Tuesday, 13 December 2011

THIS IS WHAT THE FIRST MINISTER WANTS TO KNOW

The First Minister’s questions to the Prime Minister are:
* What risk assessment, if any, did the UK government undertake of the likely impact of its veto decision on investment into Scotland and the UK, and on negotiations affecting key Scottish industries such as agriculture, fishing, and financial services – where qualified majority voting already applies?
* What assessment, if any, was made of how Scotland’s interests will be affected in the EU by being represented by a UK government that is excluded from important decision-making meetings, which will impact directly on Scotland?
* Given the serious impact of a UK treaty veto, why did you not consult with the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations on the use of an option which Mrs Thatcher and John Major in their negotiations both managed to avoid?
* Can you confirm the reports in the Italian and UK press that you told the new Italian Prime Minister that your negotiating stance was based on the ‘big internal problems’ you would face if you had agreed to the Treaty change?
* With key negotiations ongoing concerning the EU Budget, agriculture and fisheries, how do you believe that the important Scottish interests involved will be affected by being represented by a UK member state which has isolated itself?
* Will you agree to an urgent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, involving all four of the UK administrations, so that the full implications of your decision can be considered?

34 comments:

  1. There was no veto because there was no draft treaty proposal on the table.

    Richard's got it.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/statement-from-great-leader.html

    But I know Eck has to stand up for Scotland.:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Subrosa said, you can't veto what wasn't there. All Cameron said was that unless he had guarantees the EUrozone (of which the UK isn't a part of) was going to keep its hands off the City of London financial areas (GDP bigger than Scotland) by not implementing in a future treaty any sort of regulation affecting its control and facilitating of services then the UK was not going to be a part of any such treaty drafting (at least 4 years down the line and far too late to help now)

    ReplyDelete
  3. BwB has an interesting article about this subject. Brian actually agrees with Salmond's questions but, he hastily adds, that has nothing to do with the UK union. Now there is a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scotland and her interests have been undermined in Europe by the United Kingdom political structure.

    Internal problems? Don't you mean English internal problems?

    Scotland has more pandas than europhobic Tories.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can give you Cameron's answers in advance:

    None.

    None.

    It's not a devolved matter and does not require consultation.

    It's all the fault of Labour.

    Good things will happen and bad things have been stopped from happening.

    No.

    (Some verbal diarrhea has been edited out for the sake of brevity).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, like folk have said. We can't use our veto unless there's a treaty to sign and an intergovernmental conference (IGC) in which to agree a treaty.
    Dave played his hand too early and now there will be various amendments that will hammer us anyway without a treaty.
    Time for a general election I think to sort it all out and send the Lib Dems to the history books.
    Did anyone see Newsnight North Britain last night ? The BBC are furious and were spitting tacks at Mr Hosie and Mr Bruce. 'Impartiality is in our genes'. Aye right. Tell that to the polar bears.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, was going to say. I'm not sure what the BBC were furious about as the SNP / Lib Dems support the BBC's blind faith in the EU. It seems they were furious because the SNP 'expected' to be consulted on Dave's fake veto plan and they were furious at the Lib Dems for failing to influence Dave and stop him using the fake veto. All very strange.
    They should stick to fake global warming and Frozen Zoo shows.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CAMEROONED


    Has already replied to His Eckness by way of a word in the ear of Torquil Crichton of the Daily Rectum.

    Europe is a reserved matter, apparently.

    Time iut was noit so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can we have an edit button please so I can correct my typos?

    Sandshoe

    ReplyDelete
  10. SR: He said 'veto decision'. There was not treaty because Cameron had decided to veto it.

    Yes, he does have to stand up for Scotland, which he does, time and time again. Certainly no one from London does, not in that government and not in the one before it, or the one before it or the on... you get my drift...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well yes QM.

    "Keep your hands off the city of London. It provides my electioneering fund money, and we allow it to be one of the most corrupt places on the planet where every dodgy derivatives deal can be found; where the root of the world financial melt down lies, and where my friends can make themselves hundreds of millions while the rest of the country goes to hell in a handcart.

    "I don't give a stuff about the rest of the UK. I care only about the city of London , oh and Chipping Norton."

