If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.
You're probably right.
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.
This is absurd. UKIP have shown how many Labour votes were ripe for the taking. A principled, working class Tory could clearly have won them over.
Provide evidence, rather than mere assertion, and I may engage on the topic.
"But Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and, according to several European sources, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, have also expressed their opposition to Mr Juncker."
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Really?
Jurisdiction is always a fight (particularly when Americans are involved) but the ones I've seen usual end up as England, Germany, or Switzerland (for arbitration). I've worked under Danish and Norwegian law before, but only when they were my clients and I had instructions to absolutely not budge on the issue.
You are right, Charles, if you take a global view.
My example mainly derives from work in the FSU (pre EU accession of the Baltics) and particularly in Russia, where Swedish arbitration has been a strong preference dating back to communist times.
In early post Soviet days most contracts were subject to the non-Russian party's jurisdiction, but increasingly Russian law and policy started to insist on contracts being subject to their own jurisdiction (at least where the Russians had sufficient negotiating power). Arbitration however remains at the option of the parties.
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
The fact there is no process for adjudicating international disputes on extradition proceedings is a systemic weakness not grounds for opposing its geographically limited introduction elsewhere.
In other words, you would in fact favour, at least in principle, all extradition treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party to be under the jurisdiction of an international court or courts. It is an eccentric view, certainly.
It is a fallacy to think that international obligations ultimately rest for their efficacy on underpinning by international courts. They depend on the willingness of parties to the agreement to recognise that it is in their mutual self-interest to have reciprocal extradition arrangements. If HMG really thought that a country was failing to meets its obligations, it could denounce the treaty, with the consequence that no suspect from that country would, in the United Kingdom, be liable to extradition to it.
The gravest threat to the reciprocal working of extradition arrangements in recent years has not come from a failure to be subject to the CJEU. Indeed, the British courts have, quite properly, implemented the Extradition Act 2003 to the letter. It came from Theresa May's wholly unjustifiable refusal for political reasons to order the extradition of Mr McKinnon to the United States of America.
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
The fact there is no process for adjudicating international disputes on extradition proceedings is a systemic weakness not grounds for opposing its geographically limited introduction elsewhere.
In other words, you would in fact favour, at least in principle, all extradition treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party to be under the jurisdiction of an international court or courts. It is an eccentric view, certainly.
It is a fallacy to think that international obligations ultimately rest for their efficacy on underpinning by international courts. They depend on the willingness of parties to the agreement to recognise that it is in their mutual self-interest to have reciprocal extradition arrangements. If HMG really thought that a country was failing to meets its obligations, it could denounce the treaty, with the consequence that no suspect from that country would, in the United Kingdom, be liable to extradition to it.
The gravest threat to the reciprocal working of extradition arrangements in recent years has not come from a failure to be subject to the CJEU. Indeed, the British courts have, quite properly, implemented the Extradition Act 2003 to the letter. It came from Theresa May's wholly unjustifiable refusal for political reasons to order the extradition of Mr McKinnon to the United States of America.
[Have to break for an hour or so - will answer later]
If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.
You're probably right.
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.
This is absurd. UKIP have shown how many Labour votes were ripe for the taking. A principled, working class Tory could clearly have won them over.
Provide evidence, rather than mere assertion, and I may engage on the topic.
Says the guy that claimed Gordon Brown would be still in power, without evidence or even argument.
"But Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and, according to several European sources, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, have also expressed their opposition to Mr Juncker."
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
Depending how long they stall they probably can't count on Katainen, since he's be resigning this month. apparently to try to get Juncker's job...
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
Well with your party and the Lib Dem europhiles running scared of a referendum, I wonder who the public will take it out on? The left is in the minority, and shrinking. Europhilia is in the minority, and shrinking. You should have never sent Bryan Gould packing,
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
Clever threat. If the nuclear option happens Farage has no option but to soft pedal against Tories or lose his party's Raison d'etre
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
And you wish to stay in the EU on this basis?
No, it doesn't sound much of a broad alliance of like-minded nations does it? But perhaps Nick's contention is that Merkel and co's antipathy is all Cameron's fault because, unlike Tony, he hasn't always just caved in.
More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.
Richard, you do @Fitalass a disservice. There is no doubt that May has been 'a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been'. The important qualification to note is 'Tory'. Hence the support for the Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the introduction of closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests, the creation of new and unnecessary criminal offences, and now ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation. This is able and effective Tory authoritarianism in practice.
