Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Because (a) he has always honoured promises in the past, but, more importantly, (b) there is absolutely zero possibility of him remaining leader if he doesn't. He had enough trouble holding the agreed line in this parliament. If he didn't honour the promise which has now been formally made, he'd not only face the wrath of those MPs who always wanted a referendum immediately and who have only very reluctantly accepted a delay, but he'd also face the wrath of those who think that the commitment has been made and must be honoured. Those two categories represent the vast majority of both Conservative MPs and the party as a whole.
Except that UKIP supporters anticipate that Cameron will welsh on this promise, either by not holding it all, or by losing it and then not acting on it.
Quite so. That demonstrates either that they are completely bonkers, or, more likely, are looking for any excuse not to have their bluff called.
Let there be no doubt: there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Cameron could welch on the referendum promise, even if he wanted to (which he doesn't). He would be absolutely crucified by the Conservative Party (including by Cameroons like me).
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Twelve Stars to rule them all, Twelve Stars to find them, Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Because (a) he has always honoured promises in the past, but, more importantly, (b) there is absolutely zero possibility of him remaining leader if he doesn't. He had enough trouble holding the agreed line in this parliament. If he didn't honour the promise which has now been formally made, he'd not only face the wrath of those MPs who always wanted a referendum immediately and who have only very reluctantly accepted a delay. but he'd also face the wrath of those who think that the commitment has been made and must be honoured. Those two categories represent the vast majority of both Conservative MPs and the party as a whole.
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Mr. Bond, I never saw the original Romana (in my defence I wasn't born at the time), but I do recall seeing Lalla Ward make her début in Destiny of the Daleks (I got it on VHS).
Bah. New Who cocked up Davros as well as the Master. And the daleks. And the Doctor. Weeping Angels are nice though.
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Because (a) he has always honoured promises in the past, but, more importantly, (b) there is absolutely zero possibility of him remaining leader if he doesn't. He had enough trouble holding the agreed line in this parliament. If he didn't honour the promise which has now been formally made, he'd not only face the wrath of those MPs who always wanted a referendum immediately and who have only very reluctantly accepted a delay, but he'd also face the wrath of those who think that the commitment has been made and must be honoured. Those two categories represent the vast majority of both Conservative MPs and the party as a whole.
It's always nice when self-interest and principle coincide!
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
Ah yes, the bonkers theme Richard.
Do you ever stop to ask yourself if a politican who has alienated a chunk of his core vote to the point they leave, or go on a vote strike, but who hasn't picked up any votes from the segments he is targetting, might not be the bonkers one ?
As a self confessed Cameroon, can you explain what Cameronism actually is, since self evidently it's struggling to gain a wider appeal ?
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
As a self confessed Cameroon, can you explain what Cameronism actually is, since self evidently it's struggling to gain a wider appeal ?
Sure, I've explained it many times: it is governing well, in the interests of the whole country, based on what is realistically possible, taking account of the whole picture and the difficult choices which necessarily have to be made, in the Conservative tradition of R A Butler, Harold Macmillan, and many others.
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
A wrought iron guarantee would have been much smarter.
All it would have required was a finery forge and pudding furnace.
It'll be interesting to see if the teachers' strike has any effect on the opinion polls. It obviously wouldn't make much of a difference but it might shift a point one way or other.
If the mood at the school gate yesterday is anything to go by then Gove's popularity is on the up - this strike is about as popular as a porcupine at a nudist disco with parents.
What do malingering teachers want now? Longer holidays, or more Inset days?
They want to block performance related pay coming in next September - just the NUT holding out - the saner unions didn't participate this time.
Observing the demeanour of those on the demo I'm glad I don't have a child in school seeing them as role models.
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
A wrought iron guarantee would have been much smarter.
I've just attempted to visit there, only to find I'm re-directed to their main site, where surprise, surprise their constituency betting markets are simply nowhere to be found. This is absolutely crazy and incredibly frustrating considering this is about their third attempt over the recent past to rectify their nightmarish website, still seemingly without any real success.
The markets are there, but they are extremely well hidden - it is indeed the most user-hostile website known to mankind.
1) From the Politics page, click on 'See All' in the left-hand panel
2) You should get some extra categories appearing in the panel. One of them is 'UK General Election (1)'. You might naively think this means there's only one market available, but click on it all the same.
3) You should get one seat come up (currently Bermondsey & Southwark). In the header for that market, it says "04 May 2015 00:00 Next General Election Constitu..." followed by a number and a right arrow. The number is currently 104 (the number of constituency markets available). Click on the 104.
4) Voila!
Many thanks for that Richard - it's nothing short of miraculous that you succeeded in finding these markets ....... what a complete and utter bloody shambles from the bookie which was once so pre-eminent. Shadsy must be tearing his hair out!
Small wonder that they have been going backwards at a rate of knots over recent years.
With a current market cap of £1.23bn, they are dwarfed by Hills' £3.04bn, and are half the size of IG Group's £2.39bn and appear likely to be overtaken by Betfair any time soon, who are capitalized at £1.14bn.
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
All those nobodies cost Cameron his majority, it seems.
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
A wrought iron guarantee would have been much smarter.
Or even stainless steel?
But then all the fun of taking the slag out of pig iron would be missed.
As a self confessed Cameroon, can you explain what Cameronism actually is, since self evidently it's struggling to gain a wider appeal ?
Sure, I've explained it many times: it is governing well, in the interests of the whole country, based on what is realistically possible, taking account of the whole picture and the difficult choices which necessarily have to be made, in the Conservative tradition of R A Butler, Harold Macmillan, and many others.
There's clearly a huge difference between the theory and the practice.
Mr. Putney, what do you make, regarding spread bets, of the first race?
I dare say we were both right on Maldonado, Bottas as a buy seems good, and Vettel could go either way (I suspect you'll end up being right on that one). I got Raikkonen utterly wrong. The Ferrari's a bit rubbish and he seems to be struggling.
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
A wrought iron guarantee would have been much smarter.
Or even stainless steel?
But then all the fun of taking the slag out of pig iron would be missed.
Feel free to go off and find an article - any article - from the time which shows me to be wrong.
You might be away for a long time...
I think you'll find Richard I was talking about your average white van voter who takes what is said at face value rather than walk around with his lawyer to examine the small print.
Cameron's cast-iron pledge wasn't so much a broken pledge as just crap politics, he raised expectations to a level where he could only fail if he didn't follow through.
Thing is how would someone like myself who is a determined eurosceptic but doesn't necessarily want to throw my dummy out of the pram respond if answering this poll. There are circumstances where I'd consider leaving (any drive towards a U.S of E being one) but that point is not now (or not yet). Also there's been a few more positive Euro stories recently (Siemens and Hitachi whose forthcoming investments might have at least in part something to do with our membership). There's also the sense several European countries are heading in a eurosceptic direction. Therefore I'm quite happy to see how things play out. As in Scotland the don't yet knows will swing this.
It' so clear cut it almost makes you wonder how he got into the mess of a sizable chunk of Righties just rolling their eyes and saying "yeah like that's going to happen"
Well, quite. I think that tells you more about those rolling their eyes than it tells you about David Cameron.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
A wrought iron guarantee would have been much smarter.
All it would have required was a finery forge and pudding furnace.
Indeed. a quick google discloses that cast iron is notable for its fragility. Perhaps that was the point...
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
Actually I don't think that was the main factor, the main factor was Osborne (quite rightly) telling the truth about the public finances, widely regarded at the time as dangerously honest:
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
Thing is how would someone like myself who is a determined eurosceptic but doesn't necessarily want to throw my dummy out of the pram respond if answering this poll. There are circumstances where I'd consider leaving (any drive towards a U.S of E being one) but that point is not now (or not yet). Also there's been a few more positive Euro stories recently (Siemens and Hitachi whose forthcoming investments might have at least in part something to do with our membership). There's also the sense several European countries are heading in a eurosceptic direction. Therefore I'm quite happy to see how things play out. As in Scotland the don't yet knows will swing this.
Maybe I am imagining this but has a slow swing to Staying In been taking place over recent months in the opinion polls? If that is the case, I wonder if it has anything to do with UKIP's greater visibility. They seem to be a marmite kind of party. Very liked by the minority who like them, but not at all popular with the majority who don't. Maybe people are thinking: "If UKIP is for it, I am against it."
Mr. Putney, what do you make, regarding spread bets, of the first race?
