Paul Waugh @paulwaugh No10 strategist, cited by @Rachelsylveste1:"In Eastleigh we tested to destruction the idea that we can win by trying to outbid Nigel Farage"
So they're going to give UKIP a free run? Crazy!
It's a conundrum - the Big Three can't play on Kipper ground as they've already lost, so offering referendums or whatever won't work. They've got to regain *trust* and that's very hard to win back once its gone.
Tacking to a more socially conservative bent seems unlikely to win more than it loses and Kipper activists are full of zeal right now off the back of their recent success. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be in any Party HQ trying to work out how to outmanoeuvre UKIP right now.
EDIT "The calculations assume that UKIP support is fairly evenly distributed, or at least it is evenly created from defecting Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters. The calculations have not used local election results to estimate possible locations of heavy UKIP support. If UKIP support is concentrated, rather than being evenly spread, then they will get more MPs despite lower levels of popular support."
Surely UKIP will be putting resources heavily into Thanet, Boston, Thurrock & Basildon now for GE2015. And if they aren't, they should be.
UKIP's 2011 accounts list 4 party officers, and 8 admin staff. (Download from electoral commission)
I'm sure they've expanded that since, but its a small outfit.
He likens any likely outcome to that which Harold Wilson achieved in 1975 which were so trivial no one today remembers what they were....
I've never quite seen why so much credibility/airtime is given to long past CoE
In the 'long serving CoE stakes' I'd rate Lawson well ahead of Brown - and as Heaven rejoiceth for every sinner that repenteth, that a former pro-European proponent of the ERM should now say 'we should get out of Europe' is non-trivial......
I suspect that G.Brown will be the least cited CoE and PM in future - who ever mentions him now bar to take the piss? Even his own side pretend he wasn't PM.
Martin Baxter is wrong IMO. A hung parliament is by far the most likely outcome, I think. The local election projection gave Labour just 5 seats more than they need for a majority.
They've convinced themselves that people will vote on the Europe issue and that it will outweigh Tory fratricide
Slightly more to it than that. The tory BOOers are convinced Europe outweighs just about everything while the tory backbench waverers and INs are convinced that they can delay the split by ceding ever more ground to them.
The fact that nothing Clegg has said wouldn't be repeated by Cammie when he campaigned to stay in (or indeed any other tory leader who favours staying IN) doesn't seem to have occurred to many of them.
This Lord Lawson thing is huge. He has now put out a clear economic case for the sizable benefits of leaving the EU, and this is coming from a former Chancellor. The Very Serious People who live in London and previously dismissed leaving as just a xenophobic impulse will now be prepared for a genuine open minded conversation about this stuff. It could really be game changing. I don't have access to the Times, but it sounds like he made all the solid arguments that were needed.
"The Very Serious People who live in London and previously dismissed leaving as just a xenophobic impulse will now be prepared for a genuine open minded conversation about this stuff."
if they need "permission" to think then they're a bunch of dimwits who can't work things out for themselves.
It's human nature, unfortunately. When an opinion is seen as culturally alien, most people will instantly reject it until it is expressed by someone whose culture you understand. It's like acceptance of homosexuality in working class circles. It was seen as an effete metropolitan thing, until working class people started coming out in large numbers, and then tolerance boomed.
Anecdotal - Men with long hair are still given 'funny looks' in ex mining village pubs !
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh No10 strategist, cited by @Rachelsylveste1:"In Eastleigh we tested to destruction the idea that we can win by trying to outbid Nigel Farage"
So they're going to give UKIP a free run? Crazy!
It's a conundrum - the Big Three can't play on Kipper ground as they've already lost, so offering referendums or whatever won't work. They've got to regain *trust* and that's very hard to win back once its gone.
Tacking to a more socially conservative bent seems unlikely to win more than it loses and Kipper activists are full of zeal right now off the back of their recent success. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be in any Party HQ trying to work out how to outmanoeuvre UKIP right now.
_Holding_ an in/out referendum should work. I think as the GE approaches, we'll see the parties get ever more desperate to appeal to UKIP's supporters.
This Lord Lawson thing is huge. He has now put out a clear economic case for the sizable benefits of leaving the EU, and this is coming from a former Chancellor. The Very Serious People who live in London and previously dismissed leaving as just a xenophobic impulse will now be prepared for a genuine open minded conversation about this stuff. It could really be game changing. I don't have access to the Times, but it sounds like he made all the solid arguments that were needed.
"The Very Serious People who live in London and previously dismissed leaving as just a xenophobic impulse will now be prepared for a genuine open minded conversation about this stuff."
if they need "permission" to think then they're a bunch of dimwits who can't work things out for themselves.
It's human nature, unfortunately. When an opinion is seen as culturally alien, most people will instantly reject it until it is expressed by someone whose culture you understand. It's like acceptance of homosexuality in working class circles. It was seen as an effete metropolitan thing, until working class people started coming out in large numbers, and then tolerance boomed.
Anecdotal - Men with long hair are still given 'funny looks' in ex mining village pubs !
They've clearly never met these miners... wearing hairnets...
On topic, those have got to be the most out-of-touch odds that anyone's posted on pbc since Roger last wrote something. 2/9 for a Labour majority? 100/1 for a Tory one?
The reality of the local elections was that Labour couldn't pick up 3 votes in 10 as the only established major party in opposition at the moment, with the government mid-term and spending restraint causing plenty of opportunities for bandwagon-jumping. We know that there is plenty of opposition to the government, yet we also know that Labour couldn't capitalise on it at a set of elections with (as many people see it), few consequences in terms of outcome. If Labour can't do better in these circumstances, why do people believe it will in 2015?
It is true that Labour would have won an outright majority on Thursday's shares but do we believe that there'll be no movement back to the government parties between now and the election? It is far easier for governments to recover in the second half of parliaments than for oppositions - the public tend to make their mind up about LotO's within a year to 18 months and stick with that until the election. By contrast, governments' fortunes depend more on events.
The most significant political 'event' in respect of the current situation is connection with that part of the public which is being left behind by the elites of all parties. It is not Europe as such which is exercising most UKIP voters, though issues like immigration are intrinsically bound up with membership of the EU, but a cry of dispair for someone to speak their language and voice their aspirations and fears. Rightly or wrongly, they believe UKIP do that.
I do not believe that anyone in or near the current Labour or Lib Dem leadership is capable of making that connection. Possibly Alan Johnson, John Cruddas or John Prescott could have done but the influence of the Guardian-types is so pervasive that they would never allow it - as HenryG eloquently pointed out in his column the other day. Probably Cameron isn't capable of it either, but there are others in the Tory party who can, and in coalition with Cameron that could be very effective.
They've convinced themselves that people will vote on the Europe issue and that it will outweigh Tory fratricide
Slightly more to it than that. The tory BOOers are convinced Europe outweighs just about everything while the tory backbench waverers and INs are convinced that they can delay the split by ceding ever more ground to them.
The fact that nothing Clegg has said wouldn't be repeated by Cammie when he campaigned to stay in (or indeed any other tory leader who favours staying IN) doesn't seem to have occurred to many of them.
Mick Pork's and Sir Rupert's political hero shows his political and economic acumen ;
" Salmond said: "And I think the argument for having strong fiscal powers, powers over revenue, powers to expand the economy within a monetary context, within a European Euro context, will prove to be a very strong one for the people of Scotland. "As you know, we're in Sterling and Sterling is sinking like a stone. It's now about at parity with the Euro." In an interview with another station, Mr Salmond added: "We need also in my view to be in a framework for monetary policy, a European framework, which we're not in at the present moment, to have the best chances." The First Minister's senior special adviser said the SNP had "always recognised the benefits of Euro membership". "
It would work if it was the thing UKIP voters are asking for. Sadly while that may be what politicians think they are asking for its not going to answer the more accurate "None of the Above" reason that is the real reason many are voting for UKIP.
SeanT and david_kendrick1 have explained the problem the other parties have when dealing with UKIP. More pain without clear changes and improvements elsewhere isn't going to work.
The tory BOOers are convinced Europe outweighs just about everything while the tory backbench waverers and INs are convinced that they can delay the split by ceding ever more ground to them.
Assuming for the sake of argument that me and Nigel Lawson are right and the whole renegotiation thing is bullshit, does anyone have any thoughts on how many Tory MPs would support BOO? I don't support a referendum on it or want to look like they might support it, I mean actually support leaving the EU as their preferred policy outcome.
It would work if it was the thing UKIP voters are asking for. Sadly while that may be what politicians think they are asking for its not going to answer the more accurate "None of the Above" reason that is the real reason many are voting for UKIP.
SeanT and david_kendrick1 have explained the problem the other parties have when dealing with UKIP. More pain without clear changes and improvements elsewhere isn't going to work.
It would address both the immigration, and EU arguments for voting UKIP. According to YouGov, those are the top two.
On topic, those have got to be the most out-of-touch odds that anyone's posted on pbc since Roger last wrote something. 2/9 for a Labour majority? 100/1 for a Tory one?
