Monday, September 08, 2008

A view from both sides

EUphiliac Jon Worth agrees with Giscard d'Estaing, obviously believing that the old fraud's speech might neuter some of the more EUsceptic in this country.
Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing has spoken out about the UK’s relationship with the EU, and has said that Britain should simply not participate in some policy areas if doing so would be to the detriment of further EU integration. Should be music to David Cameron’s ears because I presume his wish to withdraw from the EU’s Social Chapter would not entail demanding the rest of the EU tears it up too.

Of course, that particular exercise would be fruitless since the Social Chapter no longer exists.
For fuck's sake, I wish these Tories would either get informed or stop lying to people. As I have said before, we cannot opt out of the Social Chapter because it doesn't fucking exist any more! It is now contained in Articles 136–145 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which Cameron cannot just unsign.
The Social Chapter was part of a protocol of the Maastricht Treaty which was negotiated by John Major.

However, the opt-out was given away after the 1997 General Election.

Now the content of the articles are enshrined in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to be precise 136–145. This means they are now part of the Aquis Communautaire and to revoke these would require unanimity in the Council of Ministers, not just a decision by a national government.

But I digress. Another view of d'Estaing's speech comes from Wat Tyler, who was at the meeting at which the raddled old bastard gave his speech.
Fortunately [Giscard d'Estaing] has a solution—he wants "special arrangements" for Britain, whereby we negotiate some kind of grand opt out from further integration.

What? You mean we don't have to persist with the madness?

At all?

That must be good, right?

Weeelllll... Giscard didn't get to where he is today without acquiring the subtle and persuasive techniques of Le Corps Diplomatique Francais.

Giscard offers his carrot only on the basis that we accept everything those geniuses at the FCO have already given away to the EU.

Which means we'd remain just as firmly bolted in to all those costs we've blogged on BOM: the CAP, the busted corrupt EU budget, the over-regulation, the Human Rights wibble, the eco-energy wibble, etc etc. Plus, of course, in Giscard's world we would inevitably find ourselves disenfranchised from further decisions to increase those burdens. It would be the worst of both worlds.

No, we're quite clear about what Grand Project we want. It's the fundamental renegotiation in which we opt out of everything bar the free trade area we were originally promised by our own rulers.

So, we would maintain all of the costs, whilst being utterly unable to affect any further ratcheting up of said costs. Now, this may be just me, but I rather feel that Giscard d'Estaing should fuck off and die.

Unio Europaea Delenda Est, and it really can't come too soon...

17 comments:

Roger Thornhill said...

Discard D'Stain is no fool. His plan would basically shut Britain up, yet force it to take not only everything agreed, but everything that is to come.

I expect the moron Cameron to welcome it.

Trixy said...

These people really are dumb.

There's a whole fucking world out there to trade with and they want to sit in a room, navel gazing and trying to make us all poor.

Why?

P said...

I find this man deeply sinister.

He was voted out of office by his own countrymen and now is an unelected EU powerbroker.

He has openly stated that the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution are the same thing.

He wants to give the UK and Ireland special status, because of present resistance in these islands.

He is quite prepared to screw over his own people who voted against the treaty.

Nothing noble behind this.

vervet said...

For the REAL story of the EU, read:-

"The Great Deception: the secret historyu of the European Union" - Christopher Booker & Richard North (Continuum - 2003)

Gives the 'full monty' from post-WW1 up to publication in 2003.

It will make you shout out and froth at the mouth, but it's worth understanding the true deceipt of the whole project, the French, Germans, Heath, et al.

It exposes dozens of candidates for the lamp-post / piano wire treatment - only problem is many have escaped appropriate punishment by dying.

Richard said...

Thanks for the plug vervet - but there are too many big words and no pictures for the book to be attractive to DK. Besides, his new bestest friend Farage wouldn't like him reading such heresy.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Richard,

"Thanks for the plug vervet - but there are too many big words and no pictures for the book to be attractive to DK."

