|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 16:42:29 GMT
Very interesting, anyhoo, back to thread. Were we allowed a referendum on the UK joining the EU? It's not a complicated question although, and for obvious reasons, some people will want to make it so. Don't forget, we only had a referendum on leaving because Cameron wanted the Brexit party votes and ended up burning his fingers and resigned when he lost. Typical Tory scum. Indeed he tried to put it to bed and saw that the polls were in his favour around that time. UKIP were playing havoc with Tory votes. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 10, 2022 18:19:33 GMT
I do apologise everyone - I appear to have woken up Jaydee.  Ah Nigel the one line wonder. As he wakes up. Allow me a copy and paste. Would you care to correct any of it. Instead of waffling. And you missed out your stock answer.. Oh the irony. And you still have not told me if you have worked out your left from your right. Oh Look Nigel is going to answer the following. Ah Nigel. The one line wonder. That is what I am talking about. When Scotland goes it s merry way. And it is a Scottish Parliament. But totally wasted on your havering slastering drivel. Which part of. Better therefore to be blunt and clear, that the full £1.4tn would stay as a liability of England, Wales and Northern Ireland - and that there would be no legal requirement on Scottish people to pay any of it.. That debt is now £2.8 trillion. Translates to you .The Scottish people will have to pay. And I am well aware the Scots have to pay the English debt as part of the UK. Speaking of buffoons you answered it yourself. As you suddenly came into hug a Jock mode. Scotland will not be part of the UK. By the way as you rant more drivel. Speaking of buffoons. Of that £2.8 trillion debt. Could you point to one penny of it being spent in Scotland.
Lets go back to 2010 and move forward year by year. When the Westminster fascists had a PSBR of some £140 billion. Could you point to where the £1.4 billion of that came to Scotland to be spent in Scotland. After all the Jocks had to pay it back. Now since the SNP came to power they have underspent every year. And this year they underspent by £2 billion. To assist the Scots who will be worse of from the savage cuts of the fascist wankers in Westminster. Lining their own pockets. Now speaking of buffoons. Would you care to correct any of that. Then point to this £1.4 billion that should have went to Scotland. By the way. You did note the fascist wankers have doubled the debt since 2014. As they try to blame it on covid and Putin. I bet you swallow that fanny, hook, line and sinker.
I await with bated breath to corrections or a answer. www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23164424.scottish-government-records-2bn-budget-underspend/www.gov.scot/publications/foi-19-02227/ |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 10, 2022 18:40:01 GMT
Don't drag me into it. Hower Mr Middle is correct in this case. the pretendy pigmy parliament is not a Government, despite hosing English money on world wide embassies and adopting the airs and graces of Idi Amin, it is really only there to fix potholes, educate the children and get the bins emptied, all of which it is spectacularly failing to do. As an aside it looks like there is a coup brewing against Sturgeon, once she is out of power then certain documents of which she has no recollection may surface, we'll have some fun then, it will make the activities of fellow Scot Ms Mone pale into insignificance. What about covid relief, furlough payments, vaccine costs, and you call me an imbecile, wake up and look about you. Oh you are all of the above. The epitome of silly Englishmen on Scottish politics. And in terms of the above. covid relief, furlough payments, vaccine costs. That matey is why I pay tax. I did not expect to pay for the luxury of Michelle Mone or the £37 billion wasted on PPE or money to go into the bank accounts of sleaze bags. To name but a few.. As you rant clueless bollocks about a £70 million ferry contract that is now going to cost £100 million. For two ships. And has been sorted out. Which will not cost the English tax payer one penny . While the wankers in Westminster spend that in a month storing useless PPE which will eventually have to be destroyed at a cost of storing at £700,000 a day. No doubt more profits to the Tory party. Paid for by me. So stop ranting drivel. And oh Covid is being paid for by QE. Part of the English QE problem since 2010. Which now stands at over £800 billion. That will have to be paid back by your grandkids, grandkids, grandkids. As you rant the Jocks were getting it for nothing. Now having ranted the FM stole all the money. Could I have your latest drivel on how a coup is in progress. Geez I will have to log a new copy and paste. As you dig up some right wing lunatic like your pal in jail for sexual offences rants absolute bollocks. And you take it as truth. By the way I am being kind on what I call you. So could I ask you to point to one penny of massive English borrowing that was spent in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Dec 10, 2022 18:50:31 GMT
Ah, the voice from behind the dustbins, Certainly, UK Government Minister for Scotland Malcolm Offord said:
This is great news for communities across Scotland who will now see £212 million invested to strengthen businesses, create jobs and make lives better. The UK Government is delivering on its commitments that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will at least match EU structural funding - and giving local people control of how the money is spent.www.gov.uk/government/news/212-million-boost-for-scottish-communities#:~:text=Communities%20across%20Scotland%20will%20benefit,run%20by%20the%20European%20Union. Oh, and by the way Ms Mone is from Glasgow, nothing to do with us. Have a nice evening |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 10, 2022 18:53:10 GMT
