³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

And so the sell out continues, unabated. Only one way to solve this, but no-one is prepared to do it.

It would be unwise to rely too much on any promises/lies made by the ConDems prior to the election.

So far they seem to be setting a whole new standard for pre-election lies - from student fees to petrol price stability, I'm losing count.

I recommend that William Hague looks out the song from an early Peter Sellers film I think it was called 'Goodness Gracious Me' it has, I recall of chorus boom boody-boom boody-boom boody-boom boody-boom boody-boom boody-boom-boom-boom!

The time bomb he fears will explode because the Tories, like Labour know that the UK belongs in the heart of Europe, but the rapid extremist UK tabloid press that gets them re-elected hates Europe as it stands as a bulwark against the empires of the power mad press megalomaniacs.

Is it too much to ask that we have an independent review and report comparing per capita wealth of UK plc in and out of the EU?

The media reporting of EU matters differs according to political bias so the media is not providing us with substantive data.

Apart from UKIP (not a credible party being largely a one trick pony) our electoral choice regarding the EU is non-existent.

We are paying net billions to the EU each year with no idea whether we are achieving value for money; at a time when every domestic government department is being asked to justify expenditure on a value for money basis.

Is this reasonable?

I can't imagine a worse party for this country to have in power when it comes to dealing with Europe.

For those who are pro-Euopre: you only have to look at the anti-EU rantings of Tory MEPs to be embarrassed at how we as a country come across.

For those who are anti-Europe: you only have to look at the anti-EU rantings of Tory MEPs to realise that no-one is going to take them serisouly and thus protecting this countrys interestes will be arder to achieve.

@John_from_Hendon

Not sure which planet your instance of Hendon is on, but in the one I know the UK press, with the recent exception of the Daily Express, is predominantly Europhile, megalomaniac or not.

When you refer to Tories and Labour, I assume you refer to MPs, because opinion polls suggest a majority of the people (i.e Tory & Labour voters) want the UK to leave the EU.

4#

Fredalo:

so, UKIP are not credible for being a one trick pony and yet you accuse the others of not giving you any choice?

Make your damn mind up will you? Or do you like shooting bullets into your feet?

John:

"....the Tories, like Labour know that the UK belongs in the heart of Europe, but the rapid extremist UK tabloid press that gets them re-elected hates Europe as it stands as a bulwark against the empires of the power mad press megalomaniacs....." Do what???

The name Berlusconi mean anything to you??

The other dimension is of course the largely Europhile Lib Dems for whom there maybe one compromise with the Euro-sceptics too many coming up. An exciting cocktail of special interests and fundamental beliefs is emerging that will sink this ridiculous coalition within the year.

Is that a ticking alarm clock bomb ?

When do they start tearing themselves apart ? Can't wait...

There is, apparently, to be a referendum before any 'significant' transfer of power to Brussels...
Define: 'Significant', Mr Cameron.
Once, and once only - not to be fiddled with on subsequent occasions.

7

Calm down Fubar.

There is more to governing the UK than UKIP offers - that's all I'm saying.

PS - my feet are fine and I still have all my toes, plus, I like to think, an enquiring and open mind.

I see no evidence that the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Political Editor (or Andrew Neil on today's 'Daily Politics') have made any effort to understand what the debate is about.

As I understand it, the Bill addresses the legislative transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to the European Union. It does not address judicial transfers of competencies from the UK to the EU (arising from decisions made by the European Court of Justice). It is much more likely that the EU will assume more powers through judicial than legislative means, especially as the Treaty of Lisbon reduced or eliminated the need for the latter (this is why, I believe, the LibDems are content with the legislation).

There is a further issue in that in asserting the importance of common law the Bill may further reduce parliamentary sovereignty rather than increase it (i.e. give more powers to the UK Supreme Court).

The debate is about more than Europe.

"The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is better understood as having its legal source in judicial recognition of political fact than in the common law." (Professor Tomkins, evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee)

11#

Well, why didn't you just say that then?

4 Fredalo

Is it too much to ask that we have an independent review and report comparing per capita wealth of UK plc in and out of the EU?

We are paying net billions to the EU each year with no idea whether we are achieving value for money; at a time when every domestic government department is being asked to justify expenditure on a value for money basis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

It is also reasonable to look at the distorting effect of EU protectionism on the ability of developing countries to benefit from world trade.

It would be difficult for the EU to demonstrate spending efficiency as it never has its accounts signed off. Marta Andreasen (now a UKIP MEP) was sacked for raising the matter when she was the EU's Chief Accountant and as an MEP has been prevented from holding a position on the EU Budget Committee. This does not inspire much confidence.

