Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Bruges Group meeting From Here to the Referendum held on 12 February 2013
1 view
Skip to first unread message
RH
Feb 18, 2013, 5:45:20 AM2/18/13
to
The Bruges Group meeting From Here to the Referendum held on 12
February 2013
Robert Henderson
The Tory MPs Peter Bone and Richard Shepherd were the speakers .
(http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/from-here-to-the-referendum.htm?
xp=speeches). Both are in favour of the UK leaving the EU, although
that of course begs the question of on what terms. Much of their
speeches were not directly to do with the referendum . To get the
parts which were go into the Peter Bone speech at 9 minutes 27
seconds and the Richard Shepherd speech at 11 minutes and 50 seconds
to get to their views on the future and the prospective referendum.
The MPs were frank about why no referendum could be held in this
Parliament: a consequence of the lack of a Commons majority and the
deadweight of the Lib Dems on the government. Both admitted that
prospects of a referendum being held in the next Parliament (the
audience was decidedly sceptical on this point) were far from
certain, but they were distinctly more optimistic than most of the
people at the meeting.
The most positive move suggested by the MPs was for a campaign by Tory
Eurosceptic MPs to get Cameron to introduce a paving Bill for an in/
out referendum before the next General Election for a referendum in
the next Parliament. This would put both Labour and the Lib Dems in a
difficult position because, if they did not support and pass such a
bill, it would allow the Conservative Party to go into the next
election as the only major party promising a referendum. If such a
paving Bill were passed, it would then be effectively impossible not
to have a referendum in the next Parliament. In principle, this is a
sound tactic but of course it does beg the question of the terms of
the referendum and how it would be done. Reports appeared in the
media for precisely such a Bill on 17 February (http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/active/9875024/Tory-MPs-want-new-law-to-lock-in-EU-referendum-pledge.html)
.
Apart from the question of whether a referendum will actually be
held, there were two things of note about the meeting: a widespread
legalism which led a number of the questioners from the audience to
fret over the restrictions placed on a member state leaving by Article
50 of the Lisbon Treaty and an undue concentration by both the
speakers and audience on economics as the ground on which the anti-EU
and pro-EU camps would fight. (Richard Shepherd in his general
comments did show himself to have a strong sense of nation and to
understand that the core issue at stake was being masters in our own
house, but still fell back on economics when it came to his doubts
about how the public would respond).
When I asked a question I prefaced it with a refutation of the idea
that leaving the EU meant invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty .
I did this by pointing out that international law is no law, but
merely agreements between sovereign states. For laws to have meaning,
they must be applied equally within the jurisdiction. International
law patently does not do this, a fact due to the absence of any
practical means to make all states abide by the law (who would invade
China or the USA to enforce breaches or impose sanctions? ) Richard
Shepherd thanked me for making the point with which he agreed. After
the meeting a number of people sought me out and did the same. I
suspect this would have widespread appeal in a referendum campaign.
As for the concentration on economics, this is simply playing into the
hands of the Europhiles. The general public simply will not take the
detailed economic arguments on board. At worst they will simply hear
the frightening false claims about millions of jobs being lost. The
campaign to leave the EU should be centred on the question “Do we wish
to be masters in our own house?” That will be readily understandable
to anyone of normal intelligence and will tap into the innate tribal
sense of human beings. If the stay-in camp have to fight on ground
other than the economic they will have no sure footing, their only
argument being the demonstrably false one that the EU has prevented
war in Europe for 60 years. (This argument can be readily punctured by
pointing out that for its first twenty years there were only six
countries involved and only until the 1980s. It was the Cold War
that kept the peace). The economic arguments must be addressed but
they should be subordinate to the political issue of sovereignty.
When I got to my question, I took the subject beyond the next
election and painted a future in which the Tories had been returned
with a working majority, the in/out referendum had been held and the
vote had been to leave the EU. I then asked what confidence we could
have that whoever was in power would not sell us down the river by
renegotiating terms which would in practice lock us into the EU
through such things as the “Four Freedoms” of the EU, the free
movement of goods, services, capital and most importantly people not
only within the EU states but the larger European Economic Area which
includes the likes of Norway. I particularly stressed the importance
of regaining control over our borders when it came to immigration,
something which got the loudest murmur of agreement of the night. I
got no meaningful answer from the MPs on that point – the best they
could offer was the tactic already described of pushing for a paving
Bill for a referendum.