Sorry yes I understand you. The sort of authoritarian rubbish that Fitlass considers acceptable is not the same as more reasonable people would consider the mark of a good Home Secretary.
I suppose that also explains why May is happy to sign over so much power to the EU. Tories are only interested paying lip service to limiting the power of the EU over our affairs. In reality they are more than happy to see control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels.
Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply a pragmatic and sensible means of resolving international disputes.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to such unjustified hyperbole.
Wow. That was impressive. A post where you managed to be wrong on every substantive point you made.
As LIAMT has already pointed out the ability for an supranational court to decide on the extradition of UK citizens to another jurisdiction is indeed unprecedented. And you are conflating contract and criminal law.
Sometimes the pro-EU cause can only be defended by ignorance and lies.
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
Clever threat. If the nuclear option happens Farage has no option but to soft pedal against Tories or lose his party's Raison d'etre
I don't see why Farage would have to soft-pedal against the Tories. Can't he just say, "Cameron's whole thing is bullshit"?
Great news. Twitter The Times of London @thetimes 1m Latest: Sudanese official says Meriam Ibrahim is 'to be freed' http://thetim.es/1tXYlcf #SaveMeriam (Photo: Alayaam) pic.twitter.com/JfclNLfyhp
Whilst releasing her is welcome, has the sentence been overturned or will she still be subject to 100 lashes etc? Until we know for certain I'd be cautious.
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
Clever threat. If the nuclear option happens Farage has no option but to soft pedal against Tories or lose his party's Raison d'etre
Sorry don't see that follows
If the referendum is still after the next election and Cameron is still campaigning for in then nothing has changed in that respect except the referendum may be in 2016 not 2017.
This looks more to me a move against labour and lib dems for this election. Juncker gets put in the job. Cameron tries to get a referendum through expecting labour and lib dems to block it then when he do ensures that the country knows they blocked it. That will get him a couple of percent going into the election
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
Clever threat. If the nuclear option happens Farage has no option but to soft pedal against Tories or lose his party's Raison d'etre
I don't see why Farage would have to soft-pedal against the Tories. Can't he just say, "Cameron's whole thing is bullshit"?
And never get a referendum? I doubt it. UKIP will circle wagons round Cameron and it will be a left-right fight off
Can Cameron buy off the DUP and SNP to get a referendum through on the parliament act?
That's not enough votes is it? He still needs some Lib or Lab defectors to vote against a well-camouflaged wrecking amendment that tweaks the referendum bill in some small, Eurosceptic-looking way to make it a different bill and neutralize the Parliament Act. And he presumably needs them to vote for the pork he's giving DUP/SNP in return, since the LibDems won't be inclined to be helpful.
The idea that UKIP would have vanished without a trace if David Davis had led the Tories is preposterous. Davis was a whip who got the Maastricht Treaty through the House - a stick with which he'd have been beaten by every Kipper in the land.
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
Clever threat. If the nuclear option happens Farage has no option but to soft pedal against Tories or lose his party's Raison d'etre
I don't see why Farage would have to soft-pedal against the Tories. Can't he just say, "Cameron's whole thing is bullshit"?
And never get a referendum? I doubt it. UKIP will circle wagons round Cameron and it will be a left-right fight off
Of course he won't, they're his main enemy. The more similar they get the more they'll want to destroy each other. You don't see Coke running ads saying, "Pepsi is pretty good too".
Can Cameron buy off the DUP and SNP to get a referendum through on the parliament act?
That's not enough votes is it? He still needs some Lib or Lab defectors to vote against a well-camouflaged wrecking amendment that tweaks the referendum bill in some small, Eurosceptic-looking way to make it a different bill and neutralize the Parliament Act. And he presumably needs them to vote for the pork he's giving DUP/SNP in return, since the LibDems won't be inclined to be helpful.
Yeah, it's 317-317 without the Alliance, Green, Respect and the disgraced He'd need 4 Lib Dems on board
OK, let's game this out. Let's assume people believe Cameron has made this threat. Let's also assume the majority go ahead and vote through Juncker. What are Cameron's options? a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk. b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk. c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
Clever threat. If the nuclear option happens Farage has no option but to soft pedal against Tories or lose his party's Raison d'etre
I don't see why Farage would have to soft-pedal against the Tories. Can't he just say, "Cameron's whole thing is bullshit"?