13#

Ambiguity's my middle name

#6. Sean O Hare wrote:

"@John_from_Hendon

"I know the UK press, with the recent exception of the Daily Express, is predominantly Europhile,"

Absolute rubbish....

The papers from Wapping every one of them hates Europe and everything European because their 80- year old boss wants to be President of the British Republic. And the Daily Express is not a newspaper any longer either! (see also Daily Sport and Star)

What you are saying is that the British people want no jobs and a voting for poverty and needing visas for every foreign holiday. There is no associated position for the UK - either IN (my position) and fully committed, or OUT your position - I am afraid you simply haven't a clue!

NR wrote:
"What's more he said that ministers' judgements will be open to judicial review - in other words a court could be asked to determine whether they had behaved reasonably. That, though, made matters worse for many Eurosceptics.

A growing number of Tory MPs - led by Bill Cash and Bernard Jenkin - object to the increased power of judges and fear that the hard-won sovereignty of Parliament is being eroded - not just by the EU but also by the Human Rights Act and the creation of the Supreme Court. Thus, they regard relying on judges as even worse than banking on ministers and believe that the government's bill will undermine and not reinforce sovereignty."

What a surprise, one of the core objections here has more to do with the redistribution of power between Government and the Courts than the actual transfer of powers to the EU/ECJ - and it comes from MPs, who of course object to being exposed to further judicial review and scrutiny over the way in which they exercise their authority. The UK is one of the only developed members of the EU that does not have complete seperation of powers between the Government and the Courts, and the ability of the Court to scrutinise Parliament's actions are heavily limited. However nearly all the ways in which the Courts can do this, with the glaring example being the judicial review instrument in the Human Rights Act, all stem from pressure from the EU.

And this is meant to be a bad thing?!

Until the EU stepped in, the Lord Chancellor, the most senior legal position in the country as the head of the judiciary, was jointly a cabinet member in government. What a stunning example of judicial/political impartiality.

This is not to mention the sheer lunacy of a comment that portrays the Human Rights Act as 'an erosion of Parliament's sovereignty'. This is from a Member of Parliament. That again goes way beyond Euroscepticism to being deeply troubling and outright innane on a moral and ethical level. Even then the Human Right Act does fully protect citizens from the will of Parliament.

Think what you may on the utility of the UK's membership of the EU, or the cost, or beuracracy, but as far as changes to our judicial system are concerned and how that relates to Parliament's power, there is blatantly severe ignorance as to the advances that have been made in our legal system as a result of EU membership.

The whole point about the EU debate is that there is no debate other than between policians and the media. The people who count most are excluded from expressing their opinion through a referendum in case they give the wrong answer. The politicians only want to hear what the public have to say when there is an election, otherwise, they turn a deaf ear.

A crucial concession to get a bill through before the problems in Europe once again resurface.

Who knows what desperate proposals we will see as the pressure on the Eurozone starts to increase over the coming months.

It is our last insurance policy against being drawn into a federal Europe which has no long term and realistic plan for the future.

16#

Blimey, I thought I was a ranter, but that takes the cake. Has there been a toxic chemical spillage into the water supply in North London??

"Fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
David Cameron on ukip members

17 Turbulent-Times

"there is blatantly severe ignorance as to the advances that have been made in our legal system as a result of EU membership."
===========================================================

I would say the exact opposite, people understand only too well that the main function of the law now appears to be to protect the rights of the people who break it - and "Human Rights" seem to be central to this. For example, I'm more concerned about convicted foreign criminals being allowed to remain in this country than if the Lord Chancellor is a member of the cabinet or not. I don't really believe that Human Rights enhances the lives of the majority of the population, and would actually say that the opposite is true. Your post basically views the law from an academic point of view, whilst hardly touching on the practical impact that the current state has on peoples lives in reality.

Confidence and respect in the legal system is at an all time low in my view, and is continuing to decline. This is hardly a yardstick of success by anyones standards.

The problem for me is that the debate seems all or nothing. I can see the advantage of belonging to a large, powerful economic block of independent countries, but I don't want other countries telling me too much how to live my life.

I am wondering whether the objection isn't to do with strong links to Europe, but with the EU as a bloated organisation. The problem is that with a loose organisation countries will adopt a pick and mix approach which will lead to its demise. With a strong organisation it will self destruct when everyone realises that they are making too many concessions to other coutries and that will lead to a destructive nationalism.