Apart from the question of the EU, it was very interestingly to see
how disenchanted both Bone and Shepherd were with Cameron’s
leadership and the issue of gay marriage in particular. Shepherd
spoke of Cameron “racing against his party” (Go into his speech at 5
minutes). The audience was very much in sympathy with both their
general dissatisfaction and their opposition to “gay marriage”.
There were approximately 60 people attending.
Read more at
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/the-bruges-group-meeting-from-here-to-the-referendum-held-on-12-february-2013/
February 2013
Robert Henderson
The Tory MPs Peter Bone and Richard Shepherd were the speakers .
(http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/from-here-to-the-referendum.htm?
xp=speeches). Both are in favour of the UK leaving the EU, although
that of course begs the question of on what terms. Much of their
speeches were not directly to do with the referendum . To get the
parts which were go into the Peter Bone speech at 9 minutes 27
seconds and the Richard Shepherd speech at 11 minutes and 50 seconds
to get to their views on the future and the prospective referendum.
The MPs were frank about why no referendum could be held in this
Parliament: a consequence of the lack of a Commons majority and the
deadweight of the Lib Dems on the government. Both admitted that
prospects of a referendum being held in the next Parliament (the
audience was decidedly sceptical on this point) were far from
certain, but they were distinctly more optimistic than most of the
people at the meeting.
The most positive move suggested by the MPs was for a campaign by Tory
Eurosceptic MPs to get Cameron to introduce a paving Bill for an in/
out referendum before the next General Election for a referendum in
the next Parliament. This would put both Labour and the Lib Dems in a
difficult position because, if they did not support and pass such a
bill, it would allow the Conservative Party to go into the next
election as the only major party promising a referendum. If such a
paving Bill were passed, it would then be effectively impossible not
to have a referendum in the next Parliament. In principle, this is a
sound tactic but of course it does beg the question of the terms of
the referendum and how it would be done. Reports appeared in the
media for precisely such a Bill on 17 February (http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/active/9875024/Tory-MPs-want-new-law-to-lock-in-EU-referendum-pledge.html)
.
Apart from the question of whether a referendum will actually be
held, there were two things of note about the meeting: a widespread
legalism which led a number of the questioners from the audience to
fret over the restrictions placed on a member state leaving by Article
50 of the Lisbon Treaty and an undue concentration by both the
speakers and audience on economics as the ground on which the anti-EU
and pro-EU camps would fight. (Richard Shepherd in his general
comments did show himself to have a strong sense of nation and to
understand that the core issue at stake was being masters in our own
house, but still fell back on economics when it came to his doubts
about how the public would respond).
When I asked a question I prefaced it with a refutation of the idea
that leaving the EU meant invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty .
I did this by pointing out that international law is no law, but
merely agreements between sovereign states. For laws to have meaning,
they must be applied equally within the jurisdiction. International
law patently does not do this, a fact due to the absence of any
practical means to make all states abide by the law (who would invade
China or the USA to enforce breaches or impose sanctions? ) Richard
Shepherd thanked me for making the point with which he agreed. After
the meeting a number of people sought me out and did the same. I
suspect this would have widespread appeal in a referendum campaign.
As for the concentration on economics, this is simply playing into the
hands of the Europhiles. The general public simply will not take the
detailed economic arguments on board. At worst they will simply hear
the frightening false claims about millions of jobs being lost. The
campaign to leave the EU should be centred on the question “Do we wish
to be masters in our own house?” That will be readily understandable
to anyone of normal intelligence and will tap into the innate tribal
sense of human beings. If the stay-in camp have to fight on ground
other than the economic they will have no sure footing, their only
argument being the demonstrably false one that the EU has prevented
war in Europe for 60 years. (This argument can be readily punctured by
pointing out that for its first twenty years there were only six
countries involved and only until the 1980s. It was the Cold War
that kept the peace). The economic arguments must be addressed but
they should be subordinate to the political issue of sovereignty.
When I got to my question, I took the subject beyond the next
election and painted a future in which the Tories had been returned
with a working majority, the in/out referendum had been held and the
vote had been to leave the EU. I then asked what confidence we could
have that whoever was in power would not sell us down the river by
renegotiating terms which would in practice lock us into the EU
through such things as the “Four Freedoms” of the EU, the free
movement of goods, services, capital and most importantly people not
only within the EU states but the larger European Economic Area which
includes the likes of Norway. I particularly stressed the importance
of regaining control over our borders when it came to immigration,
something which got the loudest murmur of agreement of the night. I
got no meaningful answer from the MPs on that point – the best they
could offer was the tactic already described of pushing for a paving
Bill for a referendum.
