Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
Spot-on. Which is one reason why this is the only chance in a generation to get either renegotiation or an exit. UKIP are working hard to get us neither, i.e. ever-closer union, and the unmitigated disaster of PM Miliband while they are about it.
Was there ever a madder project in modern UK political history? I guess the nearest equivalent is the split on the left in the 1980s, but that at least was a split with a purpose: the loony left wanted something not on offer. UKIP seem to be miffed precisely because they are being offered what they want.
Is there a madder project in modern British political history than the Conservative Party? A party that took us into the EEC, a party that refused to grant us a referendum, a party that then campaigned in the referendum to keep us in, a party that signed the Single European Act, a party that stabbed it's most successful leader in the back when she turned on 'the project', a party that took us into the ERM as a backdoor to the Euro, a party that signed the Maastricht Treaty, a party that has voted for years for MORE EU regulation and law whilst saying the complete opposite back home and a party that until last year didn't want an in/out EU referendum. Yet you expect me to vote Conservative like a good sheep?
And I haven't even started on how useless the Tory Party has been for conservative-minded people in this country when it comes to public spending, education, the family, foreign policy, defence and on many other issues.
I follow the Peter Hitchens doctrine: it's time to flush the Unconservatives down the toilet and replace them.
FPT, AndyJS said: "Maybe we should be building a few more reservoirs to store all this excess water in preparation for the next drought, whenever it happens. "
There's good news from the restoration of natural reservoirs in the form of peat bogs on Exmoor
This is the sort of thing those pesky environmentalists go on about. Restore some natural environment to hold water in the hills and you even out the water flow, reducing the severity of both floods and droughts.
Absolutely, A great deal of work is ongoing in the Peak District to renew the heather moorland - it's impressive to see the helicopters dropping their loads of lime and brash.
To bring it back onto topic, a large amount of the erosion is the EU's fault. Years ago the EU gave landowners grants to cut channels in the blanket bog to allow greater run-off. Sadly this, in conjunction with acidification, led to massive amounts of erosion. Move on a couple of decades, and the EU now give grants to block those channels up and restore the moorland ...
As I understand it, it's left up to government ministers to decide if the transfer of powers is significant enough to require a referendum. There's no automatic trigger.
You understand wrongly. The triggers are very clearly laid out in the Act.
Of course, if the right-wing Tories were a little less thick and a little more strategic, they'd refer to the 2011 Act which implemented the Lib Dem 2010 manifesto commitment of an in-out referendum at the time of the next treaty transferring powers to Brussels, and instead push for an EU treaty that all paperclip regulation governance should now be done at EU level.....
(1) That wouldnt necessarily trigger a referendum (2) Wouldnt the referendum just be on whether to accept the treaty or not? (3) Noone in Europe seems to want a new treaty
Whether or not we have a referendum is not up to UKIP, at present. Assume for the sake of argument that UKIP didn't exist. It's certainly not the case that 12% or so of the voters would suddenly switch over to the Conservatives. And, if they did, what incentive would there be for there to be any sort of referendum on the EU?
If you think that UKIP should offer an electoral pact to the Conservatives, tell us where you think the Conservatives should stand down in favour of UKIP candidates, in return for UKIP not running candidates against Conservatives.
The sensible course of action for UKIP is to maximise support, and electoral representation.
If we assume that UKIP do actually want us to leave the EU (I have to say the evidence suggests otherwise), then there are three steps to achieving that:
1) Elect a government which will hold an In/Out referendum. That couldn't be easier: vote Conservative, there's no other way, and it's 100% guaranteed to succeed if there is a Conservative government.
2) Put together a coherent case for what exit would mean in practice. For example, agree once and for all a sensible answer on whether we would remain in the EEA (and if the answer is No, which is what I would recommend since remaining in the EEA but not the EU is the worse of both worlds - sorry Smithson Jnr!), stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models. The Out side would have the great advantage of a free hand in defining what model they wanted, whereas the In side would be conflicted and also unable to specify what the renegotiation would bring.
3) Win the referendum by building a really good campaign, taking full advantage of people like Dan Hannan, who is very persuasive.
That is the only strategy which could work in any less than a timescale of decades. I think the likelihood is that it wouldn't work, but that's because the Out side have not made a coherent case to voters, and because the status quo is hard to shift. On the other hand, even if it doesn't work, there would be likely to be some disengagement as part of renegotiation, so it's a 'Head we win, tail we get a bit back' stategy.
To be honest, that's not much of an offer. What you want is for UKIP's current supporters to give the Conservative Party unconditional support, in the hope they'll get a referendum, in unfavourable circumstances, in return.
Even assuming the UKIP leadership went for that, plenty of supporters would either stay at home, or revert to non-Conservative parties.
You are rather rude at times. I don't doubt you are a very nice person but telling fellow posters that they should joking the English remedial class, and describing the perfectly decent Ed Miliband as an "unmitigated disaster" is just gauche.
Then comes the negotiation with all the machinations that will be going on alongside it (and possibly it occurring in tandem with the Scottish independence negotiation). Exactly what will Cameron deliver on immigration, on the ECJ, ECHR, CAP CFP, financial freedom, contributions, the social chapter, environment and climate change, aid, business regulation etc etc? It will be an enormous task to put together a package sufficient to carry the majority. That is particularly so given that repeated polling suggests a large majority of people actually when it comes down to it, favour a position (a trading zone only) that would currently demand we withdraw from the EU. Such detailed examination of our relationship with the EU is almost certain to highlight such a reality to the vast majority of the electorate.
That would be a negotiation between all 27 EU member states. If Mr Cameron actually wanted reform, the FCO would be arguing the case now in all member states. They're not.
Even assuming the UKIP leadership went for that, plenty of supporters would either stay at home, or revert to non-Conservative parties.
In which case you'll get Miliband and no referendum.
You had a choice between my strategy, which has a chance (I admit not a very high one) of working, and the strategy being pursued, which has zero chance of succeeding in anything like a reasonable timescale, and which will take the UK in every respect further away from what UKIP supporters want.
That is the reality; it really is quite simple. Tilting at windmills won't alter it.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
I'm not a libertarian: I strongly believe in the existence of the state to do good. I just support basic liberal democratic norms we've had in this country for centuries, and that have been abandoned by authoritarians like Cameron and Blair. Apparently that puts me out on the fringe these days. A right to privacy? Security services requiring warrants? But TERRORISM!
I guess our terminology differs but I'd say that a classical libertarian would share exactly those views, i.e. the right of the individual to get on with their life unhindered by pointless state intrusion. The suspicion of the very role of the state is more neo-liberal, where the libertarian emphasis on individual freedom is deliberately subverted in order to argue that individual liberty is definitionally incompatible with any exercise of state power whatsoever, even where the state is doing good that enables individuals to benefit from collective action or be protected from other, more powerful actors.
I've always understood libertarianism to be a bit more of the Ron Paul style philosophy, which opposes regulation in virtually all cases, and is highly isolationist in foreign policy. My views match your description, but I just think this is a traditional mainstream liberal democratic view.
You are rather rude at times. I don't doubt you are a very nice person but telling fellow posters that they should joking the English remedial class, and describing the perfectly decent Ed Miliband as an "unmitigated disaster" is just gauche.
Richard has got a bit ruder recently, but that's largely a reaction to much ruder people (including, in my less patient moments, myself) provoking him. He's still very tame and civil compared to most on here.
On a personal note I wish the UK to remain but I also think the EU, in it's present form will not remain. the corruption, bureaucracy, centralisation has created an enormous mess and there is a voter-led scepticism and downright hostility to all of this which will begin to impact significantly at the coming elections. It absolutely will have to change - on this Cameron is right on the button.
While I think we've been over the pro-/anti- EU things about a gazillion times on here, I would like to point out that being a member of the European Economic Area is a massive boon for my small asset management firm.
