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.
I really do not think it is possible for members of a common market to control their own trade policy. Any country that gave concessions is then a free port to everywhere else in the EU.
Immigration is controlled by member states, except in relation to EU citizens. As one of the fundamental freedoms I do not see this changing although there is room for negotiation on qualification for benefits etc.
The CAP desperately needs reforming but I think it is completely unrealistic to expect agricultural policy to be restored to member states. Any subsidies really have to be co-ordinated and universally applied within a single market.
I think your list rather highlights a point that goes against the sceptics. So much of EU regulation, which they like to rant about, is simply the application of single market rules preventing distortions, exclusions or subsidies. The Social Chapter is an exception of sorts but even that is designed to ensure that there is a level playing field of a sort and that eastern European countries can't run sweat shops putting more of our more pampered workforce out of work.
Lawson says you don't have to be in the EU to export to other markets.
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.
Sorry, can you run that argument past me again?
Germany is does better at exporting because they have a heavier weighting towards engineering and industrial goods and a reputation for very high quality plus a long-standing focus by the Mittelstant on the emerging markets. Basically they have products that people want to buy. This is nothing to do with their membership of the EU.
Lawson's argument is that "you don't have to be in the EU to export to other markets". This is self-evidently true.
I don't see the logical fallacy that you are alleging
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.
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.
I've actually recently pulled it from my library to put back on the reading list. Should get to the front of the queue in a year or so!
I must say that I find all this talk of referenda very odd. There is no chance of the other EU countries agreeing any sort of Treaty which would trigger a referendum in the UK precisely because of the risks of some unpredictable UK result. Nor do they need a treaty and, in any event, even if they did, they would wait until there's a more amenable government in the UK.
So the Tories - not for the first time - are tearing themselves to pieces over something which is unlikely to happen while they can still do anything about it.
More interesting (to me at least) is what Labour would do if the EU came up with proposals which would harm the UK or a significant part of it e.g. rules which would effectively outlaw free banking or some such. Or rules which effectively force privatisation on the NHS or some other Labour sacred cow? Would they fight or roll over? What happens if they are outvoted? That's when Labour may start its own in-fighting over the EU.
"If Labour pledged to hold a referendum, then it would have to do so "
That's a novel take on things.
There's a first time for everything!
Yes but given their track record - is it credible?
No - all 3 parties are viewed as lying s.o.b.s on the question of a referendum - with pretty much similar basis for suspicion "it was a treaty, not a constitution' 'it was ratified, not a treaty' 'of course we should have one - just not now'....hence UKIP's growth - while Europe directly is a minority concern, its a lightning rod for 'they're all as bad as each other'.
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?
Which is more important: growth in wealth or growth in net wealth?
that doesn't explain why Germany stomps all over the UK in terms of non EU trade - despite being within the EU.
Isn't it mainly down to the fact that Germany makes a LOT of stuff the rest of the world wants to buy, while the UK doesn't?
Yup.
Foolishly leaving the EU doesn't change that.
I can't see that it'd make much difference either way. Leaving the EU wouldn't improve things, but it wouldn't make them any worse. IMO;
That's fine, but then you can't use the "we should export to other markets" argument in a shallow thesis in support of leaving the EU.
Agree. But equally the shallow "3m UK jobs depend on the EU" arguement that the absurd Nick Clegg was trotting out once again this morning shouldn't be used either.
I've always thought the primary issue about the EU is mainly one of freedom and sovereignty.
Economically the sky will not fall in either way and life will continue whether we're in or out.
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?
No, the kind of thinking that thought it was absurd that a government at the end of the longest period of continuous growth on record was still running a deficit as well as putting most of its capital spend off balance sheet and simply ignoring contingent liabilites such as pensions.
You are getting your cause and effect wrong Ben. Austerity is an unpleasant cure to a completely unnecessary disease.
"So what was the offer that people had last Thursday from Labour? What was the compelling national case for a Labour vote in last week’s election. Vote Labour for housing? Vote Labour to deal with the youth unemployment crisis? Vote Labour for Social Care for your loved ones? At present – and this terrifies me – whenever I’m asked why someone should vote Labour, too often the only answers I’m able to give are negative ones"
that doesn't explain why Germany stomps all over the UK in terms of non EU trade - despite being within the EU.
Isn't it mainly down to the fact that Germany makes a LOT of stuff the rest of the world wants to buy, while the UK doesn't?
Yup.
Foolishly leaving the EU doesn't change that.
I can't see that it'd make much difference either way. Leaving the EU wouldn't improve things, but it wouldn't make them any worse. IMO;
That's fine, but then you can't use the "we should export to other markets" argument in a shallow thesis in support of leaving the EU.
I think you're confused. The "we should export to other markets" isn't a thesis to support leaving the EU. It undermines one of the fallacies proposed by those who would stay in ("it's a cold hard world and we'd be doomed outside the EU, doomed I tell you")
Not been here for the past few days, but the Times has been serialising Lord Adonis' diary from May 2010.
Has some interesting snippets
1) Gordon Brown wanted to stand down 30 Labour candidates in the top LD/Con seats
2) Labour, from Mandelson down were all expecting a Tory Majority even on polling day, cultivating Nick Clegg didn't seem worth it prior to election day.
3) Ed Balls was a bit shouty and patronising during the Lab/LD coaliton discussions.
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.
For people of my generation, in a way he is even more important than Thatcher in what he actually achieved.
I'd rate his opinions far higher than most politicians of today.
Agree on both counts. Thatcher provided the public face - but it was Howe & Lawson (who certainly made mistakes too) who sorted the finances - and it was they who brought her down. If they had stood behind her, Heseltine would have been swatted away.
I must say that I find all this talk of referenda very odd. There is no chance of the other EU countries agreeing any sort of Treaty which would trigger a referendum in the UK precisely because of the risks of some unpredictable UK result. Nor do they need a treaty and, in any event, even if they did, they would wait until there's a more amenable government in the UK.
So the Tories - not for the first time - are tearing themselves to pieces over something which is unlikely to happen while they can still do anything about it.
More interesting (to me at least) is what Labour would do if the EU came up with proposals which would harm the UK or a significant part of it e.g. rules which would effectively outlaw free banking or some such. Or rules which effectively force privatisation on the NHS or some other Labour sacred cow? Would they fight or roll over? What happens if they are outvoted? That's when Labour may start its own in-fighting over the EU.
Outlawing free banking would be a very good thing for the UK!
It's the free current account that is at the root of much of the mis-selling by retail banks: it creates a massive unfunded overhead that needs to be paid for by other products.
Fundamentally, retail banking (current accounts, etc) are a service to customers. Why shouldn't customers pay for that?
(Although - and against my own argument - I still get p1ssed off in the US when they charge me $3 to take money out of an ATM!)