And never get a referendum? I doubt it. UKIP will circle wagons round Cameron and it will be a left-right fight off
Of course he won't, they're his main enemy. The more similar they get the more they'll want to destroy each other. You don't see Coke running ads saying, "Pepsi is pretty good too".
Farage doesn't want to be PM, he wants out of Europe.
"But Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and, according to several European sources, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, have also expressed their opposition to Mr Juncker."
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
Depending how long they stall they probably can't count on Katainen, since he's be resigning this month. apparently to try to get Juncker's job...
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
And you wish to stay in the EU on this basis?
No, I want a British government that cooperates sensibly and doesn't wind up its natural allies for perceived domestic advantage. Sadly tim isn't here to note that it started with the Latvian homophobes...
Can Cameron buy off the DUP and SNP to get a referendum through on the parliament act?
That's not enough votes is it? He still needs some Lib or Lab defectors to vote against a well-camouflaged wrecking amendment that tweaks the referendum bill in some small, Eurosceptic-looking way to make it a different bill and neutralize the Parliament Act. And he presumably needs them to vote for the pork he's giving DUP/SNP in return, since the LibDems won't be inclined to be helpful.
Yeah, it's 317-317 without the Alliance, Green, Respect and the disgraced He'd need 4 Lib Dems on board
Jeremy Browne could be persuaded.
Dave could also send Nick, Vince and Danny on a trade mission to The Federated States of Micronesia on the day of the vote
Can Cameron buy off the DUP and SNP to get a referendum through on the parliament act?
That's not enough votes is it? He still needs some Lib or Lab defectors to vote against a well-camouflaged wrecking amendment that tweaks the referendum bill in some small, Eurosceptic-looking way to make it a different bill and neutralize the Parliament Act. And he presumably needs them to vote for the pork he's giving DUP/SNP in return, since the LibDems won't be inclined to be helpful.
Yeah, it's 317-317 without the Alliance, Green, Respect and the disgraced He'd need 4 Lib Dems on board
Jeremy Browne could be persuaded.
Dave could also send Nick, Vince and Danny on a trade mission to The Federated States of Micronesia on the day of the vote
Can Cameron buy off the DUP and SNP to get a referendum through on the parliament act?
That's not enough votes is it? He still needs some Lib or Lab defectors to vote against a well-camouflaged wrecking amendment that tweaks the referendum bill in some small, Eurosceptic-looking way to make it a different bill and neutralize the Parliament Act. And he presumably needs them to vote for the pork he's giving DUP/SNP in return, since the LibDems won't be inclined to be helpful.
Yeah, it's 317-317 without the Alliance, Green, Respect and the disgraced He'd need 4 Lib Dems on board
Jeremy Browne could be persuaded.
Dave could also send Nick, Vince and Danny on a trade mission to The Federated States of Micronesia on the day of the vote
Remember the wrecking amendment could be disguised as a pro-referendum measure (eg referendum now not 2017). It would be hard to get Tories with UKIP challengers to vote against it, and the ones that vote with Cameron aren't going to enjoy explaining the intricacies of the Parliament Act to counter UKIP leaflets saying, "He voted against a referendum".
Can Cameron buy off the DUP and SNP to get a referendum through on the parliament act?
That's not enough votes is it? He still needs some Lib or Lab defectors to vote against a well-camouflaged wrecking amendment that tweaks the referendum bill in some small, Eurosceptic-looking way to make it a different bill and neutralize the Parliament Act. And he presumably needs them to vote for the pork he's giving DUP/SNP in return, since the LibDems won't be inclined to be helpful.
Yeah, it's 317-317 without the Alliance, Green, Respect and the disgraced He'd need 4 Lib Dems on board
Jeremy Browne could be persuaded.
Dave could also send Nick, Vince and Danny on a trade mission to The Federated States of Micronesia on the day of the vote
Remember the wrecking amendment could be disguised as a pro-referendum measure (eg referendum now not 2017). It would be hard to get Tories with UKIP challengers to vote against it, and the ones that vote with Cameron aren't going to enjoy explaining the intricacies of the Parliament Act to counter UKIP leaflets saying, "He voted against a referendum".
Can't we have a Europe Wide election for the President of the Commission.
Think of the betting opportunities.