That's because under the "European Financial Services Passport" basically allows any EU firm to sell financial services to any person in the EU under common regulation. If we want to sell asset management products (basically, a mutual fund) to a person in Switzerland (outside the EEA), then we need to use a local agent who takes around 60% of the fees. The same is true in Canada or Australia. (And in the US, it is more like 75% of the fees, which explains why we have no US clients...)
While larger asset managers like Schroders, Blackrock or Goldman Sachs would be largely unaffected (they have offices in every country already); if we were to leave the European Economic Area, it would be an absolute disaster for our business as only about a third of clients are UK based. We would need to open satellite offices in Europe, or accept half the current level of fees. My wife has pushed for a third option, which would be to relocate to somewhere sunnier in continental Europe. But I'm not sure that would fly :-)
Of course, if we were to leave the EU, but stay in the EEA, then it would be fine (and would save about €5bn/year). But it is worth remembering that the flip side of that is that we would basically be required to adhere to EU legislation (as well as the famous Four Freedoms), without having any say on it.
The decision to leave or stay in the EU must be taken in the interests of the people as a whole, not on any one firm, or even a group of them.
Whether or not we have a referendum is not up to UKIP, at present. Assume for the sake of argument that UKIP didn't exist. It's certainly not the case that 12% or so of the voters would suddenly switch over to the Conservatives. And, if they did, what incentive would there be for there to be any sort of referendum on the EU?
If you think that UKIP should offer an electoral pact to the Conservatives, tell us where you think the Conservatives should stand down in favour of UKIP candidates, in return for UKIP not running candidates against Conservatives.
The sensible course of action for UKIP is to maximise support, and electoral representation.
If we assume that UKIP do actually want us to leave the EU (I have to say the evidence suggests otherwise), then there are three steps to achieving that:
2) Put together a coherent case for what exit would mean in practice. For example, agree once and for all a sensible answer on whether we would remain in the EEA (and if the answer is No, which is what I would recommend since remaining in the EEA but not the EU is the worse of both worlds - sorry Smithson Jnr!), stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models. The Out side would have the great advantage of a free hand in defining what model they wanted, whereas the In side would be conflicted and also unable to specify what the renegotiation would bring.
The IEA Brexit Prize is aimed at solving step two. The winner will be announced in April this year.
You are rather rude at times. I don't doubt you are a very nice person but telling fellow posters that they should joking the English remedial class, and describing the perfectly decent Ed Miliband as an "unmitigated disaster" is just gauche.
I'm not being rude, I am giving my honest, independent and well-founded opinion on what I think Ed Miliband would be like as Prime Minister. It's a view widely shared, not least in the sensible parts of the Labour Party, and it will certainly be the mainstream view after a couple of years if he does become PM.
For the avoidance of doubt, though, I should say that I like Ed Miliband personally. I think he's honest, decent, quite clever, and quite witty. He's just completely wrong.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
I don't come across that a lot, though the social differences from Cameron in my patch are smaller than elsehwhere. The people my circle dislike are the right-wing ideologues - pragmatists bobbing along, trying to make the best of whatever comes up with no particular objective in mind, one can live with. That seems to me to be Cameron in essence - I don't think he's leading us anywhere and no doubt he feels he's doing his best. Conservatives seem to take a different view - they don't mind someone like Dennis Skinner or Michael Foot as they fit in their spectrum and they don't think they'll win, but someone like Blair who is essentially a Christian Democrat pragmatist does their head in.
Even assuming the UKIP leadership went for that, plenty of supporters would either stay at home, or revert to non-Conservative parties.
In which case you'll get Miliband and no referendum.
You had a choice between my strategy, which has a chance (I admit not a very high one) of working, and the strategy being pursued, which has zero chance of succeeding in anything like a reasonable timescale, and which will take the UK in every respect further away from what UKIP supporters want.
That is the reality; it really is quite simple. Tilting at windmills won't alter it.
Why would Ed Miliband winning the 2015 Election mean 50 years without a referendum on membership of the EU?
Wouldn't it more likely mean a winnable referendum in the first year of the next Conservative parliament, with a BOO leader, and UKIP MPs to boot?
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
I'm not a libertarian: I strongly believe in the existence of the state to do good. I just support basic liberal democratic norms we've had in this country for centuries, and that have been abandoned by authoritarians like Cameron and Blair. Apparently that puts me out on the fringe these days. A right to privacy? Security services requiring warrants? But TERRORISM!
I guess our terminology differs but I'd say that a classical libertarian would share exactly those views, i.e. the right of the individual to get on with their life unhindered by pointless state intrusion. The suspicion of the very role of the state is more neo-liberal, where the libertarian emphasis on individual freedom is deliberately subverted in order to argue that individual liberty is definitionally incompatible with any exercise of state power whatsoever, even where the state is doing good that enables individuals to benefit from collective action or be protected from other, more powerful actors.
I've always understood libertarianism to be a bit more of the Ron Paul style philosophy, which opposes regulation in virtually all cases, and is highly isolationist in foreign policy. My views match your description, but I just think this is a traditional mainstream liberal democratic view.
I see - sounds like your "liberal democratic" is my "libertarian" and so on.
Now we've got that of the way... right wing or left wing?
Why would Ed Miliband winning the 2015 Election mean 50 years without a referendum on membership of the EU?
Wouldn't it more likely mean a winnable referendum in the first year of the next Conservative parliament, with a BOO leader, and UKIP MPs to boot?
Only if the Conservative Party miraculously unites, not only amongst themselves but with the UKIPpers who have destroyed them, and if they all decide to disband the separate parties and combine. It ain't gonna happen - the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
I was interested to see that the electorate for any referendum under the "referendum lock" would be the Euro election electorate. Presumably an in / out referendum would have a narrower electorate!
Why would Ed Miliband winning the 2015 Election mean 50 years without a referendum on membership of the EU?
Wouldn't it more likely mean a winnable referendum in the first year of the next Conservative parliament, with a BOO leader, and UKIP MPs to boot?
Only if the Conservative Party miraculously unites, not only amongst themselves but with the UKIPpers who have destroyed them. Ain't gonna happen - the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Now I know what it feels like to be a Nat. Given this endless gloom are you perhaps Alisdair Darling ?
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
I don't come across that a lot, though the social differences from Cameron in my patch are smaller than elsehwhere. The people my circle dislike are the right-wing ideologues - pragmatists bobbing along, trying to make the best of whatever comes up with no particular objective in mind, one can live with. That seems to me to be Cameron in essence - I don't think he's leading us anywhere and no doubt he feels he's doing his best. Conservatives seem to take a different view - they don't mind someone like Dennis Skinner or Michael Foot as they fit in their spectrum and they don't think they'll win, but someone like Blair who is essentially a Christian Democrat pragmatist does their head in.
The problem with Cameron is that "doing his best" means "surviving in power" rather than doing what's best for the country, which is secondary. I also think it is deeply problematic to have someone seemingly absent of moral philosophy.
PS. How Christian Democratic was it to support Israel's war in Lebanon, or exaggerating matters of life and death to justify the invasion of Iraq?
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
No, they wouldn't want one, but they'd probably accept it for meaningful reform elsewhere. Specifically, one or more of:
- PR for the Lords (with enhanced powers) - PR for local elections - Voting reform for the Commons.
I'm pretty sure the Tories wouldn't accept that last one but either of the other two should be acceptable (or both in return for cast-iron boundary reform).
David - we're on the same lines, but I wouldn't accept your second option - PR for local elections. This isn't a high enough price. I think we'd get it as part of the deal but we'd trade it for something much lighter in return, such as another go at boundary reform. If the Tories really think they'll only have to offer local PR, I think they'll be disappointed.
I'd agree with that assessment. For what it's worth, I've always said the Lib Dems made a mistake pushing for AV via a referendum rather than a smaller Lords/Senate elected by STV. That option could have been achieved without the need for a referendum, wouldn't have split the coalition and would have delivered the Lib Dems significantly more power, if allied to an increase in the powers of the Lords (e.g. by repealing the additional restrictions of the 1949 Act).
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
That would be a negotiation between all 27 EU member states. If Mr Cameron actually wanted reform, the FCO would be arguing the case now in all member states. They're not.
