When the European Commission president agrees with David Cameron his views are 'definitive'.
When the European Commission president agrees with David Cameron his views are ‘definitive’
The Tories have been quick to dismiss comments made by the outgoing European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that the UK would have ‘zero’ influence if it decided to quit the EU.
According to the BBC, a No 10 source said Mr Barroso ‘should be under no illusion that the status quo is not acceptable to the UK’.
Barroso also said that without agreement from all EU countries on changes to EU migration rules, the prime minister’s plans to curb EU migration could be illegal.
Again this has been dismissed by Downing Street, which said Mr Cameron would listen to Mr Barroso’s argument but that Britain needed to negotiate a better deal.
Which is all quite amusing really, considering that until very recently the government treated Mr Barroso’s word as gospel; or to be more precise, as ‘definitive’.
You may recall that, during the Scottish referendum debate, Mr Barroso intervened to say that an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for EU membership.
David Cameron responded to this intervention approvingly, describing it as ‘very telling’:
“What I say to Alex Salmond is he in a way wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to say ‘I want to separate from the UK, I want this new future for Scotland’, but on the other hand, he doesn’t want the consequences that flow from that.”
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson also called it a “definitive intervention from the President of the European Commission, which Alex Salmond simply cannot ignore”.
In other words, when Mr Barosso agreed with David Cameron, as during his intervention in the Scottish independence debate, his views were ‘definitive’ and ‘very telling’. Now that he is talking about the European Union and the possible illegality of the PM’s migration proposals, his arguments are of practically no significance.
Perhaps Barosso’s views on the Scottish independence referendum were not so ‘definitive’ after all, then. Or maybe they were, and are just as ‘definitive’ on the question of reform of the European Union.
Follow James Bloodworth on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
11 Responses to “Until recently the Tories said Jose Manuel Barroso’s views were ‘definitive’”
NorthBrit
The EU could have chosen to be neutral on the Scottish indyref by stating that it would make no difference to either Scotland’s or England’s EU membership.
Instead Barroso chose to intervene to help the most anti-EU government in Europe to frighten Scots into voting “No” to independence.
The French senate commented that his arguments were “not credible” and Sir David Edward, Yves Gounin and Graham Avery made similar comments.
Barroso was not credible then and he is not credible now.
But British exit from the EU would be a just reward for the EU’s anti-democratic interference in the Scottish referendum.
The_Average_Joe_UK
The EU experiment is being laid bare. Barroso’s comments just prove they’ll say anything to keep the gravy train going. If you’re in the system you’re paid alot with cast iron benefits and pensions. No wonder they try to grow it.
The real truth is that it hasn’t delivered economically, it costs us a fortune and we’re better off out. Labours position of command and control, unnecessary bureaucracy etc. is a perfect fit, hence the ludicrous position of denying democracy. But you can understand Labours position for their economic illiteracy is the reason they don’t understand the lack of benefit.
Cant wait for 2015, Hodges reckons 29% isn’t the floor, how low can these losers go?
Guest
No surprise you’re whining about democracy, as usual.
Guest
Keep saying that trade does not deliver economically, that the benefits to us are magically a cost and that it’s not nearly enough command and control, that it’s not nearly enough red tape, and that it’s far far FAR too democratic to you, as you say Labour are not for wages enough.
How low will you go? I’d say you’d start at voter intimidation and vote rigging, myself.
Leon Wolfeson
Does show how silly anti-trade positions are, yes.