    And of course you're right. If you have few regulations and little in the way of tax for the incredibly rich, you can have a GDP as big as the moon, because every nasty thieving unprincipled sleaze bag will locate to your place. Fine. But clearly every single consideration has to be given to them to keep them there. They said that if we regulated them...ie made them stop their filthy practices that made then obscenely rich and the rest of us horribly poor, then they would go to Mumbai or Dubai or Singapore.

    Maybe the next time they need bailed out they could ask the Indian government for trillions.

    If the UK is to be run for the Square Mile and the English are happy with that, can we please have our country back?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bless Brian. Has he not burst yet Gedguy?

    Thanks, I'll go and have a read (although it's not a place I frequent).

    ReplyDelete
  13. LOL George: Welcome to MR. I do believe you are well qualified to be Cameron's "Secretary for dealing with these annoying places which don't vote Tory"

    The only thing you didn't write at the bottom of that response was "Next".

    Truth is he don't much care...and we are irritants for bothering him with these annoying questions when he has so much else to mess up, I mean do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Class War: Low Wages and Beggar Thy Neighbor

    You forgot the money laundering that is rife in the City of London which is why we will never legalise drugs as its a very profitable part of the banking industry.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Monty: They can no longer have a general election when it suits their electoral purposes.

    They introduced, and passed, an act giving the UK government 5 year fixed terms (although why 5 when everything else is four: maybe he thinks he's like the French President).

    So he can't say to himself, 'I've pleased all the EU detesters, I'll just have a quick election, as has been done in the past (Harold Wilson early 70s when he had a tiny majority; and Margaret after she personally ordered the sinking of the Belgrano and the killing of 200+ foreign kids, murdering cow that she was... or is).

    No. Just like the Scottish government, there has to be a vote of no confidence, and then the Queen gives the leader of the opposition 2 weeks to see if he can tack together some form of government. Only if that fails (and Camergoon can't take that chance now that the Liberals are REALLY angry with him) can there be an election.

    He just can't risk that all the other parties would gang up on him. He knows that outside the ranks of the Tory party, he's not terribly popular (for which read "hated".) Yes, for the next week or so he will bask in the affection of people who hate the EU, but that will disappear when the next unemployment figures come out, or some other disaster occurs... one a week these days.

    ReplyDelete
  16. OH Yes Monty. The BBC don't like the Scottish government getting too much power. They know that their days would be numbered if, for example, we had power over broadcasting....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aye Wolfie... Time it was not.

    Well, it's true that on reserved matters he can steamroller anything that he wants through, but with only one Tory MP in the country, I'd have thought that wasn't fair (like he cares), decent (like he cares) or sensible (like he known what that is).

    There are lots of things that I have the right to do, all on my own, without permission from anyone... but because I have a respect agenda for my friends, my neighbours, my colleagues and at least some of my family, I'd do a bit of consulting.

    But then I actually DO have a respect agenda, he only says he has. And he's a LIAR.

    And no, you can't have an edit button. We love your typos. They're often the only laugh on a dreary day in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes CH. I did forget that, but there are so many things that are rotten in the City of London, that I can't be expected to remember all of them.

    I rely on a little help from my friends!! :) for which I thank them.

    Yes. The City launders money like Aladdin's mum!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dean: Scotland's interests were never high on the list of a party with only one MP from the country.

    Let's face it, if they lose Fluffy, it's not a disaster; if they lose the funding and friendship of the City banksters... arghhhhhhhhhhhh oblivion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. tris.
    That 5 year law for Parliament is a red herring. It could be swiftly overturned by a vote in Parliament. I'm sure there would be a majority in favour of an election.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, yes Monty. An act that has been passed can be repealed, but it could be held up in the Lords as it was not in the manifestos of either party (I think).

    And in any case...surely even Cameron, who said in a statesman like tone, that too often this discretion had been used by prime ministers to suit their narrow political agenda... wouldn't have the gall to repeal the act to suit...erm, his narrow political agenda?

    I mean I know he's a cad, but really!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes. After 5 minutes I found the wording that debunks Dave's 5 yr fixed parliament myth...