The reality of the local elections was that Labour couldn't pick up 3 votes in 10 as the only established major party in opposition at the moment, with the government mid-term and spending restraint causing plenty of opportunities for bandwagon-jumping. We know that there is plenty of opposition to the government, yet we also know that Labour couldn't capitalise on it at a set of elections with (as many people see it), few consequences in terms of outcome. If Labour can't do better in these circumstances, why do people believe it will in 2015?
It is true that Labour would have won an outright majority on Thursday's shares but do we believe that there'll be no movement back to the government parties between now and the election? It is far easier for governments to recover in the second half of parliaments than for oppositions - the public tend to make their mind up about LotO's within a year to 18 months and stick with that until the election. By contrast, governments' fortunes depend more on events.
The most significant political 'event' in respect of the current situation is connection with that part of the public which is being left behind by the elites of all parties. It is not Europe as such which is exercising most UKIP voters, though issues like immigration are intrinsically bound up with membership of the EU, but a cry of dispair for someone to speak their language and voice their aspirations and fears. Rightly or wrongly, they believe UKIP do that.
I do not believe that anyone in or near the current Labour or Lib Dem leadership is capable of making that connection. Possibly Alan Johnson, John Cruddas or John Prescott could have done but the influence of the Guardian-types is so pervasive that they would never allow it - as HenryG eloquently pointed out in his column the other day. Probably Cameron isn't capable of it either, but there are others in the Tory party who can, and in coalition with Cameron that could be very effective.
Labour are really not that popular, but they have a golden storm in their vote distribution, differential turnout, efficiency of vote and UKIP taking votes off the other parties more than them. If UKIP carry on as they are Labour could get a small majority on ~ 29% or so or the vote.
IN/OUT shake it all about. Even Cammie knows there is no end to the gullibility of tory Eurosceptics. UKIP however are not quite so gullible.
"EU referendum Bill would fail, say Hammond and Hague
A new law preparing the way for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union would fail to pass through the Commons, Conservative Cabinet ministers have warned.
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, both sought to quell speculation that legislation would be introduced on a referendum before the next election.
Mr Hague issued a direct plea to euro-sceptic MPs to remember that the Tories did not have enough votes in the Commons to pass such a law on their own.
Mr Hammond said it was “the simple reality” that a Bill would be impossible to get through parliament in the face of opposition from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Their comments appeared at odds with the enthusiastic pledge from David Cameron shortly before the local elections last week to publish a referendum Bill and do “everything I can” to convince the public that he would give voters a say on the EU.
The Prime Minister’s remarks were seen as confirmation that he was ready to address the threat from Ukip’s popularity by bringing forward legislation, even it was subsequently defeated in the Commons.
New cast iron posturing required for the gullibles.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond backs draft bill on EU vote
The Conservatives could publish a draft bill before the next general election paving the way for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in the next parliament, a senior Cabinet minister suggested today.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond ruled out introducing a bill for an in/out referendum in the current parliament - saying it would not get through the Commons.
But following the sweeping gains made by Ukip in last week's council elections, he said they had to do every thing they could to reassure voters that they would honour their commitment to give them a say in the next parliament.
He said that he believed the Conservative general election manifesto would include a clear commitment to legislate for a referendum as soon as they began the next parliament.
He likens any likely outcome to that which Harold Wilson achieved in 1975 which were so trivial no one today remembers what they were....
I've never quite seen why so much credibility/airtime is given to long past CoE or indeed any politician. Lawson managed to make a colossal mess re MIRAS amongst other things - I hold no candle for his opinions and he's been out of the loop for a decade or two.
I can see worth in Darling saying something - but vanishingly so. Frankly, I don't give a fig what Lawson or any of the pre-97 lot have to say.
Really not sure what you are talking about re MIRAS Plato. The abolition of MIRAS was a necessary and essential measure which took some of the heat out of the UK's propensity to have absurd housing bubbles by removing a state subsidy. He was able to do that relatively painlessly at a time when inflation reduced the real cost of your mortgage fairly fast. No one has ever suggested replacing it.
I think Lawson's book "The view from No 11" remains probably the best and most interesting book on government economic policy I have read. Large sections are dated now because what Lawson argued for has become trite and uncontroversial. His views still carry a lot of weight and I would have so much more respect for his economic judgement than Clegg's as to make the matter barely worth considering.
Cameron won't thank him for this but such views will also be listened to on the Continent and it will shape the nature of the debate. Eventually the tory party will be led by a BOO. It just seems inevitable. Doesn't mean Cameron is going any time soon but it does mean his job of party management (not his specialist field unfortunately) has just got even harder.
Labour are basically reduced to a pressure group of around 35% of the public which advocates a policy of draining money from the rest of the economy to keep them in a government job and well renumerated in work and in retirement.
However these voters plus a section of people who would vote for Jimmy Sav in a red rosette is enough to win easily at the GE.
does anyone have any thoughts on how many Tory MPs would support BOO? I don't support a referendum on it or want to look like they might support it, I mean actually support leaving the EU as their preferred policy outcome.
Not enough to be a majority in the tory party. (though the number has clearly increased and will keep doing so) More than enough to cause utter carnage should it ever actually get to any kind of real referendum and more than enough to force the issue close to the top of any future tory leadership election.
Will the United Kingdom still be a member of the European Union in 2020? YouGov President, Peter Kellner, examines three scenarios.
1. The Conservatives win the 2015 and David Cameron is able to redeem his promise to renegotiate Britain’s membership terms and hold a referendum in 2017.
1 (a) Second, YouGov has started asking a second question: Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms. How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?
2. Labour wins the 2015 election and Ed Miliband sticks to his current position of opposing a referendum
3. Labour wins the 2015 general election with Ed Miliband having changed his stance and promising a referendum on British membership of the EU.
does anyone have any thoughts on how many Tory MPs would support BOO? I don't support a referendum on it or want to look like they might support it, I mean actually support leaving the EU as their preferred policy outcome.
Not enough to be a majority in the tory party. (though the number has clearly increased and will keep doing so) More than enough to cause utter carnage should it ever actually get to any kind of real referendum and more than enough to force the issue close to the top of any future tory leadership election.
Both issues are always going to be linked by UKIP so there is no way for Cammie to posture on immigration without bringing the agenda on to Europe at the same time. As long as UKIP are there to say their solution requires getting OUT Cammie will have to defend staying IN and why he can tackle the issue while remaining IN.
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
Obvious again though that the serious political discussion and story is on the right - no interest in Labour Career Politicians Inc - "the empty party".
Both issues are always going to be linked by UKIP so there is no way for Cammie to posture on immigration without bringing the agenda on to Europe at the same time. As long as UKIP are there to say their solution requires getting OUT Cammie will have to defend staying IN and why he can tackle the issue while remaining IN.
I agree. They need to hold the referendum, not talk about it.
An alternative would be to put Boris in number 10, and rely on his charisma. I think Mr Cameron would try the referendum route first.
"in 1975, when Labour’s Harold Wilson also undertook a “renegotiation” with the Common Market, as it then was, ahead of a referendum. He returned to London claiming a triumph. I was a young journalist on the Sunday Times and obtained an internal Labour Party document showing that Wilson had gained virtually nothing. It was the paper’s lead story one week and caused a brief fuss among those obsessed with politics. But it passed the wider public by and did nothing to impede a two-to-one referendum vote for staying in the Common Market."
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
The time for showing a bit of leg has probably passed; The voters wouldn't believe it anyway, and if he was being vague while Cameron has made what the voters (wrongly IMHO) think is a promise of a referendum in the next parliament, he'd just end up looking weak and shifty.
At this point I think he has to either stick to his guns or execute a bold, shameless u-turn.
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
The time for showing a bit of leg has probably passed; The voters wouldn't believe it anyway, and if he was being vague while Cameron has made what the voters (wrongly IMHO) think is a promise of a referendum in the next parliament, he'd just end up looking weak and shifty.
At this point I think he has to either stick to his guns or execute a bold, shameless u-turn.
rEd won't do anything soon - I reckon he will basically give the Cam 2010 promise - referendum if big treaty - and give it 6 weeks before GE.
I've got to agree with those who say these percentages are a little silly. 1% for a blue majority? I think it's unlikely, but not Jenson Button winning the world title unlikely.
Of course, if you're poorer than a church mouse who has just had an enormous tax bill on the day his wife ran off with another mouse, taking all the cheese, you can use the code XK87G and buy it on Smashwords for just $1.02: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/313503
F1: I'm going to put up the early discussion thread later today.
Does it work for people who don't have kindles?
Happy to pay the retail price direct to you for a PDF... ;-)
Both issues are always going to be linked by UKIP so there is no way for Cammie to posture on immigration without bringing the agenda on to Europe at the same time. As long as UKIP are there to say their solution requires getting OUT Cammie will have to defend staying IN and why he can tackle the issue while remaining IN.
I agree. They need to hold the referendum, not talk about it.
An alternative would be to put Boris in number 10, and rely on his charisma. I think Mr Cameron would try the referendum route first.
