Sausage
A former head of the armed forces has led an attack on Boris Johnson for claiming that the European Union was pursuing a similar goal to Hitler.
Mr Johnson’s suggestion that both had been attempting to unify Europe — using “different methods” — was met by scorn and mockery from pro-EU campaigners.
Field Marshal Lord Bramall, who took part in the Normandy landings, said that the comparison was “simply laughable”, while others said the comments showed that the former mayor of London was not a suitable candidate to become prime minister.
Signatories of the letter include Peter Goldstein, a founder of Superdrug, Steve Dowdle, the former vice president Europe of technology firm Sony, David Sismey, a MD of Goldman Sachs and Sir Patrick Sheehy, the former chairman of British American Tobacco.
Times has a pro-Brexit Thunderer column from founder of Hargreaves Landsdowne. VoteLeave are pulling some good stuff out of the hat today.
On 31 October, Papandreou announced his government's plans to hold a referendum on the acceptance of the terms of a eurozone bailout deal. The referendum was to be held in December 2011 or January 2012. However, following the insistence of EU leaders at the G20 summit in Cannes that the referendum should be on Greece's continued membership of the eurozone, and severe criticism of such a referendum by Greek Finance Minister Venizelos and within parliament, Papandreou scrapped the plan on 3 November.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
...Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”
...Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.
Leave should put their intellectual inspiration up to debate against David Cameron. And I'm sure Stan Boardman could do with the extra publicity at present.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
In that he is consistent. Johnson has never taken steps as MP or Mayor to do anything much about anything. His commitment to Leave is a new thing for him.
On 31 October, Papandreou announced his government's plans to hold a referendum on the acceptance of the terms of a eurozone bailout deal. The referendum was to be held in December 2011 or January 2012. However, following the insistence of EU leaders at the G20 summit in Cannes that the referendum should be on Greece's continued membership of the eurozone, and severe criticism of such a referendum by Greek Finance Minister Venizelos and within parliament, Papandreou scrapped the plan on 3 November.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
How ridiculous do you have to be for even Paddy Ashdown to be laughing at you?
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, the former Lib Dem leader, said: “People are fed up with yet another tuppeny tin-pot imitation Churchill promising to ‘fight them on the beaches’ while weakening our defences and wrecking our economy.”
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
*Everyone* should be paying less tax than they pay now.
On 31 October, Papandreou announced his government's plans to hold a referendum on the acceptance of the terms of a eurozone bailout deal. The referendum was to be held in December 2011 or January 2012. However, following the insistence of EU leaders at the G20 summit in Cannes that the referendum should be on Greece's continued membership of the eurozone, and severe criticism of such a referendum by Greek Finance Minister Venizelos and within parliament, Papandreou scrapped the plan on 3 November.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
The whole tenor of Remain vs Leave is becoming clearer by the day. The same message is popping up in almost every statement.
Andrea Leadsom criticism of BoE... “They are not there to promote financial instability, but that is what they’ve done,” she told the BBC. “It is institutional ganging up on the poor British voter.”
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
...Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”
...Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.
'First, if the benefits of the single market are so enormous, then why is it that over recent years countries all around the world have increased their exports into the single market at a faster rate than most single market members?
Second, if the single market is of such overwhelming importance, why are so many of its members in a terrible state? Why is the Greek economy not carried forward on a wave of prosperity unleashed by the absence of form-filling and checking at borders?
Third, if trade deals are so important, why does the UK do such a huge amount of trade with countries that it doesn’t currently have a trade deal with – including America? '
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
That would be the same Boris leading the Leave campaign who described himself eight months ago as "basically pro immigration" and calling for an illegal immigrant amnesty?
Of course the prevailing wind was different that day...
But, but, but ... Hitler
Of course, like many Leavers on here, eight months ago Boris was a fully signed up supporter og government fiscal and economic policies predicated on EU membership and large scale immigration.
Excuse me?
Considering the preponderance of Tories and Kippers on this board, where exactly are these Leavers who supported large scale immigration?
