economic situation is dire

[snowychap]

But I don't support Cameron's position. He would have signed it if there had been some special treatment for the thieving scum in the dodgy bits of the City - he has no problem at all with all the crap about deficits and debts in the treaty, which remove economic policy from elected governments and hand it to banks and bureaucrats.

Indeed.

[Richard]

But I don't support Cameron's position. He would have signed it if there had been some special treatment for the thieving scum in the dodgy bits of the City - he has no problem at all with all the crap about deficits and debts in the treaty, which remove economic policy from elected governments and hand it to banks and bureaucrats.

Indeed.

So you support the fact that we did not sign the treaty, that is no the issue. The issue is Cameron's reasons for not signing it?

[Richard]

I see that you, and the rest of the Tory supporters who have conveniently arrived en-masse

There is a simple answer for that. let me let you into a secret, there is this special Tory hotline (all phones in blue only) that basically went wild because you were posting on here. We had specific instructions to come on here and support each other in the fight against your relentless tory bashing.

[VILLAFC2000]

are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL?

it's Ok because Prescott has taken a seat there so he can bring it down from the inside and I believe him , i mean otherwise he would be a hypocrite wouldn't he

Good to see the "ahhh but Labour" defence is fit and well Tony.

No one mentioned Prescott but as a deflection from the issue, it's like a trusty old sweater for you isn't it, one to be got out when points can't be defended :-)

you raised the HOL not I ... I was merely giving you some breathing space to get back to left foot forward for some more quotes :winkold:

Have you watched this...?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

[tonyh29]

I see that you, and the rest of the Tory supporters who have conveniently arrived en-masse detective have not commented on the cuts in disability payments.

i did comment on it .. but I've still not seen this confirmed as having actually happened ..wasn't the vote in the Lords last night ?

it doesn't appear to be a "disability" payment cut rather a universal child tax credit cut ... doesn't make it right per se but does suggest your op is misleading

[snowychap]

So you support the fact that we did not sign the treaty, that is no the issue. The issue is Cameron's reasons for not signing it?

Did anyone sign anything on Friday (apart from the accession document for Croatia)?

There are a number of issues, mate. Most, if not all, have been outlined, put forward and commented on in the last few pages or more.

They range from wanting to know what problems the EU leaders would like to address and wanting to know whether the EU leaders know what problems they would like to address and solve (I don't know that any do and Cameron seems very much in the 'club of 27' in this) to questioning the reasons for people taking the positions they have (that includes Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel, Clegg and on and on) to wondering how the posturing (as well as the attempted planning) will affect the future prospects of european (and western) economies, international relations and, ultimately, the wellbeing (economic and social) of ordinary people in this country and beyond.

I'm not sure that there were only two options open to Cameron but I am relatively convinced that he was happy enough for those to be the only two considered, thus enabling him to avoid being in a position where he had to go along with the plan.

Had he done so, he'd have been in a real bind concerning a referendum and, as Portillo keeps on reminding us, the thing that rips the Tory party apart more often than not is Europe.

So perhaps he gambled on his position being more secure if he pissed Clegg and his lot off or perhaps he and his advisors took a bit of a gamble on the whole plot unravelling (not that much of a long shot considering Europe is involved ;-)) so he and others can turn around and tell us that the 26 couldn't organize a gang bang in Amsterdam and aren't we glad that we didn't join in.

As ever with politics, it appears to be the blind leading the blind on actual matters with politicians trying to make the best of the situation for themselves and not for those whom they purport to represent.

[kidlewis]

funny how people talk about "mentioning the previous government" when they endless blame the tories reign in years gone by, still now. works both ways

:-) again the H word KL. As many who were very vocal during the last Gvmt supporting the Tory party said, we should only talk about those in power. What is that H word now, when the same rules are used?

go ahead and talk about tories now and gone by, doesn't bother me. that H word applies to you as well you know

[tonyh29]

I see that you, and the rest of the Tory supporters who have conveniently arrived en-masse

There is a simple answer for that. let me let you into a secret, there is this special Tory hotline (all phones in blue only) that basically went wild because you were posting on here. We had specific instructions to come on here and support each other in the fight against your relentless tory bashing.

