Originally Posted by Hartlepool:
I was just thinking,if Broon bottles out and resigns thus being replaced by the Godless Milly-band we would have two Godless leaders in control of two of the three main parties.Clegg and Millyband.

The Labour party dont do God at all according to the former Real Leader Alistair Campbell anyway,regardless of who is in charge of the party.

So,I wonder if the Conservatives do Godless?

If they do we could end up with a Tripartite Godless pro-EU puppet Government couldn't we?

Millyband's grandfather used to be in the Red Army killing non-communists. If you want a more Stalinist leader than Broon then Millyband would be the one.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by arden forester:
I agree with Roland. Fair play to Clegg. I'd far rather have a politician that stands up for something or someone, than a politician that is a toady of the first order.

Popeye!! Do you think that, with bailiffs on his door step, the Government would be less concerned than if he went to prison? Whatever they attempted to do would generate a fuss - BIG TIME!!!

You missed my point guys - that Nick Clegg is making political capital out of opposing measures being brought in on the orders of the EU, an institution he and his party give unwavering support to. Furthermore, if certain commentators within the anti-EU movement are to be believed, come 1 Jan 2009 the constitution will be in place and national political parties will begin to become irrelevant as only pan European parties will be allowed. The LibDems will then have to chose between joining the gravy train and knuckling under or resisting the super state and becoming rank and file protestors. The EU might be riddled with corruption but it will not allow opposition to itself within its ranks.

Whether Nick Clegg is fined or not will be of no interest to the EU. The Westminster "government" will have no say in the matter as its sole purpose will be to implement EU policy by ministerial decree (of the 3,500+ new laws passed in 2006 all but a handful were by way of Statutory Instrument, ie Parliament wasn't involved).

Of course, if Britain retains its sovereignty and doesn't degenerate into a province of the EU split into 11 regions administered from Brussels then ID cards won't be introduced anyway - so the problem for a democratically elected British government won't arise. But then pigs might fly.
[Rep]

Good point. However, he could still put up a fight in the House of Commons against Gordon Bean. It would then be interesting to see what happens, if the House of Commons rejects ID cards, and the EU then forces them through. Clegg would then have a FACT OF LIFE staring him in the face.

Exactly what you say! "The EU will not allow opposition to itself within its ranks."
[Rep]

Originally Posted by arden forester:
Good point. However, he could still put up a fight in the House of Commons against Gordon Bean. It would then be interesting to see what happens, if the House of Commons rejects ID cards, and the EU then forces them through. Clegg would then have a FACT OF LIFE staring him in the face.

Exactly what you say! "The EU will not allow opposition to itself within its ranks."

I may be completely wrong on this but my reading is that once the EU is formally constituted as a state (post ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all members), national parliaments will continue to have law making powers only in those areas where the EU has not claimed "competence" for itself. "International security" - ie security of the EU state agianst its citizens - is undoubtedly one area where the EU has claimed competence, so huffing and puffing in Parliament will carry as much weight with the EU as your local council would with the current Parliament if it disagreed with, say, the smoking ban. Indeed, ID cards and the Euro could well be introduced by decree without reference to Parliament. I really hope somebody can convince me I'm wrong.
[Rep]

I have for some time looked into all this i can't give you any specific web sights and the info is hard to find.

Because of the British constitution parliament is still the sovereign power of this country. What appears to have happened is that the main parties have agreed to agree with and then rubber stamp EU legislation or that which is agreed in the
European parliament.

So in short they just have to make us think that this is not the case and as the years go by and generations change and children are educated that the European parliament is the supreme parliament i think the idea is we just forget or except that this is the case.

In all honesty it's a con and as long as we remember the british constitution and try and enforce it (not easy) and as long as we have our own currency and our own army then really we can always say no to EU legislation and unless they want to go to war then britain remains sovereign.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Popeye:
I may be completely wrong on this but my reading is that once the EU is formally constituted as a state (post ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all members), national parliaments will continue to have law making powers only in those areas where the EU has not claimed "competence" for itself. "International security" - ie security of the EU state agianst its citizens - is undoubtedly one area where the EU has claimed competence, so huffing and puffing in Parliament will carry as much weight with the EU as your local council would with the current Parliament if it disagreed with, say, the smoking ban. Indeed, ID cards and the Euro could well be introduced by decree without reference to Parliament. I really hope somebody can convince me I'm wrong.

I would think that some huffing and puffing would raise the profile of the iniquity. Currently, the EU has all the cards. There is a difference between "carrying much weight" and "showing them up".
[Rep]

Originally Posted by arden forester:
I would think that some huffing and puffing would raise the profile of the iniquity. Currently, the EU has all the cards. There is a difference between "carrying much weight" and "showing them up".

"Showing them up" . . . to what end?

Those in control of our affairs ensure that the people of England and others elsewhere in the UK have nothing to coalesce behind to oppose the current political establishment. Opponents are denied a platform by broadcasters and national newspapers in the way I was denied a say by the EDP!

Be in no doubt that this is standard practice in a number of spheres, including the trades unions, to silence or muffle opponents!

We do not have a true democracy and, if (when?) our standards of living deteriorate significantly, we may see much more of the 'political' action manifested in the Ukraine, Pakistan and Kenya! Short of such extremes, the people here must learn to assert themselves in other, effective ways. What is the Government going to do if millions of citizens comply with the requirement to supply information but ensure that it is incorrect? What is it going to do if, as a consequence of incorrect details being supplied, there are endless disputes about what is correct? The whole process can be bogged down.

In the old days one could gain more time to pay by cheque if the cheque was first made out to the wrong payee. Then when the cheque was returned a new cheque drawn for the appropriate payee, but with the wrong date (ie year) shown and sent unsigned. You get the idea. Millions of citizens operating in the same 'co-operative' way can create huge problems.


_____________________________________
[Rep]