Change font size
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:04 pm


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:13 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Warner awakes, with this: "On Europe, as on most other issues, you could not put a cigarette paper between the main parties. The new politics is no longer a contest between rival party ideologies but between the political class and the public it despises".

What he is describing, of course, is the "above the line" phenomenon that we wrote about at the beginning of this month. It is fascinating to see that different people, entirely independently, are coming to the same conclusion.

And, talking of conclusions, Autonomous Mind looks at the forthcoming referendum debate and concludes that the renegotiation option is poisoning the well – behaviour common to retreating armies. (unashamedly, I have borrowed his pic).

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1391
Location: England
My question is, when did and for how long have the Tory party been on about renegotiation? I'm sure it has been several years at least. In which case you would have thought they would have already drawn up a strategy and policy on this, especially if they were keen on such a course of action. They should be ready to go, right now surely? Or is, as we all know, renegotiation a ploy to con the people and make sure nothing really changes?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
The only plus point, should there be one, in this charade is that the EU & Britain's role therein is being discussed more 'on the street'. If this has the effect of informing/educating a few more minds, then a small something will have been achieved....a single sinner etc.

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1391
Location: England
Just made this comment on the Telegraph website. I like it at least!

Quote:
In fact the EU is like a leech on your arm and the Tory party are basically saying that we should not pull it off because we can change it into something that doesn't such our life blood out. Of course to complete the metaphor and to make it all tie together you have to understand that the Tory party are leeches in disguise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:32 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Stuart wrote:
My question is, when did and for how long have the Tory party been on about renegotiation? I'm sure it has been several years at least. In which case you would have thought they would have already drawn up a strategy and policy on this, especially if they were keen on such a course of action. They should be ready to go, right now surely? Or is, as we all know, renegotiation a ploy to con the people and make sure nothing really changes?


Hague ran the meme in 1999

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/smgpubs/acc ... atl=google

IDS supported it in 2000

Duncan Smith, in 1996 introduced a private member's bill to give Parliament primacy over European laws. Along with 16 other Tory frontbenchers, he is a vice-president of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe. In June 2000, CAFE stated its aims as including “a separate relationship with the EU”.

http://www.economist.com/node/1897641

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1391
Location: England
RAENORTH wrote:
Stuart wrote:
My question is, when did and for how long have the Tory party been on about renegotiation? I'm sure it has been several years at least. In which case you would have thought they would have already drawn up a strategy and policy on this, especially if they were keen on such a course of action. They should be ready to go, right now surely? Or is, as we all know, renegotiation a ploy to con the people and make sure nothing really changes?


Hague ran the meme in 1999

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/smgpubs/acc ... atl=google

IDS supported it in 2000

Duncan Smith, in 1996 introduced a private member's bill to give Parliament primacy over European laws. Along with 16 other Tory frontbenchers, he is a vice-president of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe. In June 2000, CAFE stated its aims as including “a separate relationship with the EU”.

http://www.economist.com/node/1897641


So they have been banging on about renegotiation and "in Europe but not ruled by Europe" for over ten years! They should have a well thought out policy on achieving this then? Like I have already said, if they are using a ploy to string us along, we need to add a date and terms. If they do not deliver, they write the abrogation of the European treaties the next day. We give them way too much latitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:06 pm 
"Renegotiation" was the chimera in 1975 as well. (Apologies for those who've read this elsewhere.)

Harold Wilson said before the 1975 in-out referendum that “I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved”. And so the people voted yes because they thought preferential terms had been arranged. Ho ho ho.

This time round is the same trick, except the “renegotiation” would happen post- not pre-vote. We are no further forward and the scum think (rightly, it must be conceded) that they can fool the people with the same bait-and-switch.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:09 pm 

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:29 pm
Posts: 8
When asked by the MSM what he would do if the Lisbon Treaty was ratified before he won power, Cast Iron Cameron used to bleat on (with that funny tight lips thing he does to show everyone how toothless he is) about how we can all 'rest assured - he would not let matters rest there'. Before... errrr.... letting matters rest there.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:43 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:52 am
Posts: 841
He's good at letting matters rest there, about the only thing one can say about him. For the rest, he is a PR con man, end of!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:53 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:52 pm
Posts: 542
Now hold up your little Red Books and look at the picture of Chairman Cameron and repeat after me:
"We must renegotiate our relationship with The EU. We must renegotiate our relationship with The EU.
We must renegotiate our relationship with The EU. We must renegotiate our relationship with The EU'.
It worked under Chairman Mao in the 50s and 60s, and it will work for you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1391
Location: England
This from my MP Sir George Young:

A number of constituents have contacted me regarding the forthcoming vote on whether we should hold a referendum to decide if we stay in or leave the European Union. At the moment, it is not clear whether the motion will be amended, and exactly what the proposition before the House will be. But let me set out my position.

The national interest is for Britain to be in Europe, not run by Europe. That is why Conservatives want to get powers back from Brussels to Britain, particularly over social and employment legislation.

While there is no doubt that the EU needs reform, I firmly believe that the benefits of UK membership outweigh the costs, and that our prosperity and standing in the world would be seriously damaged if we were to leave, particularly given the current state of the world economy. An estimated forty per cent of our exports are to other countries within the EU. If we left, while we could still trade, we would have no influence over the rules governing our largest overseas markets. There is also no doubt that, where EU states can agree to work together, we become a far more powerful force diplomatically in a world which is getting more dangerous, not less. Above all right now, UK businesses need certainty so they can invest to generate growth in our economy and the financial markets need confidence in our future – the potential that we might have to leave the EU as a result of a referendum could have a disastrous impact on jobs and interest rates.

Having said this, we do need to ensure that we curtail, and in some cases, reverse the movement of power from the Westminster to Brussels. In its first year of office, the Coalition Government passed an extremely important law to prevent any further transfer of powers to Brussels without a referendum. This was a major milestone in our relationship with the EU, ending once and for all the creeping powers of Brussels. The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who was himself at the heart of the campaign to keep the pound and prevent the UK joining the single currency, has already said that we will look for opportunities to repatriate powers as part of any substantive change to the EU treaty. We are also working hard to ensure that regulations emanating from Brussels are implemented minimally without being gold-plated by government departments.
I recognise that a number of people feel very strongly about the EU and I understand the views of those who may believe we should leave. But, after careful of consideration of what is in the best interests of the British people, in my judgement, now is not the time for the uncertainty, cost and disruption of such a referendum. This is consistent with the position I took at the last general Election, when neither I nor my Party made a commitment to an "In or Out" referendum.

Nor is it clear what the three-way proposed referendum would achieve - 40% could vote to come out, 30% to stay in and 30% to renegotiate. What would that mean?

Some people believe that the party committed itself to a referendum in the last Parliament. All three parties said, in the 2005 Election, that there should be a referendum before the Lisbon Treaty was ratified. Sadly, that commitment was not honoured, despite my Party voting for it. The Treaty has now been ratified and a referendum on it now would serve no purpose.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:06 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:52 pm
Posts: 542
It is amazing that Hague is not still the leader, given his policy of gentle slowly but surely surrender to Brussells is Government policy shared by most MPs in the Government...although a few want to wave the white flag much more zealously.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:34 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:52 pm
Posts: 542
May as well have some fun. :)
More or fewer than 150 MPs voting for an IN-OUT referendum tomorrow ?
More or fewer than 100 ?
At least eyes will open even in Conservative Party activist ranks.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:07 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 1441
Cracking analysis by G. Warner, he absolutely hammers Cameron and hasn't the behaviour of that sly shift twat Dave fully justified Mr. Warner's composed dissection?

And then, this requires repeating:

The new politics is no longer a contest between rival party ideologies but between the political class and the public it despises.


Indeed, may I reciprocate that very emotive word 'despise', contempt would also be an apt description of my feelings.
The elite may hate us but my venomous repugnance brings upon me a black and baleful mood, that our effete political class could never emote and I'd be willing to bet that I am not the only one.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poisoning the well
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:04 pm
Posts: 261
Ravenscar,

A sharper perspective is to be had by considering the question: would you lift a finger to stop someone killing them?

It's not the sharpest, of course, but it'll do - for now.

_________________
"Oh yeah? Well who now listens to Mrs Dale's Diary?" — Pram Rattling for Dummies by John Archer


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net