I dare say we were both right on Maldonado, Bottas as a buy seems good, and Vettel could go either way (I suspect you'll end up being right on that one). I got Raikkonen utterly wrong. The Ferrari's a bit rubbish and he seems to be struggling.
Morris - Before the start of the Oz GP, I sold (and thereby closed) my bet on Vettel at 200 points having bought him at 186 to realise a very tidy profit. I'm still holding my buy of Kimi Raikkonen - for some reason the betting market has taken against him big time , illustrated by the fact that he's as big as 50/1 against winning the Malaysian GP next weekend. Yes, Ferrari have their problems but his chances are better than these odds suggest.
Mr. Putney, not so sure on Raikkonen. He appears to have real issues with the car. On top of that, Alonso was about equal on pace with Hulkenberg in the Force India. That's behind Mercedes, Williams, Red Bull and McLaren.
Mr. LP, to be fair, wrought iron's bendy, is it not? Whereas cast-iron, though harder, is brittle (or so says a book on elements I'm reading).
It is both more malleable and stronger as a result.
Just like a good Tory leader should be.
Fascinating stuff wrought iron. It is no longer produced, the last British forge closing in the mid 70s. There is a supplier up near you (whose name temporarily eludes me) who uses reclaimed wrought iron to make or repair listed gates and railings, but the costs are enormous and their output is only used in high profile projects.
Still, at it's best, the stuff is 'sans pareil'. See the famous gilded 'Tijou' gates at Hampton Court.
Thing is how would someone like myself who is a determined eurosceptic but doesn't necessarily want to throw my dummy out of the pram respond if answering this poll. There are circumstances where I'd consider leaving (any drive towards a U.S of E being one) but that point is not now (or not yet). Also there's been a few more positive Euro stories recently (Siemens and Hitachi whose forthcoming investments might have at least in part something to do with our membership). There's also the sense several European countries are heading in a eurosceptic direction. Therefore I'm quite happy to see how things play out. As in Scotland the don't yet knows will swing this.
Maybe I am imagining this but has a slow swing to Staying In been taking place over recent months in the opinion polls? If that is the case, I wonder if it has anything to do with UKIP's greater visibility. They seem to be a marmite kind of party. Very liked by the minority who like them, but not at all popular with the majority who don't. Maybe people are thinking: "If UKIP is for it, I am against it."
I'd say there has been a level of swingback. However I'd put it down to eurogeddon being off the front pages rather than UKIP being on them.
"Maybe people are thinking: "If UKIP is for it, I am against it."
I think it's because the Euro news has been slightly more anodyne recently. Ukip need a few bureaucrats to break ranks and reveal plans to steal British babies, or for Rotherham council to say anything.
Thing is how would someone like myself who is a determined eurosceptic but doesn't necessarily want to throw my dummy out of the pram respond if answering this poll. There are circumstances where I'd consider leaving (any drive towards a U.S of E being one) but that point is not now (or not yet). Also there's been a few more positive Euro stories recently (Siemens and Hitachi whose forthcoming investments might have at least in part something to do with our membership). There's also the sense several European countries are heading in a eurosceptic direction. Therefore I'm quite happy to see how things play out. As in Scotland the don't yet knows will swing this.
Maybe I am imagining this but has a slow swing to Staying In been taking place over recent months in the opinion polls? If that is the case, I wonder if it has anything to do with UKIP's greater visibility. They seem to be a marmite kind of party. Very liked by the minority who like them, but not at all popular with the majority who don't. Maybe people are thinking: "If UKIP is for it, I am against it."
I think that's about right. The UKIPpers we have on this site are rational, civilised and make good points well. The ones you get over at the Telegraph are deranged, drooling nutters. Unfortunately for Nige, they're far more visible, and one suspects also far more typical.
It's what a mate of mine used to call "failing the Ford Capri test". You see a Ford Capri in a showroom (in the 80s, this originated...). It looks quite good. You walk round it. You sit in it. It is well specified. You can see yourself in one. You can even imagine owning one.
You are slightly puzzled to note that unlike all those you have ever seen, the rear diff is not painted red on any showroom example.
Then you leave the showroom and you see Capris on the road. And you notice what abject, howling sɹǝʞuɐʍ went through the same thought process as you did - and bought one.
So because you don't want to keep that company - you don't buy one.
UKIP: same thing. Fundamentally a very old idea. Some good points. But Christ, look at the people. No thanks. .
As a self confessed Cameroon, can you explain what Cameronism actually is, since self evidently it's struggling to gain a wider appeal ?
Sure, I've explained it many times: it is governing well, in the interests of the whole country, based on what is realistically possible, taking account of the whole picture and the difficult choices which necessarily have to be made, in the Conservative tradition of R A Butler, Harold Macmillan, and many others.
There's clearly a huge difference between the theory and the practice.
It's a bit like Ghandi's alleged remark about Western Civilisation; "Good idea; when's it going to start?"
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
Absolute rubbish. It is you who is doing the post-hoc reinterpretation because actually almost everyone thought it meant a guarantee of a a referendum even if ratified. Indeed that was exactly why Cameron phrased it in the way he did to make sure people thought that. The same goes for Hague and his 'not letting matters rest there' comments.
Cameron is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to the EU because in the end he will not countenance the UK leaving. As I have said many times before Richard it is only the sad party fanatics like yourself who still try to defend Cameron over the EU.
As a self confessed Cameroon, can you explain what Cameronism actually is, since self evidently it's struggling to gain a wider appeal ?
Sure, I've explained it many times: it is governing well, in the interests of the whole country, based on what is realistically possible, taking account of the whole picture and the difficult choices which necessarily have to be made, in the Conservative tradition of R A Butler, Harold Macmillan, and many others.
There's clearly a huge difference between the theory and the practice.
It's a bit like Ghandi's alleged remark about Western Civilisation; "Good idea; when's it going to start?"
Actually it's spelt "Gandhi".
My favourite quote of his, as an HS2-sceptic, is "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
[asked what he thought of modern civilization] That would be a good idea. variant: "I think it would be a good idea" when asked what he thought of Western civilization. On p. 75 of Ralph Keyes' book The Quote Verifier (2006), Keyes writes: 'During his first visit to England, when asked what he though of modern civilization, Gandhi is said to have told news reporters, "That would be a good idea." The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations cites E. F. Schumacher's Good Work as its source for this Gandhiism, as does Nigel Rees in the Cassell Companion to Quotations. In that 1979 book, Schumacher said he saw Gandhi make this remark in a filmed record of his quizzing by reporters as he disembarked in Southampton while visiting England in 1930. Gandhi did not visit England in 1930. He did attend a roundtable conference on India's future in London the following year. Standard biographies of Gandhi do not report his making any such quip as he disembarked. Most often it has been revised to be Gandhi's assessment of "Western" civilization: "I think it would be a good idea." A retort such as this seems a little flip for Gandhi, and must be regarded as questionable. A comprehensive collection of his observations includes no such remark among twelve entries for "Civilization."' The quote was attributed to Gandhi in various sources prior to Schumacher's 1979 book mentioned by Keyes above, though none have been found that mention where and when he gave this answer. The earliest located on google books being Reader's Digest, Volume 91 from 1967, p. 52, where it is attributed to a CBS News Special called "The Italians", described here as "a 1966 look at the nation and its people based on the book by Luigi Barzini", produced by Bernard Birnbaum and one of the 1966/1967 Emmy award winners. A discussion of the quote on "The Quote Investigator" website here mentions that on "The Italians" the quote was attributed to Gandhi.
Except that UKIP supporters anticipate that Cameron will welsh on this promise, either by not holding it all, or by losing it and then not acting on it.
Quite so. That demonstrates either that they are completely bonkers, or, more likely, are looking for any excuse not to have their bluff called.
Let there be no doubt: there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Cameron could welch on the referendum promise, even if he wanted to (which he doesn't). He would be absolutely crucified by the Conservative Party (including by Cameroons like me).
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Twelve Stars to rule them all, Twelve Stars to find them, Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
I always find it bizarre that Britain has failed to lead in Europe, and failed to create a European Union in its image.
After all we have some extensive history in creating a Union that allows constituent nations to preserve some measure of separate national identity while being part of a greater whole. We ought to have a degree of moral leadership that comes from fighting the Nazi's in WWII.
"I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing."
And if he wasn't convincing too you after the event then perhaps those that think Cameron breached his promise have a point and maybe they are entitled to be a little less trusting of his word now.