Remember this?
“I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade. Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people, and it’s a promise we are keeping.”
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
*Everyone* should be paying less tax than they pay now.
Ah, you're part of the "Taxation is Theft" brigade, are you?
Let me let you into a secret. Civilization is unnatural, too.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
(2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years;
Relatively sensible VL business bloke on the radio. Spouting the usual VL bolleaux (£350m etc) but not immediately a swivel-eyed loon.
Except I think perhaps the most let's call it dangerous VL line is it's "only" 6% of companies that export to the EU. Now, as people have said on here, sod the economics it's the sovereignty, stupid.
But I think it would be highly disingenuous for VL to create the impression and then the British public voted out thinking it's "only" 44% of our exports.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because they really favour (2) but (mostly) won't say so in public.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
(2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years;
Who is advocating that?
(Apart from tin-foil deprived LEAVErs.....)
Very few people, but it's a better option than (1).
[Edit: very few people *openly* because they know they can't get it past the British people]
Upon reflection, both that and the 8 winner I had on Ricciardo leading lap 1 were simply lucky (never thought the two Mercedes would both fail to finish the first lap). But if luck's going to play a role, I don't mind if it's helpful.
'First, if the benefits of the single market are so enormous, then why is it that over recent years countries all around the world have increased their exports into the single market at a faster rate than most single market members?
Second, if the single market is of such overwhelming importance, why are so many of its members in a terrible state? Why is the Greek economy not carried forward on a wave of prosperity unleashed by the absence of form-filling and checking at borders?
Third, if trade deals are so important, why does the UK do such a huge amount of trade with countries that it doesn’t currently have a trade deal with – including America? '
This is really the point that I was making last week. The Single Market appears to have given us and indeed the rest of the EU very little. When it was introduced it was thought that it would be a great engine for growth and employment. Economic theory supports that in that freer trade should produce more trade.
But it hasn't worked for the majority. It has created a massive problem of structural unemployment in too many EU countries, it has created a major and growing trade deficit for the UK which threatens the stability of our economy. It has done almost nothing to create the equivalent of the new American super corporations such as Google and Amazon.
Why has it failed? I think it is because overregulation has increased barriers to entry and inhibited innovation. Low tariffs (in themselves a good thing) have also meant that the majority of the benefits of a single market have gone beyond the EU with market penetration made easier. Germany's economic policies of begger my neighbour running public sector surpluses to restrain domestic demand have not helped.
This is not really a Leave point. We will still have many of these problems whether we stay or leave but it is very important to work out what is actually to our advantage.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because they really favour (2) but (mostly) won't say so in public.
Quite - the only three seem to be Ken Clarke, Heseltine and Jeremy Clarkeson.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Upon reflection, both that and the 8 winner I had on Ricciardo leading lap 1 were simply lucky (never thought the two Mercedes would both fail to finish the first lap). But if luck's going to play a role, I don't mind if it's helpful.
250/1 shots are always going to require some luck, or they wouldn't be 250/1 shots. I would be basking in that one for a very long time.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Would you like absolute power, Shiney? That's absolute as in "absolutely give me £10 billion for every penny of tax I've paid -and all the world's pretty girls, too, please". (Unless of course you prefer boys, or whatever...)
As the Greek government legislates for the latest set of tough spending cuts and reforms demanded in return for continuing to receive bailout funds from its eurozone partners, Stuart said: “I find it extraordinary that the left in particular is almost prepared to say: 50% youth unemployment is a price worth paying for EU integration. The southern Mediterranean is in the process of sacrificing an entire generation of their youth for something which may not work.”
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Not at all. You don't trust children running with scissors and you don't trust the future direction of the country to people who howl at the moon. Since it would be inevitable after a Leave vote that the government would be controlled by Leavers, if you believe that there are more important things than membership of the EU (like 95% of the population), such considerations are much more important.