21#

And theres you offering more pearls of political wisdom, lefty. Cameron is bound to say something like that, he's a pro-Europe quasi-liberal. He's no different to Blair.

Come back when you've got something to contribute to the debate apart from doom and gloom and oh my god the tories are going to eat our babies, why dont you?

#17 Turbulent Times

Your turbulent post refers to lunacy and inanity (presumably by your political opponents) rather than recognising a legal-political-philosphical dilemma, and a difference of judicial opinion.

"Parliamentary sovereignity has been recognised as fundamental in this country not because the judges invented it but because it has for centuries been accepted as such by judges and others officially concerned in the operation of our constitutional system. The judges did not by themselves establish the principle and they cannot, by themselves, change it." (Lord Bingham)

"I am wondering whether the objection isn't to do with strong links to Europe, but with the EU as a bloated organisation."

I would say thats as close as we're likely to get to an approximation of the problem on here. A bloated organisation is putting it politely. Its an undemocratic moneypit.

"The problem is that with a loose organisation countries will adopt a pick and mix approach which will lead to its demise."

Quite a number of the key players already pick and mix. You think Sarkozy obeys every single diktat that comes down the E40 from Brussels? Hell no. We in the UK seem to though, with relish.

"With a strong organisation it will self destruct when everyone realises that they are making too many concessions to other coutries and that will lead to a destructive nationalism."

Perhaps so. Remains to be seen.

The government is re-writing bill's explanatory notes to make it clear that parliamentary sovereignty does not depend on common law. That's it? That's the big ticking bomb?
Parliamentary sovereignty is absolutely fundamental in the UK constitution. i.e. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is in British constitutional law.
It's not a matter of common law!
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means: Parliament... has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law; and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
I have to admit that I'm surprised about this so-called ticking bomb. All that a Court of Justice can do is to look to the Parliamentary roll: if from that it should appear that a bill has passed both Houses and received the Royal assent, no Court of Justice can overturn.
Are we confused by the United States of America where important decisions on matters such as abortion are ultimately made by unelected judges in the Supreme Court, who have the power to strike down legislation?
Have I missed something? What's the ticking all about?

An interesting part of systems design, in this case, a hierarchical political system, is in deciding what is to be done at any given level.

In this slightly arcane case, these politicians seem to be deciding WHO is to decide what is being done at a given level e.g. the UK Parliament or EU Parliament level.

This blogger would prefer to see these politicians spending less time agonising over UK/EU aspects and rather more time debating why the people living in England do not have a Parliament of our own, unlike the rest of the so-called 'United Kingdom'.

Well don't hold your breath...remember that they still owe us a referendum on all things 'Europe.' Note that the Liberals can get a voting referendum fairly easily (even though we are told by various smug MPs that referenda are not the British way) but under no circumstances can 'Europe' ever be put to the vote.

Why the seeming volte face from Cameron? Probably because Sarko, Merkel etc. are his new friends and he's enjoying being part of the power elite.

21. At 3:47pm on 11 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:
"Fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
David Cameron on ukip members

--------------

And ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ editors on contributors to their blogs.

12:11pm Fredalo asks for an independent comparison of UK in and out of the EU and complains that the UKIP is not credible as it is a one-trick pony.

Although the electorate is capable of making decisions on individual issues, it is offered choices only of parties every few years. Each party either offers a smorgasbord of polices or is, as in the case of the UKIP, derided as a one-trick pony. It is surely time to move away from party-politics and toward issue-politics. An MP could then represent his constituents' views on different topics without being bullied by whips into a position, such as one on Europe, he may not wish to hold. Until that happens, no one dare offer Fredalo's comparison in case it offend one wing or another of a party.

30. Its_an_Outrage
well you certainly seem like a decent bloke ;-)
im sure i wouldnt see you breaking any anti-war placards!

5:

"For those who are anti-Europe: you only have to look at the anti-EU rantings of Tory MEPs to realise that no-one is going to take them serisouly and thus protecting this countrys interestes will be arder to achieve."

Really? I seem to recall that David Cameron sought support from the other heads of government across Europe to limit the increase in the EU budget to less than half of what the European Commission wanted - and got his way. Hardly looks like a party no-one is taking seriously.

1. Fubar_Saunders wrote:
And so the sell out continues, unabated. Only one way to solve this, but no-one is prepared to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so it would seem Fubar.
In opposition, the Conservatives created merry hell over the Labour party’s apparent U-turn over a referendum on the European Constitution, but here they are passing legislation that will effectively give them the option to do exactly the same thing.