Mind you, I am not sure how much of a hearing he is getting amongst disaffected Conservative supporters, just now. I am not sure it matters what he is saying any more because some people who would normally be expected to turn out for him have stopped listening. This may make the Conservative vote more efficient.
On the plus side, Nick Herbert, my own MP has, it would seem, started to open up in a quiet way about the sort of correspondence he received as Police Minister. The effect has been to increase dramatically my opinion of him and to lower my opinion of the police. Still not going to vote for the bloke mind.
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
Actually I don't think that was the main factor, the main factor was Osborne (quite rightly) telling the truth about the public finances, widely regarded at the time as dangerously honest:
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
Nope the main factor was definitely the broken promise. It showed Cameron to be no better or more trustworthy than all the rest of the party leaders at the time and destroyed the one solid reason people had for voting Conservative - that they were straight and could be trusted.
As for articles on how people felt, this is from the Bruges Group - who one would have thought would have been natural Tory supporters.
Absolute rubbish. It is you who is doing the post-hoc reinterpretation because actually almost everyone thought it meant a guarantee of a a referendum even if ratified.
In that case you'll have no trouble finding lots of articles from the time showing that interpretation.
"I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing."
And if he wasn't convincing too you after the event then perhaps those that think Cameron breached his promise have a point and maybe they are entitled to be a little less trusting of his word now.
Mind you, I am not sure how much of a hearing he is getting amongst disaffected Conservative supporters, just now. I am not sure it matters what he is saying any more because some people who would normally be expected to turn out for him have stopped listening. This may make the Conservative vote more efficient.
On the plus side, Nick Herbert, my own MP has, it would seem, started to open up in a quiet way about the sort of correspondence he received as Police Minister. The effect has been to increase dramatically my opinion of him and to lower my opinion of the police. Still not going to vote for the bloke mind.
You're bonkers Llama.
( just thought I'd get that in before the Cameroons ;-) )
Thing is how would someone like myself who is a determined eurosceptic but doesn't necessarily want to throw my dummy out of the pram respond if answering this poll. There are circumstances where I'd consider leaving (any drive towards a U.S of E being one) but that point is not now (or not yet). Also there's been a few more positive Euro stories recently (Siemens and Hitachi whose forthcoming investments might have at least in part something to do with our membership). There's also the sense several European countries are heading in a eurosceptic direction. Therefore I'm quite happy to see how things play out. As in Scotland the don't yet knows will swing this.
Maybe I am imagining this but has a slow swing to Staying In been taking place over recent months in the opinion polls? If that is the case, I wonder if it has anything to do with UKIP's greater visibility. They seem to be a marmite kind of party. Very liked by the minority who like them, but not at all popular with the majority who don't. Maybe people are thinking: "If UKIP is for it, I am against it."
There's a left-wing tradition of Euroscepticism in Britain that is being eclipsed by UKIP's rise.
You could see this working in two different ways. Some of those on the left will be repelled from Euroscepticism by seeing Nigel Farage advance his right-wing reasons for opposing the EU. They will perhaps adopt a position of we should stay in and sort it out. However, you'll also have those on the left who - failing to see anyone on the left criticise Europe, for fear of appearing to agree with UKIP - will find themselves on a political journey from left to right via the issue of Euroscepticism.
On the plus side, Nick Herbert, my own MP has, it would seem, started to open up in a quiet way about the sort of correspondence he received as Police Minister. The effect has been to increase dramatically my opinion of him and to lower my opinion of the police. Still not going to vote for the bloke mind.
I was quite impressed by Nick Herbert when he came and gave a talk to a group of us and answer questions (this was when he was a minister). He did seem to know his stuff.
Except that UKIP supporters anticipate that Cameron will welsh on this promise, either by not holding it all, or by losing it and then not acting on it.
Quite so. That demonstrates either that they are completely bonkers, or, more likely, are looking for any excuse not to have their bluff called.
Let there be no doubt: there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Cameron could welch on the referendum promise, even if he wanted to (which he doesn't). He would be absolutely crucified by the Conservative Party (including by Cameroons like me).
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Twelve Stars to rule them all, Twelve Stars to find them, Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
I always find it bizarre that Britain has failed to lead in Europe, and failed to create a European Union in its image.
After all we have some extensive history in creating a Union that allows constituent nations to preserve some measure of separate national identity while being part of a greater whole. We ought to have a degree of moral leadership that comes from fighting the Nazi's in WWII.
But that would violate one of the two most consistent principles of our foreign policy for the last 1,000 years: never let one country control the entire of the continental Channel coast.
I forget what the other one was. Something to do with Schleswig-Holstein I suspect ;-)
Except that UKIP supporters anticipate that Cameron will welsh on this promise, either by not holding it all, or by losing it and then not acting on it.
Quite so. That demonstrates either that they are completely bonkers, or, more likely, are looking for any excuse not to have their bluff called.
Let there be no doubt: there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Cameron could welch on the referendum promise, even if he wanted to (which he doesn't). He would be absolutely crucified by the Conservative Party (including by Cameroons like me).
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Twelve Stars to rule them all, Twelve Stars to find them, Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
I always find it bizarre that Britain has failed to lead in Europe, and failed to create a European Union in its image.
After all we have some extensive history in creating a Union that allows constituent nations to preserve some measure of separate national identity while being part of a greater whole. We ought to have a degree of moral leadership that comes from fighting the Nazi's in WWII.
But that would violate one of the two most consistent principles of our foreign policy for the last 1,000 years: never let one country control the entire of the continental Channel coast.
I forget what the other one was. Something to do with Schleswig-Holstein I suspect ;-)
Can you see Schleswig Holstein from your hotel ? :-)
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
Actually I don't think that was the main factor, the main factor was Osborne (quite rightly) telling the truth about the public finances, widely regarded at the time as dangerously honest:
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
Nope the main factor was definitely the broken promise. It showed Cameron to be no better or more trustworthy than all the rest of the party leaders at the time and destroyed the one solid reason people had for voting Conservative - that they were straight and could be trusted.
As for articles on how people felt, this is from the Bruges Group - who one would have thought would have been natural Tory supporters.
I trust Cameron and Hague to condduct a rational cost-benefit analysis of the UK's relationship with the EU; to identify specific principles, programmes, legislation and treaty obligations which the UK and other EU Members would benefit from changing; to negotiate constructively with other EU members to achieve consensus, and in some areas compromise, agreement on implementing change; to communicate clearly and honestly the proposed and agreed changes to the British public; to secure, in an IN-OUT referendum, a clear expression of the will of the people on our relationship with the EU; and, to implement such expressed will as so determined.
What more could you reasonably ask or expect of Cameron and Hague?
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
Absolute rubbish. It is you who is doing the post-hoc reinterpretation because actually almost everyone thought it meant a guarantee of a a referendum even if ratified. Indeed that was exactly why Cameron phrased it in the way he did to make sure people thought that. The same goes for Hague and his 'not letting matters rest there' comments.
Cameron is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to the EU because in the end he will not countenance the UK leaving. As I have said many times before Richard it is only the sad party fanatics like yourself who still try to defend Cameron over the EU.
We've been through this all before: a referendum on a treaty that had already been passed would have been both pointless and massively expensive (around £80-100 million at a guess). Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver due to Brown's skulking in through the back door to sign the treaty.
Worse for the people who want to leave the EU, it would have been obvious to the electorate that it was an expensive waste of time that would have no effect. It would have lost, and lost badly. And in losing it would have stopped there being another referendum for years.
You're clever. When there is a referendum (and I'd quite like one, although I don't know which way I'd vote), it needs to be the right question at the right time. Work on what being out of the EU means (I believe you've got some good answers, or are developing them).
The BOOers just don't seem ready for a referendum. And they certainly weren't a couple of years ago.
Mr. LP, to be fair, wrought iron's bendy, is it not? Whereas cast-iron, though harder, is brittle (or so says a book on elements I'm reading).
It is both more malleable and stronger as a result.
Just like a good Tory leader should be.
Fascinating stuff wrought iron. It is no longer produced, the last British forge closing in the mid 70s. There is a supplier up near you (whose name temporarily eludes me) who uses reclaimed wrought iron to make or repair listed gates and railings, but the costs are enormous and their output is only used in high profile projects.
Still, at it's best, the stuff is 'sans pareil'. See the famous gilded 'Tijou' gates at Hampton Court.
