Manfred Weber, one of the EU's rising bureaucrats, with reference to EP elections in the UK if Brexit is delayed beyond June, is quoted as saying "That means for me for the future of the continent, for the future of the European Union, Great Britain cannot have any more say. That means for me, in the next European elections, Great Britain cannot participate."
His English puts my German to shame, and is marked as authentic German English by his use of 'that' when he means 'this'. All good German English speakers make the same mistake. But that's not the point. This is;
Manfred might like to put his English textbooks away and brush the dust off his maths primer. The EU only has 61% of the people of the continent of Europe, of which the UK is a populous part with 9% of its inhabitants. We therefore very much have a say in the future of the continent. Just not in the play elections for a play 'Parliament' in which all is decided in advance and MEPs mired in greed care more about signing in for ten minutes for their per diem than in democracy.Population of Europe ... 726m
Population of EU27 ......446m (61%)
Population of UK ......66m (9%)
Update
=====
This is the same Manfred Weber who was found in 2017 to be claiming €4,342 a month (tax free) for an office in his home country (Bavaria) to allow citizens to easily access they MEP. Only Manfred is paying the money to himself - and his ghost 'office' sits in an annex to Manfred's luxury house, far away from population and transport hubs in an exclusive and wealthy neighbourhood.
18 comments:
The EU/Europe thing is a constant in all media when there is any sort of "debate" (it is never a debate).
Usually the very first comment form a Remain supporter is along the lines of "I like Europe" or something equally banal and off topic. The point is that this is NEVER, EVER picked up by the journalist/host/reporter.
As an aside: after two and a half years I have yet to hear any Remainer provide a good and valid reason reason for staying in the EU...
Referring to the EU as Europe is all part of the brainwashing propaganda campaign the federalists have been carrying out for years.
Does NAFTA refer to itself as "America?" No, of course not. Because it doesn't have the same ambition to turn the continent into a federalised bureaucracy.
We should stop referring to the Talking Shop as the European Parliament. It is no such thing. If anything it's the Parliament of the European Union but even that gives it too much credibility as its role is to endorse the drive for federalism and any lunacy the Commission comes up with. It will be interesting to see what happens when/if there's an influx of "populists" following this year's elections.
The EU parliament is and I believe was always intended to be, the equivalent of a Potemkin village.
I have to say, that I think that we're reading too much into what is probably just sloppy speech.
The UK must leave the EU. That is not because it would be a good thing so to do, but because the facts of the referendum make its continued membership untenable. A narrow Remain victory would have caused much the same problems. It has fundamentally changed things. It has divided the nation, and that division will disrupt the social and political life of the nation for the foreseeable future.
The task therefore, is to find some path which builds on the common ground between the two sides.
Justice Minister Rory Stewart here gives a fair analysis of those problems and outlines a workable approach, I think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D3hX_J9trk
I know some people don't like James O'Brien, but he does not impede his guest in any way here.
Let's see if the bastards betray us first before we start thinking about reconciliation Martin - if they stop us Leaving, experts are predicting a violent fury of reaction, and that will make it even harder to reconcile the nation.
Rory Stewart is sadly one of those who would vote for Versailles 2019.
Well, that is Stewart's main implied point, I'd say.
The 74% of the nation who did not vote Leave, and those among the Leave voters, who believed Daniel Hannan when he said "no one is thinking of leaving the Single Market" are entitled to representation in the withdrawal deal too.
So when you say "us", you seem to be forgetting them, the larger number among the nation, and towards whom Parliament also has responsibilities.
Don't forget, that once the UK has left, further disengagement -or rapprochement - will still be possible, and that can be a matter for GE manifestoes, the proper way to do things IMO.
As an aside: after two and a half years I have yet to hear any Remainer provide a good and valid reason reason for staying in the EU...-Span Ows
You mean, I think: 'a good and valid reason in my opinion (and the opinion of 17+ million others)'. For 16+ million others the retention of our EU 'Citizenship' is a good and valid reason alone to remain.
The UK must leave the EU. That is not because it would be a good thing so to do, but because the facts of the referendum make its continued membership untenable. A narrow Remain victory would have caused much the same problems. It has fundamentally changed things. It has divided the nation, and that division will disrupt the social and political life of the nation for the foreseeable future. -Martin
A seldom seen, among leavers, rational view of things *applauds* (not that I agree entirely but still..)
Weasel words Martin. A clear majority voted to leave the EU - and it was made CRYSTAL clear that meant leaving the CU and SM. And don't give me that 74% bullshit - it's equally false and equally meaningless to claim that 78% of the country voted Leave.
The referendum was only held on the expectation of a remain vote. Had it gone as intended, leavers would certainly not have liked it but I find it hard to believe we would be seeing the sort of deliberate and calculated campaign to overturn the result we are seeing now. It likely would not have been possible to do so in the face of the political establishment and the media which owns them (as well as being wilfully anti democratic of course).
The question was clear, as was the answer. The rejection of that clear answer is stark and blatant.
Democracy itself is being thrown under the bus. I don't know if this is arrogance, stupidity or desperation (probably all three).
I am beginning to seriously wonder if they have any understanding of the basic concept though.
Weasel words Martin. A clear majority Raed
On the subject of 'weasel' words, one must wonder why Leavers like the phrase 'a clear majority' so much. Is it because the term 'majority' alone would not suffice or perchance because that that 'clear' majority can't be expressed as 'massive', 'thumping' , 'huge' or 'overwhelming'?