There is no chance of a treaty renegotiation before 2017.
Nada. Nothing. Zip.
If Cameron believes one is possible, he is being incredibly disingenuous.
However, it is possible for there to be a published "general statement of agreement" between the Heads of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. This would incorporate what everyone had agreed would go into the inevitable 2022 treaty.
Assuming the EU and the Eurozone stay together, there will be an early next decade treaty, because the Eurozone needs a number of fundamental changes to be put in place (such as the banking union, clarity on the OMT, etc.) to ensure that it is able to weather the inevitable next crisis.
Cameron's negotiating 'stick' is that he can threaten to block the EU making the treaty changes that the Eurozone desperately needs. In addition, there is no doubt that the Germans, the Poles, the Dutch and the Spanish are (currently) fairly well disposed towards us.
What is theoretically possible - and I think we can safely exclude the ability to negotiate our own trade deals, and restrictions on intra-EU migration - is:
1. Repatriation of CAP. (I.e., we're responsible for our own farm subsidies, but don't pay for the French's). Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Frankly, everyone except a few Eastern Europeans and the French hate the CAP. To happen, though, would need the French to have a crisis which would require the Germans to bail them out.
2. A reduction in our fees. Always possible, especially if they think the alternative is losing *all* the money we put in.
3. Safeguards regarding EU financial regulation. Clearly something the London financial services community would push hard for, but not something anyone outside the capital gives a fig about.
4. A breakage of the requirement to be signed up to the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The Germans are well disposed to allow this - but, as has been pointed out we would still be subject to the ECHR/ECJ for issues qua the EU (but not, for example, votes for prisoners).
I've always understood libertarianism to be a bit more of the Ron Paul style philosophy, which opposes regulation in virtually all cases, and is highly isolationist in foreign policy. My views match your description, but I just think this is a traditional mainstream liberal democratic view.
There is a huge difference between US and UK Libertarianism. The US version appears to the UK to be very much the Neo-Liberal variety which I find rather unpalatable. The UK version does emphasize the idea that governments should not be involved in anything that does not harm others with the caveat that certain functions - national defence (not overseas adventures), borders and the provision of a statutory framework within which contracts between individuals can be agreed and enforced - are within the remit of small government
The UK version also tends to view the extension of individual rights to corporate bodies to be anathema whilst in the US this is very much the norm.
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
Why not? If the opposition are divided, unmitigated disasters get reelected faute de mieux
As I understand it, it's left up to government ministers to decide if the transfer of powers is significant enough to require a referendum. There's no automatic trigger.
You understand wrongly. The triggers are very clearly laid out in the Act.
The triggers appear in section 4 of the legislation:
4. Cases where treaty or Article 48(6) decision attracts a referendum
(1)Subject to subsection (4), a treaty or an Article 48(6) decision falls within this section if it involves one or more of the following—
(a)the extension of the objectives of the EU as set out in Article 3 of TEU;
(b)the conferring on the EU of a new exclusive competence;
(c)the extension of an exclusive competence of the EU;
(d)the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States;
(e)the extension of any competence of the EU that is shared with the member States;
(f)the extension of the competence of the EU in relation to—
(i)the co-ordination of economic and employment policies, or
(ii)common foreign and security policy;
(g)the conferring on the EU of a new competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of member States;
(h)the extension of a supporting, co-ordinating or supplementing competence of the EU;
(i)the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom, or the removal of any limitation on any such power of an EU institution or body;
(j)the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom;
(k)any amendment of a provision listed in Schedule 1 that removes a requirement that anything should be done unanimously, by consensus or by common accord;
(l)any amendment of Article 31(2) of TEU (decisions relating to common foreign and security policy to which qualified majority voting applies) that removes or amends the provision enabling a member of the Council to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority voting;
(m)any amendment of any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) that removes or amends the provision enabling a member of the Council, in relation to a draft legislative act, to ensure the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure........
However there is an exemption:
The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.
Who makes the decision of whether an exemption applies:
(3)The required statement is a statement as to whether, in the Minister's opinion, the treaty or Article 48(6) decision falls within section 4.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
I don't come across that a lot, though the social differences from Cameron in my patch are smaller than elsehwhere. The people my circle dislike are the right-wing ideologues - pragmatists bobbing along, trying to make the best of whatever comes up with no particular objective in mind, one can live with. That seems to me to be Cameron in essence - I don't think he's leading us anywhere and no doubt he feels he's doing his best. Conservatives seem to take a different view - they don't mind someone like Dennis Skinner or Michael Foot as they fit in their spectrum and they don't think they'll win, but someone like Blair who is essentially a Christian Democrat pragmatist does their head in.
The problem with Cameron is that "doing his best" means "surviving in power" rather than doing what's best for the country, which is secondary. I also think it is deeply problematic to have someone seemingly absent of moral philosophy.
PS. How Christian Democratic was it to support Israel's war in Lebanon, or exaggerating matters of life and death to justify the invasion of Iraq?
Blair was a Christian Democrat domestically. In foreign policy, he was a NeoCon.
(Which as an aside, does mean that Labour hasn't won a workable majority with a leader 'of their movement' since 1966).
Based on that if Blair can brazenly claim that the Lisbon Treaty is not the EU Constitution repackaged and get away with it then any Foreign Minister worth his salt would be able to justify why some amendment from Brussels does not invoke section 4 of the Act.
For the record, I have no problem with people opposing each other's politics - it's the conflating this with personal dislike (even though many posters have not met these people) which I find deeply unedifying.
In a sense, yes. Of course in my opinion she was the best peacetime PM certainly since the war, but a lot of people thought she was an unimitgated disaster, but the disunity of the left helped keep her in power. We could well see the mirror image of that scenario, with the difference that, instead of taking us from being the 'sick man of Europe' to one of the strongest and most vibrant economies in Europe, we take the reverse journey under PM Miliband.
I'd say this is a pretty likely scenario - maybe an Evens shot.
As I understand it, it's left up to government ministers to decide if the transfer of powers is significant enough to require a referendum. There's no automatic trigger.
You understand wrongly. The triggers are very clearly laid out in the Act.
Daniel Hannan reports that the "referendum lock" lapses at the end of this parliament.
That would be a negotiation between all 27 EU member states. If Mr Cameron actually wanted reform, the FCO would be arguing the case now in all member states. They're not.
There is no chance of a treaty renegotiation before 2017.
Nada. Nothing. Zip.
If Cameron believes one is possible, he is being incredibly disingenuous.
However, it is possible for there to be a published "general statement of agreement" between the Heads of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. This would incorporate what everyone had agreed would go into the inevitable 2022 treaty.
Assuming the EU and the Eurozone stay together, there will be an early next decade treaty, because the Eurozone needs a number of fundamental changes to be put in place (such as the banking union, clarity on the OMT, etc.) to ensure that it is able to weather the inevitable next crisis.
Cameron's negotiating 'stick' is that he can threaten to block the EU making the treaty changes that the Eurozone desperately needs. In addition, there is no doubt that the Germans, the Poles, the Dutch and the Spanish are (currently) fairly well disposed towards us.
What is theoretically possible - and I think we can safely exclude the ability to negotiate our own trade deals, and restrictions on intra-EU migration - is:
1. Repatriation of CAP. (I.e., we're responsible for our own farm subsidies, but don't pay for the French's). Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Frankly, everyone except a few Eastern Europeans and the French hate the CAP. To happen, though, would need the French to have a crisis which would require the Germans to bail them out.
2. A reduction in our fees. Always possible, especially if they think the alternative is losing *all* the money we put in.
3. Safeguards regarding EU financial regulation. Clearly something the London financial services community would push hard for, but not something anyone outside the capital gives a fig about.
4. A breakage of the requirement to be signed up to the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The Germans are well disposed to allow this - but, as has been pointed out we would still be subject to the ECHR/ECJ for issues qua the EU (but not, for example, votes for prisoners).