As the Greek government legislates for the latest set of tough spending cuts and reforms demanded in return for continuing to receive bailout funds from its eurozone partners, Stuart said: “I find it extraordinary that the left in particular is almost prepared to say: 50% youth unemployment is a price worth paying for EU integration. The southern Mediterranean is in the process of sacrificing an entire generation of their youth for something which may not work.”
Clearly one of the grown ups on the LEAVE side - they should make more use of her.
Her Greek argument however, ignores the Greeks' own role (trans 'lying about their finances') in their own mis-fortune.....
This is really the point that I was making last week. The Single Market appears to have given us and indeed the rest of the EU very little. When it was introduced it was thought that it would be a great engine for growth and employment. Economic theory supports that in that freer trade should produce more trade.
But it hasn't worked for the majority. It has created a massive problem of structural unemployment in too many EU countries, it has created a major and growing trade deficit for the UK which threatens the stability of our economy. It has done almost nothing to create the equivalent of the new American super corporations such as Google and Amazon.
Why has it failed? I think it is because overregulation has increased barriers to entry and inhibited innovation. Low tariffs (in themselves a good thing) have also meant that the majority of the benefits of a single market have gone beyond the EU with market penetration made easier. Germany's economic policies of begger my neighbour running public sector surpluses to restrain domestic demand have not helped.
This is not really a Leave point. We will still have many of these problems whether we stay or leave but it is very important to work out what is actually to our advantage.
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, as I have repeatedly argued on here over recent weeks, the value of the Single Market to the UK is greatly exaggerated.
More broadly, the whole area of estimating 'border effects' on foreign trade has a history of extreme unreliability and (often) wild exaggeration.
Any modelling approach that can produce estimates of 200%, then 17%, then 0% for trade increases from broadly the same model but with a few tweaks cannot be considered robust.
Yet it is precisely this difficult, even dubious, area of economics on which the government's economic case rests.
The reasons the single market has delivered so little are straightforward enough -
1) The EU is a slow growth area, painfully so over the last decade or so. This won't change
2) The EU economies were already closely linked by trade before the single market came in
3) The single market has also brought with it increased product market regulation and greater barriers to entry in markets, holding back productivity growth and contributing to 1)
As the Greek government legislates for the latest set of tough spending cuts and reforms demanded in return for continuing to receive bailout funds from its eurozone partners, Stuart said: “I find it extraordinary that the left in particular is almost prepared to say: 50% youth unemployment is a price worth paying for EU integration. The southern Mediterranean is in the process of sacrificing an entire generation of their youth for something which may not work.”
Clearly one of the grown ups on the LEAVE side - they should make more use of her.
Her Greek argument however, ignores the Greeks' own role (trans 'lying about their finances') in their own mis-fortune..... Edit; last two points were made by Ms Vance, not me,Don’t know why the blockquote didn’t work!
My comment is limited to" To be fair to Greece, didn’t some major firm of accountants or similar certify the Greek economy as fit to join the Euro?
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Not at all.
Yes it is: judging an argument by some of the other beliefs of some of the people making it is just about the worst logical fallacy in the book.
Since it would be inevitable after a Leave vote that the government would be controlled by Leavers
It's inevitable that after a Leave vote the government would be controlled by the British people through the medium of parliamentary elections, just like now. And I trust the British people on the whole to make sensible decisions in parliamentary elections.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Not at all.
Yes it is: judging an argument by some of the other beliefs of some of the people making it is just about the worst logical fallacy in the book.
Since it would be inevitable after a Leave vote that the government would be controlled by Leavers
It's inevitable that after a Leave vote the government would be controlled by the British people through the medium of parliamentary elections, just like now. And I trust the British people on the whole to make sensible decisions in parliamentary elections.
I would go with respect rather than trust but let's not quibble.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Not at all.
Yes it is: judging an argument by some of the other beliefs of some of the people making it is just about the worst logical fallacy in the book.
Since it would be inevitable after a Leave vote that the government would be controlled by Leavers
It's inevitable that after a Leave vote the government would be controlled by the British people through the medium of parliamentary elections, just like now. And I trust the British people on the whole to make sensible decisions in parliamentary elections.