I must say that I find all this talk of referenda very odd. There is no chance of the other EU countries agreeing any sort of Treaty which would trigger a referendum in the UK precisely because of the risks of some unpredictable UK result. Nor do they need a treaty and, in any event, even if they did, they would wait until there's a more amenable government in the UK.
So the Tories - not for the first time - are tearing themselves to pieces over something which is unlikely to happen while they can still do anything about it.
More interesting (to me at least) is what Labour would do if the EU came up with proposals which would harm the UK or a significant part of it e.g. rules which would effectively outlaw free banking or some such. Or rules which effectively force privatisation on the NHS or some other Labour sacred cow? Would they fight or roll over? What happens if they are outvoted? That's when Labour may start its own in-fighting over the EU.
Outlawing free banking would be a very good thing for the UK!
It's the free current account that is at the root of much of the mis-selling by retail banks: it creates a massive unfunded overhead that needs to be paid for by other products.
Fundamentally, retail banking (current accounts, etc) are a service to customers. Why shouldn't customers pay for that?
(Although - and against my own argument - I still get p1ssed off in the US when they charge me $3 to take money out of an ATM!)
Agree with you on that one Charles. The current banking arrangement has the perverse effect of making the less well-off subsidise the better off customers.
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?
Both the Eurozone crisis and Britain's non-growth are a direct result of countries NOT living within their means, and that history catching up with them.
On topic, what Baxter's mode doesn't take into account is "events"
I remember around this point in the 05-10 Parliament his model was showing a huge possibility for a Conservative majority government. Then swingback, the expenses scandal and Cameron/Osborne's self-inflicted immolation happened followed by the most appallingly innefective election campaign in 30 years and the rest of history.
My view is that the next election will have some sort of hung parliament again. Whether it's Conservative or Labour lead will depend on just a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of seats. No model can predict that at this stage.
But then when you look at some of data, like the YouGov poll Mike was highlighting yesterday which showed a Tory/Labour majority is favoured by a virtually equal number of people, but Cameron is much more personally popular than Miliband, a Conservative majority looks much more possible than you would think going purely from voting intention.
Ah, a discussion on Europe - perfect for a post-election Tuesday morning.
Rather like Scottish independence, I don't have much passion on this subject - I'm sure I should but I don't. Neither "In" nor "Out" have made a compelling argument to support their case and a lot of the current baseline tennis is scaremongering and insults as well as party political positioning and posturing of which all sides are guilty.
If I had to vote in an In/Out EU referendum tomorrow, I genuinely don't know where I'd go. I'd probably vote to stay In but I'm open to being persuaded that voting to come out would be to the country's advantage. The No side simply can't paint a single-dimension rosy picture of a post-EU Britain. If it were simple, we'd have come out already so there are clearly some potential drawbacks to consider. The Yes side simply can't paint a single-dimension doom-laden scenario - indeed, they also have to prove how the EU (which is a shambles) can be reformed to work to the benefit of all Europeans (with whom I think we need to have a mutually beneficial trading and economic relationship).
The problem for Cameron who I'm sure recognises the need to reform the EU root-and-branch is that he'll be facing a range of opinions in any re-negotiation ranging from those willing to accept some (or even fundamental) change in some areas to those who will defend every existing practice. What he will come back is likely to be a compromise which will be equally unacceptable to everybody - assuming he gets to go at all. Those who think that he is on a fool's errand won't therefore be impressed with the pre-election posturing which leaves the dilemma - vote for Cameron in the knowledge he won't come back with a result that will satisfy or vote for MIlliband who likely won't go at all.
Thus the Conservative position may deftly (or not so deftly) drift from re-negotiation followed by a referendum to a simplt referendum if we get a majority and the latter position also serves to undermine UKIP on that front at least. Those who castigate Milliband for moving "to the Left" (whatever that means) may consider that the most radical Labour manifesto of recent times (1983) contained a commitment to leave the EU. Given the growing Euro-scepticism and challenge from UKIP without, Labour may yet surprise and play the referendum card before 2015.
The problem then for both Conservative and Labour parties will be to maintain their internal cohesion during and after the referendum campaign.
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.
I really do not think it is possible for members of a common market to control their own trade policy. Any country that gave concessions is then a free port to everywhere else in the EU.
It works perfectly fine for places like Norway, which have their own trade agreements. You simply have country of origin rules. How come virtually every other free trade area in the world allows members to have their own agreements?
Immigration is controlled by member states, except in relation to EU citizens. As one of the fundamental freedoms I do not see this changing although there is room for negotiation on qualification for benefits etc.
I do not disagree. Regardless of the actual merits of the policy, it has become a sacred totem of the EU and won't be changed.
The CAP desperately needs reforming but I think it is completely unrealistic to expect agricultural policy to be restored to member states. Any subsidies really have to be co-ordinated and universally applied within a single market.
Once gain, you seem to be confusing what is politically realistic with what is sensible. There is no more argument for saying subsidies need to be universally applied than for saying taxes need to be universally applied. The latter is what the eurocrats are trying to do, but I doubt it is your belief. And, of course, there are all sorts of subsidies that vary throughout the EU, from R&D to capital spending.
I think your list rather highlights a point that goes against the sceptics. So much of EU regulation, which they like to rant about, is simply the application of single market rules preventing distortions, exclusions or subsidies. The Social Chapter is an exception of sorts but even that is designed to ensure that there is a level playing field of a sort and that eastern European countries can't run sweat shops putting more of our more pampered workforce out of work.
You could put anything up to the EU level and say this is just single market rules preventing distortions. If companies can transfer non-EU staff easier to the UK than to Germany, that's a distortion. If Sweden charges higher corporation tax than Ireland, that's a distortion. If variations in welfare payments happen between countries, that alters the incentives of the labour force and is a distortion. If we are to judge whether we should attempt to repatriate things or not, the question should not be "is this a distortion?" It should be "is it better handled at the EU or national level?" Trading areas like NAFTA have far better results than the EU, and they allow far more economic policy to be handled at the national level, making "distortions", than we do.
I see that pb has gone EU bonkers again. The solution to the nation's troubles are as likely to be found in a third bottle of wine as in a referendum on EU membership. Though I'm all in favour of a referendum, for entirely mercenary reasons.
@Charles and Alanbrooke: "Fundamentally, retail banking (current accounts, etc) are a service to customers. Why shouldn't customers pay for that?"
Hello? I lend the bank my money. They lend it out to others. They pay me a tiny interest rate (which is what I effectively pay for the service I am receiving) and charge the borrower a very much larger one. The difference between the two should be ample to pay for the cost of issuing a few cheque books every year and monthly statements etc. If they can't even do that they shouldn't be in business at all.
If banks are going to charge me for the privilege of holding and using my money, then I am going to charge them for all the time I have to spend correcting their mistakes etc. I think you'll find that I would still come out ahead.
that doesn't explain why Germany stomps all over the UK in terms of non EU trade - despite being within the EU.