What will be classed as significant & what will not?
Now let’s see how far the goal posts will be moved, at the drop of a hat, to save the ConDem’s sorry hides.

33, Chris Neville-Smith

Chris, Snooty shouldn’t of been pressing for a limit to the rise in the European budget, he should have been pressing for an 20% reduction like many of our UK Departments will have to make.
It’s one rule for us and another for them.
Whose side is he on?

How many more promises made by Cameron and Co are going to be broken ? How can we trust any of them any more ?
How can we stop the Europeans breaking down our sovereignty ?
How can we find honest people to run our politics and defend our country ?
The French found a solution way back in the days of the 3 musketeers I believe ?
It's getting bad when our soldiers are dying for our country and the politicians are giving it away, it seems ?

34#

It was all just talk. Both from Cast Iron Dave and the last lot. Hollow talk. Tell the plebs what the focus groups tell us that they want to hear. They'll soon go back to their celeb obsessions and forget about it til the next time. By the time the damage is done, they'll be riding off into the sunset with their current accounts rammed to the gunwales with cash.

This EU issue ill not go away,and of course we still need to have a referendum eventually, ALSO WHY IS NO ONE ASKING WHY THE EU ACCOUNTS HAVENT BEEN SIGNED OFF FOR YEARS.

Every single man and woman who died for their fellow countryman's freedom against tyranny will only have died in vain for the EU.
For a machine that is against our sovereignty and democracy (until proven otherwise, which the EU machine doesn't seem to feel the need to do).
What, the EU is a benefit? How, exactly? We're an island, remember? Oh, what, some big business can make efficiency savings on labour costs from the poorer parts and transport goods freely to make a profit of us mugs, whilst not even providing a reasonable quality of service; like with those dioxin eggs; whilst people are felt-up at customs that aren't supposed to be in place due to the 'free movement of goods and PEOPLE'? You know what? I'm not convinced!
This is anything but about people's freedom, and I love the people of Europe, whoever they are, they're PEOPLE. I'm Eurosceptic because I feel the EU is self-serving and un-democratic, end of story.

Yes, once again the rich men and their best friends the lawyers win with their intentionally-ambiguous wording of the document which affects us all.

A referendum before any 'significant' transfer of power to Brussels...?

DEFINE 'SIGNIFICANT' MR. CAMERON?

It is almost certain if the Lib/Dems are for this Bill, which it seems they are, it means Britain is being pulled further into the EU experiment.

Britain it seems wants for the future to be associated with failed Countries, apart from the powerhouse which is Germany, instead of out in the Global economy finding its own way forward. The political establishment have decided that the people of Britain have no right to a say on how their future turns out, by not allowing us a vote on in or out of the EU. Silly me I thought that was what a democracy was for.

Already Britain controls very little in areas like justice and we see what that has brought us. We have seen how open borders have increased organised crime. We have seen how the Human Rights acts has given prisoners more rights than the ordinary person. We have seen how rules and regulations have come into force in the business World which hold us back from competing in the Global economy. We now see our financial sector coming under the hammer of the EU, which may in turn lose us the most lucrative part of our economy. The costs are rising all the time just to be a member of this expensive club. I would like therefore, for Cameron to tell me what the benefits are because I see none.

Britain will no longer exist in time, it will be just a region of a super state, with very little control over how it runs its Country or people.

I'll nail my colours to the mast: I am in favour of being part of the EU. Indeed, should the UK ever leave the EU, I'd leave the UK.

However, I do want to see major changes starting with some real democracy. I want to vote for the president of the EU, and to elect representatives to a European Parliament that is actually administering the EU, not just mumbling away in a corner whilst unelected - and probably unelectable - people actually run things.

I want to see proper accounts (that have been audited!) showing just what contributions to the EU are being spent on: are we, the citizens of Europe, seeing our money spent responsibly to our benefit?

As for justice: it is the relevant parliament (European or national) who should write the law, it is the courts that judge whether or not it has been broken. It is up to elected representatives at all levels to determine which parliament is responsible for creating which law.

40#

There are far too many vested interests over here in Brussels for that to be something that you will realistically see in your lifetime Megan. So, you've got the choice. Continue to be ripped off and spurned and have your views ignored or get out of the thing now before it implodes in on itself.

32. At 6:18pm on 11 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:
30. Its_an_Outrage
"well you certainly seem like a decent bloke ..."

--------------

And yourself, Lefty - what a fine judge of character.