Not, potentially, for the next four years. Why should I risk giving Liam Fox, Iain Duncan Smith or Jacob Rees-Mogg more power?
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
That would be the same Boris leading the Leave campaign who described himself eight months ago as "basically pro immigration" and calling for an illegal immigrant amnesty?
Of course the prevailing wind was different that day...
But, but, but ... Hitler
Of course, like many Leavers on here, eight months ago Boris was a fully signed up supporter og government fiscal and economic policies predicated on EU membership and large scale immigration.
Excuse me?
Considering the preponderance of Tories and Kippers on this board, where exactly are these Leavers who supported large scale immigration?
Remember this?
“I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade. Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people, and it’s a promise we are keeping.”
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Given the rise of Le Pen, Wilders, the Afd etc option 1 will become increasingly the norm in the EU not to mention Nordic nations and Eastern European nations also outside the eurozone
As the Greek government legislates for the latest set of tough spending cuts and reforms demanded in return for continuing to receive bailout funds from its eurozone partners, Stuart said: “I find it extraordinary that the left in particular is almost prepared to say: 50% youth unemployment is a price worth paying for EU integration. The southern Mediterranean is in the process of sacrificing an entire generation of their youth for something which may not work.”
Clearly one of the grown ups on the LEAVE side - they should make more use of her.
Her Greek argument however, ignores the Greeks' own role (trans 'lying about their finances') in their own mis-fortune.....
Edit; last two points were made by Ms Vance, not me,Don’t know why the blockquote didn’t work!
My comment is limited to" To be fair to Greece, didn’t some major firm of accountants or similar certify the Greek economy as fit to join the Euro?
Morning all,
Haven't had chance to read the whole article, but surely this is about the Euro. How does us leaving make any difference to that benighted project, other than just the slightest possibility of starting the fall of other dominos?
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Not at all.
Yes it is: judging an argument by some of the other beliefs of some of the people making it is just about the worst logical fallacy in the book.
Since it would be inevitable after a Leave vote that the government would be controlled by Leavers
It's inevitable that after a Leave vote the government would be controlled by the British people through the medium of parliamentary elections, just like now. And I trust the British people on the whole to make sensible decisions in parliamentary elections.
Imagine the population losing their minds and electing an entire legislature of It's Grim Up North London characters.
You can wheel in as many of the great and good as you like but in a world where CEOs trough salaries 150* that of their employees (hat tip Boris) all the likes of Lagarde, Carney and Obama are seen as is mill owners trying to feed propaganda to further they and their Oligarchies nests.
It's great to see that Boris has suddenly discovered the earnings gap. But it's unclear how that squares with his oft-stated belief that very rich people should be paying even less tax than they do now.
Consistency was never his long suit though was it? I seem to remember he used to talk a lot about the importance of family life and supporting marriage as well...
Yep, Boris is so eaten up with concern about this issue that he has never taken any steps as either an MP or as London mayor to do anything about it.
That would be the same Boris leading the Leave campaign who described himself eight months ago as "basically pro immigration" and calling for an illegal immigrant amnesty?
Of course the prevailing wind was different that day...
But, but, but ... Hitler
Of course, like many Leavers on here, eight months ago Boris was a fully signed up supporter og government fiscal and economic policies predicated on EU membership and large scale immigration.
Excuse me?
Considering the preponderance of Tories and Kippers on this board, where exactly are these Leavers who supported large scale immigration?
Remember this?
“I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade. Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people, and it’s a promise we are keeping.”
One of the biggest lies from the Lier in Chief, our many mouthed PM.
On 16 May, BBC News will host a day of special live coverage examining how the movement of people is changing the world we live in and how our economies develop.
BBC News World On The Move will be broadcast from the BBC Radio Theatre across some of the BBC’s best-known shows, including Radio 4’s Today programme and Start The Week, alongside a live topical radio drama.