Isn't it mainly down to the fact that Germany makes a LOT of stuff the rest of the world wants to buy, while the UK doesn't?
No. Germany makes a lot of stuff the rest of the world wants at the current price level. The reason for that is that the German currency is undervalued due to the Eurozone. That is one upside for Germany from the Eurozone, although it is clearly outweighed by all the other problems the Eurozone has.
Any country can trade with any other country despite trade barriers, and some trade will go on regardless. But reducing trade barriers increases the amount of trade. This has been proven time and time in again in the literature. If we reduced trade barriers with non-EU countries, we would get more trade with them. Only non-economists would disagree with this.
I see that pb has gone EU bonkers again. The solution to the nation's troubles are as likely to be found in a third bottle of wine as in a referendum on EU membership. Though I'm all in favour of a referendum, for entirely mercenary reasons.
What do you think of Norwich's chances of avoiding relegation this season?
Sorry if this a sore point, following Judas Iscariot Paul Lambert's return on saturday.
I must say that I find all this talk of referenda very odd. There is no chance of the other EU countries agreeing any sort of Treaty which would trigger a referendum in the UK precisely because of the risks of some unpredictable UK result. .
You're looking at it backwards. It is not (yet!) in the power of the EU to decide whether we have a referendum or not. If Cameron gets a majority, we will have a referendum (anyone who knows anything about the Conservative Party will confirm that there's not a snowflake's change in hell of that particular pledge not being met, even if Cameron didn't want a referendum).
So the only question is whether our EU friends will risk not cooperating, or giving only token concessions. That's up to them; voters can then decide what to do.
Whether this is done as part of a more general treaty change or not remains to be seen. I personally don't think the Eurozone can be made to work without a full treaty change, but you are right that they will squirm and fudge in order to try to avoid a new treaty. Perhaps the UK rattling the cage will help them along towards doing what they need to do if they want the Euro to survive and the Eurozone to prosper again.
The reason for the EU bonkers ness is UKIP. People don't care about Europe (according to the polls), and yet they voted in droves for UKIP last Thursday. What's the reason for the big gap between the importance of the EU as an issue, and the rise of UKIP?
That's what the main parties are all trying to figure out now, I guess.
@antifrank, EU bonkers with an assumption that the compelling nature of their argument means that any referendum could never be lost. I would be interested to see the response/reaction if it were: a Matthew Parris article in the Times from earlier this year and the comments beneath it (which were relatively mild compared to those one sees in The Telegraph) gives a flavour.
If @SouthamObserver is around, what's going on with the EU Patent Court? Apparently it's a different thing to the original EU Patent, and Ireland and Denmark reckon they need to have referendums on it. Can we assume the Referendum Lock legislation has a get-out for this somehow, or does Britain get to have a referendum on this too?
I see that pb has gone EU bonkers again. The solution to the nation's troubles are as likely to be found in a third bottle of wine as in a referendum on EU membership.
You're arguing with a strawman on this issue, as you have done many times before. No one policy will be the solution to the nation's troubles. The question is whether leaving the EU would give us greater scope to address our troubles - and to bring other benefits to boot. The answer is a yes.
that doesn't explain why Germany stomps all over the UK in terms of non EU trade - despite being within the EU.
Isn't it mainly down to the fact that Germany makes a LOT of stuff the rest of the world wants to buy, while the UK doesn't?
No. Germany makes a lot of stuff the rest of the world wants at the current price level. The reason for that is that the German currency is undervalued due to the Eurozone. That is one upside for Germany from the Eurozone, although it is clearly outweighed by all the other problems the Eurozone has.
The reason for the EU bonkers ness is UKIP. People don't care about Europe (according to the polls), and yet they voted in droves for UKIP last Thursday. What's the reason for the big gap between the importance of the EU as an issue, and the rise of UKIP?
That's what the main parties are all trying to figure out now, I guess.
For God's sake, this isn't rocket science. I - and others - have been saying it every time Mike brings it up. The EU is now hard to define as a single issue. It's tentacles have infiltrated so many areas that leaving it allows you to have a bunch of other policies that are popular. The classic one is immigration. No other party can possibly have an immigration policy as popular as UKIP's while we stay in an organisation that demands free movement of labour among its members, even if those migrants are illiterate repeat criminals.
"Naturally most coverage of Lord Lawson's euro-Damascene moment in the Times has focussed on who he is - one of the two most influential chancellors of modern times - rather than what he says."
"For years, the UK has run a significant current account deficit with the rest of the EU. In other words, our business with the EU has contributed fairly significantly to the growing indebtedness of the UK, at a time when many would say the debt burden on the UK is unsustainably high (and, to remind you, I am talking here about the aggregate of household, business, financial sector and government debt - not public sector debt in isolation).
Of course there has been an enormous deficit in British trade with China. But the UK's consistent surplus with the US shows that Britain isn't doomed to be constantly in the red with economies regarded as formidable."
@Charles and Alanbrooke: "Fundamentally, retail banking (current accounts, etc) are a service to customers. Why shouldn't customers pay for that?"
Hello? I lend the bank my money. They lend it out to others. They pay me a tiny interest rate (which is what I effectively pay for the service I am receiving) and charge the borrower a very much larger one. The difference between the two should be ample to pay for the cost of issuing a few cheque books every year and monthly statements etc. If they can't even do that they shouldn't be in business at all.
If banks are going to charge me for the privilege of holding and using my money, then I am going to charge them for all the time I have to spend correcting their mistakes etc. I think you'll find that I would still come out ahead.
Yes, but effectively they are hiding the cost of the service through discounted interest rates.
Far better to charge a clean price for the service and then pay higher interest rates to savers.
Otherwise the prudent are subsidising those without savings
That Ganesh article is the epitome of the elite mindset, whereby government should be done by honoured agreements on the part of the elite. Yes, the eurosceptics in the Tory were satisfied with a referendum, and then the goalposts were moved. But they weren't moved by the eurosceptics, they were moved by the electorate, who voted for UKIP in large numbers. It's the same situation the US has, where Republicans got angry at Obama for not backing the same budget deal he offered before the election, as if the views of the public cast in elections doesn't matter.
"Naturally most coverage of Lord Lawson's euro-Damascene moment in the Times has focussed on who he is - one of the two most influential chancellors of modern times - rather than what he says."
"For years, the UK has run a significant current account deficit with the rest of the EU. In other words, our business with the EU has contributed fairly significantly to the growing indebtedness of the UK, at a time when many would say the debt burden on the UK is unsustainably high (and, to remind you, I am talking here about the aggregate of household, business, financial sector and government debt - not public sector debt in isolation).
Of course there has been an enormous deficit in British trade with China. But the UK's consistent surplus with the US shows that Britain isn't doomed to be constantly in the red with economies regarded as formidable."