you just broke the 1st rule of Tory club ... you know that means you will be forced to quaff Krug 1996 instead of Louis Roederer Cristal 1989 at the next gathering

[Richard]

I see that you, and the rest of the Tory supporters who have conveniently arrived en-masse

There is a simple answer for that. let me let you into a secret, there is this special Tory hotline (all phones in blue only) that basically went wild because you were posting on here. We had specific instructions to come on here and support each other in the fight against your relentless tory bashing.

you just broke the 1st rule of Tory club ... you know that means you will be forced to quaff Krug 1996 instead of Louis Roederer Cristal 1989 at the next gathering

I dont care, I'm a man of the people

[Awol]

What I think you are saying is that you don't want to be part of the EU? correct? I wonder what "elected" trade group then you want us to be part of

Well having avoided all of the substansive questions I've posed to you over the last 10 pages I won't bother reposting them all again (for the sake of fellow VT'ers), but I couldn't let your comment above pass.

You seem to be excusing the fundamentally anti-democratic nature and behaviour of the EU by suggesting that it's simply a "trade group". So let's explore that..

Does a trade group have its own supra-national courts and legislative bodies? Does a trade group have its own foreign policy and the institutions to support it? Can a trade group impose social legislation on a member? Can it overturn and replace democratically elected governments?!!?!

The Coalition Government is the constitutional result of a democratic election, where you like it or not. The EU as an organisation is morally, democratically and financially bankrupt.

Do you support the Franco-German plan for the UK to contribute approximately 30 billion pounds to a EZ rescue package through the IMF? If so where is that money going to come from? If you do support it how does that sit with your vehement opposition to any kind of cuts in UK Government spending at home? Isn't that a nonsensical position to hold?

Going by the last few pages I don't expect any rational or considered answers from you, but I'll ask the questions in case others fancy actually debating the issues rather than throwing smoke grenades and shouting "look over there!"

[TrentVilla]

I see that you, and the rest of the Tory supporters who have conveniently arrived en-masse

There is a simple answer for that. let me let you into a secret, there is this special Tory hotline (all phones in blue only) that basically went wild because you were posting on here. We had specific instructions to come on here and support each other in the fight against your relentless tory bashing.

You guys have to answer your own phones these days?

Blimey times are hard, I guess we are all in this together afterall

[drat01]

What I think you are saying is that you don't want to be part of the EU? correct? I wonder what "elected" trade group then you want us to be part of

Well having avoided all of the substansive questions I've posed to you over the last 10 pages I won't bother reposting them all again (for the sake of fellow VT'ers), but I couldn't let your comment above pass.

You seem to be excusing the fundamentally anti-democratic nature and behaviour of the EU by suggesting that it's simply a "trade group". So let's explore that..

Does a trade group have its own supra-national courts and legislative bodies? Does a trade group have its own foreign policy and the institutions to support it? Can a trade group impose social legislation on a member? Can it overturn and replace democratically elected governments?!!?!

The Coalition Government is the constitutional result of a democratic election, where you like it or not. The EU as an organisation is morally, democratically and financially bankrupt.

Do you support the Franco-German plan for the UK to contribute approximately 30 billion pounds to a EZ rescue package through the IMF? If so where is that money going to come from? If you do support it how does that sit with your vehement opposition to any kind of cuts in UK Government spending at home? Isn't that a nonsensical position to hold?

Going by the last few pages I don't expect any rational or considered answers from you, but I'll ask the questions in case others fancy actually debating the issues rather than throwing smoke grenades and shouting "look over there!"

Ah the usual AWOL insults at the end, no real surprise I suppose. I half get disappointed these days if there is no snide comment (usually with some made up rant about Nazi's).

But getting back to the subject matter in hand. You are a well documented supporter of UKIP (you even admitted that your policies matched the BNP at the last election, but I am assuming that was only on matters regarding things like the ones we are discussing in this thread), and being a supporter of UKIP even you must admit that the policies put forward by those people are radical right wing and very inward looking.