Apart from the question of the EU, it was very interestingly to see
how disenchanted both Bone and Shepherd were with Cameron’s
leadership and the issue of gay marriage in particular. Shepherd
spoke of Cameron “racing against his party” (Go into his speech at 5
minutes). The audience was very much in sympathy with both their
general dissatisfaction and their opposition to “gay marriage”.
There were approximately 60 people attending.
Read more at
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/the-bruges-group-meeting-from-here-to-the-referendum-held-on-12-february-2013/
RH
Feb 18, 2013, 5:46:44 AM2/18/13
to
True Blue
Feb 18, 2013, 7:15:14 AM2/18/13
to
On the question of economics, the people will *have* to be engaged on
this topic. If necessary, an "out" campaign should include simple
diagrams and should offer-up and shoot down the opposition's position.
It isn't hard - all you need to do is tell the truth. We have truth
and history on our side, they have false and nebulous visions of the
future on theirs.
Jimmy Goldsmith may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't a fool.
When I attended his "Referendum Party" conference in Brighton, he had
preempted the "Little Englander" weapon the europhiles were using (and
still do) and peopled the dias mainly with European eurosceptics. That
event was my introduction to just how devious the Left wing media
were. Their reports of the conference were quite obviously written
before the event and bore no resemblance to what actually occurred.
For that reason, the *only* way to get a message across is to use paid-
for TV advertising.
this topic. If necessary, an "out" campaign should include simple
diagrams and should offer-up and shoot down the opposition's position.
It isn't hard - all you need to do is tell the truth. We have truth
and history on our side, they have false and nebulous visions of the
future on theirs.
Jimmy Goldsmith may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't a fool.
When I attended his "Referendum Party" conference in Brighton, he had
preempted the "Little Englander" weapon the europhiles were using (and
still do) and peopled the dias mainly with European eurosceptics. That
event was my introduction to just how devious the Left wing media
were. Their reports of the conference were quite obviously written
before the event and bore no resemblance to what actually occurred.
For that reason, the *only* way to get a message across is to use paid-
for TV advertising.
True Blue
Feb 18, 2013, 7:28:45 AM2/18/13
to
found this post on uk.legal, from 1993, in the results;
http://uk.legal.narkive.com/J9OS222z/red-tories-threaten-ids-not-to-back-danish-anti-eu
Wotan............9 years ago
The closet Marxist "EU" subversives who have infiltrated the
Conservative party - and reduced its opposition to their real
darling, Blair, to a national farce - are now threatening IDS that
he must not be seen on the same platform as Danish anti-EU
campaigners.
And, right on cue, another of them, Michael "Brussels" Heseltine
has come out of the woodwork, just before the party conference
season, to join the vulgar Jewish subversive, Theresa May, in
saying that the people "hate" the conservative party.
What IDS needs to find is (a) some backbone, (b) a large
sword - and then start cutting off some bloody heads.
The big mistake IDS made was not to clear out this Marxist
filth the day he took over the party - and the country has
been paying for it ever since - as Blair is protected by the sly
traitors inside the Tory party - and is left free do to as he damn
well pleases....
PIA KJAERSGAARD - leader of the Danish Peoples Party is closely
cooperating
with the Danish liberal-conservative government. (Photo: Dansk
Folkeparti)
The British Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, has been warned against
speaking at a rally for a Referendum on 7 November, because the leader
of
the Danish right wing party Danish People's Party, Pia Kjaersgaard, is
also
on the list of speakers.
Tory MP Ian Taylor, a leading pro-European, urged Mr Duncan Smith to
steer
clear of "unsavoury" politicians from fringe groups, reported the
Independent.
Mrs Kjaersgaard was asked to speak at the meeting because she was one
of
the leaders of the successful campaign to persuade Danish voters to
reject
the euro.
The Danish People's Party is closely co-operating with the Danish
Liberal-Conservative government, but Mr Taylor warned the British
Conservative party leader against sharing a public platform with Mrs
Kjaersgaard as her party runs an anti-Muslim and anti-immigration
policy.
A spokesman for the Danish People's Party commented in the Danish
Press,
"if they do not like Pia Kjaersgaard, then we will just send Ulla
Dahlerup".
Ulla Dahlerup was recently elected a candidate for the party in the
upcoming European Elections. She is a sister to the leader of the
Danish
June movement, Drude Dahlerup.
The Rally for Referendum is organised by the Congress for Democracy,
an
all-party forum for those campaigning for an independent pound and
against
British entry to the single currency and for a UK referendum on the
proposed EU constitution.
Written by Lisbeth Kirk
0 new messages