The electorate (in the 1970 election) gave Heath full authority to join the EEC if he so chose on terms he saw fit. Democracy does have its deficiencies. So in 1975 Wilson renegotiated those terms and put the outcome to a referendum. And that referendum was held legally and gave massive backing to staying in on those revised terms. You may remember that Thatcher didn't have a referendum either when she further renegotiated the terms Not quite because Heath gave conditions to that full authority in 1970 which included full hearted consent of the people and parliament and more importantly that MPs would be able to go back to their constituents, consider their views on membership and vote accordingly. In the end he organised a three line whip, threatened sackings and the end to careers and allowed collusion with pro EEC Labour MPs (who had gained their seats on a much stronger negotiating position on the EEC). The final result was membership was pushed through by eight votes. More reinvented history  Go on read that manifesto again: www.conservativemanifesto.com/1970/1970-conservative-manifesto.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 10, 2022 19:05:22 GMT
Ah, the voice from behind the dustbins, Certainly, UK Government Minister for Scotland Malcolm Offord said:
This is great news for communities across Scotland who will now see £212 million invested to strengthen businesses, create jobs and make lives better. The UK Government is delivering on its commitments that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will at least match EU structural funding - and giving local people control of how the money is spent.www.gov.uk/government/news/212-million-boost-for-scottish-communities#:~:text=Communities%20across%20Scotland%20will%20benefit,run%20by%20the%20European%20Union. Oh, and by the way Ms Mone is from Glasgow, nothing to do with us. Have a nice evening Oh dear. Mr stupid of again. She is a Tory donor moved to London and sits on the HOL In terms of your spew above. It is also paid to regions of England. It is a pittance of what the EU paid the regions of England and Scotland. Its calle levelling up for arseholes to begive. Levelling up is just another utterly meaningless soundbite. On the same level as Brexit means brexit.. Lets take back control, and all that Havering slavering drivel. To get the fascist wankers through the next lie. On the same level as a North Korean whitewash. It is bullshit to cover up, in the short term the fact that it will be 60% less of what the regions of England and Scotland would have had while it was in the EU. Which will now cost around £2 trillion yes that really is £2,000,000,000,000 to level up.That £2,000,000,000,000 or £2 thousand thousand thousand thousand is what the regions of England, and Scotland have contributed to London over the years, to keep London in a manner they are accustomed to. That is why they can afford 20% of their wages on London Weighting. That is anywhere between £8,000 but you maestro you put a figure on. Some £4.8 billion has already been awarded. . Ah well only £1.6 trillion to go Guess what. To Tory run councils. So that is a cover up for the next lie. Or to put it another way. Jobs for the boys coming to a Tory council near you. How anyone can still swallow the absolute utter lying fanny being spewed by Westminster . Really defies the hell out of me. It of course begs the question. Why was levelling up necessary in the first place? Would you care to answer that. And oh this is a copy and paste which you already have had. More than a year old. Guess what. It has not changed since the last time I posted it. And guess what. The Scots are not getting it. It comes from taxation. And to be levelled up on the Englsih scale. Scotland would have to have been awarded some £200,000,000,000 Not the fecking £212,000,000. Or the cost of four ferries on the garbage you rant. And you wonder why you get called Mr Stupid. www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/15/the-cost-of-boris-johnsons-levelling-up-2tn-says-uk-thinktankwww.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/02/levelling-up-funds-awarded-to-local-councils-of-tory-ministers |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 19:23:23 GMT
Oh wait a minute, we weren't allowed one were we. I think this is what remainiacs call democracy lol. There should have been one. It's not the EU's fault there wasn't one. Each member has national sovereignty and it's for them to decide how they manage these things. The fault lies squarely with the UK's unwritten constitution, not the EU. That said, the indications are there would have been a pro-EU outcome if one had been held. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 20:07:17 GMT
Not quite because Heath gave conditions to that full authority in 1970 which included full hearted consent of the people and parliament and more importantly that MPs would be able to go back to their constituents, consider their views on membership and vote accordingly. In the end he organised a three line whip, threatened sackings and the end to careers and allowed collusion with pro EEC Labour MPs (who had gained their seats on a much stronger negotiating position on the EEC). The final result was membership was pushed through by eight votes. More reinvented history Go on read that manifesto again: www.conservativemanifesto.com/1970/1970-conservative-manifesto.shtmlAs matter of courtesy you could at least pinpoint what you believe is in error. Currently I take from Heath's speeches and from the manifesto exactly what I said. My interpretation could be wrong but save us a bit of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 10, 2022 21:37:54 GMT
As matter of courtesy you could at least pinpoint what you believe is in error. Currently I take from Heath's speeches and from the manifesto exactly what I said. My interpretation could be wrong but save us a bit of time. Your error was in pretending you could bamboozle us with your imagined recollections of his speeches. I gave the actual manifesto, the constitutionally relevant document about what the electorate endorsed the government to do. And had you read it you'd know it shows you to be woefully wrong. here trace these words from it with your index finger and read them aloud, maybe then it'll sink in 'If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.