Also public demos (sometimes - I have never been lucky) at Blists Hill (the Ironbridge open air museum) - I assume also using scrap (or don't the Indians still make it?)
Except that UKIP supporters anticipate that Cameron will welsh on this promise, either by not holding it all, or by losing it and then not acting on it.
Quite so. That demonstrates either that they are completely bonkers, or, more likely, are looking for any excuse not to have their bluff called.
Let there be no doubt: there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Cameron could welch on the referendum promise, even if he wanted to (which he doesn't). He would be absolutely crucified by the Conservative Party (including by Cameroons like me).
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Twelve Stars to rule them all, Twelve Stars to find them, Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
I always find it bizarre that Britain has failed to lead in Europe, and failed to create a European Union in its image.
After all we have some extensive history in creating a Union that allows constituent nations to preserve some measure of separate national identity while being part of a greater whole. We ought to have a degree of moral leadership that comes from fighting the Nazi's in WWII.
But that would violate one of the two most consistent principles of our foreign policy for the last 1,000 years: never let one country control the entire of the continental Channel coast.
I forget what the other one was. Something to do with Schleswig-Holstein I suspect ;-)
Can you see Schleswig Holstein from your hotel ? :-)
Nah - on my way back to London from Tegel. An airport I hate. Still, Nice tomorrow and Paris on Friday
"Activists have been particularly angered by the introduction of a system of performance-related pay from this September that will see salary hikes limited to teachers who raise pupils’ results and impose high standards of discipline."
I thought I'd have an early evening snort and now its all over the keyboard! You have form for that Mr. Brooke, I may have to think about starting to charge you for new keyboards.
As for Schleswig-Holstein, as Lord Palmerston explained, only three people understood the question, one (the Prince-Consort) was dead, one had gone mad thinking about it and Palmerston himself who had forgotten it. I, therefore, suspect that Mr. Charles was not being entirely serious when he mentioned it as a long term English policy aim. (Note how he cunningly changes the real English policy aim though, no dominant power in Europe becomes "never let one country control the entire of the continental Channel coast" - typical banker).
Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver
Ability schmability.
You just alter the question: "Should the UK Parliament repeal its endorsement of the Lisbon Treaty?"
If Yes, you repeal the act that endorsed it, and you invoke Article whatever on the basis that as you have changed your mind, you are giving notice to leave. You will withdraw this notice if the terms of membership are altered to suit you, and if a repeat referendum on the question "leave or accept the revised terms" then endorses the new terms.
The likelihood is that during this process other EU countries will join in and will want the same term as Britain gets. Spain, Italy, Greece, possibly France and certainly others will want to renegotiate too. There is no solid bloc of 26 Stalinist bureaucracies versus plucky lone Britain; that has only ever been the case among the EU's employees and bureaucrats.
You thereby assert moral leadership solidly based in a mandate for change and you take quite a lot of the EU with you; this is how you reshape it, not by making insincere noises that you think the punters remain stupid enough to swallow.
I asked for articles FROM THE TIME, not years later.
A stupid comment given that no one was going to write an article at the time accusing the Tory leader of lying two years before he actually confirmed his lie.
As I said you are so desperate to rewrite history to try and make Cameron appear the victim of a misunderstanding that you will go to any lengths to try and justify your position - including trying to claim that all those who deserted the Tories once Cameron reneged on his promise had never really believed what they clearly did believe. The Ministry of Truth had nothing on the desperate Cameroons.
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
Absolute rubbish. It is you who is doing the post-hoc reinterpretation because actually almost everyone thought it meant a guarantee of a a referendum even if ratified. Indeed that was exactly why Cameron phrased it in the way he did to make sure people thought that. The same goes for Hague and his 'not letting matters rest there' comments.
Cameron is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to the EU because in the end he will not countenance the UK leaving. As I have said many times before Richard it is only the sad party fanatics like yourself who still try to defend Cameron over the EU.
We've been through this all before: a referendum on a treaty that had already been passed would have been both pointless and massively expensive (around £80-100 million at a guess). Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver due to Brown's skulking in through the back door to sign the treaty.
Worse for the people who want to leave the EU, it would have been obvious to the electorate that it was an expensive waste of time that would have no effect. It would have lost, and lost badly. And in losing it would have stopped there being another referendum for years.
You're clever. When there is a referendum (and I'd quite like one, although I don't know which way I'd vote), it needs to be the right question at the right time. Work on what being out of the EU means (I believe you've got some good answers, or are developing them).
The BOOers just don't seem ready for a referendum. And they certainly weren't a couple of years ago.
It would not in any way have been pointless. It would have made clear the British opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and would have hugely strengthened Cameron's hand in any negotiations - such as those he is belatedly pretending to induce now.
More to the point from a Tory perspective it would have transformed the way Cameron was seen by the public in the lead up to the 2010 election and would, in my opinion, have guaranteed him a majority. After all, what were the Labour and Lib Dems going to say in argument against it? We don't think the British people deserve to have a say on this?
Mr. LP, to be fair, wrought iron's bendy, is it not? Whereas cast-iron, though harder, is brittle (or so says a book on elements I'm reading).
It is both more malleable and stronger as a result.
Just like a good Tory leader should be.
Fascinating stuff wrought iron. It is no longer produced, the last British forge closing in the mid 70s. There is a supplier up near you (whose name temporarily eludes me) who uses reclaimed wrought iron to make or repair listed gates and railings, but the costs are enormous and their output is only used in high profile projects.
Still, at it's best, the stuff is 'sans pareil'. See the famous gilded 'Tijou' gates at Hampton Court.
Also public demos (sometimes - I have never been lucky) at Blists Hill (the Ironbridge open air museum) - I assume also using scrap (or don't the Indians still make it?)
I fear if the demonstrated process were used commercially, another_richard would be banging on about its deleterious impact on UK productivity metrics.
But at least it is real metal bashing. And not the poncey modern stuff that passes as such in the nether reaches of Warwickshire.
I can't see how it can produce the Tijou gates though.
Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver
Ability schmability.
You just alter the question: "Should the UK Parliament repeal its endorsement of the Lisbon Treaty?"
If Yes, you repeal the act that endorsed it, and you invoke Article whatever on the basis that as you have changed your mind, you are giving notice to leave. You will withdraw this notice if the terms of membership are altered to suit you, and if a repeat referendum on the question "leave or accept the revised terms" then endorses the new terms.
The likelihood is that during this process other EU countries will join in and will want the same term as Britain gets. Spain, Italy, Greece, possibly France and certainly others will want to renegotiate too. There is no solid bloc of 26 Stalinist bureaucracies versus plucky lone Britain; that has only ever been the case among the EU's employees and bureaucrats.
You thereby assert moral leadership solidly based in a mandate for change and you take quite a lot of the EU with you; this is how you reshape it, not by making insincere noises that you think the punters remain stupid enough to swallow.
That's just wishful thinking.
More likely: the other countries turn around and say: "look, we've been f'ing negotiating this for eight years. Your PM signed it, and now you want to renegotiate? What other treaties will you be applying this concept to? How can we trust Britain?"
The thing that really irritates the f out of me on this is that you all lambast Cameron for this, rather than the real guilty parties: Labour and particularly Brown who signed the deal in the first place. It's pathetic.
Keep your powder dry, develop a good alternative vision of a UK outside the EU along with all that means, and then get your referendum. It's the only way you'll win.
Except that UKIP supporters anticipate that Cameron will welsh on this promise, either by not holding it all, or by losing it and then not acting on it.
Quite so. That demonstrates either that they are completely bonkers, or, more likely, are looking for any excuse not to have their bluff called.
Let there be no doubt: there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Cameron could welch on the referendum promise, even if he wanted to (which he doesn't). He would be absolutely crucified by the Conservative Party (including by Cameroons like me).
Why should any eurosceptic trust Cameron to honour his promise?
It would be like trusting Sauron.
Twelve Stars to rule them all, Twelve Stars to find them, Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
I always find it bizarre that Britain has failed to lead in Europe, and failed to create a European Union in its image.
After all we have some extensive history in creating a Union that allows constituent nations to preserve some measure of separate national identity while being part of a greater whole. We ought to have a degree of moral leadership that comes from fighting the Nazi's in WWII.
We pretty much wrote the ECHR and played a pretty large role in creating the Council of Europe in the immediate aftermath of WWII.
What part of "cast iron guarantee" does Hannan not remember?
