Anthony Butcher

She is also a Cambridge graduate I believe.

johnwest

Agreed.

Sheila

.
Sorry, you've lost me there. What are "older Erasmus"? Are there lots of them?
.

mkpdavies

I was using Nigel Garages langauge.

Just trying to say that with our current open door immigration policy, the amount of aspirant Brit votes will increase over time and I would suggest they a little more likely to vote pro-EU.

Sealion reckoned he was wrong anyway, so no exuses for the debate loss. I though Americans would be in quite high noumber in that respect anyway and they could well vote for the anti-EU ticket.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Sealion

Tony Butcher remarked that the University wouldn't invite Katy Davies.

The people organising these debates are in practice independent of pressure from the University; it will be a decision taken by one or two of the students elected to run the Cambridge Union Society, and not reviewed by any more senior official. The Union is not part of the University.

It must be noted that the Union does not pay speakers. Oxford's Union does, and so speakers tend not to cancel at the last minute, whereas Cambridge's Union is notorious for this. From the perspective of UKIP, Knapman's non-attendance at a debate with a government minister may look quite bad. From the perspective of the debating forum, it looked like business as usual and did not reflect particularly badly on Knapman or his party. Amusingly, the Labour MEP launched INTO phpbb_an attack on UKIP in his speech, which fell a bit flat because UKIP hadn't shown.

Ms Davies herself I believe is a former candidate for the presidency of the student representative body in Cambridge (whose name is confusingly similar to that of the debating society we're talking about). To get invited in Knapman's stead would have been easier had it been known how weak a speaker the Veritas leader would be, and had Davies had a strong connection with the Union Society, in particular, had she been known as a strong debater. It is very common for one of the three speakers on either side to be a current or recent student, but only when he/she is well-known as a very strong debater.

I do not know whether Davies is known as a strong debater or is/was a member of the Union Society, but she would have had to have been both in addition to her current junior role within UKIP to have had a chance of being preferred over the leader of a national political party. This may all sound like another story of Cambridge quirkiness, but it is a small price to pay for having an independent forum for discussing the issues of the day.

Do not discount the role of cockup and laziness either :)

Anyway, Cambridge is a LibDem/Labour marginal, and the undergraduate body who comprised eighty percent of the voting audience even more likely to be Europhile. The proposition presented a weak side, and deservedly lost.

Katy1234

To put an end to the rumours...

Roger Knapman was invited to speak at the Union, which he accepted. Later something rather more pressing came up which Roger Knapman had to attend, meaning he would have to cancel his participation at the Union. Roger Knapman offered me to the Union as an experienced debater (and a lifetime member of the Union incidentally Sealion :wink: ) and we waited for confirmation.

In the meantime, later than Roger's cancellation, a debater from the other side pulled out with no offer of replacement. I was kept on hold until lunchtime of the day of the debate, whilst Jenni Scott tried to find a replacement for the other side. When none could be found, it was easier for the Union if we didn't attend, instead being offered a prime position at a debate of our choice.

No opinions from me, just facts

Katy x

P.S. Yes, Sealion, it was me who ran for President of CUSU in 2004, pipped to the post by my best friend - oh well!

Bellatrix

So there!

mkpdavies

Cool, make it a good one!

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Sealion

I'm not sure why Bellatrix is saying "so there" - there's nothing I wrote which is contradicted by Katy Davies' explanation. As I said, I spoke on our side in the debate, but was concerned to correct the impression that Erasmus students lost it for us, that the University as such has any role in determining who gets to speak, and that no-shows reflect badly on the speakers.

Britannist

The following is (a copy of) the report by Patrick Eston, Leader of the anti-EU Veritas Party, on his contribution to the Cambridge Union debate on the EU which took place eight days ago.

The report from Mr. Eston was published on the official Veritas Party website this evening: -


Released 21 Oct 2005

Cambridge Debate Thursday the 13 the October 2005

Dear Fellow members,

I recently had the honour of representing Veritas at the Cambridge Union Debating society.

I thought that members might be interested in how the evening went so I have
prepared a brief report together with a copy of my speech as follows.

The evening started at 6:15 with drinks in a reception room hosted by the president of The Students union a Miss Jennifer Scott. The dress was black tie for the Gents and Evening wear for the ladies.

All the speakers in the debate were there and various members of the debating society including the Secretary accompanied us.

During this period one of the Organising committee for the debate informed me that he expected the hall to be full and to mainly consist of exchange students who would take the Pro European stance. I said we would do our very best and fight the good fight or words to that effect.

At 6:45 we retired INTO phpbb_the dining hall for a formal Dinner, which was very pleasant and lasted about an hour or so.