The problem is that until it is actually ratified in a treaty any statement of intent is meaningless. This means that we would be relying on all 27 other states ratifying - which seems so unlikely as to be impossible.
This is why anything Cameron returns with is worthless. He and the EU can promise the moon and then as soon as a vote to remain has been won they can simply forget about it and carry on with every closer union. He must know this as well which is just one more reason why Eurosceptics do not trust him.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
I don't come across that a lot, though the social differences from Cameron in my patch are smaller than elsehwhere. The people my circle dislike are the right-wing ideologues - pragmatists bobbing along, trying to make the best of whatever comes up with no particular objective in mind, one can live with. That seems to me to be Cameron in essence - I don't think he's leading us anywhere and no doubt he feels he's doing his best. Conservatives seem to take a different view - they don't mind someone like Dennis Skinner or Michael Foot as they fit in their spectrum and they don't think they'll win, but someone like Blair who is essentially a Christian Democrat pragmatist does their head in.
I'm only judging by stuff I've seen on internet, which may be quite unrepresentative.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
Honestly, much as I'd like to say otherwise, I don't get the sense Cameron is truly detested on a personal level among average Labour voters. People definitely do think he's out of touch and doesn't care how their lives are, but I think on a personal level he strikes a lot of people as quite amiable and reasonable. That still doesn't mean they'll vote for him, mind (much as the media assumes the electorate are fooled by showmanship or "charisma", people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between who would be good company for a drink, and who they think is going to make their lives better--witness how, at the last two elections running, the Lib Dem leader was by far the most "liked" of the 3 main party leaders yet the party still came a distant 3rd).
It's George Osborne who genuinely inspires loathing among the average person in my experience. People (not just leftie political activists) genuinely think of him as evil, that he comes across as an unpleasant person, the general I-want-to-punch-the-TV-screen-when-he-comes-on feeling.
No, he reports that the Lords inserted an amendment, but I imagine it was removed in the Commons - I don't think there's anything in the Act as passed about it lapsing, is there?
As I understand it, it's left up to government ministers to decide if the transfer of powers is significant enough to require a referendum. There's no automatic trigger.
You understand wrongly. The triggers are very clearly laid out in the Act.
Daniel Hannan reports that the "referendum lock" lapses at the end of this parliament.
For the record, I have no problem with people opposing each other's politics - it's the conflating this with personal dislike (even though many posters have not met these people) which I find deeply unedifying.
Yes, I agree with that. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, are trying to do what they think is best for the country. They may be vain, and sometimes get complacent or corrupted by long periods in power, but very few go into politics for anything other than honourable motives.
FPT, AndyJS said: "Maybe we should be building a few more reservoirs to store all this excess water in preparation for the next drought, whenever it happens. "
There's good news from the restoration of natural reservoirs in the form of peat bogs on Exmoor
This is the sort of thing those pesky environmentalists go on about. Restore some natural environment to hold water in the hills and you even out the water flow, reducing the severity of both floods and droughts.
Absolutely, A great deal of work is ongoing in the Peak District to renew the heather moorland - it's impressive to see the helicopters dropping their loads of lime and brash.
To bring it back onto topic, a large amount of the erosion is the EU's fault. Years ago the EU gave landowners grants to cut channels in the blanket bog to allow greater run-off. Sadly this, in conjunction with acidification, led to massive amounts of erosion. Move on a couple of decades, and the EU now give grants to block those channels up and restore the moorland ...
The Common Agricultural Policy is a policy for flooding. I really want to be an enthusiastic Europhile, but things like the CAP make it incredibly difficult.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
Honestly, much as I'd like to say otherwise, I don't get the sense Cameron is truly detested on a personal level among average Labour voters. People definitely do think he's out of touch and doesn't care how their lives are, but I think on a personal level he strikes a lot of people as quite amiable and reasonable. That still doesn't mean they'll vote for him, mind (much as the media assumes the electorate are fooled by showmanship or "charisma", people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between who would be good company for a drink, and who they think is going to make their lives better--witness how, at the last two elections running, the Lib Dem leader was by far the most "liked" of the 3 main party leaders yet the party still came a distant 3rd).
It's George Osborne who genuinely inspires loathing among the average person in my experience. People (not just leftie political activists) genuinely think of him as evil, that he comes across as an unpleasant person, the general I-want-to-punch-the-TV-screen-when-he-comes-on feeling.
Osborne certainly doesn't appeal to me, although I wouldn't say that I loathe him.
For the record, I have no problem with people opposing each other's politics - it's the conflating this with personal dislike (even though many posters have not met these people) which I find deeply unedifying.
Yes, I agree with that. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, are trying to do what they think is best for the country. They may be vain, and sometimes get complacent or corrupted by long periods in power, but very few go into politics for anything other than honourable motives.
Agreed, and I think people generally should be more mindful of that.
FPT, AndyJS said: "Maybe we should be building a few more reservoirs to store all this excess water in preparation for the next drought, whenever it happens. "
There's good news from the restoration of natural reservoirs in the form of peat bogs on Exmoor
This is the sort of thing those pesky environmentalists go on about. Restore some natural environment to hold water in the hills and you even out the water flow, reducing the severity of both floods and droughts.
Absolutely, A great deal of work is ongoing in the Peak District to renew the heather moorland - it's impressive to see the helicopters dropping their loads of lime and brash.
To bring it back onto topic, a large amount of the erosion is the EU's fault. Years ago the EU gave landowners grants to cut channels in the blanket bog to allow greater run-off. Sadly this, in conjunction with acidification, led to massive amounts of erosion. Move on a couple of decades, and the EU now give grants to block those channels up and restore the moorland ...
The Common Agricultural Policy is a policy for flooding. I really want to be an enthusiastic Europhile, but things like the CAP make it incredibly difficult.
That's the problem. Most people's vision of what a unified Europe could be like is poles apart from the monstrosity being developed in Brussels.
For the record, I have no problem with people opposing each other's politics - it's the conflating this with personal dislike (even though many posters have not met these people) which I find deeply unedifying.
Yes, I agree with that. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, are trying to do what they think is best for the country. They may be vain, and sometimes get complacent or corrupted by long periods in power, but very few go into politics for anything other than honourable motives.
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
For the record, I have no problem with people opposing each other's politics - it's the conflating this with personal dislike (even though many posters have not met these people) which I find deeply unedifying.
Yes, I agree with that. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, are trying to do what they think is best for the country. They may be vain, and sometimes get complacent or corrupted by long periods in power, but very few go into politics for anything other than honourable motives.
Agreed, and I think people generally should be more mindful of that.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.........
Its not who they were when they entered politics but what politics turns them into that often is the problem. The only people who can change that without real conflict are those at the heart of politics and sadly for too many they make no attempt at all.
It does however contain a scintilla of hope for Eurosceptics (in the proper sense of the word):
The Federation could comprise six or seven countries, on the basis of each country’s wishes. Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Spain and possibly also Poland could subscribe to this resolutely federal move
As I understand it, it's left up to government ministers to decide if the transfer of powers is significant enough to require a referendum. There's no automatic trigger.
You understand wrongly. The triggers are very clearly laid out in the Act.
The triggers appear in section 4 of the legislation:
However there is an exemption:
The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.
Who makes the decision of whether an exemption applies:
(3)The required statement is a statement as to whether, in the Minister's opinion, the treaty or Article 48(6) decision falls within section 4.
Whilst I want to leave I doubt we will. Conservatives are unlikely to win an outright majority. Labour to be in power is likeliest, and even if they're in coalition with the Lib Dems neither party would want a referendum (odd, given how Labour promised one over Lisbon in 2005, as did the Lib Dems who also had an In/Out vote in another manifesto, bit there we are).
It does however contain a scintilla of hope for Eurosceptics (in the proper sense of the word):
The Federation could comprise six or seven countries, on the basis of each country’s wishes. Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Spain and possibly also Poland could subscribe to this resolutely federal move
That could be our way out of the morass.