You know full well that I am rather more intelligent than that: if you had made an effort to talk to me last time we met, rather looking down your nose in that unpleasant, arrogant and supercilious manner (big enough words for you, Richard?), you might have found that out for yourself.

Thank goodness Booker has rather better manners -- he even remembered who I was, even though it had been 18 months since we last met.

The trouble is that you seem to mistake rudeness for intellectual demeanor: it comes through in your writing, and I was interested to note (though equally disappointed) that you writing does appear to reflect your real life personality.

Mine, however, does not.

I will read your book at some point, and the one about tabloid scares, and I will probably agree with most of it.

I doubt that will change my opinion of you personally: you are a good researcher and writer but, in your attitude, you court hubris in a big way.

"Besides, his new bestest friend Farage wouldn't like him reading such heresy."

"New bestest friend"? Where are we, Richard, the fucking playground?

Grow up.

DK

vervet said...

Am desperately sorry that I precipitated such outpourings of bile.

Richard (& Christopher): I offer my congratulations on an extremely well researched and written book.

DK: Yes - you should read it.

Both: Please bury the hatchet.

Richard said...

Temper temper!!! For one who makes a career from dishing it out to all and sundry, you do seem to have a little difficulty taking it!

Or are you from the school that holds that the holy blogger should be revered and immune from even gentle ribbing?

And I am sorry you felt slighted when we last met. I have very bad face recognition - that is the way my memory works, or doesn't work - and in a crowd of strangers, all pushing and shoving, I did not immediately recognise you. I would have loved to have sat down and talked with you.

If you want to jump to conclusions and take that as a personal slight, be my guest. It would not be the first time you have jumped to false conclusions and it probably won't be the last.

Peter S. said...

"The trouble is that you seem to mistake rudeness for intellectual demeanor: it comes through in your writing..."

Yes it does, he can't punctuate either.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Richard,

Just to clarify, there is no reason why you should have recognised me, since we hadn't met before: I introduced myself to you.

Anyway, you are quite correct; I shouldn't have flown off the handle. My apologies: I am slightly stressed at present -- though that is no excuse.

"If you want to jump to conclusions and take that as a personal slight, be my guest. It would not be the first time you have jumped to false conclusions and it probably won't be the last."

Oh well, that's a given. But then, that is why blogs like yours are so invaluable to people such as I.

DK

Richard said...

DK

As you know, and have put on record, I have great respect for your writing - even if I wish you would not swear so freely.

Heh, if friends can't indulge in a bit of mutual piss-taking, where in the world are we going?

Apology completely accepted and reciprocated.

vervet said...

DK & Richard:

Good - please now both concentrate your creative agression in the direction of the real enemies of this country .....

Richard said...

We have to practice on our friends first. You don't think I got as "rude" as DK suggests by accident, do you?

vervet said...

I really hadn't considered the blogosphere as a verbal sparring ring at a virtual boxing gymnasium.

But I guess that's one useful purpose. Mr. Richard's upright and clean defence of DK's sometimes dirty, below-the-belt verbosity.

Robin said...

Why all the "Free trade with Europe" ?
We import more from them than we export. We just need to leave. If they get petulant there, they will suffer.
Or is it a public relations thing.

Budgie said...

robin said: "Why all the "Free trade with Europe" ?"

It is to reassure people who have been frightened by europhile propaganda into believing we would be - horrors! - isolated after leaving the EU.

In fact international trade is governed by the WTO, so talk about a "free trade agreement" with the EU is almost unnecessary. It might even be counterproductive since our skilled negotiators would probably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

randian said...

This means they are now part of the Aquis Communautaire and to revoke these would require unanimity in the Council of Ministers, not just a decision by a national government

Please explain something for me. Why isn't it just a decision by national government? What is the EU going to do, send in its non-existent military (which is presumably why the EU is trying to get control of its own military assets via treaty) to enforce its edicts? To borrow a phrase, how many divisions does the Pope have?