Interestingly the Times has a piece up saying Cameron has really pissed off the Chinese, and we're unlikely to get much inward investment from them
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.
Always remember that time after time after time Cammie has tested the gullibility of his backbenchers and supposedly Eurosceptic MPs and they just keep coming back for more.
They want to be fooled. Lisbon wasn't Cameron's fault. Show them an EU flounce and they'll believe it, for while. Give them a speech on Europe and it's only months after some of them start to realise it's as conditional and Cast Iron as Lisbon so start demanding a referendum on a referendum. Promise them a draft bill and that just might shut them up again.
They want to be fooled because they want to posture on Europe. Problem is with UKIP breathing down tory MPs necks in marginals posturing just isn't going to cut it for much longer. Farage will laugh in their faces when he hears them posturing and even a 6-8% UKIP vote at the next election will be enough to give those tory marginal MPs nightmares.
It's the free current account that is at the root of much of the mis-selling by retail banks: it creates a massive unfunded overhead that needs to be paid for by other products.
That's becoming less and less true as banking and customer service become automated. Yes, the infrastructure comes at a price, but the incremental cost of servicing new customers is being squeezed.
Besides, even a free current account provides plenty of potential revenue streams for the bank that don't involve putting the hard sell on their customers.
Though he'll upset some with his mention of M. Poujade.
Amen.
"Mr Farage spins an enchanting yarn about elites ignoring popular concerns. The truth is that the three main parties are now all anti-immigration, criminal justice is tougher than a generation ago, the welfare consensus is over and a straight road to leaving the EU has been paved. Much of this is warranted. Politicians could make yet bigger concessions, but not responsibly. They have been chasing the populist vote so fleet-footedly there is little distance left to run."
@Socrates You must have missed the opening paragraph. To help you:
"This vessel for the masses scored 3 per cent of the vote at the 2010 general election. It won almost a quarter last Thursday but on an estimated 31 per cent turnout, which works out at 7 per cent of the electorate. "
Lawson says you don't have to be in the EU to export to other markets.
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.
On the point above Germany does make a lot of stuff people want to buy. Good high quality, not sold on price, stuff. However, the Chinese would want BMW's or plastic extrusion lines, or railways or whatever if Germany were not a member of the EU too. Same applies to us, and I should know as I compete every day of my working life against both the Germans and the Chinese and whomever else, trying to sell the good, high quality goods we make (that's right good old fashioned stuff you can drop on your foot), right around the world. As it happens our sales are almost exactly split three ways UK/EU/ Rest of World. No prizes for guessing where the growth has been over the past five years.
We must be OK at it as we've won two Queen's Awards in the past five years for international trade. It also means I'm at the front line on this, so if it goes pear shaped it affects me next day.
So am I a rabid Clegg like "Europe is good at all costs whatever", or a Farage "out out out"? Probably neither but I am persuadable both ways.
Essentially as long as we have free trade I simply cannot see the world would end if we left. There is an argument about we couldn't influence regulations etc but it seems we get precious little now, and a lot of rubbish back (the CAP for Christ's sake! 37% of a 21st century budget spent on tilling the land!). The Clegg's of this world are deploying the "we'll all be poor argument" as they did with the Euro which would've been a total catasrophe if we'd listened to the swivel eyed ramblings of the LD's and others on that.
However, there is a case to be made the other way that says "the European countries place in the world is shrinking, in a few decades it's going to be a really multi polar with the USA, China, Brazil, India and others (Indonesia?) running the show and even the biggest European countries will not get more than a small seat at the top a table and then only as observers. Why not try to create a proper state to conteract that - not a halfway, "we'll get there by stealth, using the Euro as a stepping stone and hope nobody rumbles what we're up to in the meantime" as they are trying now.
The problem with the "let's unify" agrument is nobody but nobody has the nerve or the vision or the faith to set out what "more Europe" means, and try to postively sell it to the electorate. Where is Barroso or Merkel or whoever, standing up and saying "look here's vision "2025" we'll have a federal state, an army, unified taxes, we'll teach all kids one lingua franca in schools do we can all communicate etc". Instead we have this mealy mouthed web of summits, rinky dink Parliaments, commissioners nobody's heard of from Ruritanian states that we cannot fire via a ballot box having influence over our lives. It's a 21st century Austro Hungarian Empire, created piecemeal and by accident, fraying at the edges, paying lip service to the legitimacy of the state, and inexorably going downhill to utter irrelevance comforting ourselves, that the titles, wine, acrhitecture, and cream cakes are all still great.
At present I'm leaning to "out", primarily because of Tony Benn's argument about people in power "how do I get rid of you?". I can answer that about Cameron, Clegg, and a future Miliband. I cannot answer it about Barroso, van Rompuy, Ashton and all the nameless others. That central democratic flaw has to be adressed or it will all end in tears and not just here in the UK.
And it would be a shame, as not having shot at each other since 1945 is really rather good.
It's the free current account that is at the root of much of the mis-selling by retail banks: it creates a massive unfunded overhead that needs to be paid for by other products.
That's becoming less and less true as banking and customer service become automated. Yes, the infrastructure comes at a price, but the incremental cost of servicing new customers is being squeezed.
Besides, even a free current account provides plenty of potential revenue streams for the bank that don't involve putting the hard sell on their customers.
FWIW, I've got a pretty good handle on the cost of running a retail banking operation (a cousin runs one of the big 4's UK retail & commercial business & other members of the family also have interests in the sector).
Automation is a good thing in reducing costs, but the branch network and ATM network (not to mention BACS, CHAPS, SWIFT and FP) cost a fortune to maintain.
Loss-leader pricing, which is what you are suggesting, is never good for a competitive market as it benefits the incumbents
The classic one is immigration. No other party can possibly have an immigration policy as popular as UKIP's while we stay in an organisation that demands free movement of labour among its members, even if those migrants are illiterate repeat criminals.
@Socrates as I pointed out the other day, we're nowhere near as tied by the EU on this as everyone seems to assume. Check out the EU law -
"Right of residence for more than three months
The right of residence for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:
- either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
- or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
- or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;
- or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories."
"Naturally most coverage of Lord Lawson's euro-Damascene moment in the Times has focussed on who he is - one of the two most influential chancellors of modern times - rather than what he says."
"For years, the UK has run a significant current account deficit with the rest of the EU. In other words, our business with the EU has contributed fairly significantly to the growing indebtedness of the UK, at a time when many would say the debt burden on the UK is unsustainably high (and, to remind you, I am talking here about the aggregate of household, business, financial sector and government debt - not public sector debt in isolation).
Of course there has been an enormous deficit in British trade with China. But the UK's consistent surplus with the US shows that Britain isn't doomed to be constantly in the red with economies regarded as formidable."