As one of the most dominant, global issues of our time, the discussion will impartially cover how migration is changing our world, and draw the BBC’s global audience into the conversation on the day...
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
It's been clearly demonstrated that we are unable to deflect the EU from its centralising/federaling agenda.
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders; (2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years; (3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Because Option 3 is being propounded by people who think that Germany is establishing a Fourth Reich.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Not at all.
Yes it is: judging an argument by some of the other beliefs of some of the people making it is just about the worst logical fallacy in the book.
Since it would be inevitable after a Leave vote that the government would be controlled by Leavers
It's inevitable that after a Leave vote the government would be controlled by the British people through the medium of parliamentary elections, just like now. And I trust the British people on the whole to make sensible decisions in parliamentary elections.
Not, potentially, for the next four years. Why should I risk giving Liam Fox, Iain Duncan Smith or Jacob Rees-Mogg more power?
How would any of those get more power? The government at the moment can get very little done, and that's with a centrist leader who won a general election. So even if Cameron quits (which he shouldnt) and one of those won a Tory leadership election (which they won't) I can't see your problem. Unless, that is, you have a Thornberry-esque metropolitan liberal disdain for the British public.
I wouldn't normally cite Heffer, however he's making the Boris point too. DT clearly thinks this is a winner with their readers.
The curious thing about that argument, if you agree with it, is that Boris is proposing that instead of standing up to the Germans like Churchill we run away and hide.
It's bizarre
How exactly did Cameron stand up to the Germans when Merkel unilaterally opened the EU's borders to anyone who could get on a boat from Turkey? There was no democratic process there, no discussion with fellow EU members. They just did what Germany wanted - and fuck the rest of you...
Which number Reich do you wish to ascribe that attitude to?
'will lead to us having to ditch the pound sterling our entire common law judicial system and our borders for the euro, bench trials and Schengen'
In a word, 'piffle' - directly contradicted by the Lisbon Treaty.....
Dearie me. You just keep misfiring. Where in the corpus of eu treaty law, as interpreted by the eu courts, are we *explicitly* protected against these *specific* things?
That's what is required to protect us in an eu court against a supervening interpretation of 'ever closer union' etc.
Even Dodgy dave came to recognise 'Treaty Change' as a requirement (admittedly he didn't get it) against further eu law creep.
Comments
Well, to you, obv.
In the meantime, here's a link that might help you:
http://www.bacofoil.co.uk
The EU didn't ultimately stop the referendum or sack the government. If they had been able to do so they would surely have done so, given the terrible damage Tsipras and his plebiscite caused their reputation.
On 5 November, his government only narrowly won a confidence vote in parliament and opposition leader Antonis Samaras called for immediate elections. The next day Papandreou met with opposition leaders trying to reach an agreement on the formation of an interim national unity government. However, Samaras gave in only after Papandreou agreed to step aside, allowing the EU bailout to proceed and paving the way for elections on 19 February 2012. Both the Communist Party (KKE) and the leftist SYRIZA coalition had refused Papandreou's invitation to join talks on a new unity government.
After several days of intense negotiations, the two major parties along with the Popular Orthodox Rally agreed to form a grand coalition headed by former Vice President of the European Central Bank Lucas Papademos. On 10 November, George Papandreou formally resigned as Prime Minister of Greece. The new coalition cabinet and Prime Minister Lucas Papademos were formally sworn in on 11 November 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papandreou#Called-off_referendum_and_stepping_aside
Looks like 'Greek domestic politics' to me......
I loved the Queen's 90th birthday show last night. Uplifting, entertaining, patriotic, exciting, deeply British, with a personal touch for her too running throughout - her love of horses, and family.
ITV are now streets ahead of the BBC in this sort of thing, IMHO.
you retire
he is sacked.
He made the statement, he was gone in days.
correlation is causation (here)
Perhaps you'd still like to post a link to who will physically stop us from holding another referendum at a time of our own choosing?
No?
Thought not.....