It's a European solution to a French problem. It's still worth reading, for all that.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
Honestly, much as I'd like to say otherwise, I don't get the sense Cameron is truly detested on a personal level among average Labour voters. People definitely do think he's out of touch and doesn't care how their lives are, but I think on a personal level he strikes a lot of people as quite amiable and reasonable. That still doesn't mean they'll vote for him, mind (much as the media assumes the electorate are fooled by showmanship or "charisma", people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between who would be good company for a drink, and who they think is going to make their lives better--witness how, at the last two elections running, the Lib Dem leader was by far the most "liked" of the 3 main party leaders yet the party still came a distant 3rd).
It's George Osborne who genuinely inspires loathing among the average person in my experience. People (not just leftie political activists) genuinely think of him as evil, that he comes across as an unpleasant person, the general I-want-to-punch-the-TV-screen-when-he-comes-on feeling.
Osborne certainly doesn't appeal to me, although I wouldn't say that I loathe him.
Reasoned passion appeals to me. People who are passionate about something, have deep knowledge about it, and who can express that passion politely appeals, even if I do not agree with their central view.
For instance, I'm a great fan of Lord Adonis, whose views I have a great deal of sympathy with. Nick Palmer's a contrary example: he has deep knowledge of animal welfare issues, and although I don't agree with all of it, I respect those views.
What gets on my goat is when elected representatives spout off about something they obviously have no idea of, and where their thoughts are obviously connected directly to the hive-mind at their party's HQ.
For instance, I'm not particularly fond of Ben Bradshaw. But he just gave an articulate and factually correct interview on BBC news where he outlined the alternatives for the Dawlish rail route. And with only a minimum of political point scoring. True, he's an MP in nearby Exeter and so should know about it, but he went up slightly in my estimation.
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
No, because they didn't have to go into politics in the first place. Even getting started as a prospective candidate is a grindingly difficult task; the few who eventually succeed at that then have to campaign, if they get elected they have to work all hours not only in parliament but in excrutiatingly boring constituency work and social occasions, all of that might come to nothing much if they are in opposition for years, first as backbench MPs, then if they do finally find themselves on the government side they've still got little chance of hitting the big time, and can be brought down at any moment by a banana-skin as Mark Harper was, and they have to fave vituperation and cynicism from the press and public who give them little credit for the difficulty of weighing up contradictory aims and constraints.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
And it looks as though the roads network is feeling jealous of the rail network's problems: the M2's closed after a ruddy big hole appeared in the central reservation.
Good news for anyone who followed me in on Tidal Bay for the National at 25-1
He will run off a weight equivalent mark of 161, 7 lbs off his official mark ! Although he will be top weight running with 11 stone 10 it is the mark that is important, not the actual weight (Lower ranked horses will run with more)
Obviously he's long in the tooth now but the way he finished the Hennessy (2nd) was encouraging for a longer trip.
Dropped to 16-1 generally, best price 20-1 Skybet in to 14-1.
Bit of a heart bet this one too as it would be fairytale stuff if he was to win at 13, though today's news from the handicapper was very encouraging.
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
No, because they didn't have to go into politics in the first place. Even getting started as a prospective candidate is a grindingly difficult task; the few who eventually succeed at that then have to campaign, if they get elected they have to work all hours not only in parliament but in excrutiatingly boring constituency work and social occasions, all of that might come to nothing much if they are in opposition for years, first as backbench MPs, then if they do finally find themselves on the government side they've still got little chance of hitting the big time, and can be brought down at any moment by a banana-skin as Mark Harper was, and they have to fave vituperation and cynicism from the press and public who give them little credit for the difficulty of weighing up contradictory aims and constraints.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
That may have been true once. But with all three major parties led by career politicians, the idea of politics as a noble calling rather than just another profession is hard to credit.
The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.
Who makes the decision of whether an exemption applies:
(3)The required statement is a statement as to whether, in the Minister's opinion, the treaty or Article 48(6) decision falls within section 4.
That's a standard type of clause. It does not mean that the minister could arbitrarily decide that something important didn't matter, since such a decision could (and undoubtedly would) be subject to judicial review.
That may have been true once. But with all three major parties led by career politicians, the idea of politics as a noble calling rather than just another profession is hard to credit.
You wouldnt do it for love nor money though, would you?
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
A lot of left-wingers do dislike Cameron (presumably based on his social background, rather than policy differences).
Honestly, much as I'd like to say otherwise, I don't get the sense Cameron is truly detested on a personal level among average Labour voters. People definitely do think he's out of touch and doesn't care how their lives are, but I think on a personal level he strikes a lot of people as quite amiable and reasonable. That still doesn't mean they'll vote for him, mind (much as the media assumes the electorate are fooled by showmanship or "charisma", people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between who would be good company for a drink, and who they think is going to make their lives better--witness how, at the last two elections running, the Lib Dem leader was by far the most "liked" of the 3 main party leaders yet the party still came a distant 3rd).
It's George Osborne who genuinely inspires loathing among the average person in my experience. People (not just leftie political activists) genuinely think of him as evil, that he comes across as an unpleasant person, the general I-want-to-punch-the-TV-screen-when-he-comes-on feeling.
Osborne certainly doesn't appeal to me, although I wouldn't say that I loathe him.
At the risk of really shocking you all I really like Osborne. He has always seemed a lot more comfortable in his skin than Cameron does. He goes on expensive holidays, he associates with posh people like Mandelson on yachts, he is intellectually arrogant, he doesn't seek to hide his disdain for those who thinking is less than clear. Can you imagine him taking his wife on an easyjet flight or staying in a 3 star hotel for a birthday? Not a chance. He is content to be who he is.
This does not necessarily make him a successful politician of course. The range of people he can easily relate to is quite limited. But I am very glad we have had him as Chancellor in some of the more difficult years of my life for the UK economy.
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
No, because they didn't have to go into politics in the first place. Even getting started as a prospective candidate is a grindingly difficult task; the few who eventually succeed at that then have to campaign, if they get elected they have to work all hours not only in parliament but in excrutiatingly boring constituency work and social occasions, all of that might come to nothing much if they are in opposition for years, first as backbench MPs, then if they do finally find themselves on the government side they've still got little chance of hitting the big time, and can be brought down at any moment by a banana-skin as Mark Harper was, and they have to fave vituperation and cynicism from the press and public who give them little credit for the difficulty of weighing up contradictory aims and constraints.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
Yep. I'm in no doubt whatever that I'd have had a more comfortable life if I'd never gone near politics, and the same is true of most of the others I know. Obviously nobody does anything without mixed motives, and non-monetary attractions are there: it was vastly more interesting than my old job as an IT department head for Novartis. But it's pointlessly cynical to argue that most politicians do it for self-gratification.
A good selective question is whether politicians would do it if they knew for sure that they weren't going to be Ministers - that would separate the "part of a movement" to "in it for personal satisfaction" categories.
That may have been true once. But with all three major parties led by career politicians, the idea of politics as a noble calling rather than just another profession is hard to credit.
You wouldnt do it for love nor money though, would you?
Why would they go into politics if they felt that way? You have to do so much donkey work just to get to a position where you earn modest money for very long hours, it just isn't worth it. By the way, do you work at Slaughter & May? If so, I may have walked past you this morning.
Whilst I want to leave I doubt we will. Conservatives are unlikely to win an outright majority. Labour to be in power is likeliest, and even if they're in coalition with the Lib Dems neither party would want a referendum (odd, given how Labour promised one over Lisbon in 2005, as did the Lib Dems who also had an In/Out vote in another manifesto, bit there we are).
It's an academic debate.
I don't expect a Labour government to postpone the general election after next indefinitely, nor do I expect the rising tide of Euroscepticism to recede. 2020 may seem a long time away now, but it's closer to us in the future then the run on Northern Rock is to us in the past.
If we assume that Miliband becomes PM after the next election, and consequently Cameron resigns, is it a racing certainty that a BOOer will become leader of the Conservative party, or will all the candidates bend their knee sufficiently to the Eurosceptic majority that BOOer candidates will appear a bit too fruitcakey, and the official Tory policy will continue to be to stay within a reformed EU?
