Cameron suffers Parliament blow over EU referendum

Pace the Conservative Party in its difficulties (of their own making) and their paranoia over a party whose impact in the local elections this monthe were no more than minimal. Ukip, that well practices Pier End Act" may be a threat in voting terms only because what they say is never tested by rational debate and their emotive stuff continues to be contadictory and unfit for a great country with worldwide aspirations. Little England is itto be then?

UK media nowadays including the British Broadcasting Corporation puts the "Nice" Mr Farage centre stage in their bulettins. Yesterday hw went to Edinburg to get the Scots to endorse his nationalist message. Unsurprisingly there was a reaction which gave him more publicity and enabled him to reproach the Scots who did not appreciate him there.

Why is the Scottish kettle being called black by this out and out English Nationalist? Are these not the tactics of the BNP or worse? I suppose it adds excitement to politics at a time we should all be working together to deal with a severe and persistent economic situation. Far from persuading us he or his party has the answers to these difficulties, he is surely making the best possible case to a number of more level headed people in the UK for the real need for working together in Europe!

@ Roberto,
This blog is about what is happening in our National parliament. No UKIP there so I take its your pet rant. I don't mind Pro EU bloggers making an intelligent argument and debating that with them but can we drop the well worn little Englander routine.

As a Scot and a democrat I defend every ones right to express their political opinions. That is why I am so ashamed of the reception Mr Farage received in our Capital city from some deeply unpleasant SNP rent a fascist thug. Regrettably they prevailed and you don't seem to find anything wrong with that. Says a lot about your politics.

When polling evidence consistently shows 80+% of the people want a direct say in the UK relationship with the EU (and sustained clear majorities for leaving) any prime minister who opposes such a move will have difficulty. Cameron has resisted holding a referendum as long as he can but the public pressure is finally pushing him to accept what the electorate are demanding. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are able to posture against the referendum at the moment but after the EP elections in 2014 and on the run up to the 2015 general election they will not want to be cast as the people preventing the electorate having their say. (Please remember that both Labour and Liberal Democrats have previously promised referenda but then renegaded on the promise.)

Stuart Mill John , with regards to the “using some millions of the billions in the EU budget to start a real pro-Europe PR/information campaign...” some would call this propaganda, but don’t worry the EU has a long history of doing just that, and we are not talking about millions here. In 2008 the EU budget for information was 2.4bn euro which is more than Coke Cola spent for global advertising. Incidentally you might remember that was the very year the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty despite direct EU spending in Ireland to ‘inform’ the people.

Rightly or wrongly the EU is heading in a direction that the UK simply can’t follow, greater integration. With that in mind rather than acrimonious name calling would it not be better for both sides to accept the facts as they are rather than as they might wish (the majority of the UK population are not comfortable in an increasingly centralised EU) and to start talking about the relationship after the UK disengages to a greater or lesser extent.

Iwantout has it right; UK does Not fit in the EU and will do everyone self included a favour when they leave.

An independent Scotland WILL FIT in the EU.

Roberto,

You are right, my wish may not materialise, I simply want the people in the UK to have a say on the issue and unlike some organisations I can think of I would abide by the decision. The problem we have is that for several decades all the political parties have simply ignored the electorate on this subject and told us that the EU is good for us. It seems that most of us do not think so any longer and it is this total lack of faith in the political leadership on this particular subject and welling up of widespread opposition to the EU in general that is driving David Cameron in the direction of a referendum. As I said previously, watch David Miliband and Nick Clegg when elections are in the offing to see how they change their positions.

I would welcome a proper renegotiation with the EU, but after previous experience I will need to be convinced that this is actually genuine. A clear majority of the UK (including me)want a simply trade arrangement with the EU. But I accept that it is entirely likely that some / many / all countries may be unwilling to allow meaningful renegotiation because of their own views of what the EU should become. Some leaders (although not necessarily their people) clearly want a political US of E that is for other countries to decide but do you see any evidence at all that it would be welcomed in the UK? That being the case, is the UK not acting simply as a block to the aspirations of others ?

You mention the EP and our ‘ability regarding “having a say on the policies of the EU.” The EP was elected by 43% of the EU population and largely seen as irrelevant, not least because unlike every other parliament in the World it can’t initiate legislation on its own. (Article 225 TFEU refers) After the 1st January 2014 the EZ countries will be permitted to out vote the entire non EZ bloc in any vote using QMV. Given the understandable need of the EZ countries to act in their interests, why on earth would anyone believe they will put their position at risk in order to accommodate our needs. In short your idea that we are more at risk outside the EU is at least questionable.