A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent.'
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 23:44:39 GMT
As matter of courtesy you could at least pinpoint what you believe is in error. Currently I take from Heath's speeches and from the manifesto exactly what I said. My interpretation could be wrong but save us a bit of time. Your error was in pretending you could bamboozle us with your imagined recollections of his speeches. I gave the actual manifesto, the constitutionally relevant document about what the electorate endorsed the government to do. And had you read it you'd know it shows you to be woefully wrong. here trace these words from it with your index finger and read them aloud, maybe then it'll sink in 'If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.
A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent.'
That supports exactly what I said. the full hearted consent aspect was quoted often by Powell (and Benn I believe) from a speech made by Heath before the 70 election. Having traced the words carefully with my index finger I come across a rather telling passage endorsed by the electorate and, I assume, a condition they expected to be observed. It reads "In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent." If you dissect that as a manifesto commitment it states beyond doubt that Ministers and other MPs will be able to freely consider the views of their constituents whilst making the decision, and casting their votes, on membership. Now to my memory the second reading of the EEC act was subject to at least a whip as it is recorded by many who opposed that vote which was won by 309 vote to 301. The threats from the whips is well recorded in several biographies. Support the bill or your career is over irrespective of your conscience or your constituents. Hmm full hearted consent of teh people and parliament? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 11, 2022 0:00:22 GMT
Says no such thing. And feel free to evidence these speeches and other matters we're seeing no links to
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 11, 2022 6:51:31 GMT
Oh wait a minute, we weren't allowed one were we. I think this is what remainiacs call democracy lol. Do they. I bet you can't find a single remainiac claiming we should not have had a referendum on joining the EU. Not one, nada, nil, nought. ? So you're suggesting - and I can hardly believe I'm writing this - you are suggesting that, in 1992 when Major handed the UK to the EU without a referendum, remainiacs and just to be clear that's people who wanted to join the EU, also 'wanted' a referendum on joining the EU? ZG, I think you may have lost the plot there old son.  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 11, 2022 7:12:43 GMT
Oh wait a minute, we weren't allowed one were we. I think this is what remainiacs call democracy lol. There should have been one. It's not the EU's fault there wasn't one. Each member has national sovereignty and it's for them to decide how they manage these things. The fault lies squarely with the UK's unwritten constitution, not the EU. That said, the indications are there would have been a pro-EU outcome if one had been held. I agree, on the face of it the fact that we were denied a referendum had nothing to do with the EU, but behind closed doors I suspect they were thrilled. The decision not to hold a referendum was less to do with our constitution and more to do with the fact that like Heath before him, Major was a diehard Europhile. Your claim that if Major had allowed a referendum we would have voted to join the EU anyway, is for the birds. And we've done this before havent we? You claim each member state is sovereign, you know perfectly well that is not true. The EU call it, 'the primacy of EU law'. In other words... ... Where conflict arises between EU law and the law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail.
How can any state be sovereign if their laws can be overruled? Never forget Herr Juncker's famous words... There can be no democratic choice against the EU treaties. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 11, 2022 7:14:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 11, 2022 7:20:57 GMT
There should have been one. It's not the EU's fault there wasn't one. Each member has national sovereignty and it's for them to decide how they manage these things. The fault lies squarely with the UK's unwritten constitution, not the EU. That said, the indications are there would have been a pro-EU outcome if one had been held. I agree, on the face of it the fact that we were denied a referendum had nothing to do with the EU, but behind closed doors I suspect they were thrilled. The decision not to hold a referendum was less to do with our constitution and more to do with the fact that like Heath before him, Major was a diehard Europhile. Your claim that if Major had allowed a referendum we would have voted to join the EU anyway, is for the birds. And we've done this before havent we? You claim each member state is sovereign, you know perfectly well that is not true. The EU call it, 'the primacy of EU law'. In other words... ... Where conflict arises between EU law and the law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail.
How can any state be sovereign if their laws can be overruled? Never forget Herr Juncker's famous words... There can be no democratic choice against the EU treaties. ![]() ![]() ![]() Don't be surprised tht if behind closed doors the EU were begging or forcing Major to abandon any thoughts he may have of holding a referendum. |
|