That may have been true once. But with all three major parties led by career politicians, the idea of politics as a noble calling rather than just another profession is hard to credit.
They are career politicians precisely because it is so damned hard. As we have seen many times, when you do get outsiders brought in, they all too often fall foul of the vicious barracking and trap-setting of the media.
The public invariably say they want plain-speaking from politicians, but the media and the public mercilessly lay into any politicians who make even the most minor misspeak.
The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.
Who makes the decision of whether an exemption applies:
(3)The required statement is a statement as to whether, in the Minister's opinion, the treaty or Article 48(6) decision falls within section 4.
That's a standard type of clause. It does not mean that the minister could arbitrarily decide that something important didn't matter, since such a decision could (and undoubtedly would) be subject to judicial review.
No Richard there is plenty of doubt to go around as there is whenever it becomes a question of legal opinion. There is only one thing that is certain. Only the Government has what is effectively unlimited resources to fight such legal battles.
Mr. Nabavi, you're spot on. The media's scalp-hunting and the 90% negativity not only means that politicians get slammed for anything, it also means they themselves prefer to sling mud.
Why would they go into politics if they felt that way? You have to do so much donkey work just to get to a position where you earn modest money for very long hours, it just isn't worth it. By the way, do you work at Slaughter & May? If so, I may have walked past you this morning.
So far as I can see, the average politician is bright but intellectually narrow, enjoys telling other people what to do, has boundless though unjustified self-confidence in his (it is usually his) own abilities but is herdlike in instinct. A political career has quite an appeal to such a personality.
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
No, because they didn't have to go into politics in the first place. Even getting started as a prospective candidate is a grindingly difficult task; the few who eventually succeed at that then have to campaign, if they get elected they have to work all hours not only in parliament but in excrutiatingly boring constituency work and social occasions, all of that might come to nothing much if they are in opposition for years, first as backbench MPs, then if they do finally find themselves on the government side they've still got little chance of hitting the big time, and can be brought down at any moment by a banana-skin as Mark Harper was, and they have to fave vituperation and cynicism from the press and public who give them little credit for the difficulty of weighing up contradictory aims and constraints.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
Yep. I'm in no doubt whatever that I'd have had a more comfortable life if I'd never gone near politics, and the same is true of most of the others I know. Obviously nobody does anything without mixed motives, and non-monetary attractions are there: it was vastly more interesting than my old job as an IT department head for Novartis. But it's pointlessly cynical to argue that most politicians do it for self-gratification.
A good selective question is whether politicians would do it if they knew for sure that they weren't going to be Ministers - that would separate the "part of a movement" to "in it for personal satisfaction" categories.
UKIP emailed yesterday saying they needed Local Election Candidates...you don't recommended it?
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
No, because they didn't have to go into politics in the first place. Even getting started as a prospective candidate is a grindingly difficult task; the few who eventually succeed at that then have to campaign, if they get elected they have to work all hours not only in parliament but in excrutiatingly boring constituency work and social occasions, all of that might come to nothing much if they are in opposition for years, first as backbench MPs, then if they do finally find themselves on the government side they've still got little chance of hitting the big time, and can be brought down at any moment by a banana-skin as Mark Harper was, and they have to fave vituperation and cynicism from the press and public who give them little credit for the difficulty of weighing up contradictory aims and constraints.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
Yep. I'm in no doubt whatever that I'd have had a more comfortable life if I'd never gone near politics, and the same is true of most of the others I know. Obviously nobody does anything without mixed motives, and non-monetary attractions are there: it was vastly more interesting than my old job as an IT department head for Novartis. But it's pointlessly cynical to argue that most politicians do it for self-gratification.
A good selective question is whether politicians would do it if they knew for sure that they weren't going to be Ministers - that would separate the "part of a movement" to "in it for personal satisfaction" categories.
UKIP emailed yesterday saying they needed Local Election Candidates...you don't recommended it?
Presumably they need paper candidates in your part of the world. No effort required.
The problem with Cameron is that "doing his best" means "surviving in power" rather than doing what's best for the country, which is secondary. I also think it is deeply problematic to have someone seemingly absent of moral philosophy.
PS. How Christian Democratic was it to support Israel's war in Lebanon, or exaggerating matters of life and death to justify the invasion of Iraq?
I think that Cameron Conservatives basically feel the country's OK and just needs to be managed well by, er, them. So they'd equate staying in power with looking after the country. Richard N, to take their most prominent fan here, pretty much says as much several times a day: essentially "if Labour gets in, we'll go to pot, but if the Tories stay in, all will be well". He doesn't say, "...so that we can reduce tax to 15%" or "...so that we can privatise local authorities" or anything else drastic.
I don't remember Christian Democrats taking a hostile view over either Israel in Lebanon or the war in Iraq? German CDs in particular are usually strongly pro-Israel, for sympathetic historical reasons. (If you mean Christian and Democratic in abstract terms, then we get into a arcane field of whether party names mean anything.)
That may have been true once. But with all three major parties led by career politicians, the idea of politics as a noble calling rather than just another profession is hard to credit.
They are career politicians precisely because it is so damned hard. As we have seen many times, when you do get outsiders brought in, they all too often fall foul of the vicious barracking and trap-setting of the media.
The public invariably say they want plain-speaking from politicians, but the media and the public mercilessly lay into any politicians who make even the most minor misspeak.
I agree with all of that. The path to the top is long and difficult. It is a rare individual who can make it without honing down nearly all the more interesting parts of their personality or beliefs. And then we blame them for being dull or synthetic. Exactly the way we made them.
Mr. Nabavi, you're spot on. The media's scalp-hunting and the 90% negativity not only means that politicians get slammed for anything, it also means they themselves prefer to sling mud.
My impression of Labour under Blair and Brown was it was their primary characteristic.
So far as I can see, the average politician is bright but intellectually narrow, enjoys telling other people what to do, has boundless though unjustified self-confidence in his (it is usually his) own abilities but is herdlike in instinct. A political career has quite an appeal to such a personality.
That's funny, antifrank: The description "bright but intellectually narrow, enjoys telling other people what to do, has boundless though unjustified self-confidence in his (it is usually his) own abilities" fits the lawyers I know very well indeed. I'll grant you that they're not herdlike, though - more prima donnas than members of the herd.
More seriously, politicians absolutely have to have boundless self-confidence, or perhaps resilience would be a better word. It is a profession of never-ending disappointments, from the dozens of rejections they'll get in constituency selection meetings (having put in massive efforts) onwards.
That may have been true once. But with all three major parties led by career politicians, the idea of politics as a noble calling rather than just another profession is hard to credit.
You wouldnt do it for love nor money though, would you?
Power is a motivator too.
"Power flows only to the one who knows how!" - Megatron in "Transformers: Arrival from Cybertron".
Oh well I'm off. I don't have a violin to play background sympathy music for the plight of politicians who by deceiving the electorate in one form or another tend to invite much of the criticism (justified or not) that they receive.
And whilst this sympathy fest motivated throng is clearly in the mood to feel sorry for our poor hard done by politicians lets not forget that while these outpourings of sympathy take place that other poor people's lives are floating down the Thames..........
I think that Cameron Conservatives basically feel the country's OK and just needs to be managed well by, er, them. So they'd equate staying in power with looking after the country. Richard N, to take their most prominent fan here, pretty much says as much several times a day: essentially "if Labour gets in, we'll go to pot, but if the Tories stay in, all will be well". He doesn't say, "...so that we can reduce tax to 15%" or "...so that we can privatise local authorities" or anything else drastic.
That's not quite my view. I see it more as a question of direction: we start from the world as it is, and I want to move it in ways which make it better rather than worse. That means (to take your specific examples) that I'd like to see lower taxes than we have, rather than higher taxes, and I'd like to see more efficiency in local government, so yes please to more use of the private sector. However, this is all within the bounds of what is politically possible, especially bearing in mind that you can't fight major battles on all fronts. In any case it takes time to achieve anything in government. Some of those on the right - for example, those like Fraser Nelson who think the government should be cutting the deficit much faster - are simply too impatient; they are right in principle, but reality is reality.