I never get this Boris theme. Aside from having a much better range of jokes, what evidence is there that Boris would do anything different than Dave ? They have pretty much the same background.
Well, yes. Prices are crashing. But that's my point - or my brothers point. The house he mentioned in Valencia had just been knocked down a further 15%.
At this rate of decline Spain - for all its faults still an attractive, First World place to live, with great food, great climate etc - will become tempting to overseas buyers. That moment could arrive sooner than we expect.
It could but it also could soon be the moment when nasty vampiric foreigners who buy up cheap property from bankrupt Spaniards become rather unpopular.
And wasn't much of the recent Spanish property built without proper planning permission / not paying proper taxes / bribing local officials ?
Might be an excuse to levy some hefty fines if that property is now owned by nasty, vampiric foreigners ;-)
My guess is the average homeowning Spaniard would be just delighted if loads of rich Asians started buying Spanish property, thereby rescuing house prices and boosting a moribund economy.
In the way that young Londoners are happy about property prices and their ability to buy their own home?
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
The time for showing a bit of leg has probably passed; The voters wouldn't believe it anyway, and if he was being vague while Cameron has made what the voters (wrongly IMHO) think is a promise of a referendum in the next parliament, he'd just end up looking weak and shifty.
At this point I think he has to either stick to his guns or execute a bold, shameless u-turn.
rEd won't do anything soon - I reckon he will basically give the Cam 2010 promise - referendum if big treaty - and give it 6 weeks before GE.
If Kellner is right - and Ed does offer a referendum:
"All in all, if the parties stick to their current plans, then I see little chance of Britain leaving the EU – unless, of course some existential crisis causes the Union to disintegrate for reasons that have little to do with domestic British politics. BUT – if Ed Miliband decides to match David Cameron’s promise of a mid-term referendum in 2017, then a striking paradox emerges. In those circumstances, anyone whose over-riding passion is for Britain to stay in the EU should vote Conservative – while anyone desperate to maximise the chances of quitting the club should vote Labour."
The rationale being that a Con win will lead to a Cameron renegotiation that Britain will vote for. A Lab win will lead to Cameron's replacement by a Eurosceptic and a split 'in' campaign.....
So, if Ed wants us to stay in the EU, as I have no doubt he does, lets hope he has no weakness for passing bandwagons.....oh......
Easily more than 10 for a start. Just how many seems to be speculation but this is a fairly good guide as to the many and varied factions including the BOOers.
Analysis: the Tory Party's five Europe factions
The publication of the Fresh Start today report is the latest sign of a Conservative split over Europe. The five different factions within the party are analysed here.
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
The time for showing a bit of leg has probably passed; The voters wouldn't believe it anyway, and if he was being vague while Cameron has made what the voters (wrongly IMHO) think is a promise of a referendum in the next parliament, he'd just end up looking weak and shifty.
At this point I think he has to either stick to his guns or execute a bold, shameless u-turn.
rEd won't do anything soon - I reckon he will basically give the Cam 2010 promise - referendum if big treaty - and give it 6 weeks before GE.
IIUC he's already committed to a referendum _on_ a big treaty if there is one.
One way you could see him coming around to an in/out referendum eventually is if it turns out he does need to pass a treaty, and he doesn't think he can win a referendum on it. This was discussed as one of the dodges Gordon Brown might use for Lisbon: You can't get the voters to agree to the treaty itself, so make the treaty a fait-accompli but let them vote on in-with-treaty or out. But this feels like second-term stuff; It's hard to see a treaty of the 28 getting completed that fast. If the Eurozone need something done fast, they won't do it with a treaty of the 28.
I think this preliminary list shows the problem. Whatever Cameron achieves by negotiation is likely to be controversial and opposed by some in this country, particularly in the Labour party. Putting a package together that can win a majority will be tricky and what is to stop a future Labour government simply opting back in again?
The next problem is that if the last 40 years have taught us anything it is that the EU is a journey not a destination. Even if we got something we could live with now what happens the next time the treaties are revised?
Our fundamental problem is that until now at least the Continent had a different end objective and our political class simply lied about it. If the euro broke up a very different Europe with a different agenda might emerge but any sceptic should reflect on the agony that countries have been willing to go through to resist that.
I think us leaving, ideally with a cordial and friendly relationship with the EU addressing markets, some freedom of movement and abode (possibly time limited) and some of the other benefits of membership, is looking inevitable. The only question is when.
Morning all. I see our EU friends are getting nervous.
So they should. There's a hell a lot higher chance of the Conservatives getting a majority than Martin Baxter's bizarre projection shows, and that means a referendum after renegotiation is a distinct possibility. They'd better start taking it seriously if they want the UK population to vote to stay in the EU.
On Lord Lawson's article, I agree with him that the balance is shifting towards leaving, if we can't get the reforms we need. The naked attacks on the City - our most important industry - over the last few months have been astonising in their combination of ideological nuttines and disregard for a vital interest of one of the largest economies in the EU. Whilst we can put up with minor industries such as fishing being hollowed out (even if it's disastrous for the mainly Labour-voting communities affected), we can't put up with attacks on the one major industry where we have a world-class advantage, which is absolutely crucial to the economy as a whole.
Labour's ceding of control of financial regulation to the EU, for absolutely nothing in return and completely unnecessarily, was the biggest economic blunder for decades. What were they thinking?
Both issues are always going to be linked by UKIP so there is no way for Cammie to posture on immigration without bringing the agenda on to Europe at the same time. As long as UKIP are there to say their solution requires getting OUT Cammie will have to defend staying IN and why he can tackle the issue while remaining IN.
I agree. They need to hold the referendum, not talk about it.
An alternative would be to put Boris in number 10, and rely on his charisma. I think Mr Cameron would try the referendum route first.
I never get this Boris theme. Aside from having a much better range of jokes, what evidence is there that Boris would do anything different than Dave ? They have pretty much the same background.
I agree. Boris even backed Mr Clarke for the party leadership, but he does have a better line of patter than Messrs Cameron/Clegg/Milliband. "Vote for Boris, it'll be fun!" could work. :-)
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
It is puzzling why he didn't just match Cammie's cast iron referendum pledge since it is conditional on a new treaty, renegotiations and a new deal. That makes it harmless enough to posture on almost indefinitely since no treaty looks like happening. Which might just be why Cammie made sure his referendum pledge was conditional in the first place.
It is said Mark McDonald is likely to resign his list seat to run for Dooside by-election. I believe it's more a choice taking into consideration the future.
Morning all. I see our EU friends are getting nervous.
So they should. There's a hell a lot higher chance of the Conservatives getting a majority than Martin Baxter's bizarre projection shows, and that means a referendum after renegotiation is a distinct possibility. They'd better start taking it seriously if they want the UK population to vote to stay in the EU.
On Lord Lawson's article, I agree with him that the balance is shifting towards leaving, if we can't get the reforms we need. The naked attacks on the City - our most important industry - over the last few months have been astonising in their combination of ideological nuttines and disregard for a vital interest of one of the largest economies in the EU. Whilst we can put up with minor industries such as fishing being hollowed out (even if it's disastrous for the mainly Labour-voting communities affected), we can't put up with attacks on the one major industry where we have a world-class advantage, which is absolutely crucial to the economy as a whole.
Labour's ceding of control of financial regulation to the EU, for absolutely nothing in return and completely unnecessarily, was the biggest economic blunder for decades. What were they thinking?
" The naked attacks on the City - our most important industry.....Whilst we can put up with minor industries such as fishing being hollowed out "
Richard, comments like that that really travel badly outside of Bankistan in the South East; are you a sleeper for the Labour party ?
@BBCNormanS: EU President spokesman Richard Corbett warns of "huge negative consequences" for UK if it leaves the EU @bbcr4today
That's Former Labour MEP Richard Corbett.......
Shortlisted candidate for Labour Yorkshire Euro selection
"On 14 November 2012, Corbett was voted by a panel of retired diplomats, journalists, academics and think-tankers, as the fourth most influential Briton on EU policy, ahead of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Commission Vice President Baroness Ashton."
I have no doubt he is sincere in his enthusiasm for the EU - but he would do his case greater favour by not recycling Clegg's fibs....
I think this preliminary list shows the problem. Whatever Cameron achieves by negotiation is likely to be controversial and opposed by some in this country, particularly in the Labour party.
Right. The first one is by far the most likely, because Britain joining the Social Chapter wasn't a quid-pro-quo for anything. Major negotiated an opt-out, and Labour opted back in because they wanted to. It's quite conceivable that nobody would be particularly bothered about Britain opting out again, although if that required a treaty change it would be a big logistical PITA getting it through 27 parliaments without somebody shooting it down for domestic political reasons.
But if you actually hold the referendum at the end of this process, you end up with a completely divided and demoralized "in" side. The right are slagging the deal off because they didn't get a fraction of what they wanted, the left are slagging it off because they disagree with what's been done. The "in" campaign ends up being a combination of: Con: "The EU is shit, we made it marginally less shit, we should stay in". Lab: "This deal is terrible, you should vote for it".
UKIP voters last Thursday came from 4 separate groups of voters .