Interestingly the Times has a piece up saying Cameron has really pissed off the Chinese, and we're unlikely to get much inward investment from them
The Telegraph a few weeks ago were claiming that Hollande's State Visit to China was a 'snub' to Cameron - rather neglecting that Cameron is not head of state......I think the new Chinese leaders are bedding in & no doubt business will resume sooner or later....
Briton fails to overturn ban on long-term expats voting in UK elections
Although directly affected by this - I think the UK government position is fair - if I want a vote, I can move back to the UK. Similarly the Scottish Govt position on 'who gets to vote' on independence - 'residents' is also reasonable.
Though he'll upset some with his mention of M. Poujade.
Amen.
"Mr Farage spins an enchanting yarn about elites ignoring popular concerns. The truth is that the three main parties are now all anti-immigration, criminal justice is tougher than a generation ago, the welfare consensus is over and a straight road to leaving the EU has been paved. Much of this is warranted. Politicians could make yet bigger concessions, but not responsibly. They have been chasing the populist vote so fleet-footedly there is little distance left to run."
Anti-immigration, except in the case of the half of it that comes completely unrestricted from the EU. Tougher on criminal justice to the point where people who engage in sex slavery of children only get a decade behind bars. A road to leaving the EU has been paved except for the two major parties that have u-turned on it and the other that has left major wriggle room.
The whole argument reeks of a "we've thrown you enough crumbs, now stop whinging" message to the general public.
@antifrank And what percentage of the electorate did the Tories get in the locals then? Or is this only a measure that is voiced for UKIP?
The Sunday Times put it succinctly the other day.
Parties in favour of remaining in the EU polled 70+% last week, parties in favour of withdrawing from the EU polled 22%
This merely reflects the bias towards the status quo under FPTP. It's like saying Labour only got 7% in 1910, thus the Liberals have nothing to worry about.
@antifrank And what percentage of the electorate did the Tories get in the locals then? Or is this only a measure that is voiced for UKIP?
The Sunday Times put it succinctly the other day.
Parties in favour of remaining in the EU polled 70+% last week, parties in favour of withdrawing from the EU polled 22%
This merely reflects the bias towards the status quo under FPTP. It's like saying Labour only got 7% in 1910, thus the Liberals have nothing to worry about.
Don't know if anyone mentioned this last week or at the weekend (when on HIGNFY), but I think it needs laughing at as often as possible
Ed Miliband: prime minister of Crawley
I watched Ed Miliband campaigning in Crawley this morning before he was off for the Windsor Castle state banquet lunch for the president of the United Arab Emirates. Passers-by do stop and listen to these old-fashioned bits of campaigning, people who wouldn’t turn up at a political meeting.
I’d say the numbers were about 40 or so passers-by and 40 or so Labour activists. It’ll take a while to reach all the country by these techniques but people seem to like them and they probably make Ed Miliband look accessible in the TV images. One man who asked a question had no idea who Ed Miliband was and started wandering off before he’d answered it. Two others hadn’t the first idea who he was. I said he was running for prime minister and one of them said: ” … of Crawley?” “No – the whole country,” I said. “Jesus,” came the response.
Briton fails to overturn ban on long-term expats voting in UK elections
Although directly affected by this - I think the UK government position is fair - if I want a vote, I can move back to the UK. Similarly the Scottish Govt position on 'who gets to vote' on independence - 'residents' is also reasonable.
Fair schmair. If the British government thinks that after 15 years out of the country your democratic rights transfer somewhere else, they should be giving the vote to foreigners who stay in Britain for 15 years, regardless of nationality.
I'd take my Enoch Powell running the show than your Modern Parents from Viz
I openly admit to agreeing with Enoch Powell, doesn't bother me to admit it. Thanks for posting the video
Just as you admit you think all white British Londoners are racist and the best thing to do is to replace them with foreigners. just as you think that mass immigration improves our economy, education standards and a decrease in crime rate.
Try again on the old insult front. maybe work out a few ideas on a white board with a focus group, singing baa baa sheep as you go
@edmundintokyo That's a false analogy. Just because you wish to stop someone exercising power without responsibility doesn't mean that you have to give someone else power.
George Ferguson @GeorgeFergusonx 4h Lord #Lawson is on lunatic wing of #ClimateChange deniers - and yet it seems we're supposed to take him seriously when it comes to #Europe!
Tweet from Bristol Mayor - not sure how being a climate change denier makes views on Europe less pertinent.
Briton fails to overturn ban on long-term expats voting in UK elections
Although directly affected by this - I think the UK government position is fair - if I want a vote, I can move back to the UK. Similarly the Scottish Govt position on 'who gets to vote' on independence - 'residents' is also reasonable.
Fair schmair. If the British government thinks that after 15 years out of the country your democratic rights transfer somewhere else, they should be giving the vote to foreigners who stay in Britain for 15 years, regardless of nationality.
Not particularly. The franchise is about having a stake in society. There's a reasonable argument that neither those British nationals who've chosen to make their home elsewhere nor those foreigners who've come to Britain but opted not to take up British citizenship have a sufficient stake to merit a vote.
Lab maj 40% Lab largest 35% Con largest 25% Con maj 0%
(barring left-field events, such as wars, pacts, or changes to the electoral system)
I wouldn't want to be estimating anything at the moment until we are past the Independence referendum. That's not because I want another discussion on it rather that that will have an impact on voting intentions regardless of the end result.
"Though he'll upset some with his mention of M. Poujade."
Given that the BNP+UKIP vote is stable between 2009 and 2013 why would they get upset?
I will happily offer you evens that the UKIP+BNP vote share at the 2014 European Parliament election will exceed that of the equivalent 2009 election (i.e. if it's higher, I win; if it's lower, you win).
Considering that the BNP have collapsed since then, that's surely more than fair?
George Ferguson @GeorgeFergusonx 4h Lord #Lawson is on lunatic wing of #ClimateChange deniers - and yet it seems we're supposed to take him seriously when it comes to #Europe!
Tweet from Bristol Mayor - not sure how being a climate change denier makes views on Europe less pertinent.
A stupid tweet.
In which case I would also ignore the views of religious people as well - after all, they believe in a being whose existence is unprovable by science. Worse, they obey diktats from people pretending to 'know' the will of the being.
Much of the population shares some fairly wacky, unscientific beliefs. That does not mean they cannot be experts in other areas.
For instance, one or two people on here still seem to think that Gordon Brown was a good PM, regardless of the evidence. :-)
Briton fails to overturn ban on long-term expats voting in UK elections
Although directly affected by this - I think the UK government position is fair - if I want a vote, I can move back to the UK. Similarly the Scottish Govt position on 'who gets to vote' on independence - 'residents' is also reasonable.
Fair schmair. If the British government thinks that after 15 years out of the country your democratic rights transfer somewhere else, they should be giving the vote to foreigners who stay in Britain for 15 years, regardless of nationality.
