Quote:
Originally Posted by chikrodah
I'd be delighted to debate the points, but let's have serious, well-researched evidence as a basis. DN's claim that his evidence is on his website is flawed. His opinions are on his website. There's no supporting documentation of sufficient worth to convince legal specialists, researchers or parliamentarians that it would be worth taking his claims seriously.
I've posted the links to Statewatch research several times now. All I get in response is accusations of being a nasty little disinformatzchik. DN and his associates don't want to debate this; they'd rather convince us of their point of view. If I choose to believe otherwise, they call me a traitor and a quisling; they assume (extremely erroneously as it happens) certain things about my career, my private life and my beliefs. These people don't want debate and they don't want democratic representation on this forum (for if they did, they'd allow others an opposing point of view).
I'm not interested in carrying on a discussion with DN, twizzel, aarable and several others, because they cannot cope with rational debate without resorting to pettiness and name-calling. It's a shame that they can't harness their passion towards actually working with others to achieve what they claim they want. Instead, they libel, exaggerate and intimidate others until we back off and leave them to it.
What will they do if they are proved wrong in 2010? What will they say if it turns out that we still have a parliament at Westminster, still have an oath of loyalty to the Queen and not the EU, still have local and district councillors? Will that be just another EU con trick or will they claim victory for their campaigns?  |
This covers both DN, C & A's posts to an extent.
There are a few truths which do seemed to have emerged.
I have heard from a number of sources that after 5 years into the LT Britain's capacity to veto developments through the EU ends and qualified majority voting takes its place. I have heard from one source [the Irish NO campaign] that in order to pass new EU legislation it requires countries with 65% of the population to support the measure, so within those areas where we have opted in, Britain will have to accept majority views which amounts to a loss of our right to self determination.
The fact that the Cash amendment was defeated [and not supported by Cameron] it certainly implies that EU law is superior to Westminster law.
If these are the case, the only question that is really important is, if a future government at Westminster decides Britain should leave the EU, can a bill passed at Westminster achieve this, legally? I have suggested earlier that, although it might be illegal, the EU could not enforce us to comply unless it had police and/or military to back up their decree.
For me these are the issues. It is relatively unimportant what happens whilst we are in as long as a majority at Westminster can get us out. What is the case now and after QMV?