Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Ken
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 years ago
in The British constitution for beginners on Martin Stabe
This is very funny; a great read more so when in the comment section daily kos gets into also explaining the rules of cricket.
4 years ago
in British blogs: A waste of time? on Martin Stabe
Much to agree with, and thought provoking.
4 years ago
in FOIA amendments possible? on Martin Stabe
The point of Freedom of Information is improved accountability, etc.
Cannot argue with that sentiment.
Cannot argue with that sentiment.
4 years ago
in ERM documents to be held back on Martin Stabe
I tend to think these papers should be made available, the repercussion affected many people and the whole Euro project was put back several years.
4 years ago
in Mandy: Humphrys’s ‘virulently anti-European views’ on Martin Stabe
This is just a spoiler from Mandelson as the BBC reprt says..
Sometimes being attacked from all sides is a sign that an organisation is getting it right. That is not so here. It is a sign that the BBC is getting it wrong, and our main conclusion is that urgent action is required to put this right.
Sometimes being attacked from all sides is a sign that an organisation is getting it right. That is not so here. It is a sign that the BBC is getting it wrong, and our main conclusion is that urgent action is required to put this right.
4 years ago
in The ‘straight banana factor’ on Martin Stabe
"No, we have to keep repeating it because it is necessary to resist the isolationist nonsense that EU withdrawal/quasi-withdrawal is cost free."
You have to keep repeating a falsehood? To resist what? There is no basis for your suggestion that Eusceptics are isolationist, that is another lie, or that withdrawal is not cost free that is another lie. In a short sentence you compound Kampfner’s misdirection by adding more of you own.
You have to keep repeating a falsehood? To resist what? There is no basis for your suggestion that Eusceptics are isolationist, that is another lie, or that withdrawal is not cost free that is another lie. In a short sentence you compound Kampfner’s misdirection by adding more of you own.
4 years ago
in English Euroscepticism | Martin Stabe on Martin Stabe
There is no confusion or inconsistency between internal British arrangements and external EU arrangements, it was the British government with representatives of both Scotland and Wales that took Britain as one unit, into the EU and it was a British referendum that chose to stay within the Common Market, so we must argue for withdrawal of Britain not England Scotland and Wales.
These individual kingdoms are not in fact members of the EU so there is no inconsistence in opposing devolution at this stage because self evidently if Britain were to be divided into its continuant parts it would then be impossible for Britain to withdraw, because it would in effect no longer exist.
For instance if Scotland were to prefer a future as part of the EU rather than its present arrangement Britain would first have to leave the EU then Scotland would separate and rejoin the EU in its own right. At present Scotlands only right to be a member of the EU rests entirely on its place as part of the UK.
But this also brings up one further point where Loose the Delusion has got it wrong, and that is because of devolution/regionalisation Scotland and to a certain extent Wales can now speak with one voice, England cannot, we were not offered an English parliament, neither were we offered a voice in the devolution referendums in Scotland or Wales, it could be argued that we should not have a voice in that debate but it could also be equally argued that as one unit, all British people should have a vote in the break up of the country.
These individual kingdoms are not in fact members of the EU so there is no inconsistence in opposing devolution at this stage because self evidently if Britain were to be divided into its continuant parts it would then be impossible for Britain to withdraw, because it would in effect no longer exist.
For instance if Scotland were to prefer a future as part of the EU rather than its present arrangement Britain would first have to leave the EU then Scotland would separate and rejoin the EU in its own right. At present Scotlands only right to be a member of the EU rests entirely on its place as part of the UK.
But this also brings up one further point where Loose the Delusion has got it wrong, and that is because of devolution/regionalisation Scotland and to a certain extent Wales can now speak with one voice, England cannot, we were not offered an English parliament, neither were we offered a voice in the devolution referendums in Scotland or Wales, it could be argued that we should not have a voice in that debate but it could also be equally argued that as one unit, all British people should have a vote in the break up of the country.
4 years ago
in Who may vote in an EU constitution referendum? | Martin Stabe on Martin Stabe
How on earth can we argue it both ways, it is wrong for the British living in Spain not to be allowed the and wrong for any other than the British to vote in Britain?
As it is up to each country individually to agree the EU constitution because it affects their countries constitution, it cannot be right for foreign nationals to vote. Although we are all EU citizens this is not an EU wide referendum, if it were it would not matter which country the citizens voted in.
As it is up to each country individually to agree the EU constitution because it affects their countries constitution, it cannot be right for foreign nationals to vote. Although we are all EU citizens this is not an EU wide referendum, if it were it would not matter which country the citizens voted in.