Not particularly. The franchise is about having a stake in society. There's a reasonable argument that neither those British nationals who've chosen to make their home elsewhere nor those foreigners who've come to Britain but opted not to take up British citizenship have a sufficient stake to merit a vote.
I wouldn't mind the idea that people whose residence doesn't match their nationality don't have a stake in either society if countries would apply the same logic to whether we should pay their taxes...
George Ferguson @GeorgeFergusonx 4h Lord #Lawson is on lunatic wing of #ClimateChange deniers - and yet it seems we're supposed to take him seriously when it comes to #Europe!
Tweet from Bristol Mayor - not sure how being a climate change denier makes views on Europe less pertinent.
'Speaking to Labour MPs and officials over the weekend, the mood was dark. As if, for the first time, people recognised the light ahead was indeed the onrushing train they’d feared. Labour threw the kitchen sink at these elections. On Thursday I got a text from a Labour adviser: “Everyone’s out on the doorstep. From the General Secretary to the receptionist. I’ve never seen that before.” Given the outcome, we may never see it again. Forget the spin about 200 seats. Labour had set 350 seats as their own minimum benchmark for success. “Mediocre at best,” was one analysis. “So what happened to those 500 seats we were going to get?” asked one shadow minister.
Briton fails to overturn ban on long-term expats voting in UK elections
Although directly affected by this - I think the UK government position is fair - if I want a vote, I can move back to the UK. Similarly the Scottish Govt position on 'who gets to vote' on independence - 'residents' is also reasonable.
Fair schmair. If the British government thinks that after 15 years out of the country your democratic rights transfer somewhere else, they should be giving the vote to foreigners who stay in Britain for 15 years, regardless of nationality.
Not particularly. The franchise is about having a stake in society. There's a reasonable argument that neither those British nationals who've chosen to make their home elsewhere nor those foreigners who've come to Britain but opted not to take up British citizenship have a sufficient stake to merit a vote.
I wouldn't mind the idea that people whose residence doesn't match their nationality don't have a stake in either society if countries would apply the same logic to whether we should pay their taxes...
There's another argument - and one I'd have more sympathy with - that only those who do pay a certain amount of taxes should have the vote but apparently that's not considered politically correct these days.
Briton fails to overturn ban on long-term expats voting in UK elections
Although directly affected by this - I think the UK government position is fair - if I want a vote, I can move back to the UK. Similarly the Scottish Govt position on 'who gets to vote' on independence - 'residents' is also reasonable.
Fair schmair. If the British government thinks that after 15 years out of the country your democratic rights transfer somewhere else, they should be giving the vote to foreigners who stay in Britain for 15 years, regardless of nationality.
Why should someone not resident in a country, probably not paying tax in that country enjoy indefinite enfranchisement, while denied to some resident tax payers?
Nick Sutton @suttonnick Lawson: "I have a lot of friends within...the Eurocracy and they all assure me [PM] will not be given any significant changes at all"
Why is this news?
Dave will be waving a renegotiation of the Melton Mowbray pork pie directive while urging Tories to vote "In"
tim is giving up - what a cheese eating surrender monkey.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick Lawson: "I have a lot of friends within...the Eurocracy and they all assure me [PM] will not be given any significant changes at all"
Why is this news?
Dave will be waving a renegotiation of the Melton Mowbray pork pie directive while urging Tories to vote "In"
Of course that's the case. The European Union is, and always has been a one way ratchet.
If @SouthamObserver is around, what's going on with the EU Patent Court? Apparently it's a different thing to the original EU Patent, and Ireland and Denmark reckon they need to have referendums on it. Can we assume the Referendum Lock legislation has a get-out for this somehow, or does Britain get to have a referendum on this too?
I am about - but in Dallas so not really piosting much at the moment.
But to answer your question, it's complicated,m but put very briefly the EU patent and court are not, strictly speaking, EU initiatives. They are the result of an inter-governmental agreement, so in technical terms fall outside the scope of the coalition's referendum lock. The original EU plans were abandoned because Spain and Italy would not sign up.
Mentioning the European elections, what are the chances of the Lib Dems ending with zero MEPs? Polling around 10% is flirting with the threshold given the size of the constituencies and the Lib Dems often under-perform at EP elections anyway. You'd think they'd take something out of the SE, East Anglia or the SW but if the numbers break badly it's not guaranteed.
Comments
Immigration is controlled by member states, except in relation to EU citizens. As one of the fundamental freedoms I do not see this changing although there is room for negotiation on qualification for benefits etc.
The CAP desperately needs reforming but I think it is completely unrealistic to expect agricultural policy to be restored to member states. Any subsidies really have to be co-ordinated and universally applied within a single market.
I think your list rather highlights a point that goes against the sceptics. So much of EU regulation, which they like to rant about, is simply the application of single market rules preventing distortions, exclusions or subsidies. The Social Chapter is an exception of sorts but even that is designed to ensure that there is a level playing field of a sort and that eastern European countries can't run sweat shops putting more of our more pampered workforce out of work.
Germany is does better at exporting because they have a heavier weighting towards engineering and industrial goods and a reputation for very high quality plus a long-standing focus by the Mittelstant on the emerging markets. Basically they have products that people want to buy. This is nothing to do with their membership of the EU.
Lawson's argument is that "you don't have to be in the EU to export to other markets". This is self-evidently true.
I don't see the logical fallacy that you are alleging
He gave the nation Nigella Lawson.
For that alone he deserves a nations thanks.
So the Tories - not for the first time - are tearing themselves to pieces over something which is unlikely to happen while they can still do anything about it.
More interesting (to me at least) is what Labour would do if the EU came up with proposals which would harm the UK or a significant part of it e.g. rules which would effectively outlaw free banking or some such. Or rules which effectively force privatisation on the NHS or some other Labour sacred cow? Would they fight or roll over? What happens if they are outvoted? That's when Labour may start its own in-fighting over the EU.
I've always thought the primary issue about the EU is mainly one of freedom and sovereignty.
Economically the sky will not fall in either way and life will continue whether we're in or out.
You are getting your cause and effect wrong Ben. Austerity is an unpleasant cure to a completely unnecessary disease.
http://labourlist.org/2013/05/its-two-years-until-the-general-election-doing-ok-isnt-good-enough-anymore/
"So what was the offer that people had last Thursday from Labour? What was the compelling national case for a Labour vote in last week’s election. Vote Labour for housing? Vote Labour to deal with the youth unemployment crisis? Vote Labour for Social Care for your loved ones? At present – and this terrifies me – whenever I’m asked why someone should vote Labour, too often the only answers I’m able to give are negative ones"
Has some interesting snippets
1) Gordon Brown wanted to stand down 30 Labour candidates in the top LD/Con seats
2) Labour, from Mandelson down were all expecting a Tory Majority even on polling day, cultivating Nick Clegg didn't seem worth it prior to election day.