The part which has been invented by Cameron's critics, namely the ludicrous post-hoc reinterpretation that it referred to anything other than a referendum before ratification. No-one, not a single person on this earth, thought at the time that it meant anything else.
Absolute rubbish. It is you who is doing the post-hoc reinterpretation because actually almost everyone thought it meant a guarantee of a a referendum even if ratified. Indeed that was exactly why Cameron phrased it in the way he did to make sure people thought that. The same goes for Hague and his 'not letting matters rest there' comments.
Cameron is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to the EU because in the end he will not countenance the UK leaving. As I have said many times before Richard it is only the sad party fanatics like yourself who still try to defend Cameron over the EU.
We've been through this all before: a referendum on a treaty that had already been passed would have been both pointless and massively expensive (around £80-100 million at a guess). Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver due to Brown's skulking in through the back door to sign the treaty.
Worse for the people who want to leave the EU, it would have been obvious to the electorate that it was an expensive waste of time that would have no effect. It would have lost, and lost badly. And in losing it would have stopped there being another referendum for years.
You're clever. When there is a referendum (and I'd quite like one, although I don't know which way I'd vote), it needs to be the right question at the right time. Work on what being out of the EU means (I believe you've got some good answers, or are developing them).
The BOOers just don't seem ready for a referendum. And they certainly weren't a couple of years ago.
Cameron made a mistake when he failed to qualify his statement with a ratification condition. About that time (Oct 2007) Hague at Conference was more precise. Everyone assumed that Brown was planning to hold a GE before ratification took place. Hague said that if elected this autumn the Conservatives would hold a referendum on the results of any negotiations on the Lisbon Treaty. The kippers will use any excuse to hammer Cameron, they are not interested in the truth of the intention.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
The EU that existed before the Lisbon treaty no longer existed after it was ratified by all the countries in the EU. one could vote to leave the eu, but one could not unilaterally change the eu back to the state it was before ratification.
Essentially, ratification changed the rules of the club. We could not unilaterally change them back.
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
Actually I don't think that was the main factor, the main factor was Osborne (quite rightly) telling the truth about the public finances, widely regarded at the time as dangerously honest:
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
The main reason the tories didn't win an outright majority was the expenses scandal, look at their polling figures after this story broke.
Is there any serious talk of John Thurso not staying on? He is only 60. Bit early for a retirement I would have thought.
Do you really think that the Lib Dems could hold on to Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on just 30% of the vote? If they drop that low then it looks like curtains.
Whatever, Shadsy's current LD price of 2/5 is too short, even if Thurso is the candidate again.
I'm not betting on any Lib Dems in Scotland. No confidence in the yellow peril north of the border whatsoever. Well Orkney and Shetland will remain, but wee Danny could go.
You could safely bet on Kennedy (1/33) and Carmichael (1/100), but at those prices, what's the point? The others are only worth a point at EVS+.
It is not just the Cast Iron Pledge in the Sun either. The Tories repeated the claim that they would have a vote on the EU constitution (with no caveats or provisos) when Brown wimped out of an early election.
They produced a poster listing all the things that had now been delayed until after the election which included "A vote on the European Constitution"
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
We've been through this all before: a referendum on a treaty that had already been passed would have been both pointless and massively expensive (around £80-100 million at a guess). Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver due to Brown's skulking in through the back door to sign the treaty.
Worse for the people who want to leave the EU, it would have been obvious to the electorate that it was an expensive waste of time that would have no effect. It would have lost, and lost badly. And in losing it would have stopped there being another referendum for years.
You're clever. When there is a referendum (and I'd quite like one, although I don't know which way I'd vote), it needs to be the right question at the right time. Work on what being out of the EU means (I believe you've got some good answers, or are developing them).
The BOOers just don't seem ready for a referendum. And they certainly weren't a couple of years ago.
It would not in any way have been pointless. It would have made clear the British opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and would have hugely strengthened Cameron's hand in any negotiations - such as those he is belatedly pretending to induce now.
More to the point from a Tory perspective it would have transformed the way Cameron was seen by the public in the lead up to the 2010 election and would, in my opinion, have guaranteed him a majority. After all, what were the Labour and Lib Dems going to say in argument against it? We don't think the British people deserve to have a say on this?
I know you believe 'no' would have won a post-treaty referendum (which I disagree with for the reasons I've given passim). But if I'm right and the referendum lost, then do you agree that it would have hugely weakened any PM's hand in future negotiations?
It's one heck of a gamble over something that is nowhere near your main aim. It would have been the wrong referendum.
More likely: the other countries turn around and say: "look, we've been f'ing negotiating this for eight years. Your PM signed it, and now you want to renegotiate? What other treaties will you be applying this concept to? How can we trust Britain?"
The thing that really irritates the f out of me on this is that you all lambast Cameron for this, rather than the real guilty parties: Labour and particularly Brown who signed the deal in the first place. It's pathetic.
Keep your powder dry, develop a good alternative vision of a UK outside the EU along with all that means, and then get your referendum. It's the only way you'll win.
You just point out that actually Brown has just lost the election. You are now PM. Lisbon provides for a member who wants to leave. You are that member. As PM you'd rather not, so how's this. Give me some improvements to my terms and then I'll rerun the referendum and I'll win it.
I simply do not accept that we cannot leave the EU, which is what you are asserting in effect. We certainly can, not least because any measure previously agreed to that purports to prevent this is unconstitutional.
We have had lying PMs of all hues telling us for at least 22 years that this latest twist of the ratchet is a great deal for Britain. Funnily enough it's the same deal as every other bugger has had. We will be hearing this when Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey and Libya are in the EU no doubt.
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
Actually I don't think that was the main factor, the main factor was Osborne (quite rightly) telling the truth about the public finances, widely regarded at the time as dangerously honest:
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
The main reason the tories didn't win an outright majority was the expenses scandal, look at their polling figures after this story broke.
More decisive was widespread abuse of postal votes
A fact Mark Senior knows well but is curiously unprepared to admit in public.
Funny how Cameron's poll slide, from commanding majority to hung Parliament, dates precisely from the moment in 2009 when he confirmed that there would be no referendum on ratification.
Actually I don't think that was the main factor, the main factor was Osborne (quite rightly) telling the truth about the public finances, widely regarded at the time as dangerously honest:
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
The main reason the tories didn't win an outright majority was the expenses scandal, look at their polling figures after this story broke.
More decisive was widespread abuse of postal votes
A fact Mark Senior knows well but is curiously unprepared to admit in public.
What a strange comment , I have been pointing out abuse of postal voting by the Conservatives for many years .
More likely: the other countries turn around and say: "look, we've been f'ing negotiating this for eight years. Your PM signed it, and now you want to renegotiate? What other treaties will you be applying this concept to? How can we trust Britain?"
The thing that really irritates the f out of me on this is that you all lambast Cameron for this, rather than the real guilty parties: Labour and particularly Brown who signed the deal in the first place. It's pathetic.
Keep your powder dry, develop a good alternative vision of a UK outside the EU along with all that means, and then get your referendum. It's the only way you'll win.
You just point out that actually Brown has just lost the election. You are now PM. Lisbon provides for a member who wants to leave. You are that member. As PM you'd rather not, so how's this. Give me some improvements to my terms and then I'll rerun the referendum and I'll win it.
I simply do not accept that we cannot leave the EU, which is what you are asserting in effect. We certainly can, not least because any measure previously agreed to that purports to prevent this is unconstitutional.
We have had lying PMs of all hues telling us for at least 22 years that this latest twist of the ratchet is a great deal for Britain. Funnily enough it's the same deal as every other bugger has had. We will be hearing this when Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey and Libya are in the EU no doubt.
You could have a post Lisbon vote on whether to remain in the EU. But you could not have a vote on whether to allow changes to the EU which had already happened.
Ratification of the treaty changed the EU for all its members. Un-ratification was not theoretically possible.
More likely: the other countries turn around and say: "look, we've been f'ing negotiating this for eight years. Your PM signed it, and now you want to renegotiate? What other treaties will you be applying this concept to? How can we trust Britain?"
The thing that really irritates the f out of me on this is that you all lambast Cameron for this, rather than the real guilty parties: Labour and particularly Brown who signed the deal in the first place. It's pathetic.
Keep your powder dry, develop a good alternative vision of a UK outside the EU along with all that means, and then get your referendum. It's the only way you'll win.