Jack, I'm resolutely pro-EU and I voted Remain, but this is no longer the country that it was on June 22nd 2016. And the EU is already moving in a direction incompatible with continued UK membership given what the UK now is.
It is irrelevant whether our electorate were misled, or even if the vote were corrupted by criminality. For the EU to be able to function and to develop properly the UK must now leave, because it is not a normally-functioning democracy any more by any reasonable analysis.
So the second-voters should face these facts, and devote their energies instead to the debate about what the UK's relationship with the EU should be post-exit.
The referendum was just an advisory vote in a peacetime democracy. It was not a cup final nor a civil war.
Yes, Cameron said as a matter of fact, that leaving the EU meant leaving all its institutions. That is just part and parcel of it. He did not indicate that it was policy to remain detached from all aspects of those post exit, however. His government is dissolved in any case, and cannot bind its successors whatever he meant.
I'm sorry to be off-topic but I think that these issues matter more than whether someone mistakenly says "Europe" when they mean the EU, and I also address the author's comments.
Martin said: "... those among the Leave voters, who believed Daniel Hannan when he said 'no one is thinking of leaving the Single Market'".
You see, that encapsulates part of the problem. You pretend to be fair, or at least measured, then quote a favourite piece of Remain propaganda. I have seen the video of Hannan from which this Remain claim is "derived". It is clear that Hannan means access to the single market, not membership of the single market.
In the end the Remain/Leave question asked at the Referendum comes down to: "can the UK be as independent of the EU as New Zealand? and, "should the UK be independent of the EU?"
Despite what Remains claim there is absolutely no reason why the UK cannot be independent. Only whether the UK should be, is a matter of opinion.
It's not a mistake Martin. They quite deliberately conflate Europe with the 61% of it that belongs to their cabal to inflate their specious legitimacy.
"Who speaks for Europe?"
Well, I guess one or more of the five unelected EU Presidents could claim to speak for 61% of it. But not for Europe by any means.
"Clear majority".....
If I understand voters (voting) properly - a wild assumption I know....
in the case of Brexit there were only four types of voters. Remainers, Leavers, Couldn't care Less-ers and Fence Sitters.
Of the votes cast, those that voted leave did so because they KNEW they wanted to leave. Same for the Remainers. We can discount the 'couldn't care less-ers' as they well, couldn't care less ;)
But the KEY (in my eyes) were the fence sitters. It's known that indecisive people will simply vote for the Status Quo - it's 'easier' and politically expedient to say 'yes I did vote' than to make a conscious decision for/against but they are the voters that (probably) have the most angst about the current situation as they must realise that their indecisiveness allowed the situation to develop into the debacle it has with only a relatively small (but significant nonetheless) result on the leave side.
In my eyes the leave vote would have been a (more) 'clear majority' had the fence sitters made a conscious decision rather than just avoid the issue and I suspect they rue the day the missed their chance.
And that's before we consider how opinions may have changed interim with minds being set even more against the nastiness of the EU and the exposure of aspects that many claimed were 'fantasy' (EU Army) but turned out to be true.
The thought of a second referendum appalls me but without interference (impossible I fear) another vote would see an even greater percentage vote leave - if only to satisfy our anger towards the disrespectful (traitorous) politicians seeking to usurp democracy.
The idea that the vote was 'close' is nonsense, factually wrong and simply an excuse used in anger to appease sore losers.
FWIW I would have been happy with a negotiated brexit that kept the UK in the single market as part of EEA/EFTA, with status similar to Norway and Switzerland.
It is telling that May's first move was to close down that very good option and thereby condemn us to the absurd limbo we are now in.
I know it wouldn't have appealed to all brexiteers but we would be as free from the political entanglements as reasonably possible with minimal negatives effects on the economics.
For all Richard North is a pain in the arse, his plan for leaving was informed, rational and sellable to the British public.
The situation in Scotland was far more emphatic with a tad over 55% voting to remain and close to 90% turnout. That despite the inclusion of 16 year old's.
And what did Salmond do, he berated the older voters and stuck up for the 45%.
So I can't agree with the comment that leavers would have quietly accepted the result had it gone the other way. Farage said so and JRM etc., would not change their views. They'd have continued for sure.
And Scotland is still bitterly divided, they ignore polls telling them an Indy2 would fail.
Will Gina Millar quit on the 29th? Or Blair, or Soros? I doubt it.
Weber is correct, we should get out, we should not participate in the EU elections. We're going to face several years of Brexit stuff, so let us just get on with it.
But most important for Weber and the EU is they do not want to have Farage or Batten as role models in their parliament. One that's very likely to have a far larger eurosceptic contingent, quite possibly large enough to have a considerable influence on future policy.
@jack ketch 10:43
Yes, point conceded, of course it is my opinion and my perception. HOWEVER, I am fed up with 'I like being European', 'How will i work in the EU now?', 'I have European friends', and other such (countless) stupidities. You would be surprised to find how common they are and how ell educated and well travelled the speakers are!...unbelievable.
@Span Ows
You would be surprised to find how common they are and how ell educated and well travelled the speakers are!...unbelievable.
Actually I have no trouble believing it and more. Before the SAD hit this winter I had planned to write an article for another blog about some of my local Remainers -all of them usually level headed, intelligent and successful. When one of them said, recently, she'd bought in several months supply of porridge oats I thought she was joking....
That said I also hear a lot of parallel nonsensical utterances from Leavers. It is surprising how many of their ilk still believe that leaving means we will be able to send home terrorists, that there will be no more illegal immigrants and (God help me, there are people who truly believe this) there will be massive duty cuts and squillions a day more for the NHS.
Post a Comment