1 UKIP core voters who voted for them in previous elections . These are mostly motivated by opposition to the EU and will vote UKIP in 2015
2 Former BNP supporters who since their virtual demise of BNP have seen UKIP as closer to their views than other parties .
3 Voters disgruntled with the government giving a mid term protest . Mostly ex 2010 Conservatives but some ex 2010 Lib Dems . These will move back to their original home IF things improve economically and there is swing back .
4 What I would call ( not meant derogatorily ) the bandwagon voters . These voted for all parties in 2010 but are the voters who react to events both nationally and locally and can give surprising upsets in voting in specific seats and nationally . These are the voters who for example , voted Green in the 1989 EU elections , told the pollsters they would vote Lib Dem after the first leadership debate in 2010 or to give a couple of local examples voted Boston Independent in 2007 local elections but not in 2011 , for Michael Meadowcroft in Leeds West in 1983 or voted Labour in 2011/2012 local elections but UKIP in 2013. These voters by their nature have no natural home and it is hard to predict if they will stay with UKIP and where they will go to if not .
'I wonder which Labour politician will have the guts to expose the divisions about the EU within Labour.'
Some are already coming out of the woodwork.
'It is time to stop meddling with vague concepts. Let us have clear social justice priorities
The top priority in housing for those who have lived in social housing as children;
No benefits for anyone until they have paid National insurance for two years
No free flow of capital to avoid taxes
No zero hours agency contracts with no employment rights
No open market in labour in the United Kingdom, rather a system of work permits, including for all Europeans.
Ed Miliband needs to commit Labour to a people’s Europe, by announcing that he will tear up the single Market in labour and capital. I think we will find that Germany, France, Holland and Denmark will quickly follow our lead.
A control over the Common Market, free flow of people but not free flow of labour and capital. That’s what I call a real renegotiation.
@BBCNormanS: EU President spokesman Richard Corbett warns of "huge negative consequences" for UK if it leaves the EU @bbcr4today
That's Former Labour MEP Richard Corbett.......
Corbett sums up the EU scam. His highly paid job is paid for by the EU taxpayer , and his highly paid job consists of telling the EU taxpayer that he's doing a good job and deserves every euro.
Labour currently have 1 seat in Yorkshire and the Humber. I think they expect to win 2 next year (2 UKIP and 2 Con too) with BNP and LIbDems losing out. So there's a chance for Corbett to come back. He needs to beat Cllr Hughes, Cllr Kahn, Cllr Mirfin-Boukouris, Cllr Simpson-Lang and Ms Tunnicliffe.
Cllr Simpson Lang has the support of many council leaders, Cllr Khan of top (but not necesserily from the region) trade unionists. And obviously some people seem to endorse more candidates....
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
The time for showing a bit of leg has probably passed; The voters wouldn't believe it anyway, and if he was being vague while Cameron has made what the voters (wrongly IMHO) think is a promise of a referendum in the next parliament, he'd just end up looking weak and shifty.
At this point I think he has to either stick to his guns or execute a bold, shameless u-turn.
Assuming your "wrongly IMHO" comment implied that Cameron wouldn't be bound to hold a referendum in the next parliament - or that you think he thinks he wouldn't be - I'd suggest you're underestimating the political momentum that's building on the issue.
As an aside, I think you're wrong - Cameron was fairly clear and said (though I may be paraphrasing) "If I'm PM, this happens". Far more importantly, however, the Conservative Party in general and Conservative MPs in particular will have taken that interpretation. That's why the issue went quiet until the local elections and UKIP's performance set the cat amongst them again.
Be in no doubt: this matters to Tory activists, from armchair subscribers to members of parliament (both Houses, and in government and out). Were Cameron believed to be renaging on a deliverable promise, he would face at the minimum resignations and probably a No Confidence motion - one which would probably pass if there were a credible replacement willing to deliver a referendum.
The difference between this and the Lisbon referendum is that the great majority of Westminster sceptics recognised the futility of holding a post-ratification referendum and grudgingly accepted that. There is no equivalent get-out either in the event of a reform treaty being agreed, or if negotiations fail and the In-Out debate is on the status quo. There is the possibility of a short extension to the deadline if negotiations look close and the original deadline passes but that alone would cause huge trouble and would probably of itself produce a shift to the Out camp.
Richard, comments like that that really travel badly outside of Bankistan in the South East; are you a sleeper for the Labour party ?
I never say anything other than what I see as reality, and I never express any views other than my own.
If voters don't like reality, they will have to take the consequences, won't they? If they are happy to kill off the golden goose that pays for the NHS, good luck to them.
Britain's fourth most influential Briton in the EU (Corbett) on an EU referendum:
"Ed Miliband is absolutely right to resist pressures to match the Conservative party's pledge to hold a referendum. That pledge has very little to do with the national interest, and more to do with bridging the divisions within the Conservative party -- and their fear of UKIP.
If Labour pledged to hold a referendum, then it would have to do so – a massive distraction during the first years of the Labour government, diverting effort away from overcoming the economic downturn, and probably worsening it. And heaven help us if we lost it (which is not inconceivable, given the overwhelming hostility of the media). We would spend the next few years negotiating our exit from the European Union and simultaneously trying to negotiate new trade agreements with almost every other country in the world to replace those we currently have via the EU – negotiating alone, as Britain, without the clout of the rest of Europe behind us.
I think Ed has also worked out that there are not many votes to be gained for Labour by pledging a referendum. Opinion polls show that the subject comes well down the list of issues considered important by the public. And many of those who do think it is a priority are to be found among right-wing Conservative or UKIP/BNP supporters – hardly likely to switch to Labour if we make a referendum pledge."
On topic, I'd rather lay the prospect of a Labour overall majority than back the prospect of a Conservative overall majority. Right now, however, I prefer simply to back no overall majority.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
It is puzzling why he didn't just match Cammie's cast iron referendum pledge since it is conditional on a new treaty, renegotiations and a new deal. That makes it harmless enough to posture on almost indefinitely since no treaty looks like happening. Which might just be why Cammie made sure his referendum pledge was conditional in the first place.
That's why I reckon he's made up his mind to oppose because Jobs.
The other advantage of this is that there's a reasonable chance Cameron's line will start to a bit shaky if people put pressure on it in an election campaign. Miliband may have decided it would have ended up making him look slippery while reducing his opportunity to make Cameron look slippery, and he probably wouldn't have got many votes out of it in the first place.
Richard, comments like that that really travel badly outside of Bankistan in the South East; are you a sleeper for the Labour party ?
I never say anything other than what I see as reality, and I never express any views other than my own.
If voters don't like reality, they will have to take the consequences, won't they? If they are happy to kill off the golden goose that pays for the NHS, good luck to them.
Well as your hero Charles de Gaulle allegedly said - we' ll stun you with our ingratitude. As for taking the consequences we already are, though like the rest of the Talibanksters you've conveniently forgotten. We have artificially low interest rates propping up wrecked balance sheets, a £trillion guarantee for which all tax payers are on the hook, and any number of litigations for illegal practices our "most successful" industry has used to enrich itself.
A senior pro-EU Conservative MP told me that the new initiative has been kept separate from the Conservative Europe Group (CEG) partly because "the torch is being passed to the next generation".
The group doesn't have a website that I can find as I write, and I will update this post as and when more information comes in. In the meantime, some quick points:
Euro-enthusiasts remain wary of making their case - or at least of being identified in public. The Financial Times (again) said recently of a pro-EU backbench letter that "only 15 of the 25 signatories were prepared to have their names published".
That initiative was organised by Robert Buckland, who is a Vice-Chairman of the CEG. He argued recently in the New Statesman that "the uncertainty over Britain's EU membership is damaging growth".
The Express claimed that "rumours are swirling" that Downing Street backed the Buckland letter. Other MPs in the 2010 intake who lean towards the Euro-enthusiast end of the scale include Jane Ellison, Neil Carmichael, and Anna Soubry.
I would be extremely surprised were Downing Street not aware of the new group, and can't help seeing it in the light of David Cameron's own commitment to EU membership. (Sandys says in the film that their own thinking draws on his recent speech.)
That Euro-enthusiast MPs are prepared to argue their case upfront is a thoroughly welcome development, and Sandys should be congratulated for her courage in swimming against a prevailing tide.
@MarkSenior - a non trivial subset of group 3 are Tory>Labour switchers who have swung between both parties over the years - now instead of going from Tory to Labour they are going to UKIP (Peter Kellner on R4 yesterday) - which is why the Labour 'UKIP don't hurt us' MPs (yes, you David Lammy) and posters are so short sighted.
What either the Tories or Labour can do to regain them is not immediately obvious....without causing equal or larger losses elsewhere....
The "in" campaign ends up being a combination of: Con: "The EU is shit, we made it marginally less shit, we should stay in". Lab: "This deal is terrible, you should vote for it".
We would spend the next few years negotiating our exit from the European Union and simultaneously trying to negotiate new trade agreements with almost every other country in the world to replace those we currently have via the EU – negotiating alone, as Britain, without the clout of the rest of Europe behind us.
