<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Ming is quackers about the EU referendum</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/</link>
	<description>crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88990</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88990</guid>
		<description>I don't think Tony Benn is at all representative of the Eurosceptics.  Benn, as far as I'm aware, is in support of a written constitution (which would indeed introduce the concept of popular sovereignty into UK constitutional law).  The Conservatives, UKIP and the other assorted headbangers oppose that as strongly as they oppose the EU.

The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is hardwired into the UK constitution.  There is no higher authority than Parliament in our system - certainly not the people who are mere subjects of the Crown.  Parliament is even capable of withdrawing from the EU if it so wished.  And it is this special status that a lot of sceptics - certainly not Tony Benn - wish to defend.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think Tony Benn is at all representative of the Eurosceptics.  Benn, as far as I&#8217;m aware, is in support of a written constitution (which would indeed introduce the concept of popular sovereignty into UK constitutional law).  The Conservatives, UKIP and the other assorted headbangers oppose that as strongly as they oppose the EU.</p>
<p>The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is hardwired into the UK constitution.  There is no higher authority than Parliament in our system - certainly not the people who are mere subjects of the Crown.  Parliament is even capable of withdrawing from the EU if it so wished.  And it is this special status that a lot of sceptics - certainly not Tony Benn - wish to defend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathaniel Tapley</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88986</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathaniel Tapley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88986</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this article, I really enjoyed it.

However, you seem to perversely misrepresent one of the arguments when you say: "Another example of the sceptics nonsense: they constantly go on about the EU undermining Parliamentary sovereignty, yet they demand a referendum. Fact: referendums undermine Parliamentary sovereignty. If our Parliamentary system is so perfect, how come it has lead to this situation occurring?"

As I understand it, and as the argument was expressed by Tony Benn when he spoke in Parliament against the Maastricht Treaty, the point is, quite simply that Parliament is not sovereign.  The point is that sovereign power remains invested in the people, who lend it to Parliament for the period during which it sits.  As Parliament is not sovereign (and precisely because it is not sovereign) it does not have the power to give away sovereign powers to any other body.  The argument runs that Parliament is not sovereign, not that it is.

Of course, this is true, even technically.  Parliament is in no sense sovereign; the Queen is, and it must wield its powers in her name.  However, either way, Parliament does not have the authority (so the argument runs) to cede sovereign powers over anything to any other body.

Apart from that, I thought this was another brilliant article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this article, I really enjoyed it.</p>
<p>However, you seem to perversely misrepresent one of the arguments when you say: &#8220;Another example of the sceptics nonsense: they constantly go on about the EU undermining Parliamentary sovereignty, yet they demand a referendum. Fact: referendums undermine Parliamentary sovereignty. If our Parliamentary system is so perfect, how come it has lead to this situation occurring?&#8221;</p>
<p>As I understand it, and as the argument was expressed by Tony Benn when he spoke in Parliament against the Maastricht Treaty, the point is, quite simply that Parliament is not sovereign.  The point is that sovereign power remains invested in the people, who lend it to Parliament for the period during which it sits.  As Parliament is not sovereign (and precisely because it is not sovereign) it does not have the power to give away sovereign powers to any other body.  The argument runs that Parliament is not sovereign, not that it is.</p>
<p>Of course, this is true, even technically.  Parliament is in no sense sovereign; the Queen is, and it must wield its powers in her name.  However, either way, Parliament does not have the authority (so the argument runs) to cede sovereign powers over anything to any other body.</p>
<p>Apart from that, I thought this was another brilliant article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Gadsden</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88968</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Gadsden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88968</guid>
		<description>What, I think,this - otherwise excellent - argument misses is the division within the so-called "pro-European" camp.

From the very beginning, there was a division between functionalists, like Monnet and federalists like Spinelli. Functionalists were afraid of the people.  Elections had brought Hitler to power; the French Third Republic had become a shambles.  Intelligent people working together could do a much better job if they were insulated from the public that was incapable of being trusted.  If that sounds a lot like the Enarquate of the French Fifth Republic, then that's because they were created by the same people.

The Commission is older than the Treaty of Rome; the elected Parliament was created in 1979 as a concession to the British.

Federaism isn't just a dirty word in euroscptic circles; the Commission hate the idea too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What, I think,this - otherwise excellent - argument misses is the division within the so-called &#8220;pro-European&#8221; camp.</p>
<p>From the very beginning, there was a division between functionalists, like Monnet and federalists like Spinelli. Functionalists were afraid of the people.  Elections had brought Hitler to power; the French Third Republic had become a shambles.  Intelligent people working together could do a much better job if they were insulated from the public that was incapable of being trusted.  If that sounds a lot like the Enarquate of the French Fifth Republic, then that&#8217;s because they were created by the same people.</p>
<p>The Commission is older than the Treaty of Rome; the elected Parliament was created in 1979 as a concession to the British.</p>
<p>Federaism isn&#8217;t just a dirty word in euroscptic circles; the Commission hate the idea too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurence Boyce</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88965</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Boyce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88965</guid>
		<description>I'm never that well at the best of times Alex, but I'm trying to play this one with a straight bat. I'm actually fairly euro-sceptic, but I want us either to be in Europe and positive about it, or to get out altogether. Which is not to say that this isn't another great article from James.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m never that well at the best of times Alex, but I&#8217;m trying to play this one with a straight bat. I&#8217;m actually fairly euro-sceptic, but I want us either to be in Europe and positive about it, or to get out altogether. Which is not to say that this isn&#8217;t another great article from James.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liberal Democrat Voice &#187; Euro-referendum - the view from the Lib Dem blogosphere</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88934</link>
		<dc:creator>Liberal Democrat Voice &#187; Euro-referendum - the view from the Lib Dem blogosphere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88934</guid>
		<description>[...] Gavin Whenman Chris Black Arwen Folkes Nich Starling Antony Hook Jonathan Calder Toby Philpott Stephen Tall James Graham [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Gavin Whenman Chris Black Arwen Folkes Nich Starling Antony Hook Jonathan Calder Toby Philpott Stephen Tall James Graham [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Wilcock</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88916</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Wilcock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:41:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/09/13/why-ming-is-quackers-about-the-eu-referendum/#comment-88916</guid>
		<description>Brilliant post, and great cartoon (you're right; Daffy &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; funnier) :)

Including those of us who made our views clear in comments on the Lib Dem Voice news story, it looks like – and this is just a bit of fun – Ming has so far lost this particular internal party referendum by six votes to ten. Two points to notice: the Phantom of the Voice is on Ming’s side, for once (Laurence, are you well?); and remember, this is just a referendum on a referendum, not ‘Ming in or out’.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brilliant post, and great cartoon (you&#8217;re right; Daffy <i>is</i> funnier) <img src='http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Including those of us who made our views clear in comments on the Lib Dem Voice news story, it looks like – and this is just a bit of fun – Ming has so far lost this particular internal party referendum by six votes to ten. Two points to notice: the Phantom of the Voice is on Ming’s side, for once (Laurence, are you well?); and remember, this is just a referendum on a referendum, not ‘Ming in or out’.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