You just point out that actually Brown has just lost the election. You are now PM. Lisbon provides for a member who wants to leave. You are that member. As PM you'd rather not, so how's this. Give me some improvements to my terms and then I'll rerun the referendum and I'll win it.
I simply do not accept that we cannot leave the EU, which is what you are asserting in effect. We certainly can, not least because any measure previously agreed to that purports to prevent this is unconstitutional.
We have had lying PMs of all hues telling us for at least 22 years that this latest twist of the ratchet is a great deal for Britain. Funnily enough it's the same deal as every other bugger has had. We will be hearing this when Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey and Libya are in the EU no doubt.
Oh, come on. I'm not asserting that we cannot leave the EU. I'm open to the idea. Persuade me.
But a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is not the way to leave the EU; it's just a way of pi**ing off countries that we need to work with even if we leave the EU.
And if you'd lost (as I think you would have), it would have set the BOO'ers cause back for years.
In that way, Cameron's done you a favour ...
Have the right referendum at the right time. The BOOers' arguments aren't ready yet.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
Personally I don't get why you'd want back in, iScotland would be safer doing a Norway.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
Personally I don't get why you'd want back in, iScotland would be safer doing a Norway.
That would be my first choice, so unless the EU are very accommodating I would tell them to stick it.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
light on scotland = kicking spain in the goolies. Good luck !
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
Mr. LP, to be fair, wrought iron's bendy, is it not? Whereas cast-iron, though harder, is brittle (or so says a book on elements I'm reading).
It is both more malleable and stronger as a result.
Just like a good Tory leader should be.
Fascinating stuff wrought iron. It is no longer produced, the last British forge closing in the mid 70s. There is a supplier up near you (whose name temporarily eludes me) who uses reclaimed wrought iron to make or repair listed gates and railings, but the costs are enormous and their output is only used in high profile projects.
Still, at it's best, the stuff is 'sans pareil'. See the famous gilded 'Tijou' gates at Hampton Court.
Also public demos (sometimes - I have never been lucky) at Blists Hill (the Ironbridge open air museum) - I assume also using scrap (or don't the Indians still make it?)
I fear if the demonstrated process were used commercially, another_richard would be banging on about its deleterious impact on UK productivity metrics.
But at least it is real metal bashing. And not the poncey modern stuff that passes as such in the nether reaches of Warwickshire.
I can't see how it can produce the Tijou gates though.
Perhaps I lack imagination?
Real metalbashing indeed.
As I understand it from dim memory, the mills produced bar and stock from raw wrought iron for use in other processes. Possibly local blacksmiths and the like bought such stuff in to hammer and weld into gates and the like. Blacksmiths could make complete horseshoes out of raw bar, after all, though I suspect there is a degree of prefabrication with the shoes put on the nags by modern farriers.
We've been through this all before: a referendum on a treaty that had already been passed would have been both pointless and massively expensive (around £80-100 million at a guess). Even if the referendum had passed, it was not in Cameron's ability to deliver due to Brown's skulking in through the back door to sign the treaty.
Worse for the people who want to leave the EU, it would have been obvious to the electorate that it was an expensive waste of time that would have no effect. It would have lost, and lost badly. And in losing it would have stopped there being another referendum for years.
You're clever. When there is a referendum (and I'd quite like one, although I don't know which way I'd vote), it needs to be the right question at the right time. Work on what being out of the EU means (I believe you've got some good answers, or are developing them).
The BOOers just don't seem ready for a referendum. And they certainly weren't a couple of years ago.
It would not in any way have been pointless. It would have made clear the British opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and would have hugely strengthened Cameron's hand in any negotiations - such as those he is belatedly pretending to induce now.
More to the point from a Tory perspective it would have transformed the way Cameron was seen by the public in the lead up to the 2010 election and would, in my opinion, have guaranteed him a majority. After all, what were the Labour and Lib Dems going to say in argument against it? We don't think the British people deserve to have a say on this?
I know you believe 'no' would have won a post-treaty referendum (which I disagree with for the reasons I've given passim). But if I'm right and the referendum lost, then do you agree that it would have hugely weakened any PM's hand in future negotiations?
It's one heck of a gamble over something that is nowhere near your main aim. It would have been the wrong referendum.
That is clearly false because as it stands Cameron could not be in a weaker position for any negotiations. He has already stated very clearly that he will not countenance the UK leaving the EU and has also failed utterly to define what he wants out of any negotiations whilst leaving the timescale for talks so short that everyone knows he is not serious.
To date Cameron's achievements with regard to our relationship with the EU have been zero. His 'not letting matters lie' position has proved as false as his Cast Iron Pledge. No significant renegotiation or restoration of powers to the UK will be achieved as long as Cameron is in power because his heart is not in it and the rest of the EU knows it. .
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
Fairly dense. My denseness increased as I moved south from my native Cumbria to end up in London (or Pandemonium, as I think you call it).
You could have a post Lisbon vote on whether to remain in the EU. But you could not have a vote on whether to allow changes to the EU which had already happened.
Ratification of the treaty changed the EU for all its members. Un-ratification was not theoretically possible.
Indeed. Repealing the act of Parliament that passed the Lisbon Treaty does not repeal the Lisbon Treaty itself, so to achieve the effects for Britain that such a repealing would have, you would prepare to leave the EU unless your terms were altered to whatever it took to keep you in. They want our money, our markets and the credibility we add to the EU, so they'd give us anything we want. Well, anything we'd reasonably ask for - the return of Calais probably wouldn't fly.
So the question then is simply do we want our terms altered in any way? If so, we vote to repeal Lisbon. If not then you vote to leave it on the books.
You then have a debate between those who argue that we do not need our terms altered in any way - a position so inane and supine only Clegg would contemplate assuming it - and everyone else. Let's see, can anyone think of anything at all about the EU we'd like to opt out of? Open borders? The CAP? The CFP? Bailing out bust members of the Eurozone? Being forced to legalise gay marriage? Being one of two net contributors? Being forced to build HS2 to connect Blackpool with Mersin, or whatever it was? Lithuanian fire suppression standards?
People who say they want to leave do so, I think, because opting out of any of the above is unavailable short of leaving. Their number must include people like me, who figure we chose to join a trade bloc that is now compulsively and illegally thieving our sovereignty, but who would happily stay in the bloc if that were reversed.
The only people who'd vote not to repeal Lisbon would be UKIP hillbillies who'd want to leave regardless of terms and for whom repeal isn't enough; and quisling federasts like Clegg, who on balance would rather we were abolished as a country than left the EU.
If Kinnock's whole family could somehow be stripped of British citizenship and forced to travel on a Belgian passport, that would be the icing on the cake.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
However, it should also be remembered that EWNI will also be in negotiations at the same time to reenter the EU, or to adjust to its new, but continuing, place in the EU (on precisely the same logic as Scotland, depending on which side of that part of the indy debate one tends to be). I for one don't believe that the EU will automatically roll over and allow EWNI to claim to be the sole continuing state without at least a poke in the biceps and a hard stare.
For some reason, whenever I read Nats pontificating grandly on line about how devastating the Yes vote they aren't going to get would be for Britain, and how those provincial hicks in Westminster have no idea what's really going on in the real national political nexus of Glensporran, I am reminded of this joke.
One day, while an elephant was walking through the woods, she got a thorn stuck in her foot. She saw an ant passing and asked him to help her get the thorn out.
The ant asked, "What do I get in return?"
The elephant replied, "If you get it out, I'll have sex with you."
So the ant gets busy taking the thorn out. When he finally gets it out he looks up at the elephant and says "OK it's out, are you ready?".
The elephant thinks, "Hey, what's a little ant gonna do anyways?" The ant climbs up and starts to work away. Just then a monkey overhead drops a coconut on the elephant's head.
"Ouch" screams the elephant, and the ant responds, "Yeah take it all bitch."
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
Fairly dense. My denseness increased as I moved south from my native Cumbria to end up in London (or Pandemonium, as I think you call it).
At least you have an excuse , living in the Death Star would colour your views.
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
However, it should also be remembered that EWNI will also be in negotiations at the same time to reenter the EU, or to adjust to its new, but continuing, place in the EU (on precisely the same logic as Scotland, depending on which side of that part of the indy debate one tends to be). I for one don't believe that the EU will automatically roll over and allow EWNI to claim to be the sole continuing state without at least a poke in the biceps and a hard stare.
You don't think they will want to scrub that rebate and stick a few knives in do you, surely they would never stoop to that.