In such a situation releasing the EUs shackles on Psrliament so that it is fully sovereign and ordinary people can elect radical representatives who will shove the Oligarchs off their perches and tilt their faces in the mud becomes irresistable.
It is only because until 1973 parliament had such awesome power that we avoided Europes civil wars and revolutionary bloodletting because we could achieve the same via the ballot box
Fulfilling Hitler's vision...
Boris said so...
Are you a REMAINer by any chance?
Now, why does that sound so familiar?
you retire
he is sacked.
They rebel
The Lisbon Treaty directly contradicts those claims.
For a final time of asking...WHO is going to stop us from holding a referendum in future - and HOW?
It's bizarre
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/2468/Will-the-margin-of-victory-in-the-New-York-Democratic-primary-exceed-15-percentage-points#data
A quick check of the green papers reveals a margin of 15.92%.
This is like betting on whether yesterday was a sunday...
Donald Trump is not fit to lead the free world. He is a narcissistic, thin-skinned bully, a serial liar, a man who shows not the slightest respect for the office to which he aspires.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-real-reason-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president/article/2591147?custom_click=rss
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3264239/Let-long-term-illegals-stay-UK-says-Boris-London-mayor-believes-immigrants-12-years-granted-amnesty.html
Of course the prevailing wind was different that day...
There aren't enough Telegraph readers these days to make a difference.
Indeed. If the referendum were just being held among Telegraph readers the result would not be in doubt.
"following the insistence of EU leaders "
But then, you are 'forced' to make things up..
Three times.
Of course, like many Leavers on here, eight months ago Boris was a fully signed up supporter og government fiscal and economic policies predicated on EU membership and large scale immigration.
Piffle.....
Boris for leaderthe plight of the British SausageYou aren't very good at this are you?
Andrea Leadsom criticism of BoE... “They are not there to promote financial instability, but that is what they’ve done,” she told the BBC. “It is institutional ganging up on the poor British voter.”
'First, if the benefits of the single market are so enormous, then why is it that over recent years countries all around the world have increased their exports into the single market at a faster rate than most single market members?
Second, if the single market is of such overwhelming importance, why are so many of its members in a terrible state? Why is the Greek economy not carried forward on a wave of prosperity unleashed by the absence of form-filling and checking at borders?
Third, if trade deals are so important, why does the UK do such a huge amount of trade with countries that it doesn’t currently have a trade deal with – including America? '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/15/yes-the-imf-and-200-plus-economists-can-be-wrong/
Considering the preponderance of Tories and Kippers on this board, where exactly are these Leavers who supported large scale immigration?
Remember this?
“I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade. Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people, and it’s a promise we are keeping.”
Given that we're voting in the full knowledge of this fact, there are three options:
(1) Vote to Remain, and carry on as we have been, carping about and/or resisting centralisation in (as it will be seen in other EU capitals) direct contradiction to the public vote, thus frustrating and irritating other EU leaders;
(2) Vote to Remain and sign up to the agenda, joining Schengen and the Euro as soon as possible and certainly within 5 years;
(3) Vote to Leave.
I can't understand why so many people think option 1 is the best.
Let me let you into a secret. Civilization is unnatural, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be
Its very good!
F1: my post-race analysis of a thrilling race in Spain is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/spain-post-race-analysis-2016.html
(Apart from tin-foil deprived LEAVErs.....)
Except I think perhaps the most let's call it dangerous VL line is it's "only" 6% of companies that export to the EU. Now, as people have said on here, sod the economics it's the sovereignty, stupid.
But I think it would be highly disingenuous for VL to create the impression and then the British public voted out thinking it's "only" 44% of our exports.
[Edit: very few people *openly* because they know they can't get it past the British people]
Upon reflection, both that and the 8 winner I had on Ricciardo leading lap 1 were simply lucky (never thought the two Mercedes would both fail to finish the first lap). But if luck's going to play a role, I don't mind if it's helpful.
In a word, 'piffle' - directly contradicted by the Lisbon Treaty.....