Vastly amusing to see obsequious Cameroons with the memory of a goldfish trying to assert that everything will be fine if the kippers would only believe Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges.
A huge chunk of his own MPs don't trust him so you've no chance of persuading kippers. Those MPs keep humiliating Cammie in the commons for a reason and it's not going to stop now. It's only going to get worse particularly after Cammie caved in to them over immigration.
That's far too kind to politicians, and putting the cart before the horse. Nearly all politicians, of all parties, think that what is best for the country just happens to be the thing that is best for that politician.
No, because they didn't have to go into politics in the first place. Even getting started as a prospective candidate is a grindingly difficult task; the few who eventually succeed at that then have to campaign, if they get elected they have to work all hours not only in parliament but in excrutiatingly boring constituency work and social occasions, all of that might come to nothing much if they are in opposition for years, first as backbench MPs, then if they do finally find themselves on the government side they've still got little chance of hitting the big time, and can be brought down at any moment by a banana-skin as Mark Harper was, and they have to fave vituperation and cynicism from the press and public who give them little credit for the difficulty of weighing up contradictory aims and constraints.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
Yep. I'm in no doubt whatever that I'd have had a more comfortable life if I'd never gone near politics, and the same is true of most of the others I know. Obviously nobody does anything without mixed motives, and non-monetary attractions are there: it was vastly more interesting than my old job as an IT department head for Novartis. But it's pointlessly cynical to argue that most politicians do it for self-gratification.
A good selective question is whether politicians would do it if they knew for sure that they weren't going to be Ministers - that would separate the "part of a movement" to "in it for personal satisfaction" categories.
UKIP emailed yesterday saying they needed Local Election Candidates...you don't recommended it?
Presumably they need paper candidates in your part of the world. No effort required.
That's it.. to be honest my job means I have lots of free time on weekday mornings and afternoons, and I could do with something to pass the time! Maybe should go for the full candidature, although I don't really want leaflets with my picture etc being sent all round Hornchurch and Upminster!
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
If you do (mistakenly or otherwise) get elected as a local councillor - how much time commitment does it actually take? (The being a councillor part, not the telling the electorate how good or otherwise you are...)
the outcome is much more likely to be hegemony by a very unpopular Labour Party.
Isnt that almost a contradiction in terms? You cant tell us one the one hand that Ed will be an unmitigated disaster but that on the other he'll still get re-elected despite being an unmitigated disaster.
Why not? If the opposition are divided, unmitigated disasters get reelected faute de mieux
One of only two golden rules of politics is that "opposition will always find a way" (the other is that "all regimes fall eventually".
A very unpopular Labour Party would not keep getting re-elected by default. There is a reason that UKIP is polling well now - it's that there's not enough option within the three main Westminster Parties (or the Greens) to satisfy disgruntled voters. Our system - indeed, anyone's system - is not set in stone. Not long ago in Greece, New Democracy and Pasok won 80%+ of the vote between them. Now they poll around a third. Obviously, they've been through a massive trauma but it illustrates the point.
If there were a Labour government that was deeply unpopular and out of touch, say in coalition with the Lib Dems, so they weren't an opposition option, and say the Tories had succumbed to infighting over Europe, voters would still find a way of expressing their displeasure. In the short term, the structure might hold but not for more than one election. If it persisted, there'd either be a realignment of some sort from above (splits, mergings or whatever), or from below, with the rise of wholly new parties.
(Oh, and the article goes by the ludicrous "8.4 million lines of code" argument, that shows that the author and politicians should be locked in a room and not let out until they learn about software development).
Comments
And I haven't even started on how useless the Tory Party has been for conservative-minded people in this country when it comes to public spending, education, the family, foreign policy, defence and on many other issues.
I follow the Peter Hitchens doctrine: it's time to flush the Unconservatives down the toilet and replace them.
http://www.conservefor.co.uk/case_studies/9
To bring it back onto topic, a large amount of the erosion is the EU's fault. Years ago the EU gave landowners grants to cut channels in the blanket bog to allow greater run-off. Sadly this, in conjunction with acidification, led to massive amounts of erosion. Move on a couple of decades, and the EU now give grants to block those channels up and restore the moorland ...
(2) Wouldnt the referendum just be on whether to accept the treaty or not?
(3) Noone in Europe seems to want a new treaty
Even assuming the UKIP leadership went for that, plenty of supporters would either stay at home, or revert to non-Conservative parties.
You are rather rude at times. I don't doubt you are a very nice person but telling fellow posters that they should joking the English remedial class, and describing the perfectly decent Ed Miliband as an "unmitigated disaster" is just gauche.
You had a choice between my strategy, which has a chance (I admit not a very high one) of working, and the strategy being pursued, which has zero chance of succeeding in anything like a reasonable timescale, and which will take the UK in every respect further away from what UKIP supporters want.
That is the reality; it really is quite simple. Tilting at windmills won't alter it.
OUT the philes
For anyone that would like to take part and hasn't already entered, the game will close at 7pm tomorrow:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/wythenshawe/
Many thanks,
DC
There is something Quixotic about some UKIP supporters.
http://www.iea.org.uk/brexit
For the avoidance of doubt, though, I should say that I like Ed Miliband personally. I think he's honest, decent, quite clever, and quite witty. He's just completely wrong.
Wouldn't it more likely mean a winnable referendum in the first year of the next Conservative parliament, with a BOO leader, and UKIP MPs to boot?
Now we've got that of the way... right wing or left wing?
PS. How Christian Democratic was it to support Israel's war in Lebanon, or exaggerating matters of life and death to justify the invasion of Iraq?
Nada. Nothing. Zip.
If Cameron believes one is possible, he is being incredibly disingenuous.
However, it is possible for there to be a published "general statement of agreement" between the Heads of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. This would incorporate what everyone had agreed would go into the inevitable 2022 treaty.
Assuming the EU and the Eurozone stay together, there will be an early next decade treaty, because the Eurozone needs a number of fundamental changes to be put in place (such as the banking union, clarity on the OMT, etc.) to ensure that it is able to weather the inevitable next crisis.
Cameron's negotiating 'stick' is that he can threaten to block the EU making the treaty changes that the Eurozone desperately needs. In addition, there is no doubt that the Germans, the Poles, the Dutch and the Spanish are (currently) fairly well disposed towards us.
What is theoretically possible - and I think we can safely exclude the ability to negotiate our own trade deals, and restrictions on intra-EU migration - is:
1. Repatriation of CAP. (I.e., we're responsible for our own farm subsidies, but don't pay for the French's). Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Frankly, everyone except a few Eastern Europeans and the French hate the CAP. To happen, though, would need the French to have a crisis which would require the Germans to bail them out.
2. A reduction in our fees. Always possible, especially if they think the alternative is losing *all* the money we put in.
3. Safeguards regarding EU financial regulation. Clearly something the London financial services community would push hard for, but not something anyone outside the capital gives a fig about.
4. A breakage of the requirement to be signed up to the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The Germans are well disposed to allow this - but, as has been pointed out we would still be subject to the ECHR/ECJ for issues qua the EU (but not, for example, votes for prisoners).
The UK version also tends to view the extension of individual rights to corporate bodies to be anathema whilst in the US this is very much the norm.
