Fucktard

Phil Woolas has just followed up his previous assertion that "the population of the UK will not be allowed to top 70 million".

Which, in itself, is quite some statement.

Seeing as I'm fairly certain there's not a single fucking thing the Government could do if the entire population of the EU decided to come and live in, say, Nottinghamshire. One of the main points of the EU is that it allows freedom of movement between member states. It's also one of the main drawbacks, as it means none of the member countries has the ability to deny access to a fellow member's populace.

How does Phil think he'll be able to stem the tide of Johnny Foreigners arriving from within the EU? Well, let's just say he's a bit vague on that. Asked whether he had made an eye-catching pledge that the government could not keep - because it cannot restrict immigration from within the EU - Mr Woolas told Today: "No, I don't accept that at all."

He said: "What you cannot factor in is how many people leave the country. You cannot factor in, as you rightly say, movement from EU and that is why you can't put a precise figure - but what you can reassure the public over is that the general trend will be controlled."

How?!? You fucktard, the UK has NO control over immigration if the people coming in are from the EU. If, as is accepted, the population in the UK is currently 62 million, 10 million people come in from the EU in the next five year and no-one leaves, we'll already be over your 70 million figure and there'll be fuck all you can do to change it.

Are you planning on offering people incentives to leave? Because if you are, can I be first in the fucking queue?

I am the Revolution and to be honest, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

Democracy EU Style

This afternoon, it appears the Irish voted against the EU Treaty. This was a referendum that was promised to the British people by the Labour party, but while we didn't get the chance to say "NO", the Irish did. And they took that chance with both hands.

We had previously been told that it would take all of the 27 countries to agree on the treaty for it to be passed. As Ireland voted "no", then, I had stupidly assumed, that that would be the end of the Treaty. Obviously the European Commission head, Jose Manuel Barroso, called for other states to continue their ratification processes and said a solution should be sought. The twat.

Then, I hear on Radio 5, Richard Corbett - the Labour MEP for Yorkshire & the Humber - saying that despite the Irish vote, the Treaty should still be ratified. He proposes another referendum (presumably followed by another and another until they eventually get enough people to say "Yes") in Ireland.

"Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many."

Yes that's right Ireland, you got it wrong the first time, so you go away, have a little think about yourselves and try voting the right way this time.

Note, he's not proposing actually changing the Treaty, oh dear me no. He's just proposing that they put it out to referendum again. And again. And again.

"Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better."

And why would it be better for the same referendum question being put out again, rather than a proper and open discussion of why Ireland (the only place in Europe thus far to actually get a referendum on ratifying the treaty, remember)?

"Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions."

I think you might be lying a bit there, matey. I suggest that YOU don't want any debate on the minutiae of the EU. Because if there was some debate, more and more people might realise just how little control of their own lives they actually have now. And where would your gravy train be if the people of the UK decided to leave the EU altogether?

When will the EU listen to a "no" vote? Why will they persist in shoving the EU Constitution as the only way forward, when every time a country has had a chance to vote, it has said "no" when first asked? Why is Gordon Brown pushing ahead with ratifying a treaty that should be dead in the water?

I'll tell you: It makes no difference we're already fucked.

I am the Revolution, and I demand my fucking country back.