An electoral college type system with AV like the labour leadership 1/3 Public 1/3 National Parliaments 1/3 EU Parliament
No need for any faffing around like that when you can just have the main parliamentary groups pick a candidate then give the job to the candidate of whichever group comes first.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone polls British voters on the process here. I know picking the person who gets the most votes sounds like an anti-democratic outrage to people highly conversant in Euroscepticology, but the scandalousness of this may not be as obvious to Joe Public.
This is rather misleading. 41% of UKIP EP voters are "likely" to vote C and the GE, 23% say they are "likely" to vote Labour and 8% to vote LibDem. All we can really say from this poll is that IF people act in 12 months time as they say they will now, which is a BIG IF, then the UKIP vote would be in the range 37-86% of their current vote, with the residue breaking about 2:1 C:Lab.
Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while
Twaddle. Unelected parties can't just 'take over'. This would mean in effect that the Queen, through royal appointment, was unilaterally picking the government. It would be a constitutional outrage and Her Majesty would never be permitted to be embarrassed in such a way.
Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while
Twaddle. Unelected parties can't just 'take over'. The would mean in effect that the Queen, through royal appointment, was unilaterally picking the government. It would be a constitutional outrage and Her Majesty would never be permitted to be embarrassed in such a way.
The Queen could not dissolve Parliament if there were not enough votes for the Dissolution resolution. That would be a constitutional outrage. Labour could form a minority government and the Opposition could vote them out through a no confidence motion.
Can't we have a Europe Wide election for the President of the Commission.
Think of the betting opportunities.
An electoral college type system with AV like the labour leadership 1/3 Public 1/3 National Parliaments 1/3 EU Parliament
No need for any faffing around like that when you can just have the main parliamentary groups pick a candidate then give the job to the candidate of whichever group comes first.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone polls British voters on the process here. I know picking the person who gets the most votes sounds like an anti-democratic outrage to people highly conversant in Euroscepticology, but the scandalousness of this may not be as obvious to Joe Public.
Yes, but that is all horse trading and looking after your mates. I want something where the public can upset the apple cart Or do something like Eurovision, where each country selects a candidate and then a straight number of votes election. No extra weighting of the minnows involved.
"But Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and, according to several European sources, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, have also expressed their opposition to Mr Juncker."
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
Depending how long they stall they probably can't count on Katainen, since he's be resigning this month. apparently to try to get Juncker's job...
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
And you wish to stay in the EU on this basis?
No, I want a British government that cooperates sensibly and doesn't wind up its natural allies for perceived domestic advantage. Sadly tim isn't here to note that it started with the Latvian homophobes...
What you want is a British government that performs the full kow-tow.
"But Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and, according to several European sources, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, have also expressed their opposition to Mr Juncker."
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
Depending how long they stall they probably can't count on Katainen, since he's be resigning this month. apparently to try to get Juncker's job...
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
And you wish to stay in the EU on this basis?
No, I want a British government that cooperates sensibly and doesn't wind up its natural allies for perceived domestic advantage. Sadly tim isn't here to note that it started with the Latvian homophobes...
Does "cooperating sensibly" include giving up the British rebate in return for a promise of CAP reform?
Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while
Twaddle. Unelected parties can't just 'take over'. The would mean in effect that the Queen, through royal appointment, was unilaterally picking the government. It would be a constitutional outrage and Her Majesty would never be permitted to be embarrassed in such a way.
Sure they can, that's how the Fixed Terms Act is designed. Cameron can say, "I want a dissolution", parliament votes "no". If Cameron resigns, somebody else gets the opportunity to form a government instead.
Labour would need to have enough votes, though, which brings us back to the tight Rainbow Coalition arithmetic, especially now that the rainbow now includes whatever colour George Galloway is. And it's not at all obvious that the voters will be wildly keen about the resulting government.
Can't we have a Europe Wide election for the President of the Commission.
Think of the betting opportunities.
An electoral college type system with AV like the labour leadership 1/3 Public 1/3 National Parliaments 1/3 EU Parliament
No need for any faffing around like that when you can just have the main parliamentary groups pick a candidate then give the job to the candidate of whichever group comes first.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone polls British voters on the process here. I know picking the person who gets the most votes sounds like an anti-democratic outrage to people highly conversant in Euroscepticology, but the scandalousness of this may not be as obvious to Joe Public.
Yes, but that is all horse trading and looking after your mates. I want something where the public can upset the apple cart Or do something like Eurovision, where each country selects a candidate and then a straight number of votes election. No extra weighting of the minnows involved.