At just before 8 pm we lined up to go INTO phpbb_the debating chamber and adopt our seats.

The speakers were as follows:

For the motion
Patrick Eston Veritas Leader
Damien Hockney London assembly Member
Sir Teddy Taylor EX Conservative MP

Against the Motion
Richard Howitt MEP
Jeremy O Grady Editor of .. The Week
Bill Rammell MP Minister for Higher Education

We entered the hall and after an introduction we started the debate

In the following order:
For (1st speaker)
Against (1st speaker)
For 2nd speaker
Against 2nd speaker

The debate was then opened to the hall for questions and comment:
For last speaker
Against last speaker
Then any further questions.

During each of the speeches the speaker could accept at their discretion points of information or correction from the floor.

During my speech a member of the audience interrupted me just once as follows.

Point of information… Are you saying that you believe that this Government has not got the democratic right to make decisions in the E U and they should take a referendum on all decisions?

I answered

No, not on all decisions, that would be impractical, however I believe in an issue that strikes at the very foundations of our democracy the Government has no mandate to give away the powers of parliament.

Furthermore I would remind the house that this particular Government are happy to call referendums on things like the need for a local mayor but not on the EU,

The truth is ladies and gentlemen, Tony Blair would call a referendum on our membership of the EU in a heartbeat if he thought he would win it.

That is the reason why he won’t call one he does not have the guts to put this issue to the British people.

I received one more question from the floor regarding the validity of the Civil service memo mentioned in my speech and I offered to show the questioner the reference book in which I found the information.

I questioned the opposition on the costs of E U membership and got waffle as expected.

The best line of the evening came from a student.
And it went something along the following lines.

The minister for state was waffling on about the beef ban and 30-month-old beef and how the EU saved the beef farmers of this country. A student from our side stood up and said… the minister not for the first time tonight is talking a load of old bullocks… (What a gem, I wish I have thought of it)

After the debate a vote was taken and the motion was defeated (as expected)

Our side got around 30 %, Abstains were about 20% and the opposition got around 50%

Summary

We have made a mark and Cambridge will be inviting more Veritas speakers on different issues in the future.

We have got a number of Cambridge Students interested in joining Veritas

And all though we did not win on this occasion I believe in the circumstances we did better that we were expected to do,

All in all a worthwhile exercise

Here is a copy of my speech.

Regards

Patrick Eston
Veritas Party Leader

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

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION IS BAD FOR BRITAIN

Good evening Madam President and colleagues distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Could I please begin by thanking the Cambridge Union Debating Society for their gracious invitation to come and speak to you all here this evening.

I can think of no finer venue or gathering at which to perform my first public function as the newly elected leader of Veritas. Madam President for the honour you have extended to my party and me I thank you.

Tonight in this great chamber I have the privilege of proposing the motion THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION IS BAD FOR BRITIAN.

I obviously believe wholeheartedly in this motion placed before you this evening and I will endeavour to convince you of the merit of this belief

When the debate is ended all of you here will be invited to cast your vote to either agree with or oppose the motion, indeed you may even choose to abstain.

Whichever way you decide to vote that is your right and I, as a democrat, will defend that right at any cost. As you vote I would invite you to consider that this same right that you are enjoying, has been denied to the British electorate regarding its membership of the European Union.

This denial by successive Governments, I believe is a betrayal of the British people and the very democracy that is the cornerstone of our society.

In order to understand this fundamental betrayal of the British people and the democracy, which under pins our way of life it is important that we all bear in mind the following.

There are 2 fundamental principles run like a golden thread through that democracy.

The first principle is the right of the British people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws.

The second principle is that the British people have given parliament the power to make all their laws for them, but they have NEVER given parliament permission to give that power away.

Both of those principles for which over the centuries, millions have willingly given up their lives for, stand deeply betrayed by our membership of the European Union.

To make matters worse successive governments of both political parties have been well aware of this fact.
Indeed in a recently unearthed 1971 foreign office internal memo from a senior member of the civil service to a colleague - the point is well made.

The memo, discovered under the 30-year rule, reads along the lines:

“ OF COURSE THIS IS THE END OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT, BUT IF IT IS PROPERLY HANDLED THE PEOPLE WONT KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENED UNTIL THE END OF THE CENTURY. WITH ANY LUCK OLD BOY, BY THEN I WILL BE DEAD.”

I ask this honourable house. … IS THIS DEMOCRACY?

To add insult to injury the European Union is riddled with financial corruption, waste and sheer financial and administrative incompetence.

