Richard North, 13/01/2014  
 

According to Iain Martin, this "veto idea from Tory MPs" is very obviously "a proxy for getting out". "They are demanding what the EU will not agree to, so they can say, with a sigh, that this proves the EU will never negotiate in good faith and that it is time to leave".

I've heard this argument before, in respect of the Open Europe Muppetry but, if it is a tactic, it is a very foolish one. We, the British, do not have control of the agenda, so the chances of getting this idea even considered at an IGC are nil.

Anything that gets to be negotiated by the member state representatives at the IGC will first have to go through the filter of the Convention, and the idea of a national parliament veto will get blocked at the preliminary stages. In other words, it is so much of a non-starter, and obviously so, that it simply won't be taken seriously.

As Martin notes, the other member states are not going to agree to such a substantial redesign, even if eurosceptics wish they would, because the Europhiles know a national parliamentary veto would spell the end of the EU and the single market as we know it.

Therein lies the problem. What Carswell and his idiot colleagues are suggesting isn't serious politics. Frankly, if it is that transparent that even James Kirkup and Iain Martin can see the flaws, then it is already dead in the water.

COMMENT: "DEAD-END STREET" THREAD






comments powered by Disqus











Log in


Sign THA





The Many, Not the Few