Evening all, ringside seat, popcorn at the ready. Nick in the yellow corner and Nige in the purple corner. Should be bloody though I expect Nick to ignore Nige and speak to the audience.
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."
I wonder how many people would suddenly change their views on EU membership in/out if their employers point out how much of their sales and exports (and therefore jobs) are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU. This problem will become a live issue for thousands of Scots after 19th September if their employers have to begin assessing the effect of Scotland being outside the EU and wanting in.
Dear Dear Easterross , not that old canard, we will still be in the EU and by the time we have finalised negotiations and departed the union , we will still be in the EU.
malc I agree with that, but what none of the Nats will face up to is the terms of membership will have changed and not to Scotland's benefit. Fisheries, oil, Euro, rebates etc. , that's the price of rejoining.
Alan, Hopefully we will not get completely rogered, we can always tell them to F off if we do not like it.
"Hopefully we will not get completely rogered"
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
You are obviously a bit dense and misinterpreted my witty riposte to Alan, the Scottish Government are not stupid and will obviously negotiate hard in the country's best interests. As I clearly said if the EU are not reasonable then we can tell them where to stick it. No-one can know in advance what the positions will be but it would not be surprising if they were light on Scotland to tweak London's tail.
However, it should also be remembered that EWNI will also be in negotiations at the same time to reenter the EU, or to adjust to its new, but continuing, place in the EU (on precisely the same logic as Scotland, depending on which side of that part of the indy debate one tends to be). I for one don't believe that the EU will automatically roll over and allow EWNI to claim to be the sole continuing state without at least a poke in the biceps and a hard stare.
I think you'll be surprised! The rUK will not "claim" anything, it will be automatically recognised as the continuing member state.
Comments
Twelve Stars to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Bah. New Who cocked up Davros as well as the Master. And the daleks. And the Doctor. Weeping Angels are nice though.
As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of the word Yes do they not understand?"
http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1169867.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Mary Tamm-1169867
If Kate Bush had aged as well as Mary Tamm did I'd have bought tickets.
Do you ever stop to ask yourself if a politican who has alienated a chunk of his core vote to the point they leave, or go on a vote strike, but who hasn't picked up any votes from the segments he is targetting, might not be the bonkers one ?
As a self confessed Cameroon, can you explain what Cameronism actually is, since self evidently it's struggling to gain a wider appeal ?
All it would have required was a finery forge and pudding furnace.
You might be away for a long time...
Small wonder that they have been going backwards at a rate of knots over recent years.
With a current market cap of £1.23bn, they are dwarfed by Hills' £3.04bn, and are half the size of IG Group's £2.39bn and appear likely to be overtaken by Betfair any time soon, who are capitalized at £1.14bn.
A very sorry tale from a once great company.
All those nobodies cost Cameron his majority, it seems.
I dare say we were both right on Maldonado, Bottas as a buy seems good, and Vettel could go either way (I suspect you'll end up being right on that one). I got Raikkonen utterly wrong. The Ferrari's a bit rubbish and he seems to be struggling.
Cameron's cast-iron pledge wasn't so much a broken pledge as just crap politics, he raised expectations to a level where he could only fail if he didn't follow through.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8292680.stm
This is a later article but explores the point in more detail:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9605607/George-Osbornes-honesty-on-cuts-cost-Conservatives-a-majority-say-advisers.html
Having said that, I accept that Cameron and Hague made a complete hash of explaining what their position would be once ratification had taken place, and I think that would have lost them credibility. I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing.
Congrats on your Vettel move.
Just like a good Tory leader should be.
Fascinating stuff wrought iron. It is no longer produced, the last British forge closing in the mid 70s. There is a supplier up near you (whose name temporarily eludes me) who uses reclaimed wrought iron to make or repair listed gates and railings, but the costs are enormous and their output is only used in high profile projects.
Still, at it's best, the stuff is 'sans pareil'. See the famous gilded 'Tijou' gates at Hampton Court.
Here: http://bit.ly/1gCmYHY
"Maybe people are thinking: "If UKIP is for it, I am against it."
I think it's because the Euro news has been slightly more anodyne recently. Ukip need a few bureaucrats to break ranks and reveal plans to steal British babies, or for Rotherham council to say anything.
It's what a mate of mine used to call "failing the Ford Capri test". You see a Ford Capri in a showroom (in the 80s, this originated...). It looks quite good. You walk round it. You sit in it. It is well specified. You can see yourself in one. You can even imagine owning one.
You are slightly puzzled to note that unlike all those you have ever seen, the rear diff is not painted red on any showroom example.
Then you leave the showroom and you see Capris on the road. And you notice what abject, howling sɹǝʞuɐʍ went through the same thought process as you did - and bought one.
So because you don't want to keep that company - you don't buy one.
UKIP: same thing. Fundamentally a very old idea. Some good points. But Christ, look at the people. No thanks. .
Cameron is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to the EU because in the end he will not countenance the UK leaving. As I have said many times before Richard it is only the sad party fanatics like yourself who still try to defend Cameron over the EU.
My favourite quote of his, as an HS2-sceptic, is "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
[asked what he thought of modern civilization] That would be a good idea.
variant: "I think it would be a good idea" when asked what he thought of Western civilization.
On p. 75 of Ralph Keyes' book The Quote Verifier (2006), Keyes writes: 'During his first visit to England, when asked what he though of modern civilization, Gandhi is said to have told news reporters, "That would be a good idea." The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations cites E. F. Schumacher's Good Work as its source for this Gandhiism, as does Nigel Rees in the Cassell Companion to Quotations. In that 1979 book, Schumacher said he saw Gandhi make this remark in a filmed record of his quizzing by reporters as he disembarked in Southampton while visiting England in 1930. Gandhi did not visit England in 1930. He did attend a roundtable conference on India's future in London the following year. Standard biographies of Gandhi do not report his making any such quip as he disembarked. Most often it has been revised to be Gandhi's assessment of "Western" civilization: "I think it would be a good idea." A retort such as this seems a little flip for Gandhi, and must be regarded as questionable. A comprehensive collection of his observations includes no such remark among twelve entries for "Civilization."'
The quote was attributed to Gandhi in various sources prior to Schumacher's 1979 book mentioned by Keyes above, though none have been found that mention where and when he gave this answer. The earliest located on google books being Reader's Digest, Volume 91 from 1967, p. 52, where it is attributed to a CBS News Special called "The Italians", described here as "a 1966 look at the nation and its people based on the book by Luigi Barzini", produced by Bernard Birnbaum and one of the 1966/1967 Emmy award winners. A discussion of the quote on "The Quote Investigator" website here mentions that on "The Italians" the quote was attributed to Gandhi.
After all we have some extensive history in creating a Union that allows constituent nations to preserve some measure of separate national identity while being part of a greater whole. We ought to have a degree of moral leadership that comes from fighting the Nazi's in WWII.
"I went to a dinner shortly after the election where I was able to ask Hague why they had not been clear about what the policy would be if the treaty was ratified; to be honest his answer wasn't very convincing."
And if he wasn't convincing too you after the event then perhaps those that think Cameron breached his promise have a point and maybe they are entitled to be a little less trusting of his word now.
Mind you, I am not sure how much of a hearing he is getting amongst disaffected Conservative supporters, just now. I am not sure it matters what he is saying any more because some people who would normally be expected to turn out for him have stopped listening. This may make the Conservative vote more efficient.
On the plus side, Nick Herbert, my own MP has, it would seem, started to open up in a quiet way about the sort of correspondence he received as Police Minister. The effect has been to increase dramatically my opinion of him and to lower my opinion of the police. Still not going to vote for the bloke mind.
As for articles on how people felt, this is from the Bruges Group - who one would have thought would have been natural Tory supporters.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/cameron-is-breaking-his-pledge-to-hold-a-lisbon-referendum.html?keyword=23
Off you go, let's see them.
( just thought I'd get that in before the Cameroons ;-) )
You could see this working in two different ways. Some of those on the left will be repelled from Euroscepticism by seeing Nigel Farage advance his right-wing reasons for opposing the EU. They will perhaps adopt a position of we should stay in and sort it out. However, you'll also have those on the left who - failing to see anyone on the left criticise Europe, for fear of appearing to agree with UKIP - will find themselves on a political journey from left to right via the issue of Euroscepticism.