Indeed its own internal auditors have refused to sign its accounts for the last 10 yrs and no fewer than 5 whistle blowers have been side lined in the last five years.

And what do we as British taxpayers pay for the privilege of this undemocratic membership of the European Union?

COSTS

Well - if we start by looking at annual expenditure we can easily reach an annual waste of some £40 billion pounds a year. This figure has been checked re checked and verified by the independent Think Tank Civitas and includes any rebates from the European Union.

A billion pounds is one thousand million pounds, a daunting and somewhat confusing figure. Most people don’t even stop to think what it means and who can blame them.

Let us therefore examine the figure further £40 billion is approximately £5 million per hour or to put it another way by the end of this debate in approximately 2 hrs £10 million pounds belonging to all of us gathered here tonight will have been wasted.

Our money ladies and gentlemen, not Tony Blair’s money not Gordon Browns money it is OUR money.

Imagine ladies and gentlemen what we could do for our pensioners, our poor
Our young even our students with this £40 billion saving per annum if we were no longer in the European Union.

For this very large sum of money we receive, gross waste, sheer incompetence and petty rules and regulations that affect virtually all of us on a daily basis.

Over 50 % of our major laws and 80% of all our laws are made in Brussels and if Britain were to attempt to reject any of these laws we would be subject to unlimited fines and be in breach of our treaty obligations.

There is also no right of appeal against these fines and parliament has never rejected such a law. The mother of all parliaments has efficiently become a rubber stamp exercise.

The last crowning feature of this awful system enshrined in the treaties is that once an area of national life has been ceded to control from Brussels, it can NEVER be returned to national Parliaments. This in plain English is known as the ratchet, which can only ever grind in one direction in favour of the E U

So lets sum up this ludicrous situation to this point

We have an undemocratic organisation, riddled with waste and corruption costing us an absolute fortune and making irreversible laws. No wonder the majority of people in Britain want out of it.

To keep us in the European Union and to continue to hoodwink the British people the same old chestnuts are trotted out time after time by the Pro European lobby.

I only have a 10 min slot allotted to me so I will just address two of the more common misconceptions that are banded about.

One

60 % 0f our trade and 3 million jobs depend on membership of the EU.
The implication being that if we left the EU there would be a return to mass unemployment, recession, soup kitchens, dole lines, darkness plague and pestilence would descend upon our poor country etc.

By the word “trade” they actually mean exports of manufactured goods, which in fact account for less than half of total UK exports. Since Brussels dictats apply too and strangle 100% of our economy - the only way to truly understand the effect of our EU membership is to look at all our output and all our Jobs.
The true picture now emerges and is that about 10% of our output and jobs support our trade with the European Union the remaining 90 % goes in either trade with the rest of the world or our own domestic market.

Obviously that 10% trade is important; therefore a trade agreement should be negotiated along the lines of other countries. We are the largest clients of the European Union and they have a massive trade surplus with the UK. They sell us far more than we sell them; They have more jobs depending on their trade with us than we have with them.

There is absolutely no doubt that we can negotiate a fair and simple free trade agreement with them No one except the European Union propagandists believes that leaving would bring an economic disadvantage to the UK. Our trade would continue, so would our Jobs and we would have control over our own laws, rules and regulations and save £40 Billon per annum INTO phpbb_the bargain.

There is also the claim that if the UK took its place at the heart of Europe it could come to the top table and lead Europe along the right path to a bright and sunny future. To think that the main players in the European Union would somehow abandon their social and labour policies and come round to our way of thinking is about as hopeful as Eddie the Eagle winning the Gold medal for ski jumping at the next Winter Olympics.
It’s possible in theory but in reality it will not happen.

Ladies and Gentlemen time and Tide wait for no man therefore I will finish by summarising and concluding.

The European Union is un-democratic

It’s expensive corrupt and wasteful

It takes away the power of Parliament to run this country,
We believe that our own government in Westminster should run this country and that the people of this country should elect the Government.

It burdens our people and our industry with pointless regulation after regulation

We can negotiate an amicable withdrawal from the EU and replace it with a much cheaper and simpler trade agreement.

We Euro-sceptics love the real Europe, a Europe of separate democracies, each with its own history and culture. The European union is a bad idea and. bad ideas eventually fail; this one will run its course. It will start to decay from within and we as the world’s fourth biggest economy, have nothing to fear by leaving the European union.

We would be a more democratic, less regulated, modern 21-century country and we would be much richer INTO phpbb_the barging

I therefore have the privilege of once again to propose the motion to you ladies and Gentlemen –

THAT THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION IS BAD FOR BRITAIN.

Thank you.

Ends