3) Ed Balls was a bit shouty and patronising during the Lab/LD coaliton discussions.
(apols if already posted)
It's the free current account that is at the root of much of the mis-selling by retail banks: it creates a massive unfunded overhead that needs to be paid for by other products.
Fundamentally, retail banking (current accounts, etc) are a service to customers. Why shouldn't customers pay for that?
(Although - and against my own argument - I still get p1ssed off in the US when they charge me $3 to take money out of an ATM!)
Which may not be a coincidence.....
I remember around this point in the 05-10 Parliament his model was showing a huge possibility for a Conservative majority government. Then swingback, the expenses scandal and Cameron/Osborne's self-inflicted immolation happened followed by the most appallingly innefective election campaign in 30 years and the rest of history.
My view is that the next election will have some sort of hung parliament again. Whether it's Conservative or Labour lead will depend on just a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of seats. No model can predict that at this stage.
But then when you look at some of data, like the YouGov poll Mike was highlighting yesterday which showed a Tory/Labour majority is favoured by a virtually equal number of people, but Cameron is much more personally popular than Miliband, a Conservative majority looks much more possible than you would think going purely from voting intention.
Ah, a discussion on Europe - perfect for a post-election Tuesday morning.
Rather like Scottish independence, I don't have much passion on this subject - I'm sure I should but I don't. Neither "In" nor "Out" have made a compelling argument to support their case and a lot of the current baseline tennis is scaremongering and insults as well as party political positioning and posturing of which all sides are guilty.
If I had to vote in an In/Out EU referendum tomorrow, I genuinely don't know where I'd go. I'd probably vote to stay In but I'm open to being persuaded that voting to come out would be to the country's advantage. The No side simply can't paint a single-dimension rosy picture of a post-EU Britain. If it were simple, we'd have come out already so there are clearly some potential drawbacks to consider. The Yes side simply can't paint a single-dimension doom-laden scenario - indeed, they also have to prove how the EU (which is a shambles) can be reformed to work to the benefit of all Europeans (with whom I think we need to have a mutually beneficial trading and economic relationship).
The problem for Cameron who I'm sure recognises the need to reform the EU root-and-branch is that he'll be facing a range of opinions in any re-negotiation ranging from those willing to accept some (or even fundamental) change in some areas to those who will defend every existing practice. What he will come back is likely to be a compromise which will be equally unacceptable to everybody - assuming he gets to go at all. Those who think that he is on a fool's errand won't therefore be impressed with the pre-election posturing which leaves the dilemma - vote for Cameron in the knowledge he won't come back with a result that will satisfy or vote for MIlliband who likely won't go at all.
Thus the Conservative position may deftly (or not so deftly) drift from re-negotiation followed by a referendum to a simplt referendum if we get a majority and the latter position also serves to undermine UKIP on that front at least. Those who castigate Milliband for moving "to the Left" (whatever that means) may consider that the most radical Labour manifesto of recent times (1983) contained a commitment to leave the EU. Given the growing Euro-scepticism and challenge from UKIP without, Labour may yet surprise and play the referendum card before 2015.
The problem then for both Conservative and Labour parties will be to maintain their internal cohesion during and after the referendum campaign.
How soon till the "draft bill" faction of the tories hit back?
To get your passions running I propose we hold a referendum on electoral reform on the same day we hold a referendum on Europe
Hello? I lend the bank my money. They lend it out to others. They pay me a tiny interest rate (which is what I effectively pay for the service I am receiving) and charge the borrower a very much larger one. The difference between the two should be ample to pay for the cost of issuing a few cheque books every year and monthly statements etc. If they can't even do that they shouldn't be in business at all.
If banks are going to charge me for the privilege of holding and using my money, then I am going to charge them for all the time I have to spend correcting their mistakes etc. I think you'll find that I would still come out ahead.
Any country can trade with any other country despite trade barriers, and some trade will go on regardless. But reducing trade barriers increases the amount of trade. This has been proven time and time in again in the literature. If we reduced trade barriers with non-EU countries, we would get more trade with them. Only non-economists would disagree with this.
Sorry if this a sore point, following Judas Iscariot Paul Lambert's return on saturday.
So the only question is whether our EU friends will risk not cooperating, or giving only token concessions. That's up to them; voters can then decide what to do.
Whether this is done as part of a more general treaty change or not remains to be seen. I personally don't think the Eurozone can be made to work without a full treaty change, but you are right that they will squirm and fudge in order to try to avoid a new treaty. Perhaps the UK rattling the cage will help them along towards doing what they need to do if they want the Euro to survive and the Eurozone to prosper again.
That's what the main parties are all trying to figure out now, I guess.
Edit: I see this weekend as make or break for your lot, as your last game of the season is away to Man City.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5185c1d0-b318-11e2-b5a5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SbVkwEpj
Though he'll upset some with his mention of M. Poujade.
"Naturally most coverage of Lord Lawson's euro-Damascene moment in the Times has focussed on who he is - one of the two most influential chancellors of modern times - rather than what he says."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22432001
"For years, the UK has run a significant current account deficit with the rest of the EU. In other words, our business with the EU has contributed fairly significantly to the growing indebtedness of the UK, at a time when many would say the debt burden on the UK is unsustainably high (and, to remind you, I am talking here about the aggregate of household, business, financial sector and government debt - not public sector debt in isolation).
Of course there has been an enormous deficit in British trade with China. But the UK's consistent surplus with the US shows that Britain isn't doomed to be constantly in the red with economies regarded as formidable."
Far better to charge a clean price for the service and then pay higher interest rates to savers.
Otherwise the prudent are subsidising those without savings
That Ganesh article is the epitome of the elite mindset, whereby government should be done by honoured agreements on the part of the elite. Yes, the eurosceptics in the Tory were satisfied with a referendum, and then the goalposts were moved. But they weren't moved by the eurosceptics, they were moved by the electorate, who voted for UKIP in large numbers. It's the same situation the US has, where Republicans got angry at Obama for not backing the same budget deal he offered before the election, as if the views of the public cast in elections doesn't matter.
Edit: The Telegraph have the story as well
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10040319/David-Camerons-rift-with-China-could-cost-UK-billions.html
They want to be fooled.
Lisbon wasn't Cameron's fault. Show them an EU flounce and they'll believe it, for while.
Give them a speech on Europe and it's only months after some of them start to realise it's as conditional and Cast Iron as Lisbon so start demanding a referendum on a referendum. Promise them a draft bill and that just might shut them up again.
They want to be fooled because they want to posture on Europe. Problem is with UKIP breathing down tory MPs necks in marginals posturing just isn't going to cut it for much longer. Farage will laugh in their faces when he hears them posturing and even a 6-8% UKIP vote at the next election will be enough to give those tory marginal MPs nightmares.