Corbett isn't bright enough to realise (a) we would be able to negotiate a new deal with the EU, as a bunch of other, much smaller countries have, and (b) the economy of the rest of the world is much larger than the EUs.
As for the "clout of the rest of Europe behind us", in the last Doha trade round, that clout largely consisted of the French undermining the British trade commissioner when he offered agricultural reform and leading to the talks collapsing.
I'm also interested how lack of clout didn't stop Israel signing a free trade deal with Mercosur, Iceland signing a trade deal with China, Panama with the USA, Chile with Japan. Europhile's arguments are immune to facts. They face overwhelming counter arguments yet don't even address them, just repeat the original argument again.
does anyone have any thoughts on how many Tory MPs would support BOO? I don't support a referendum on it or want to look like they might support it, I mean actually support leaving the EU as their preferred policy outcome.
Not enough to be a majority in the tory party. (though the number has clearly increased and will keep doing so) More than enough to cause utter carnage should it ever actually get to any kind of real referendum and more than enough to force the issue close to the top of any future tory leadership election.
What are we talking - 10, 50, 100, 200?
Publicly it's only about a dozen or so, because announcing such a position basically shafts any potential ministerial career under Cameron. If you include those who privately support it, I think it's about a hundred.
In terms of the Tory membership, a large majority support leaving.
The above graphic is very interesting and instructive, and I'm sure it has not been lost on both parties of the 'right'.
They have 18 months to get over the giant egos and personal agendas and stitch up some sort of deal, or foist Ed Mili on the country almost by default.
Just read that Channel 4 fact check on Clegg's 3 million claim.
I didn't realise that, not only does it assume we wouldn't sign FTAs elsewhere, but it also is based on the belief that we wouldn't have ANY EXPORTS AT ALL to the EU if we left! Clearly a ridiculous proposition. The author of the report has criticised interpreting in terms of job losses.
Nick Clegg is just outright lying about this, and must know it. People say the eurosceptics are dishonest regarding the odd leaflet's claims. But here we have possibly the most senior europhile in the country completely lying about a number to scaremonger as central to the case for staying in the EU. Is there any journalist worth his salt that will confront him about this in an interview?
I agree with the reality of your assessment, but he is just claiming that they are "at risk".
Of course we are all at risk of being hit by lightening every day, so it will be difficult to disprove.
Assuming your "wrongly IMHO" comment implied that Cameron wouldn't be bound to hold a referendum in the next parliament - or that you think he thinks he wouldn't be - I'd suggest you're underestimating the political momentum that's building on the issue.
As an aside, I think you're wrong - Cameron was fairly clear and said (though I may be paraphrasing) "If I'm PM, this happens".
That was about whether he'd still be able to do what he was saying he'd do if he didn't get a majority. He didn't clearly say, "If I am PM, there will be a referendum", despite being specifically asked about what would happen if there wasn't a treaty, or the renegotiation he was saying would be the alternative, within the timetable.
Far more importantly, however, the Conservative Party in general and Conservative MPs in particular will have taken that interpretation. That's why the issue went quiet until the local elections and UKIP's performance set the cat amongst them again.
Be in no doubt: this matters to Tory activists, from armchair subscribers to members of parliament (both Houses, and in government and out). Were Cameron believed to be renaging on a deliverable promise, he would face at the minimum resignations and probably a No Confidence motion - one which would probably pass if there were a credible replacement willing to deliver a referendum.
The story would be that the other member states were unreasonably refusing to negotiate in good faith. At that point he wouldn't just say, "OK, never mind, that renegotiation plan turned out to be a right load of old bollocks". He'd do something that looked like it was moving the process forward, and sticking it to Johnny Foreigner in the process. The obvious move would be to go to Stage 1 of John Redwood's two-parliament plan, which is for a "mandate referendum", where he'd get the voters to vote for the fact that they were grumpy and he'd then use that mandate as a cudgel to slap the recalcitrant Europeans with.
He'd have a very good case that he was being good to his promise. For example, he specifically said that a referendum without a renegotiation would be a "false choice", and that the renegotiation had to happen first. And the EU is always planning a treaty, so he could also claim that what he'd said would happen was still going to happen, just a bit later than he'd planned.
Maybe people would still think he was full of shit. But look at the choices faced by Tory MPs at that point:
1) Ditch your election winner (the premise for this is that he's managed to win a majority against the odds) and put someone else in who will call a referendum. Unless you support BOO, which most Tory MPs don't, you cannot possibly win that referendum. If it's an "out" you lose, and if it's an "in" you've just made the voters vote for the status quo that you were supposed to be trying to overturn. Richard Nabavi has made the case before about why this referendum would be strategically bonkers for the Tories now; It would be equally strategically bonkers for them then.
2) Hold the line, back the leader, win the mandate referendum ("tick box if you're grumpy [ ]"), make Labour look weak and pathetic, live to fight another day. That way you may actually get what you want.
I take the point that the party has strong feelings about this and some of it is emotional rather than politically rational, but this really wouldn't be a difficult decision for them. They're politicians.
I do find it amusing that preventing future transfers of power counts as a repatriation these days. Only the first and third are repatriations, and the last one would be minor. I'd say major repatriations would be:
- Social chapter - CAP (including the payments for it, obviously) - Trade policy - Immigration policy
If we got full control of two of these back, I'd take my hat off to David Cameron. In fact, if we got the trade policy one, I might even support staying in the EU. In practice he's likely to get a minor slithers in a bunch of areas: some elements of the social chapter, longer transitional controls on new member states, fisheries perhaps.
He likens any likely outcome to that which Harold Wilson achieved in 1975 which were so trivial no one today remembers what they were....
I've never quite seen why so much credibility/airtime is given to long past CoE or indeed any politician. Lawson managed to make a colossal mess re MIRAS amongst other things - I hold no candle for his opinions and he's been out of the loop for a decade or two.
I can see worth in Darling saying something - but vanishingly so. Frankly, I don't give a fig what Lawson or any of the pre-97 lot have to say.
Lawson is one of the smartest people I know. For people of my generation, in a way he is even more important than Thatcher in what he actually achieved. Sure he made mistakes - MIRAS (or more specifically the delay between announcing the end of MIRAS and the termination date) was the most egregious, but he is one of the best Chancellors we have had for a long time.
Even today The View From Number 11 is well worth reading.
I'd rate his opinions far higher than most politicians of today.
Just read that Channel 4 fact check on Clegg's 3 million claim.
I didn't realise that, not only does it assume we wouldn't sign FTAs elsewhere, but it also is based on the belief that we wouldn't have ANY EXPORTS AT ALL to the EU if we left! Clearly a ridiculous proposition. The author of the report has criticised interpreting in terms of job losses.
Nick Clegg is just outright lying about this, and must know it. People say the eurosceptics are dishonest regarding the odd leaflet's claims. But here we have possibly the most senior europhile in the country completely lying about a number to scaremonger as central to the case for staying in the EU. Is there any journalist worth his salt that will confront him about this in an interview?
I agree with the reality of your assessment, but he is just claiming that they are "at risk".
Of course we are all at risk of being hit by lightening every day, so it will be difficult to disprove.
That's what makes it such an invidious claim.
It's not just invidious, it's a downright lie spoken with all the sincerity of a europhile fanatic. And thats who we have running the country, aided and enthusiastically abetted by Cammo.
That's why I reckon he's made up his mind to oppose because Jobs.
I suppose it has the utility that the reason Cammie gave to his rebels for not giving them IN/OUT straight away was supposedly uncertainty and jobs and Cammie will have to make that argument again whenever UKIP bring up leaving as soon as possible. It's load of old toot though TBH.
The other advantage of this is that there's a reasonable chance Cameron's line will start to a bit shaky if people put pressure on it in an election campaign.
I would merely change "reasonable chance" to "almost a certainty", "a bit shaky" to "laughably unconvincing" and "people" to "Farage and UKIP".
Miliband may have decided it would have ended up making him look slippery while reducing his opportunity to make Cameron look slippery, and he probably wouldn't have got many votes out of it in the first place.
It would have infuriated the supposed Eurosceptic tories to know that Cammie's line was harmless enough to be backed by little Ed though. I think it's not really somewhere little Ed wants to go. Not just because there are few votes in it for him as you rightly say, but because he knows UKIP can and will go after Cameron's posturing far better than he ever could.
UKIP still know where most of their votes are to be found and though they may grab votes off little Ed in some areas it's hardly where they are going to be concentrating their resources come the election. As tory MPs in marginals know full well.
Out vote in a referendum probably has a better chance of happening under PM rEd - however he must know this and therefore will show a bit of leg but not hold one.
Showing a bit of leg and holding one at the same time.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
It is puzzling why he didn't just match Cammie's cast iron referendum pledge since it is conditional on a new treaty, renegotiations and a new deal. That makes it harmless enough to posture on almost indefinitely since no treaty looks like happening. Which might just be why Cammie made sure his referendum pledge was conditional in the first place.
That's why I reckon he's made up his mind to oppose because Jobs.