Trade is clearly vital for the economic wellbeing of all countries. But let’s be realistic, the UK may or may not have preferable access to the EU market at a greater or lesser cost, I will let others rehearse the statistics concerning the UK / EU trade balance. (I will however point out that Korea was given wide ranging access in July 2011 and doesn’t pay for the privilege.) Regardless, we will be able to negotiate trade arrangements with every other country in the world, something that is just not possible currently. So we have the position where the EU has no trade agreement with China, but New Zealand and even Iceland has. The EU is still negotiating with India and Canada after years. With regards to the US, before you get too excited do you recall in 1998 the New Trans-Atlantic Marketplace discussions and the promises of free trade made then? These negotiations were stopped by the EU because of pressure from protectionist countries, particularly France. I might point out that if you review the French financial media for this week (La Tribune 15th May 2013) reports are already circulating that France has gathered 13 countries to protect ‘French cultural exceptionalism’ and is preparing to resist any deal that impacts on film and audio visual sectors. Given the history of the EU and free trade deals I would not hold my breath for an EU deal with the US in the near future.

Whilst the economics are often discussed please can we remember that above all the EU is a political matter not economic. You do not need a single foreign service for economics, you do not need an arrest warrant or a central bank. But you do if your aim is to have a single country. If you doubt my thesis regarding politics v economics I give you a famous quote by Jean Monnet 3rd April 1952 "The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State", pretty conclusive I would suggest.

I will leave you with two other quotes which were made by people who know what they are talking about and reveal certain truths. "The British are solely concerned about their economic interests, nothing else. They could be offered a different form of partnership," Jacques Delors (Ex President of The Commission) 28/12/12 Handelsblatt.

“Please understand for us Europe is much more than a currency or a single market... It is a political union we want." Guido Westerwelle (German Foreign Minister) BBC 19/12/11.

In the end I fail to see why asking the people for their view is so frightening.

We've been lied to by the 2 main parties for far too long now, Now I don't trust them, Doesn't really matter what David Cameron and the conservative party do from now on I will still be voting UKIP at next year European elections and the year after that The uk general election, I would like to see this country stay part of Europe but I do not want to see our sovereignty surrendered in any shape or form?! I think that's fair enough.

The Independendent Business Section rather pointedly states:
"the problem with the proposal of withdrawal as a solution is that we would have to implement all these regulations the eurosceptics complain about - and more. In any case to continue selling into the trading bloc, just as Norway and Switzerland do we would need to comply as fully as they do with no say in the matter

While in the EU we have a say on setting the rules that govern the single market. We can push for reform from within. It is not clear what advantage Britain would be getting if it withdrew from the rule-setting club.

And it's not only restrictions that emanate from Brussels, but also freedoms. Britons have the right to work and travel anywhere in the European Union. Would they enjoy those same rights if Britain exited?

That might not matter terribly for the aggregate UK economy, but it matters immensely for those British citizens who want to work or retire on the Continent. At the moment some 750,000 Britons have are exercising this freedom"

Hear Hear!

Most of our export trade is not with the eussr in fact we have a well documented negative trade balance. Theu countries in the eussr would lose out far more than we would if we leave, in fact the CBI has mad this point that being in the eussr is not in the best interests of British companies. The trouble is that the unelected commisars are interfering on a micromanagement level with matters that should never have been dealt with at that level because they are power hungry political failures.

With the enforced implementation of the constitution we lost even more powers and have no means of altering the rules and regulations that are stifling the nations consumed by the corruption ridden democratically deficient eussr so with the ever increasing embarrassment of the eurozone our chances of a fast recovery from the recession as shown by non eurozone countries outside of it have been severely harmed.

Making up numbers does not help your argument, there are not 750,000 ex pat Brits working in the eussr nations of europe in the way you describe, a proportion of them are in the armed forces and are posted abroad, and a proportion of the number of ex pats are not even in the eussr area at all. It makes no difference to those who retire abroad they have always done that.

