Nick Clegg on the EU veto: "No-one planned for an outcome which left Britain in a position of one"

 

Comments

[George Lees]

Is not the obvious question - whould he have agreed the deal, if he is unhappy with the veto? BBC let them off the hook every time -

[Paul]

Didn't the French?

[Robert DMML]

Clegg, inho, would have obfuscated and agreed to the deal (the details of which would have been announced later as a done deal - it still will be eventually).

From Maggie onwards every British PM was most of the time in a position of one, including Blair and even Brown on one occasion in refusing to ditch the £ for the euro. The reason being that France and Germany wanted the EU to be a centralising all poweful supranational government, whereas British PM's wanted a looser intergovernmental EU (that was before they sooner or later caved in, although Maggie was dispensed with because of her No No! No!

Heath could not wait to get Britain completely shacked to the EU and he saw no reason to have a referendum (held by Wilson).

[Phil Kean]

Is it a nightmare? No, it is reality.

The voters roundly REJECTED the Liberals at the 2010 General Election. Yet they are in Government, pushing THEIR political agenda, as opposed to acting in the national interest at all times. And the end result is that Britain prospects will at best stand stagnate, and at worst, suffer more irreparable damage.

The sheer, brazen, arrogant stupidity of this man, who tries to convince us that the veto to protect Britain's national interest is a necessary safeguard, but that it should NEVER be used under any circumstances. A gun without bullets, no less.

And then he talks about that old soldier, the 3 million jobs that depend on membership of the EU.
He does NOT talk about the millions of jobs that have been LOST because of the EU. Nor that the 3 million jobs he talks of are more likely now to be the jobs of those EU workers working in the UK because they can't FIND jobs in their own countries.

Nor does he talk about the unsustainable financial & political COST of being members of the EU.

Is it possible that, not ONLY are supposed Tories happy to allow the Liberals to continue Labour's task of dragging Britain back to medieval times, but that they sometimes even actually shake hands with these vermine?
.

[Denis Cooper]

I think Clegg may have to get used to Cameron saying "no" to the governments of certain other countries in the EU, governments which are behaving more like enemies than the friends and partners they're supposed to be, because unless Cameron does that they'll trample all over us and enjoy doing so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8993543/EU-transaction-tax-in-law-by-year-end.html

[boudicca]

It might not have been planned for, but that doesn't mean the possiblity wasn't discussed. I expect Cameron/Clegg were expecting support from at least one other member of the EU but when it came to it the cowards all fell into line behind Merkozy.

What is more interesting is why Clegg wasn't asked to comment on the diabolical state of the Eurozone and the possible impact on the UK. But not the BBC. It has it's pro-EU agenda to promote and couldn't possibly challenge the EU's Man in Government.

[Dave Hollins]

Especially now that the Yanks have announced that they are going home.

The veto move will turn out to be one of the biggest disasters in UK foreign policy, just below joining in the illegal war with Iraq, which was supported by the Tories - precisiely to suck up to the Yanks as playground bully.

You anti-EU lot are looking rather silly now.

[Andrew Smith]

Can anyone tell me what was on the table from Merkosy, what did Dave request and in what terms did the PM "veto" or reject what.

Please can we be told.

Or was it all designed to calm the Tory Party over Christmas and help with the Feltham by-election.