The other advantage of this is that there's a reasonable chance Cameron's line will start to a bit shaky if people put pressure on it in an election campaign. Miliband may have decided it would have ended up making him look slippery while reducing his opportunity to make Cameron look slippery, and he probably wouldn't have got many votes out of it in the first place.
Miliband won't match Cameron's referendum promise because he's a little Eurocrat through-and-through and genuinely believes in The Project. His natural habitat is in Council of Ministers meetings, with other people like him. He believes he will probably become PM and as such (1) doesn't need to make the pledge and (2) doesn't want to be stuck with the albatross it would represent to his government. He can also read the polls and knows that there's not the unrealistic prospect of Out winning - something he (and Labour) couldn't countenance.
Therein lies the difference between him and Cameron. I believe Cameron is genuine in wanting the UK to remain in the EU, providing that the EU can get away from the social legislation agenda and back to concentrating on free trade. However, if push came to shove, Cameron is prepared to envisage, and risk, Britain leaving; Miliband never would.
Just read that Channel 4 fact check on Clegg's 3 million claim.
I didn't realise that, not only does it assume we wouldn't sign FTAs elsewhere, but it also is based on the belief that we wouldn't have ANY EXPORTS AT ALL to the EU if we left! Clearly a ridiculous proposition. The author of the report has criticised interpreting in terms of job losses.
Nick Clegg is just outright lying about this, and must know it. People say the eurosceptics are dishonest regarding the odd leaflet's claims. But here we have possibly the most senior europhile in the country completely lying about a number to scaremonger as central to the case for staying in the EU. Is there any journalist worth his salt that will confront him about this in an interview?
I agree with the reality of your assessment, but he is just claiming that they are "at risk".
Of course we are all at risk of being hit by lightening every day, so it will be difficult to disprove.
That's what makes it such an invidious claim.
It's not just invidious, it's a downright lie spoken with all the sincerity of a europhile fanatic. And thats who we have running the country, aided and enthusiastically abetted by Cammo.
Hmm. It's not a lie, but it's disingenuous in the extreme. You can read it as either:
1. "3 million jobs, any one of which could be at risk, but not all at the same time. In fact as it's just a risk, it could be that no jobs are lost at all." 2. "3 million jobs at risk which would mean a rise from 2 million to 5 million on the dole. And that, in my opinion, is what will happen."
Being a multi-faced Lib Dem politician, Clegg will claim 1, and then act all surprised that anyone could have possibly thought he meant 2.
Just read that Channel 4 fact check on Clegg's 3 million claim.
I didn't realise that, not only does it assume we wouldn't sign FTAs elsewhere, but it also is based on the belief that we wouldn't have ANY EXPORTS AT ALL to the EU if we left! Clearly a ridiculous proposition. The author of the report has criticised interpreting in terms of job losses.
Nick Clegg is just outright lying about this, and must know it. People say the eurosceptics are dishonest regarding the odd leaflet's claims. But here we have possibly the most senior europhile in the country completely lying about a number to scaremonger as central to the case for staying in the EU. Is there any journalist worth his salt that will confront him about this in an interview?
I agree with the reality of your assessment, but he is just claiming that they are "at risk".
Of course we are all at risk of being hit by lightening every day, so it will be difficult to disprove.
That's what makes it such an invidious claim.
It's not just invidious, it's a downright lie spoken with all the sincerity of a europhile fanatic. And thats who we have running the country, aided and enthusiastically abetted by Cammo.
The problem is it isn't, strictly speaking, a lie.
Every job is at risk, every day. The uncertainty from leaving the EU would increase that risk.
Of course only a fraction of these will be seriously at risk, and only a proportion of those will actually be lost.
He likens any likely outcome to that which Harold Wilson achieved in 1975 which were so trivial no one today remembers what they were....
I've never quite seen why so much credibility/airtime is given to long past CoE or indeed any politician. Lawson managed to make a colossal mess re MIRAS amongst other things - I hold no candle for his opinions and he's been out of the loop for a decade or two.
I can see worth in Darling saying something - but vanishingly so. Frankly, I don't give a fig what Lawson or any of the pre-97 lot have to say.
Lawson is one of the smartest people I know. For people of my generation, in a way he is even more important than Thatcher in what he actually achieved. Sure he made mistakes - MIRAS (or more specifically the delay between announcing the end of MIRAS and the termination date) was the most egregious, but he is one of the best Chancellors we have had for a long time.
Even today The View From Number 11 is well worth reading.
I'd rate his opinions far higher than most politicians of today.
Couldn't agree more Charles. In most of its most important and significant features such as privatisation; freeing of markets; tax simplification; the use of monetary policy and the importance of countries and governments living within their means I think both Lawson and Howe were actually more important than Mrs T herself.
It is a lot of years now since I read "The View from No 11" but it was a book that shaped my thinking like few others.
Publicly it's only about a dozen or so, because announcing such a position basically shafts any potential ministerial career under Cameron. If you include those who privately support it, I think it's about a hundred.
In terms of the Tory membership, a large majority support leaving.
I thought publicly it was closer to the twenties but I may well be wrong. About a hundred or so privately sounds about right. Some of the BOOers claim it's two thirds of conservative MPs but that sounds far too optimistic.
Of course finding tory MPs who will come out publicly in favour of the EU is just as difficult. Which gives you some idea of just how much of a minefield this is.
Most fear coming out for it publicly, most fear coming out against it publicly. Hardly a surprise Cammie is in no hurry to hold an IN/OUT referendum.
Couldn't agree more Charles. In most of its most important and significant features such as privatisation; freeing of markets; tax simplification; the use of monetary policy and the importance of countries and governments living within their means I think both Lawson and Howe were actually more important than Mrs T herself.
It is a lot of years now since I read "The View from No 11" but it was a book that shaped my thinking like few others.
"The importance of countries living with their means".
The kind of thinking that gives us the eurozone crisis and non growth in the UK?
Couldn't agree more Charles. In most of its most important and significant features such as privatisation; freeing of markets; tax simplification; the use of monetary policy and the importance of countries and governments living within their means I think both Lawson and Howe were actually more important than Mrs T herself.
It is a lot of years now since I read "The View from No 11" but it was a book that shaped my thinking like few others.
"The importance of countries living with their means".
The kind of thinking that gives us the eurozone crisis and non growth in the UK?
Couldn't agree more Charles. In most of its most important and significant features such as privatisation; freeing of markets; tax simplification; the use of monetary policy and the importance of countries and governments living within their means I think both Lawson and Howe were actually more important than Mrs T herself.
It is a lot of years now since I read "The View from No 11" but it was a book that shaped my thinking like few others.
"The importance of countries living with their means".
The kind of thinking that gives us the eurozone crisis and non growth in the UK?
You really have your timeline muddled up....
You don't understand the cause and effect of the current crisis.
What surprised me after Cameron's speech was how definitive Ed Miliband was about this. I'd been expecting him to end up matching whatever Cameron pledged, but instead he came right out and said they shouldn't do it, because it would cost jobs.
It is puzzling why he didn't just match Cammie's cast iron referendum pledge since it is conditional on a new treaty, renegotiations and a new deal. That makes it harmless enough to posture on almost indefinitely since no treaty looks like happening. Which might just be why Cammie made sure his referendum pledge was conditional in the first place.
That's why I reckon he's made up his mind to oppose because Jobs.
The other advantage of this is that there's a reasonable chance Cameron's line will start to a bit shaky if people put pressure on it in an election campaign. Miliband may have decided it would have ended up making him look slippery while reducing his opportunity to make Cameron look slippery, and he probably wouldn't have got many votes out of it in the first place.
Miliband won't match Cameron's referendum promise because he's a little Eurocrat through-and-through and genuinely believes in The Project. His natural habitat is in Council of Ministers meetings, with other people like him. He believes he will probably become PM and as such (1) doesn't need to make the pledge and (2) doesn't want to be stuck with the albatross it would represent to his government. He can also read the polls and knows that there's not the unrealistic prospect of Out winning - something he (and Labour) couldn't countenance.
Therein lies the difference between him and Cameron. I believe Cameron is genuine in wanting the UK to remain in the EU, providing that the EU can get away from the social legislation agenda and back to concentrating on free trade. However, if push came to shove, Cameron is prepared to envisage, and risk, Britain leaving; Miliband never would.
Pretty much spot on DH - Miliband is still playing by the old rules and betting that last Thursday is a storm in an Earl Grey teacup.
Comments
Tacking to a more socially conservative bent seems unlikely to win more than it loses and Kipper activists are full of zeal right now off the back of their recent success. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be in any Party HQ trying to work out how to outmanoeuvre UKIP right now.
I'm sure they've expanded that since, but its a small outfit.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis
A compliment to Lawson so microscopic as to be non-existent.
rEd should put his feet up and laugh at the Ukip/Con split - its plain sailing from here.