I think that the problem lies in the fact that many UK politicians, and a lot of the citizens, have not really realised that the UK does not have an Empire anymore, and is now a second-rate power, just like Germany, France and Italy (to say just a few). First rate powers being, of course, USA, China and next on your screens, India. Yes, the whole idea of the EU is to cede SOME of your sovereignty to a "higher" decision body, let's call a spade a spade. But this is a GOOD thing, because it allows rationalisation, and economic benefits (not to mention social and cultural). Of course, we can always discuss HOW MUCH sovereignty should be delegated, to obtain the best cost/benefit ratio for the whole EU (not just the UK, there are also other member states). Curious that all these discussions erupted when the very generous 50% discount on contributions to the EU (which Margaret Thatcher was so able to extort) expired a couple of years ago...

@ Roberto
You say "and the same things were explained in the 1975 referendum. Sceptics have to make a case to what happens AFTER they get their way. It's no good saying - leave it to the politicians to sort it all out after withdrawal. Unquote

Absolute nonsense, here is the link to the text of leaflet sent to every house in 1975 by the Government.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#back

If you take the trouble to read it you will see, that as you have got older, you have started to believe your own propaganda and that what you say is very far from the truth.

I was going to paste the contents but decided against as a courtesy to other posters.

Roberto no they didn't we were fed the party line by heath and wilson both dyed in the wool europhiles, only those of us who looked further than the mass reporting of what they said actually learned what we were in for the political nonesense was never mentioned just the market opportunities which also turned out to be fake.

Politicians are alwys harping on about trade, but ti will be the buisness' free from eussr constraints that will be the most important thing outside the eussr.

Roberto your link which actually backs what I am saying that the government propaganda was in favour of us remaining in the common market not the eussr that they knew it would become.

"Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels".

There were no faceless bureaucrats then but the commission now makes the decisions that matter and not one of them is elected the public were worried then and those worries were calmed by lies.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

They aren't governed by foreigners though

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

The eussr has not helped with that problem if anything it has exacerbated it.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

None of which directly tell us what to do or that we have to accept all and sundry form certain foreign countries.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

The eussr has though.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.

It has lead to the complete loss of some of our industries and created this via the back door.

Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.

Well we all know that is a fallacy. We are governed by the commissars of the eussr now.

The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.

Well that didn't last long did it.

It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.

Something else that has proven to be wrong

All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.

Once again wrong and note the inherent lack of democracy already clear.

Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."

And yet they have weakened the national governments . This is just a snapshot of the lies the government told us so that the minority in favour of the common market could keep us in it.

Roberto,

You ask simple sounding questions that we all know have lengthy and complex answers, I will try and respond with a degree of brevity but I think we all know that complete answers would require several volumes of close type script. Please accept my responses in that light.

What would the trade position be if the UK left the EU? I have never understood the fixation on Norway / Switzerland. South Korea has a perfectly acceptable trade agreement with the EU which commenced in July 2011. This deal eliminates 98.7% of all tariffs by 2016 (EU Commissioner of Trade Karel DeGucht) The Koreans have no say on the regulations of course but neither do they pay any funds for the access. Why would the EU not try for a trade deal with the UK when it has already signed one with Korea and is negotiating one with the US, Canada, India etc ?

Please Also remember that the much vaunted single market contributes only between 0.2 – 0.3% of our GDP, (estimate by the last Labour Government and in terms of this debate they were relatively pro EU) largely because it does not extend into the service field to any real extent.

Further regarding free trade, you question how the UK could negotiate without the help of the EU. Perhaps like New Zealand and Iceland which have signed free trade deals with China this year alone. (The EU meanwhile appears to be starting a trade war with China over solar panels) Countries come to such deals all the time, unfortunately whilst we are members of the EU we are prohibited by treaty from entering any such discussions on our own behalf. That is because in a proper analysis of the treaties you realise that the EU is not a free trade agreement at all, but is in fact a customs union. Nothing wrong with that per se, but to call the EU a free trade area is to only recognise the beneficial part of it’s impact on trade and ignore the deleterious effect of the common external tariff that it demands its members impose on all external trade.

Regarding influence over legislation, today our voting influence is 8% (declining when Croatia joins). On the 1st January 2014 EZ states will be permitted to outvote non EZ states under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, in fact they have an in built and permanent majority. Finally under the same treaty the next commission will see only 19 commissioners, in other words 9 countries will not have a commissioner. Presumably this means each country in turn will go several years without a commission representative, serious when you remember that it is only the commission that can initiate legislation. The overall effect is that non EZ countries will have precious little influence anyway. But regardless I accept that we would have no influence if we left the EU. Indeed much the same position as we find ourselves with every other country in the World that is not part of the EU. So to illustrate, the US, China, Nepal, Chile and Zambia etc all establish their own trade regulations without any reference to the UK or the EU, why is this such a huge issue for us only when the trade partner is the EU ?