Besides, even a free current account provides plenty of potential revenue streams for the bank that don't involve putting the hard sell on their customers.
"Mr Farage spins an enchanting yarn about elites ignoring popular concerns. The truth is that the three main parties are now all anti-immigration, criminal justice is tougher than a generation ago, the welfare consensus is over and a straight road to leaving the EU has been paved. Much of this is warranted. Politicians could make yet bigger concessions, but not responsibly. They have been chasing the populist vote so fleet-footedly there is little distance left to run."
"This vessel for the masses scored 3 per cent of the vote at the 2010 general election. It won almost a quarter last Thursday but on an estimated 31 per cent turnout, which works out at 7 per cent of the electorate. "
We must be OK at it as we've won two Queen's Awards in the past five years for international trade. It also means I'm at the front line on this, so if it goes pear shaped it affects me next day.
So am I a rabid Clegg like "Europe is good at all costs whatever", or a Farage "out out out"? Probably neither but I am persuadable both ways.
Essentially as long as we have free trade I simply cannot see the world would end if we left. There is an argument about we couldn't influence regulations etc but it seems we get precious little now, and a lot of rubbish back (the CAP for Christ's sake! 37% of a 21st century budget spent on tilling the land!). The Clegg's of this world are deploying the "we'll all be poor argument" as they did with the Euro which would've been a total catasrophe if we'd listened to the swivel eyed ramblings of the LD's and others on that.
However, there is a case to be made the other way that says "the European countries place in the world is shrinking, in a few decades it's going to be a really multi polar with the USA, China, Brazil, India and others (Indonesia?) running the show and even the biggest European countries will not get more than a small seat at the top a table and then only as observers. Why not try to create a proper state to conteract that - not a halfway, "we'll get there by stealth, using the Euro as a stepping stone and hope nobody rumbles what we're up to in the meantime" as they are trying now.
The problem with the "let's unify" agrument is nobody but nobody has the nerve or the vision or the faith to set out what "more Europe" means, and try to postively sell it to the electorate. Where is Barroso or Merkel or whoever, standing up and saying "look here's vision "2025" we'll have a federal state, an army, unified taxes, we'll teach all kids one lingua franca in schools do we can all communicate etc". Instead we have this mealy mouthed web of summits, rinky dink Parliaments, commissioners nobody's heard of from Ruritanian states that we cannot fire via a ballot box having influence over our lives. It's a 21st century Austro Hungarian Empire, created piecemeal and by accident, fraying at the edges, paying lip service to the legitimacy of the state, and inexorably going downhill to utter irrelevance comforting ourselves, that the titles, wine, acrhitecture, and cream cakes are all still great.
At present I'm leaning to "out", primarily because of Tony Benn's argument about people in power "how do I get rid of you?". I can answer that about Cameron, Clegg, and a future Miliband. I cannot answer it about Barroso, van Rompuy, Ashton and all the nameless others. That central democratic flaw has to be adressed or it will all end in tears and not just here in the UK.
And it would be a shame, as not having shot at each other since 1945 is really rather good.
Harry Schindler, who has lived in Italy since 1982, challenged voting ban for Britons who have lived abroad for over 15 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/may/07/briton-ban-expats-voting-elections
Automation is a good thing in reducing costs, but the branch network and ATM network (not to mention BACS, CHAPS, SWIFT and FP) cost a fortune to maintain.
Loss-leader pricing, which is what you are suggesting, is never good for a competitive market as it benefits the incumbents
"Right of residence for more than three months
The right of residence for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:
- either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
- or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
- or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;
- or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories."
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33152_en.htm
Parties in favour of remaining in the EU polled 70+% last week, parties in favour of withdrawing from the EU polled 22%
The whole argument reeks of a "we've thrown you enough crumbs, now stop whinging" message to the general public.
I suppose you stick with Labour because by no stretch could you be described as belonging to a " working " class.
Nailed onners - no need to disturb yourself from your sandy head rest - just the usual attacks.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100215522/three-years-after-the-coalition-took-power-labour-has-gone-nowhere-very-very-slowly/
"Forget the new Disraeli. Ed Miliband is basically the new Harriet Harman."
It's they who want a return to golden era
http://youtu.be/COt65HZCJaA
"Farmers Law" ?
I openly admit to agreeing with Enoch Powell, doesn't bother me to admit it. Thanks for posting the video
Just as you admit you think all white British Londoners are racist and the best thing to do is to replace them with foreigners. just as you think that mass immigration improves our economy, education standards and a decrease in crime rate.
Try again on the old insult front. maybe work out a few ideas on a white board with a focus group, singing baa baa sheep as you go
Baroness Warsi copycat smear
http://youtu.be/315nh131bHM
Lab maj 40%
Lab largest 35%
Con largest 25%
Con maj 0%
(barring left-field events, such as wars, pacts, or changes to the electoral system)
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/22397/why-working-class-dumped-labour-and-voted-bnp
UKIP's explosion is of a different order and origin.
"So you're telling me there's a chance? YEAH!!!!!" - Jim Carrey in Dumb & Dumber.
Lord #Lawson is on lunatic wing of #ClimateChange deniers - and yet it seems we're supposed to take him seriously when it comes to #Europe!
Tweet from Bristol Mayor - not sure how being a climate change denier makes views on Europe less pertinent.
On a whiteboard - racist... ;^ )
Considering that the BNP have collapsed since then, that's surely more than fair?
It's Baronperson.
In which case I would also ignore the views of religious people as well - after all, they believe in a being whose existence is unprovable by science. Worse, they obey diktats from people pretending to 'know' the will of the being.
Much of the population shares some fairly wacky, unscientific beliefs. That does not mean they cannot be experts in other areas.
For instance, one or two people on here still seem to think that Gordon Brown was a good PM, regardless of the evidence. :-)
Labour happy that UKIP are in the spotlight. .
'Speaking to Labour MPs and officials over the weekend, the mood was dark. As if, for the first time, people recognised the light ahead was indeed the onrushing train they’d feared.
Labour threw the kitchen sink at these elections.
On Thursday I got a text from a Labour adviser: “Everyone’s out on the doorstep. From the General Secretary to the receptionist. I’ve never seen that before.” Given the outcome, we may never see it again.
Forget the spin about 200 seats. Labour had set 350 seats as their own minimum benchmark for success. “Mediocre at best,” was one analysis. “So what happened to those 500 seats we were going to get?” asked one shadow minister.
Osborne's fault....
But to answer your question, it's complicated,m but put very briefly the EU patent and court are not, strictly speaking, EU initiatives. They are the result of an inter-governmental agreement, so in technical terms fall outside the scope of the coalition's referendum lock. The original EU plans were abandoned because Spain and Italy would not sign up.
There's actually a huge one to the left of the Eurostar as you get the train back to UK.