I forget what the other one was. Something to do with Schleswig-Holstein I suspect ;-)
I trust Cameron and Hague to condduct a rational cost-benefit analysis of the UK's relationship with the EU; to identify specific principles, programmes, legislation and treaty obligations which the UK and other EU Members would benefit from changing; to negotiate constructively with other EU members to achieve consensus, and in some areas compromise, agreement on implementing change; to communicate clearly and honestly the proposed and agreed changes to the British public; to secure, in an IN-OUT referendum, a clear expression of the will of the people on our relationship with the EU; and, to implement such expressed will as so determined.
What more could you reasonably ask or expect of Cameron and Hague?
Worse for the people who want to leave the EU, it would have been obvious to the electorate that it was an expensive waste of time that would have no effect. It would have lost, and lost badly. And in losing it would have stopped there being another referendum for years.
You're clever. When there is a referendum (and I'd quite like one, although I don't know which way I'd vote), it needs to be the right question at the right time. Work on what being out of the EU means (I believe you've got some good answers, or are developing them).
The BOOers just don't seem ready for a referendum. And they certainly weren't a couple of years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1JPKyP9fuE
http://www.geograph.org.uk/snippet/7487
"Activists have been particularly angered by the introduction of a system of performance-related pay from this September that will see salary hikes limited to teachers who raise pupils’ results and impose high standards of discipline."
"You're bonkers Llama."
I thought I'd have an early evening snort and now its all over the keyboard! You have form for that Mr. Brooke, I may have to think about starting to charge you for new keyboards.
As for Schleswig-Holstein, as Lord Palmerston explained, only three people understood the question, one (the Prince-Consort) was dead, one had gone mad thinking about it and Palmerston himself who had forgotten it. I, therefore, suspect that Mr. Charles was not being entirely serious when he mentioned it as a long term English policy aim. (Note how he cunningly changes the real English policy aim though, no dominant power in Europe becomes "never let one country control the entire of the continental Channel coast" - typical banker).
You just alter the question: "Should the UK Parliament repeal its endorsement of the Lisbon Treaty?"
If Yes, you repeal the act that endorsed it, and you invoke Article whatever on the basis that as you have changed your mind, you are giving notice to leave. You will withdraw this notice if the terms of membership are altered to suit you, and if a repeat referendum on the question "leave or accept the revised terms" then endorses the new terms.
The likelihood is that during this process other EU countries will join in and will want the same term as Britain gets. Spain, Italy, Greece, possibly France and certainly others will want to renegotiate too. There is no solid bloc of 26 Stalinist bureaucracies versus plucky lone Britain; that has only ever been the case among the EU's employees and bureaucrats.
You thereby assert moral leadership solidly based in a mandate for change and you take quite a lot of the EU with you; this is how you reshape it, not by making insincere noises that you think the punters remain stupid enough to swallow.
As I said you are so desperate to rewrite history to try and make Cameron appear the victim of a misunderstanding that you will go to any lengths to try and justify your position - including trying to claim that all those who deserted the Tories once Cameron reneged on his promise had never really believed what they clearly did believe. The Ministry of Truth had nothing on the desperate Cameroons.
More to the point from a Tory perspective it would have transformed the way Cameron was seen by the public in the lead up to the 2010 election and would, in my opinion, have guaranteed him a majority. After all, what were the Labour and Lib Dems going to say in argument against it? We don't think the British people deserve to have a say on this?
I fear if the demonstrated process were used commercially, another_richard would be banging on about its deleterious impact on UK productivity metrics.
But at least it is real metal bashing. And not the poncey modern stuff that passes as such in the nether reaches of Warwickshire.
I can't see how it can produce the Tijou gates though.
Perhaps I lack imagination?
More likely: the other countries turn around and say: "look, we've been f'ing negotiating this for eight years. Your PM signed it, and now you want to renegotiate? What other treaties will you be applying this concept to? How can we trust Britain?"
The thing that really irritates the f out of me on this is that you all lambast Cameron for this, rather than the real guilty parties: Labour and particularly Brown who signed the deal in the first place. It's pathetic.
Keep your powder dry, develop a good alternative vision of a UK outside the EU along with all that means, and then get your referendum. It's the only way you'll win.
The kippers will use any excuse to hammer Cameron, they are not interested in the truth of the intention.
Should it really have been: "The Road to Camelot Pier?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2589711/Was-Camelot-built-WIGAN-Historian-claims-site-King-Arthurs-castle-end-Lancashire-cul-sac.html
The EU that existed before the Lisbon treaty no longer existed after it was ratified by all the countries in the EU. one could vote to leave the eu, but one could not unilaterally change the eu back to the state it was before ratification.
Essentially, ratification changed the rules of the club. We could not unilaterally change them back.
They produced a poster listing all the things that had now been delayed until after the election which included "A vote on the European Constitution"
It's one heck of a gamble over something that is nowhere near your main aim. It would have been the wrong referendum.
I simply do not accept that we cannot leave the EU, which is what you are asserting in effect. We certainly can, not least because any measure previously agreed to that purports to prevent this is unconstitutional.
We have had lying PMs of all hues telling us for at least 22 years that this latest twist of the ratchet is a great deal for Britain. Funnily enough it's the same deal as every other bugger has had. We will be hearing this when Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey and Libya are in the EU no doubt.
A fact Mark Senior knows well but is curiously unprepared to admit in public.
Ratification of the treaty changed the EU for all its members. Un-ratification was not theoretically possible.
But a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is not the way to leave the EU; it's just a way of pi**ing off countries that we need to work with even if we leave the EU.
And if you'd lost (as I think you would have), it would have set the BOO'ers cause back for years.
In that way, Cameron's done you a favour ...
Have the right referendum at the right time. The BOOers' arguments aren't ready yet.
That's the plan is it? Hope and moonshine? Best of luck with that.
As I understand it from dim memory, the mills produced bar and stock from raw wrought iron for use in other processes. Possibly local blacksmiths and the like bought such stuff in to hammer and weld into gates and the like. Blacksmiths could make complete horseshoes out of raw bar, after all, though I suspect there is a degree of prefabrication with the shoes put on the nags by modern farriers.
To date Cameron's achievements with regard to our relationship with the EU have been zero. His 'not letting matters lie' position has proved as false as his Cast Iron Pledge. No significant renegotiation or restoration of powers to the UK will be achieved as long as Cameron is in power because his heart is not in it and the rest of the EU knows it. .
So the question then is simply do we want our terms altered in any way? If so, we vote to repeal Lisbon. If not then you vote to leave it on the books.
You then have a debate between those who argue that we do not need our terms altered in any way - a position so inane and supine only Clegg would contemplate assuming it - and everyone else. Let's see, can anyone think of anything at all about the EU we'd like to opt out of? Open borders? The CAP? The CFP? Bailing out bust members of the Eurozone? Being forced to legalise gay marriage? Being one of two net contributors? Being forced to build HS2 to connect Blackpool with Mersin, or whatever it was? Lithuanian fire suppression standards?
People who say they want to leave do so, I think, because opting out of any of the above is unavailable short of leaving. Their number must include people like me, who figure we chose to join a trade bloc that is now compulsively and illegally thieving our sovereignty, but who would happily stay in the bloc if that were reversed.
The only people who'd vote not to repeal Lisbon would be UKIP hillbillies who'd want to leave regardless of terms and for whom repeal isn't enough; and quisling federasts like Clegg, who on balance would rather we were abolished as a country than left the EU.
If Kinnock's whole family could somehow be stripped of British citizenship and forced to travel on a Belgian passport, that would be the icing on the cake.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3677881/Castiron_guarantee_must_not_rust/
Not sure if this fits RichardN's definition of being at the time the guarantee was made.
One day, while an elephant was walking through the woods, she got a thorn stuck in her foot. She saw an ant passing and asked him to help her get the thorn out.
The ant asked, "What do I get in return?"
The elephant replied, "If you get it out, I'll have sex with you."
So the ant gets busy taking the thorn out. When he finally gets it out he looks up at the elephant and says "OK it's out, are you ready?".
The elephant thinks, "Hey, what's a little ant gonna do anyways?" The ant climbs up and starts to work away. Just then a monkey overhead drops a coconut on the elephant's head.
"Ouch" screams the elephant, and the ant responds, "Yeah take it all bitch."
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/my_weblog/2009/05/fixing-broken-politics.html
That is about 10-months after Lisbon was ratified by the UK government and a few months before he changed his mind.