The other point about regulation is that the EU rules apply to 100% of UK businesses, yet as an absolute maximum only about 15% of our trade is with the EU. Approx 33% of our GDP is exported and slightly less than half of our exports go to the EU. Please remember as I have already said the Single Market applies mainly to physical goods rather than the service sector in which the UK majors, given this 15% is actually a gross over estimate but let it stand. The regulations designed to be followed by 15% of our businesses therefore hits every part of our economy. These costs would not be incurred by 85% of the economy if we were to leave.

We are already outside Schengen. Re the position of immigration, clearly that would have to be negotiated with countries, but I note that the UK has the highest level of immigration from other EU states. (566K in 2011 according to Eurostat) Yes I recognise that the movement of people helps all parties, but I suspect that much like Switzerland a degree of national control would be welcomed.

The 3 million jobs figure regularly used assumes that on exit from the EU ALL TRADE CEASES COMPLETELY AND IMMEDIATELY. I will leave others decide how likely that is. The author of the 2000 report in which the figure first emerged (Professor Iain Begg LSE) has gone on record repeatedly and recently to say that in reality there would be little or no loss of employment, indeed many believe that the reverse would be the case due to the relaxation of regulation.

As I said, a brief response but this format does not lend itself to a more in depth exploration. All I can suggest is that you continue to read around the subject as much as possible, the fact are out there. A warning though, it is amazing how often you discover that bodies who support the EU view of the World turn out to be funded by one branch or another of the EU.

Oh and as a postscript re the debate about Edward Heath and what he told people about joining the EEC in 1973, in November 1991 he was interviewed by Peter Sissons on TV and admitted deliberately misleading the UK electorate in relation to the political aspects of the EEC.

@ Roberto

Sarcasm aside, of course we need to plot a course of action. We need to know what we want to achieve and have a plan A with plan B and contingencies if required. We will then be in a position to negotiate with Brussels. Then, and only then, can we make a recommendation to the British people in a referendum.

Do remember though Roberto that people take positions on this blog and they are rarely middle of the road. I therefore totally reject all the gloom and despondency about our prospects as a nation, how hell will be visited upon us for all time and that we will no longer be important enough for anyone to talk to us.

“One thing is puzzling me how will we be able to negotiate in isolation with
the US, the WTO, the EU, Russia, Brazil, India, China et al if we insist on
steaming out of the EU and floart away in the national Aircraft Carrier? “

Unworthy of your Robert if you did your research you would know one of the benefits of being in the EEA/EFTA is that you can negotiate agreements with who ever you like. Norway has had agreements with China and Canada for some time now (Google it) while the EU is still pissing about.

I could write much more but fortunately I have found two links which I would encourage you to read (with an open mind) and you will at least understand a little of my motivation. The first article is by Daniel Hannan in the Daily Mail and the second is by Spiegel’s London correspondent. There's diversity for you!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189465/We-CAN-break-free-shackles-Brussels.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/analysis-of-economic-benefits-of-britain-s-eu-membership-a-881813.html

I do believe like others, that the UK would prosper outside the EU but as a democrat I will of course accept the views of the majority.

Not to worry, we are using the General Election in 2015 as the REFERENDUM we have been denied. As we know for certain all three MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU FOREVER, we are only going to vote for those Political Parties or Organisations that want out of the EU -forever. Only those few loyal and true British Conservatives that are on the back benches will be voted for if they indeed stand once again and are prepared to vote to come out of the EU.

Thank you for your true thoughts Paolo. I know now-without doubt- why this country should be FREE FROM FOREIGN RULE. And we thought you were our friends! Wrong all these wasted years eh!

Ah, my dear Paolo. I will try to respond to your various points. The people of this Country have never given those that represent us in Parliament any part of our Government or this Country's Sovereignty (Authority to Govern) to any foreigners to use on our behalf. In fact, the people were told quite emphatically "That there would be no loss of essential Sovereignty" at the time of the one and only referendum we have had thus far in the EC/EEC/EU. With no way of checking up in 1975 we never dreamt that lies were told.

No one can devolve Sovereignty (The authority of those that should govern us according our Constitution). Two world wars have been fought to keep in tact that particular Sovereignty. To lose it - to allow strangers to use it on British people's behalf is indeed according to our law, an act of treachery and most certainly the people were not asked if that was what they wanted.