The EU, and its hatred by elements of the Tory party are long held and well documented, and one of the things that Cameron et al said was that he was not a Euro sceptic, but the reality as many have now pointed out is that that, like on many things, he has lied and abandoned his duty as PM and acted purely to appease those anti-European in his own party and again to protect a lot of those who provide financial backing to his party within the financial sector. The spin that has been put out since this stance was taken is pure marketing politics and full of mis-information about exactly what he had done and what his options are / were. Again a abandonment of his duty as PM

The bigger picture is where does this leave the UK. As said before, I am assuming as supporter of UKIP you would prefer us out of the EU. The major players in the economy, do not see this as a good option and state quite openly that the UK and its economy is better off within the EU. So again Cameron is shown to be acting not in the interests of the UK.

The EU has faults, like nearly everything in the world does and could do with changes. The same can be said for the world in general where we have seen a multitude of problems arise and be dealt with mainly to protect the few rather than the masses, but taking the supposed stance that Cameron has done will not improve the EU or the world in which we live and trade in.

A trade group is just part of the EU as you well know, so your attempt to bring in things such as courts etc is baffling, especially as courts are outside of EU control? Maybe its the mixed messages thing that political figures are good at doing its job again?

I notice how you explicitly make a point of Franco-German (ooooh those nasty old Johhny Foreign types eh?). The UK has a major part, or did have, in helping to rebuild the world (and that is a key word) financial structure. We are despite what some would have you believe, in order to justify ideology led cuts, one of the major players in the world and still have a responsibility including areas such as the IMF. Don't forget the IMF bailouts (under a Tory Gvmt before.

Lastly the coalition Gvmt is not the result of democratic election, the election was undertaken on differing policies and as many who voted LibDem have said, they were never in favour of a lot of the Tory led policies that Clegg and Alexander are happy to poodle up with Cameron on. Maybe the opportunist Cameron will call an election now?

[Ads]

You didn’t answer his question.

[drat01]

Do you support the Franco-German plan for the UK to contribute approximately 30 billion pounds to a EZ rescue package through the IMF? If so where is that money going to come from? If you do support it how does that sit with your vehement opposition to any kind of cuts in UK Government spending at home? Isn't that a nonsensical position to hold?

Just going back to this, there is an interesting piece in the Telegraph that basically shows that even without this so called "bulldog" stance the UK's obligations to the IMF are large

link

The interesting comment in there from Cameron is how he is talking BS about how the IMF helps countries. Shows a lot of what his motivation is

[colhint]

just wondering Drat01, would you have signed the treaty? Not trying to score points here, just asking what you would have done

[drat01]

You didn’t answer his question.

Yes I did

Maybe rather than as normal trying to cause a problem you could add a few comments as to why you think the question has not been answered and what your views are? Or is that not part of the agenda?

[Ads]

You didn’t answer his question.

Yes I did

Maybe rather than as normal trying to cause a problem you could add a few comments as to why you think the question has not been answered and what your views are? Or is that not part of the agenda?

When I posted, you had not answered his question. You then posted again after me and I still don’t think you’ve answered his question.

[drat01]

just wondering Drat01, would you have signed the treaty? Not trying to score points here, just asking what you would have done

I would not have taken the actions that Cameron did and play the cards that mean there was no negotiation and left us outside of the key decisions in this and other events. There was a lot more that could have and should have been done or at least discussed in order that the responsibilities of a PM of the UK, not the the leader of the Tory party should have done

EDIT: Link - the stance from Chris Huhne is a very interesting one here

Would you have signed the treaty? If not why not? Would you have negotiated in a different way? Do you think we are now weaker in this and other matters being outside many of the negotiations?

[drat01]

You didn’t answer his question.

Yes I did

Maybe rather than as normal trying to cause a problem you could add a few comments as to why you think the question has not been answered and what your views are? Or is that not part of the agenda?

When I posted, you had not answered his question. You then posted again after me and I still don’t think you’ve answered his question.

So again you wont answer my points? As a Tory party member do you follow the leaders views an are totally happy with his stance?

[Ads]

Who has said I am Conservative Party member? What points have you asked of me?

I have said my piece on how I believe the EU is insidiously un-democratic, I have answered your question as to what bloc I would prefer the UK to be a part of and I have made it clear that Cameron made the right choice and that further, I am not sure what any other leader, regardless of party, would have done differently at the summit. I have also said it’s immaterial, as come the New Year, the train wreck will begin in earnest. The single currency is doomed.