The fact that nothing Clegg has said wouldn't be repeated by Cammie when he campaigned to stay in (or indeed any other tory leader who favours staying IN) doesn't seem to have occurred to many of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r13xt < Video
The reality of the local elections was that Labour couldn't pick up 3 votes in 10 as the only established major party in opposition at the moment, with the government mid-term and spending restraint causing plenty of opportunities for bandwagon-jumping. We know that there is plenty of opposition to the government, yet we also know that Labour couldn't capitalise on it at a set of elections with (as many people see it), few consequences in terms of outcome. If Labour can't do better in these circumstances, why do people believe it will in 2015?
It is true that Labour would have won an outright majority on Thursday's shares but do we believe that there'll be no movement back to the government parties between now and the election? It is far easier for governments to recover in the second half of parliaments than for oppositions - the public tend to make their mind up about LotO's within a year to 18 months and stick with that until the election. By contrast, governments' fortunes depend more on events.
The most significant political 'event' in respect of the current situation is connection with that part of the public which is being left behind by the elites of all parties. It is not Europe as such which is exercising most UKIP voters, though issues like immigration are intrinsically bound up with membership of the EU, but a cry of dispair for someone to speak their language and voice their aspirations and fears. Rightly or wrongly, they believe UKIP do that.
I do not believe that anyone in or near the current Labour or Lib Dem leadership is capable of making that connection. Possibly Alan Johnson, John Cruddas or John Prescott could have done but the influence of the Guardian-types is so pervasive that they would never allow it - as HenryG eloquently pointed out in his column the other day. Probably Cameron isn't capable of it either, but there are others in the Tory party who can, and in coalition with Cameron that could be very effective.
Mick Pork's and Sir Rupert's political hero shows his political and economic acumen ;
" Salmond said: "And I think the argument for having strong fiscal powers, powers over revenue, powers to expand the economy within a monetary context, within a European Euro context, will prove to be a very strong one for the people of Scotland.
"As you know, we're in Sterling and Sterling is sinking like a stone. It's now about at parity with the Euro."
In an interview with another station, Mr Salmond added: "We need also in my view to be in a framework for monetary policy, a European framework, which we're not in at the present moment, to have the best chances."
The First Minister's senior special adviser said the SNP had "always recognised the benefits of Euro membership". "
SeanT and david_kendrick1 have explained the problem the other parties have when dealing with UKIP. More pain without clear changes and improvements elsewhere isn't going to work.
Split, split, split.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/03/immigration-and-europe-give-ukip-appeal/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/may/07/nigel-lawson-uk-eu-politics-live
I think Lawson's book "The view from No 11" remains probably the best and most interesting book on government economic policy I have read. Large sections are dated now because what Lawson argued for has become trite and uncontroversial. His views still carry a lot of weight and I would have so much more respect for his economic judgement than Clegg's as to make the matter barely worth considering.
Cameron won't thank him for this but such views will also be listened to on the Continent and it will shape the nature of the debate. Eventually the tory party will be led by a BOO. It just seems inevitable. Doesn't mean Cameron is going any time soon but it does mean his job of party management (not his specialist field unfortunately) has just got even harder.
However these voters plus a section of people who would vote for Jimmy Sav in a red rosette is enough to win easily at the GE.
The EU referendum paradox
Will the United Kingdom still be a member of the European Union in 2020? YouGov President, Peter Kellner, examines three scenarios.
1. The Conservatives win the 2015 and David Cameron is able to redeem his promise to renegotiate Britain’s membership terms and hold a referendum in 2017.
1 (a) Second, YouGov has started asking a second question:
Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms. How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?
2. Labour wins the 2015 election and Ed Miliband sticks to his current position of opposing a referendum
3. Labour wins the 2015 general election with Ed Miliband having changed his stance and promising a referendum on British membership of the EU.
An alternative would be to put Boris in number 10, and rely on his charisma. I think Mr Cameron would try the referendum route first.
Kellner on the Wilson renegotiation:
"in 1975, when Labour’s Harold Wilson also undertook a “renegotiation” with the Common Market, as it then was, ahead of a referendum. He returned to London claiming a triumph. I was a young journalist on the Sunday Times and obtained an internal Labour Party document showing that Wilson had gained virtually nothing. It was the paper’s lead story one week and caused a brief fuss among those obsessed with politics. But it passed the wider public by and did nothing to impede a two-to-one referendum vote for staying in the Common Market."
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/07/eu-referendum-paradox/
The time for showing a bit of leg has probably passed; The voters wouldn't believe it anyway, and if he was being vague while Cameron has made what the voters (wrongly IMHO) think is a promise of a referendum in the next parliament, he'd just end up looking weak and shifty.
At this point I think he has to either stick to his guns or execute a bold, shameless u-turn.
Happy to pay the retail price direct to you for a PDF... ;-)
Some footage I uploaded of the 1975 referendum results show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=037u0k0cbis
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html
"All in all, if the parties stick to their current plans, then I see little chance of Britain leaving the EU – unless, of course some existential crisis causes the Union to disintegrate for reasons that have little to do with domestic British politics. BUT – if Ed Miliband decides to match David Cameron’s promise of a mid-term referendum in 2017, then a striking paradox emerges. In those circumstances, anyone whose over-riding passion is for Britain to stay in the EU should vote Conservative – while anyone desperate to maximise the chances of quitting the club should vote Labour."
The rationale being that a Con win will lead to a Cameron renegotiation that Britain will vote for. A Lab win will lead to Cameron's replacement by a Eurosceptic and a split 'in' campaign.....
So, if Ed wants us to stay in the EU, as I have no doubt he does, lets hope he has no weakness for passing bandwagons.....oh......
Just tax all residential property 1% a year based on last sale price.
One way you could see him coming around to an in/out referendum eventually is if it turns out he does need to pass a treaty, and he doesn't think he can win a referendum on it. This was discussed as one of the dodges Gordon Brown might use for Lisbon: You can't get the voters to agree to the treaty itself, so make the treaty a fait-accompli but let them vote on in-with-treaty or out. But this feels like second-term stuff; It's hard to see a treaty of the 28 getting completed that fast. If the Eurozone need something done fast, they won't do it with a treaty of the 28.
An opt out of the Social Chapter?
A veto on financial services regulation?
Coming out of the Common Fishery policy?
I think this preliminary list shows the problem. Whatever Cameron achieves by negotiation is likely to be controversial and opposed by some in this country, particularly in the Labour party. Putting a package together that can win a majority will be tricky and what is to stop a future Labour government simply opting back in again?
The next problem is that if the last 40 years have taught us anything it is that the EU is a journey not a destination. Even if we got something we could live with now what happens the next time the treaties are revised?
Our fundamental problem is that until now at least the Continent had a different end objective and our political class simply lied about it. If the euro broke up a very different Europe with a different agenda might emerge but any sceptic should reflect on the agony that countries have been willing to go through to resist that.
I think us leaving, ideally with a cordial and friendly relationship with the EU addressing markets, some freedom of movement and abode (possibly time limited) and some of the other benefits of membership, is looking inevitable. The only question is when.
So they should. There's a hell a lot higher chance of the Conservatives getting a majority than Martin Baxter's bizarre projection shows, and that means a referendum after renegotiation is a distinct possibility. They'd better start taking it seriously if they want the UK population to vote to stay in the EU.
On Lord Lawson's article, I agree with him that the balance is shifting towards leaving, if we can't get the reforms we need. The naked attacks on the City - our most important industry - over the last few months have been astonising in their combination of ideological nuttines and disregard for a vital interest of one of the largest economies in the EU. Whilst we can put up with minor industries such as fishing being hollowed out (even if it's disastrous for the mainly Labour-voting communities affected), we can't put up with attacks on the one major industry where we have a world-class advantage, which is absolutely crucial to the economy as a whole.
Labour's ceding of control of financial regulation to the EU, for absolutely nothing in return and completely unnecessarily, was the biggest economic blunder for decades. What were they thinking?
It is said Mark McDonald is likely to resign his list seat to run for Dooside by-election.
I believe it's more a choice taking into consideration the future.
" The naked attacks on the City - our most important industry.....Whilst we can put up with minor industries such as fishing being hollowed out "
Richard, comments like that that really travel badly outside of Bankistan in the South East; are you a sleeper for the Labour party ?
I have no doubt he is sincere in his enthusiasm for the EU - but he would do his case greater favour by not recycling Clegg's fibs....
But if you actually hold the referendum at the end of this process, you end up with a completely divided and demoralized "in" side. The right are slagging the deal off because they didn't get a fraction of what they wanted, the left are slagging it off because they disagree with what's been done. The "in" campaign ends up being a combination of:
Con: "The EU is shit, we made it marginally less shit, we should stay in".
Lab: "This deal is terrible, you should vote for it".
1 UKIP core voters who voted for them in previous elections . These are mostly motivated by opposition to the EU and will vote UKIP in 2015
2 Former BNP supporters who since their virtual demise of BNP have seen UKIP as closer to their views than other parties .
3 Voters disgruntled with the government giving a mid term protest . Mostly ex 2010 Conservatives but some ex 2010 Lib Dems . These will move back to their original home IF things improve economically and there is swing back .