As for this titbit "but criticism from a country where it is still legal to shoot Welshmen on Sundays in Chester is somewhat surprising". Is way, way out of the Beano comic.

Our Monarchy is the "Constant" in all of this, I pray long may she reign. Our sworn solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the British Crown-no matter who the wearer-and long may it remain so. We cannot "SHARE" allegiance, it is forever to the wearer of the British Crown.

Most of the Long standing Hereditary Peers were ousted under the Labour Government and replaced by those that can get their own Party's legislation through that second Chamber and sadly some have been recruited with those that didn't quite make it by being voted for in the House of Commons, although there are about 80 Hereditary Peers left, and some according of those Hereditary Peers are their according to ancient Constitutional arrangements especially according to the Act of Union (between Scotland and the rest of the UK) unless Scotland breaks away of course, at which time Scottish Peers and MSP will no longer be represented in either Houses of Parliament.

Hello Ann,
It must be very galling to be told what to do by all these foreigners like Paolo. May I suggest you continue to express these most sensible views about the next General Election. It is indeed smart to get majority of the English public to secure most seats in Parliament (Westminster) so that MPs will vote to pull the UK out of the EU, NATO, the UN, the Council of Europe, Eurovision and the Cup Winners Cup etc. I believe however that unfortunately the Scots will scupper this dream first with their referendum in 2014 Is that the way English Nationalists want to play it? If you do get your way we can all live in peace including us who live in our Spanish second homes. Best of British on your plans!

It is interesting to see all these comments. Regarding weird UK legislation, I may also mention the right to drive sheep on London Bridge for City residents, still enforced once a year by an eccentric guy. Regarding the peers, I never said that they are all hereditary, I said they are all unelected, and therefore more than half of the UK Parliament is composed by unelected Peers, a relic of the middle ages just like having hereditary kings/queens/nobles (who still own vast swathes of the land). And this is non disputable.
But fine, if that is what the UK citizens want, no problem: only that it hardly gives the right to criticise weird EU legislation or some decisions being taken by "unelected" officials (something which occurs in every EU member states of course, UK included).

For Roberto: interesting to see that the old propaganda fallacy of putting words that were never said into another person's mouth is still used. I never told Anne or anyone else what to do. I just like to point out the false statements and the hypocrisies that the UKIP and their acolytes on this blog think fit to spew with impunity. One of them is that EU officials give themselves pay rises regularly: this shows spectacular ignorance, the pay if EU officials is indexed to that of civil servants across the EU. If British/German/French civil servants get a pay rise, this reflects upon the salaries of EU civil servants, but with a lag of two years (and even that has been blocked in the last two years, for your information). So, EU civil servants get pay rises only if, and after, they are obtained by the civil servants of the member states (UK included).
Unfortunately, the people's will is often misinformed by these false statements, and this leads to huge mistakes: dictators are democratically elected (and then stay in power for decades), wars are declared amidst public enthusiasm (and generations pay for this), and countries "secede" from the UK or the EU. Luckily, if Scotland secedes or the UK does get out of the EU, the consequences will be far worse for Scotland / the UK than for the remaining EU members states. Good luck guys, you'll need it!

@ Paolo; Nice to read comments with a measure of thought behind them even when I disagree with the thoughts or the conclusions the THINKER arrives at.

The original idea behind the EEC >>> EU was to get Frnce and Germany (and others) working together and competing in PEACEFUL ways. To that end it has fulfilled all expectations.

You may recall that the UK was NOT a part of that equation, correctly viewing it as a potential infringement on sovereignty of separate nation-states. I.e. why participate in a union that provided far less protection than that afforded by the English Channel?

Now due to the way the universe has unfolded for more than sixty years there has been a growing need for more economic integration; I.e. movement (and integration) of capital and labour must by necessity, keep up with the growth and diversification in the products of that labour wherever it freely chooses to locate.

Political organisation must inevitably reflect economic trends or the whole entity will come unglued.

However individual tribes, nations, ethnics all have their OWN traditional cultural objectives; experience has shown these are far more enduring than are tastes in clothes, or automobiles.

Therefore in order to provide for both the above mentioned objectives omethig in the way of a (con)federation is needed. I.e. A Centrale with power to regulate economic needs and presevation of the whole; this means that nation-states MUST cede power over immigration, and currency as well as external military adventures to that Centrale. The power to raise the funds to do this must also be with a Centrale which is resposible directly to the populace and NOT to the individual states. The EU has fallen behind this need and to survive must catch up to it.