    "There are also two ways in which Parliament can be dissolved before the end of the five-year fixed term. First, the House of Commons, by a two-thirds majority, may pass a motion “That there should be an early parliamentary election” (section 2(1) and 2(2)). Second the House of Commons, acting by a simple majority, may pass a motion “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” which is not followed, within 14 days, by the passing of a second motion, again by simple majority, “That this House has confidence in her Majesty’s Government” (Sections 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5)). In both of these instances, the date for the general election is determined by a proclamation of Her Majesty, on advice from the Prime Minister (Section 2 (7)), Parliament dissolving 17 working days before the date set (section 3(1))."

    source..

    http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2011/09/24/alison-l-young-fixed-term-parliaments-and-neurath%E2%80%99s-ship/

    Evewrything seems to be fake in politics these days. it's a wonder people turn out to vote lol

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't think that he would get 2/3 of a majority to prorogue. The Irish parties won't want an election; no advantage to them and a lot of expense. The SNP and Plaid probably don't ether.. waste of money for not much (or no) gain. The Liberals don't because they would lose half their seats.

    Maybe Labour would like one, but it's unlikely given their small poll lead and in any case, if the Tories want one Labour will not agree out of spite.

    As for no confidence...well obviously none of us has the least confidence in this bunch of posh boys playing at politics... but for the same reasons as above the Tories would be the only ones voting in a no confidence motion on ......the Tories!!!!!

    December 13, 2011 1:10 PM

    ReplyDelete
  24. Did Lord Sewel not establish a convention whereby Scotland is consulted in any gray area where both devolved and reserved matters are in question? Surely EU policy is the prime example of such an area where some items are reserved and some are not. Simply saying it is none of our business, it’s as simple as that, shows a shocking lack of respect for both the procedures and convections of the Scottish parliament as well as making a mockery of the so called “respect agenda”, that would have put Cameron under at least a moral obligation to consult. Seeing all these Lib Dems jumping up and down about this issue is once again a diversion from their own incoherence on this matter and I really don’t think we need to be taking any sort of lectures from them. Those of them from England really ought to keep their mouth shut until they are aware of the facts and those from Scotland really have no excuse for such a shocking paucity of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ah indeed Munguin.

    Farming, fishing, environment, all things that are negotiated on our behalf by the UK government, despite them being our government's affairs.

    So all EU relationships matters, which affect us, should be covered in this House of Lords convention.

    Respect agenda... yeah right.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fluffy? That is just super, but I know him as 'Queen of the South' :P

    ReplyDelete
  27. Banks are lawless dictators? Whose side are the police on?

    And my queasiness about David Cameron's behaviour in Brussels on Friday stems from the same concern. He threw his toys out of the pram and turned his back on the EU because they wouldn't guarantee to preserve the City from further taxation, regulation and scrutiny. It's very clear that the polity he was serving was not the United Kingdom's 62,300,000 people - but the one per cent that make their living in the City of London.

    Good job they aren't miners otherwise the would be getting p45s instead of ministerial protection.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well it certainly seems that way CH.

    I'm inclined to be careful about what I read condemning governments...all governments... but too many respected economists are saying that the City is corrupt to the core at every level.

    No one much is saying that the banks and the Tories aren't hand in glove, except maybe the Sun, Express and the Mail ... and I'm not sure I'd want any of them pleading my case.

    I was reading that some banker bloke managed to spend £70,000 on a night out, buying drinks for everyone in a club, bottles of vodka at £1,800+ a time.

    Clear to see that this man's recession and mine are different kettles of fish, and his lot, possibly even him, caused the bloody thing, while I didn't even run up a credit card bill or take out a mortgage.

    ReplyDelete
  29. BTW: SR and QM. Downing Street refer to what Cameron did as 'using his veto'. It may not have come to a vote, but that's because he told them that unless he got what he wanted for the bankers, he WOULD veto it.

    It's a very small difference between using it and saying that he would use it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. tris

    Last time i looked Scotland wasn't located in the Square mile er! so why would Cameron bother about a lot of foreigners or indeed what they thought.

    And anyway Etonians never consult with the servants considered bad form dont you know?

    Gives them ideas above their lowly stations

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll try to remember that Niko.

    It's just that, when I was little people told me that this was a democracy, and even though as a grown up I know it's not, it's kinda embedded in my subconscious and sometimes I forget...

    Thank goodness I have you to keep me right.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ha ha, Yeah good.

    Excellent applause from our European mates.

    I don't think they like Camergoon very much.

    ReplyDelete