4. Cases where treaty or Article 48(6) decision attracts a referendum
(1)Subject to subsection (4), a treaty or an Article 48(6) decision falls within this section if it involves one or more of the following—
(a)the extension of the objectives of the EU as set out in Article 3 of TEU;
(b)the conferring on the EU of a new exclusive competence;
(c)the extension of an exclusive competence of the EU;
(d)the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States;
(e)the extension of any competence of the EU that is shared with the member States;
(f)the extension of the competence of the EU in relation to—
(i)the co-ordination of economic and employment policies, or
(ii)common foreign and security policy;
(g)the conferring on the EU of a new competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of member States;
(h)the extension of a supporting, co-ordinating or supplementing competence of the EU;
(i)the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom, or the removal of any limitation on any such power of an EU institution or body;
(j)the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom;
(k)any amendment of a provision listed in Schedule 1 that removes a requirement that anything should be done unanimously, by consensus or by common accord;
(l)any amendment of Article 31(2) of TEU (decisions relating to common foreign and security policy to which qualified majority voting applies) that removes or amends the provision enabling a member of the Council to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority voting;
(m)any amendment of any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) that removes or amends the provision enabling a member of the Council, in relation to a draft legislative act, to ensure the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure........
However there is an exemption:
The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.
Who makes the decision of whether an exemption applies:
(3)The required statement is a statement as to whether, in the Minister's opinion, the treaty or Article 48(6) decision falls within section 4.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/part/1/crossheading/restrictions-relating-to-amendments-of-teu-or-tfeu
(Which as an aside, does mean that Labour hasn't won a workable majority with a leader 'of their movement' since 1966).
A kind and gracious response, thanks.
For the record, I have no problem with people opposing each other's politics - it's the conflating this with personal dislike (even though many posters have not met these people) which I find deeply unedifying.
I'd say this is a pretty likely scenario - maybe an Evens shot.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100092851/the-house-of-lords-has-removed-the-governments-eu-referendum-lock/
This is why anything Cameron returns with is worthless. He and the EU can promise the moon and then as soon as a vote to remain has been won they can simply forget about it and carry on with every closer union. He must know this as well which is just one more reason why Eurosceptics do not trust him.
It's George Osborne who genuinely inspires loathing among the average person in my experience. People (not just leftie political activists) genuinely think of him as evil, that he comes across as an unpleasant person, the general I-want-to-punch-the-TV-screen-when-he-comes-on feeling.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/contents
http://www.notre-europe.eu/media/towardseuropeanfederation-godinoverdier-ne-jdi-feb14.pdf?pdf=ok
Its not who they were when they entered politics but what politics turns them into that often is the problem. The only people who can change that without real conflict are those at the heart of politics and sadly for too many they make no attempt at all.
The Federation could comprise six or seven countries, on the basis of each country’s wishes. Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Spain and possibly also Poland could subscribe to this resolutely federal move
That could be our way out of the morass.
Whilst I want to leave I doubt we will. Conservatives are unlikely to win an outright majority. Labour to be in power is likeliest, and even if they're in coalition with the Lib Dems neither party would want a referendum (odd, given how Labour promised one over Lisbon in 2005, as did the Lib Dems who also had an In/Out vote in another manifesto, bit there we are).
It's an academic debate.
For instance, I'm a great fan of Lord Adonis, whose views I have a great deal of sympathy with. Nick Palmer's a contrary example: he has deep knowledge of animal welfare issues, and although I don't agree with all of it, I respect those views.
What gets on my goat is when elected representatives spout off about something they obviously have no idea of, and where their thoughts are obviously connected directly to the hive-mind at their party's HQ.
For instance, I'm not particularly fond of Ben Bradshaw. But he just gave an articulate and factually correct interview on BBC news where he outlined the alternatives for the Dawlish rail route. And with only a minimum of political point scoring. True, he's an MP in nearby Exeter and so should know about it, but he went up slightly in my estimation.
They don't have to take all this flak; most of them could take the easy way out and become highly-paid lawyers, bankers or bureaucrats, or just carp from the sidelines.
"As anyone who has watched Big Bang Theory will know, Fruit Loops are an American breakfast cereal."
Thanks. I watch Big Bang Theory but must have missed that one.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/m2-motorway-shuts-after-50ft-hole-appears-in-central-reservation-9121946.html
He will run off a weight equivalent mark of 161, 7 lbs off his official mark ! Although he will be top weight running with 11 stone 10 it is the mark that is important, not the actual weight (Lower ranked horses will run with more)
Obviously he's long in the tooth now but the way he finished the Hennessy (2nd) was encouraging for a longer trip.
Dropped to 16-1 generally, best price 20-1 Skybet in to 14-1.
Bit of a heart bet this one too as it would be fairytale stuff if he was to win at 13, though today's news from the handicapper was very encouraging.
This does not necessarily make him a successful politician of course. The range of people he can easily relate to is quite limited. But I am very glad we have had him as Chancellor in some of the more difficult years of my life for the UK economy.
A good selective question is whether politicians would do it if they knew for sure that they weren't going to be Ministers - that would separate the "part of a movement" to "in it for personal satisfaction" categories.
Why would they go into politics if they felt that way? You have to do so much donkey work just to get to a position where you earn modest money for very long hours, it just isn't worth it. By the way, do you work at Slaughter & May? If so, I may have walked past you this morning.
If we assume that Miliband becomes PM after the next election, and consequently Cameron resigns, is it a racing certainty that a BOOer will become leader of the Conservative party, or will all the candidates bend their knee sufficiently to the Eurosceptic majority that BOOer candidates will appear a bit too fruitcakey, and the official Tory policy will continue to be to stay within a reformed EU?
The public invariably say they want plain-speaking from politicians, but the media and the public mercilessly lay into any politicians who make even the most minor misspeak.
http://t.co/XRvaZJDnTL
I don't remember Christian Democrats taking a hostile view over either Israel in Lebanon or the war in Iraq? German CDs in particular are usually strongly pro-Israel, for sympathetic historical reasons. (If you mean Christian and Democratic in abstract terms, then we get into a arcane field of whether party names mean anything.)
I agree with all of that. The path to the top is long and difficult. It is a rare individual who can make it without honing down nearly all the more interesting parts of their personality or beliefs. And then we blame them for being dull or synthetic. Exactly the way we made them.
More seriously, politicians absolutely have to have boundless self-confidence, or perhaps resilience would be a better word. It is a profession of never-ending disappointments, from the dozens of rejections they'll get in constituency selection meetings (having put in massive efforts) onwards.
Sadly lacking in the debates last time.
@MattChorley: A Labour frontbencher gets in touch: "Ed does look a bit of a drip. I don't know why he went" http://t.co/582quXDJxo http://t.co/pD7WgMITUF
And whilst this sympathy fest motivated throng is clearly in the mood to feel sorry for our poor hard done by politicians lets not forget that while these outpourings of sympathy take place that other poor people's lives are floating down the Thames..........
A huge chunk of his own MPs don't trust him so you've no chance of persuading kippers.
Those MPs keep humiliating Cammie in the commons for a reason and it's not going to stop now. It's only going to get worse particularly after Cammie caved in to them over immigration.
Interesting approach
The risk of being a UKIP candidate in that part of the world is that you could accidentally end up getting elected. I really doubt you want that! (I live in fear of the other parties messing up their nominations whenever I stand as a paper candidate!)
A very unpopular Labour Party would not keep getting re-elected by default. There is a reason that UKIP is polling well now - it's that there's not enough option within the three main Westminster Parties (or the Greens) to satisfy disgruntled voters. Our system - indeed, anyone's system - is not set in stone. Not long ago in Greece, New Democracy and Pasok won 80%+ of the vote between them. Now they poll around a third. Obviously, they've been through a massive trauma but it illustrates the point.
If there were a Labour government that was deeply unpopular and out of touch, say in coalition with the Lib Dems, so they weren't an opposition option, and say the Tories had succumbed to infighting over Europe, voters would still find a way of expressing their displeasure. In the short term, the structure might hold but not for more than one election. If it persisted, there'd either be a realignment of some sort from above (splits, mergings or whatever), or from below, with the rise of wholly new parties.
That completely depends on the approach taken to the role. Most people I know end up committing way too much time to it!
The government is about to commit to buying 14 F35-B fighter aircraft.
For £2.5 billion, including support costs. That's about £180 million a pop.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26124894
Let the blame game commence...
(Oh, and the article goes by the ludicrous "8.4 million lines of code" argument, that shows that the author and politicians should be locked in a room and not let out until they learn about software development).