But it hasn't worked for the majority. It has created a massive problem of structural unemployment in too many EU countries, it has created a major and growing trade deficit for the UK which threatens the stability of our economy. It has done almost nothing to create the equivalent of the new American super corporations such as Google and Amazon.
Why has it failed? I think it is because overregulation has increased barriers to entry and inhibited innovation. Low tariffs (in themselves a good thing) have also meant that the majority of the benefits of a single market have gone beyond the EU with market penetration made easier. Germany's economic policies of begger my neighbour running public sector surpluses to restrain domestic demand have not helped.
This is not really a Leave point. We will still have many of these problems whether we stay or leave but it is very important to work out what is actually to our advantage.
https://twitter.com/JunckerEU/status/468847798725918720
Turnip Tourette subtracting from human knowledge again.....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/15/labour-pro-eu-stance-brexit-is-recruitment-agent-for-ukip
And there are some very sound, practical “Remain" points in the comments. Second and ninth particularly. IMHO anyway.
Lot of rubbish, of course as well.
Her Greek argument however, ignores the Greeks' own role (trans 'lying about their finances') in their own mis-fortune.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/three-million-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-could-be-deported-if-britons/
This is really the point that I was making last week. The Single Market appears to have given us and indeed the rest of the EU very little. When it was introduced it was thought that it would be a great engine for growth and employment. Economic theory supports that in that freer trade should produce more trade.
But it hasn't worked for the majority. It has created a massive problem of structural unemployment in too many EU countries, it has created a major and growing trade deficit for the UK which threatens the stability of our economy. It has done almost nothing to create the equivalent of the new American super corporations such as Google and Amazon.
Why has it failed? I think it is because overregulation has increased barriers to entry and inhibited innovation. Low tariffs (in themselves a good thing) have also meant that the majority of the benefits of a single market have gone beyond the EU with market penetration made easier. Germany's economic policies of begger my neighbour running public sector surpluses to restrain domestic demand have not helped.
This is not really a Leave point. We will still have many of these problems whether we stay or leave but it is very important to work out what is actually to our advantage.
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, as I have repeatedly argued on here over recent weeks, the value of the Single Market to the UK is greatly exaggerated.
More broadly, the whole area of estimating 'border effects' on foreign trade has a history of extreme unreliability and (often) wild exaggeration.
Any modelling approach that can produce estimates of 200%, then 17%, then 0% for trade increases from broadly the same model but with a few tweaks cannot be considered robust.
Yet it is precisely this difficult, even dubious, area of economics on which the government's economic case rests.
The reasons the single market has delivered so little are straightforward enough -
1) The EU is a slow growth area, painfully so over the last decade or so. This won't change
2) The EU economies were already closely linked by trade before the single market came in
3) The single market has also brought with it increased product market regulation and greater barriers to entry in markets, holding back productivity growth and contributing to 1)
Her Greek argument however, ignores the Greeks' own role (trans 'lying about their finances') in their own mis-fortune.....
Edit; last two points were made by Ms Vance, not me,Don’t know why the blockquote didn’t work!
My comment is limited to"
To be fair to Greece, didn’t some major firm of accountants or similar certify the Greek economy as fit to join the Euro?
My comment is limited to"
To be fair to Greece, didn’t some major firm of accountants or similar certify the Greek economy as fit to join the Euro?
Morning all,
Haven't had chance to read the whole article, but surely this is about the Euro. How does us leaving make any difference to that benighted project, other than just the slightest possibility of starting the fall of other dominos?
@Morris_Dancer Did you tip it anywhere
Which number Reich do you wish to ascribe that attitude to?
Dearie me. You just keep misfiring. Where in the corpus of eu treaty law, as interpreted by the eu courts, are we *explicitly* protected against these *specific* things?
That's what is required to protect us in an eu court against a supervening interpretation of 'ever closer union' etc.
Even Dodgy dave came to recognise 'Treaty Change' as a requirement (admittedly he didn't get it) against further eu law creep.