Local INTERNAL matters can be left to the individual states states; i.e. local currencies not a problem if ONLY for internal dealings. Poland, Czechia and Hungary might use peanuts or rubber duckies for internal dealings but between states the Єuro is it!

Education, Medicare, environmental regulation remain with the states EXCEPT when there is a spill-over; controling water pollution is not esy if you are down stream fron anothers tailings.

Looking at the above one ought to conclude that UK hs little to ofer the eUan could expect to recive evn ESS in return; i.e. mybe time to each go separate ways. EU can concentrate catching up in governance to economics and UK can look elsewhere.

The last paragraph of Barry Davies is the only one that makes sense; both the EU and Britain ould be better off if Britain left the EU.

An indendent Scotland ought to be assesed on its own suitability for inclusion in the EU;that of course is predicted on the EU surviving its inernal stresse which though much less SANS Britain will not ALL disappear overnight.

I think this one will run and run...Fortunately we are all delighting in the use of freedom of speech and judging by the contributions to this blog lots of sensible points have been raised. I do trust our PM in dealing with the political issues as he has to carry the can unlike certain other demagogues who spaciate on BBC Radio4 - The Flat Earth Society comes to mind omn the vehemence of the rhetoric. Quite apart from the complexity of our world, anyone who asserts stuff which is patently untrue or partially false (based on the JW stance on Truth) but touches upon the emotions of the ordinary folk of our Continent is playing with fire (see the rise of Benito, Adolf and the refined propaganda machine of Joseph of blessed memory. Perhaps all politicians ought to confine themselves to the art of the possible instead of chasing Chimerae and ending up with unintended consequences (and very likely severe) such as Paolo has identified. I do remember the imminent collapse of the € being repeatedly asserted as fact on Radio 4 BBC in the dying days of 2011...Some of us can be wrong even occasionally.

Why should the Nation and Country of Scotland that has been in a Union with the rest of the United Kingdom of GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland want to join the EU anyway?

The words in the Act of Union are (1706) Article 1, “That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date thereof and forever after be United into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain. And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such a manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.”

Then we come to this which was made clear in the Scottish Parliament on the afternoon of Tuesday 22nd May 2001 when members from the EU visited the Scottish Parliament when their Convenor (Hugh Henry) said, “This is a unique meeting for us—it is a joint meeting with a delegation of our colleagues from the Committee of the Regions led by Manfred Dammeyer”¹. All became clear to the Members that afternoon when Mr Dammeyer stated that, as far they –the people of Scotland- were concerned, Scotland was and is a nation and Country. However, Mr Dammeyer made very clear when he said, (simultaneous interpretation) “We have to respect that Scotland is a nation but, at the European level and in the European discussion, Scotland is like a region”.

There is no doubt that there would have been no need for the “Act of Union”, a Treaty between two separate Nations/Countries, in fact Kingdoms, that had decided to be united, a coming together to be ruled by one Parliament situated in England, and that this was to be for all time, if Article XX11 of that Treaty was not included or entrenched within it. There is no doubt at all the Act of Union, was and is entrenched. (Protected) it was indeed a TREATY and although at the time of writing the 1706 Treaty, it was insecure up until the Treaty had been ratified. It was ratified.

The Treaty and Acts of Union are the very foundation stones of the Common Law Constitution of this Kingdom and Parliament, for not only was it the end of an independent sovereign Nation and Country of Scotland, it was the birth of the then sovereign Nation and people’s of Great Britain as well as the “Parliament of Great Britain” as we know it today, the Great British Parliament and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. These words are to be found in those ancient documents. There is indeed a great deal more to this, but enough for now.

Lady Anne's wordy gobledeegook about the Queen's kingdom to be the greatest of all times and forever, unlike the most different foreigners, is just so pathetically out of date and unapologetically disconnected from planet earth, I think she represents best the eurosceptic core "values". Her attempts to form a comprehensible argumentation speak for themselves and show what there is to expect from such ideas and inspiration.

Amen. Dominus vobiscum: pacemque - ira non placet ad Deo. Many would say that to continue to discriminate in our constitution by keeping legislation specifically drafted against papists over the succession of Queen in Parliament, in this current age might be a bit anachronistic, apart from making it difficult to most to comprehend why there is such a law still on the statute book.