4 What I would call ( not meant derogatorily ) the bandwagon voters . These voted for all parties in 2010 but are the voters who react to events both nationally and locally and can give surprising upsets in voting in specific seats and nationally .
These are the voters who for example , voted Green in the 1989 EU elections , told the pollsters they would vote Lib Dem after the first leadership debate in 2010 or to give a couple of local examples voted Boston Independent in 2007 local elections but not in 2011 , for Michael Meadowcroft in Leeds West in 1983 or voted Labour in 2011/2012 local elections but UKIP in 2013. These voters by their nature have no natural home and it is hard to predict if they will stay with UKIP and where they will go to if not .
'I wonder which Labour politician will have the guts to expose the divisions about the EU within Labour.'
Some are already coming out of the woodwork.
'It is time to stop meddling with vague concepts. Let us have clear social justice priorities
The top priority in housing for those who have lived in social housing as children;
No benefits for anyone until they have paid National insurance for two years
No free flow of capital to avoid taxes
No zero hours agency contracts with no employment rights
No open market in labour in the United Kingdom, rather a system of work permits, including for all Europeans.
Ed Miliband needs to commit Labour to a people’s Europe, by announcing that he will tear up the single Market in labour and capital. I think we will find that Germany, France, Holland and Denmark will quickly follow our lead.
A control over the Common Market, free flow of people but not free flow of labour and capital. That’s what I call a real renegotiation.
John Mann is the Labour MP for Bassetlaw
Labour currently have 1 seat in Yorkshire and the Humber. I think they expect to win 2 next year (2 UKIP and 2 Con too) with BNP and LIbDems losing out. So there's a chance for Corbett to come back. He needs to beat Cllr Hughes, Cllr Kahn, Cllr Mirfin-Boukouris, Cllr Simpson-Lang and Ms Tunnicliffe.
Cllr Simpson Lang has the support of many council leaders, Cllr Khan of top (but not necesserily from the region) trade unionists. And obviously some people seem to endorse more candidates....
As an aside, I think you're wrong - Cameron was fairly clear and said (though I may be paraphrasing) "If I'm PM, this happens". Far more importantly, however, the Conservative Party in general and Conservative MPs in particular will have taken that interpretation. That's why the issue went quiet until the local elections and UKIP's performance set the cat amongst them again.
Be in no doubt: this matters to Tory activists, from armchair subscribers to members of parliament (both Houses, and in government and out). Were Cameron believed to be renaging on a deliverable promise, he would face at the minimum resignations and probably a No Confidence motion - one which would probably pass if there were a credible replacement willing to deliver a referendum.
The difference between this and the Lisbon referendum is that the great majority of Westminster sceptics recognised the futility of holding a post-ratification referendum and grudgingly accepted that. There is no equivalent get-out either in the event of a reform treaty being agreed, or if negotiations fail and the In-Out debate is on the status quo. There is the possibility of a short extension to the deadline if negotiations look close and the original deadline passes but that alone would cause huge trouble and would probably of itself produce a shift to the Out camp.
If voters don't like reality, they will have to take the consequences, won't they? If they are happy to kill off the golden goose that pays for the NHS, good luck to them.
"Ed Miliband is absolutely right to resist pressures to match the Conservative party's pledge to hold a referendum. That pledge has very little to do with the national interest, and more to do with bridging the divisions within the Conservative party -- and their fear of UKIP.
If Labour pledged to hold a referendum, then it would have to do so – a massive distraction during the first years of the Labour government, diverting effort away from overcoming the economic downturn, and probably worsening it. And heaven help us if we lost it (which is not inconceivable, given the overwhelming hostility of the media). We would spend the next few years negotiating our exit from the European Union and simultaneously trying to negotiate new trade agreements with almost every other country in the world to replace those we currently have via the EU – negotiating alone, as Britain, without the clout of the rest of Europe behind us.
I think Ed has also worked out that there are not many votes to be gained for Labour by pledging a referendum. Opinion polls show that the subject comes well down the list of issues considered important by the public. And many of those who do think it is a priority are to be found among right-wing Conservative or UKIP/BNP supporters – hardly likely to switch to Labour if we make a referendum pledge."
http://www.richardcorbett.eu/a_referendum_on_membership
The other advantage of this is that there's a reasonable chance Cameron's line will start to a bit shaky if people put pressure on it in an election campaign. Miliband may have decided it would have ended up making him look slippery while reducing his opportunity to make Cameron look slippery, and he probably wouldn't have got many votes out of it in the first place.
Not so much golden goose as lame duck.
What either the Tories or Labour can do to regain them is not immediately obvious....without causing equal or larger losses elsewhere....
http://order-order.com/2013/05/07/full-page-times-ad-whacks-dave-and-george/
As for the "clout of the rest of Europe behind us", in the last Doha trade round, that clout largely consisted of the French undermining the British trade commissioner when he offered
agricultural reform and leading to the talks collapsing.
I'm also interested how lack of clout didn't stop Israel signing a free trade deal with Mercosur, Iceland signing a trade deal with China, Panama with the USA, Chile with Japan. Europhile's arguments are immune to facts. They face overwhelming counter arguments yet don't even address them, just repeat the original argument again.
In terms of the Tory membership, a large majority support leaving.
They have 18 months to get over the giant egos and personal agendas and stitch up some sort of deal, or foist Ed Mili on the country almost by default.
I'm not holding my breath.
Of course we are all at risk of being hit by lightening every day, so it will be difficult to disprove.
That's what makes it such an invidious claim.
He'd have a very good case that he was being good to his promise. For example, he specifically said that a referendum without a renegotiation would be a "false choice", and that the renegotiation had to happen first. And the EU is always planning a treaty, so he could also claim that what he'd said would happen was still going to happen, just a bit later than he'd planned.
Maybe people would still think he was full of shit. But look at the choices faced by Tory MPs at that point:
1) Ditch your election winner (the premise for this is that he's managed to win a majority against the odds) and put someone else in who will call a referendum. Unless you support BOO, which most Tory MPs don't, you cannot possibly win that referendum. If it's an "out" you lose, and if it's an "in" you've just made the voters vote for the status quo that you were supposed to be trying to overturn. Richard Nabavi has made the case before about why this referendum would be strategically bonkers for the Tories now; It would be equally strategically bonkers for them then.
2) Hold the line, back the leader, win the mandate referendum ("tick box if you're grumpy [ ]"), make Labour look weak and pathetic, live to fight another day. That way you may actually get what you want.
I take the point that the party has strong feelings about this and some of it is emotional rather than politically rational, but this really wouldn't be a difficult decision for them. They're politicians.
- Social chapter
- CAP (including the payments for it, obviously)
- Trade policy
- Immigration policy
If we got full control of two of these back, I'd take my hat off to David Cameron. In fact, if we got the trade policy one, I might even support staying in the EU. In practice he's likely to get a minor slithers in a bunch of areas: some elements of the social chapter, longer transitional controls on new member states, fisheries perhaps.
Even today The View From Number 11 is well worth reading.
I'd rate his opinions far higher than most politicians of today.
And thats who we have running the country, aided and enthusiastically abetted by Cammo.
UKIP still know where most of their votes are to be found and though they may grab votes off little Ed in some areas it's hardly where they are going to be concentrating their resources come the election. As tory MPs in marginals know full well.
Is he taking up Morris dancing?
;-)
You don't, but that doesn't explain why Germany stomps all over the UK in terms of non EU trade - despite being within the EU.
That argument goes with all the other logical fallacies in Lawson's piece this morning.
Epic eurosceptic fail.
Therein lies the difference between him and Cameron. I believe Cameron is genuine in wanting the UK to remain in the EU, providing that the EU can get away from the social legislation agenda and back to concentrating on free trade. However, if push came to shove, Cameron is prepared to envisage, and risk, Britain leaving; Miliband never would.
1. "3 million jobs, any one of which could be at risk, but not all at the same time. In fact as it's just a risk, it could be that no jobs are lost at all."
2. "3 million jobs at risk which would mean a rise from 2 million to 5 million on the dole. And that, in my opinion, is what will happen."
Being a multi-faced Lib Dem politician, Clegg will claim 1, and then act all surprised that anyone could have possibly thought he meant 2.
Foolishly leaving the EU doesn't change that.
Every job is at risk, every day. The uncertainty from leaving the EU would increase that risk.
Of course only a fraction of these will be seriously at risk, and only a proportion of those will actually be lost.
"Lie" has a very high standard of proof.
It is a lot of years now since I read "The View from No 11" but it was a book that shaped my thinking like few others.
AutoTrader portfolio of magazines to stop publishing, last editions 28 June
guardian cutting back even more...
Of course finding tory MPs who will come out publicly in favour of the EU is just as difficult.
Which gives you some idea of just how much of a minefield this is.
Most fear coming out for it publicly, most fear coming out against it publicly.
Hardly a surprise Cammie is in no hurry to hold an IN/OUT referendum.
The kind of thinking that gives us the eurozone crisis and non growth in the UK?
Banging on about Europe doesn't seem to have done UKIP any harm...or are people voting for that party for different reasons?