Conservatives EU referendum 2017 bill now 'dead' in HoL and why it was BS anyway

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ords-vote.html

EU referendum Bill branded 'dead parrot’ after House of Lords vote

David Cameron’s plan for in/out vote comes under sustained attack from Labour and Liberal Democrat peers in House of Lords

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...h_2802023b.jpg
“It is a dead parrot,” said Bill Cash, the chairman of the European scrutiny select committee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telegraph

The Prime Minister’s attempt to give the British people a vote on membership of the European Union is a “dead parrot”, senior Conservatives have conceded.

David Cameron’s plan to enshrine in law an in/out vote came under sustained attack from Labour and Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords, in what Conservatives claimed was a coordinated effort to kill off the Bill.

Peers voted on Friday to send back the Bill with amendments to the Commons for further debate. That means it is unlikely to meet its deadline of clearing both Houses of Parliament by Feb 28, its supporters conceded.

“It is a dead parrot,” said Bill Cash, the chairman of the European scrutiny select committee. “Passing the amendments that they have means it can’t make the timetable. For practical purposes, this Bill is dead. There’s no chance it can pass.”

And here's why it was complete rubbish not worth the paper it was written on in the first place:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84674

Mr Hollande - he say "no"

http://www.eureferendum.com/images/0...20Hollande.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard North

Well, you did here it first, but this blog doesn't have quite the same prestige as the French President who is conveying to Mr Cameron that he has no chance of renegotiating the EU treaties and completing the process in time to have a referendum in time for the end of 2017.

I've lost count of the number of times I've written this on the blog, which all goes to prove that news is not news until the legacy media decides to quote someone saying it.

Nevertheless, just because the Telegraph has to wait for an approved source to say something for they acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that there never could be a 2017 referendum under the terms stated by Mr Cameron, making the Open Europe Muppets just as wrong as they ever have been and the People's Pledge advocacy a complete waste of time.

As to the detail, it appears that Mr Hollande didn't bother to speak directly to the British prime minister by let his officials "pour scorn" on suggestions that "treaty change" can be achieved for a referendum. It was, they said, "very, very unlikely" before 2017.

An official then added, "This doesn’t mean we won't one day require treaties to be revised for the requirements of economic monetary union, but it is very, very unlikely this will be compatible with the British political calendar".

So, there it is from the deputy horse's mouth – the referendum is a non-starter. I will of course, take much more than this before the paper as a corporate entity finally gets the message, and even longer for the Conservative Party and Mr Cameron's supporters, but at least they've started down the road towards the realisation that they have been sold a pup.

North and others on the blogs have been pointing out for a while that even if the proposed in/out referendum in 2017 was believable (and going by their past records, I say not) it's not going to happen because of the drafting of a new treaty that is going to start taking place very soon which will see the EU integrate deeper and - if the Commission and Merkel get their way - we will see the EU go for the ultimate prize, full political union. So Cameron's timetable for renegotiation (which goes against the treaties anyway) is a dud. And more to the point, he's not once said what he wants to renegotiate back from Brussels - we've heard hints regarding regulation, but regulation that comes from Brussels is directly related to the Single Market which Mr Cameron said in his EU speech last year he wanted to see 'completed' which would de facto mean more regulation which he says he wants less of. Not only do we not know what Mr Cameron wants, but it seems he doesn't know either.

So there you have it. We're as far from a referendum as we ever have been.

Thoughts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So there you have it. We're as far from a referendum as we ever have been.

Not really. Now the commons will have the power to ignore the lords' veto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Not really. Now the commons will have the power to ignore the lords' veto.

But there ain't going to be an in/out referendum because of a new treaty. Hollande has said so, Merkel has said so as has Barroso.

The best we can hope for seems to be a referendum on approving or disapproving of the new treaty (whatever that may contain) in which case if we disapprove the treaty in a referendum, we'll likey de facto leave the European Union by doing so.

I've said it before anyway, that we're more likely to be forced out as they integrate closer than we are to leave willingly. That suits me fine.