Where's the horse trading? The candidate of the party with the most votes gets the job. The horse trading is what Cameron is trying to preserve.
That said, direct elections with a simple popular vote would be better.
"But Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and, according to several European sources, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, have also expressed their opposition to Mr Juncker."
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
Depending how long they stall they probably can't count on Katainen, since he's be resigning this month. apparently to try to get Juncker's job...
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
And you wish to stay in the EU on this basis?
No, I want a British government that cooperates sensibly and doesn't wind up its natural allies for perceived domestic advantage. Sadly tim isn't here to note that it started with the Latvian homophobes...
What you want is a British government that performs the full kow-tow.
The current vernacular is 'assume the position' It reminds me of when Private Eye described NP as being willing to eat his own feet if the whips told him to (or something like that).
I think there needs to be a very big caveat here and that is Newark. If UKIP doesn't win Newark then expect this bubble to burst and those votes to come flooding back to the Conservatives
If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.
You're probably right.
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.
This is absurd. UKIP have shown how many Labour votes were ripe for the taking. A principled, working class Tory could clearly have won them over.
Provide evidence, rather than mere assertion, and I may engage on the topic.
It's a fact that UKIP have been able to come first, or a strong second, in places where the Conservatives haven't featured for decades, like Rotherham, Sheffield, Doncaster, Sunderland, Hartlepool etc. That suggests there are anti-Labour voters there that the Conservatives can't attract.
Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while
Twaddle. Unelected parties can't just 'take over'. This would mean in effect that the Queen, through royal appointment, was unilaterally picking the government. It would be a constitutional outrage and Her Majesty would never be permitted to be embarrassed in such a way.
Buts it's her Majesties Government, appointed by her with the convention that the leader of the largest party gets the call. However, fixed term parliament gubbins makes it interesting. Parliament cannot just be dissolved any more, so unless MPs vote to prorogue then parliament must continue until it expires. If the Conservative government resigns and we don't have a vote to hold an election then Brenda would have no other choice - there must be a government.
Not that it will happen. Politically a minority Labour and all the others government with no election to appoint it surely is impossible. That new minority would want to be legitimized and surely the Conservative opposition wouldn't vote against an early election?
To which Merkel apparently says "Yeah, whatever." I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it.
Can't we have a Europe Wide election for the President of the Commission.
Think of the betting opportunities.
An electoral college type system with AV like the labour leadership 1/3 Public 1/3 National Parliaments 1/3 EU Parliament
No need for any faffing around like that when you can just have the main parliamentary groups pick a candidate then give the job to the candidate of whichever group comes first.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone polls British voters on the process here. I know picking the person who gets the most votes sounds like an anti-democratic outrage to people highly conversant in Euroscepticology, but the scandalousness of this may not be as obvious to Joe Public.
Yes, but that is all horse trading and looking after your mates. I want something where the public can upset the apple cart Or do something like Eurovision, where each country selects a candidate and then a straight number of votes election. No extra weighting of the minnows involved.
Where's the horse trading? The candidate of the party with the most votes gets the job. The horse trading is what Cameron is trying to preserve.
That said, direct elections with a simple popular vote would be better.
The horse trading comes from the 'main parliamentary groups' picking candidate.
Or, we could have a Presidential system of a number of candidates fighting for the nomination. European primary season would present plenty of betting opportunities.
Sure they can, that's how the Fixed Terms Act is designed. Cameron can say, "I want a dissolution", parliament votes "no". If Cameron resigns, somebody else gets the opportunity to form a government instead.
Labour would need to have enough votes, though, which brings us back to the tight Rainbow Coalition arithmetic, especially now that the rainbow now includes whatever colour George Galloway is. And it's not at all obvious that the voters will be wildly keen about the resulting government.
There is no constitutional precedent to suggest that a government which lost a motion in the House of Commons "that there shall be an early parliamentary general election" would be compelled to resign. Moreover, there is another way under the 2011 Act to achieve a speedy dissolution. The Prime Minister could propose a motion "that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" and whip his party to vote for it. He could then try and hold out for fourteen days until the Crown had the authority to dissolve Parliament.
Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while
Twaddle. Unelected parties can't just 'take over'. The would mean in effect that the Queen, through royal appointment, was unilaterally picking the government. It would be a constitutional outrage and Her Majesty would never be permitted to be embarrassed in such a way.
The Queen could not dissolve Parliament if there were not enough votes for the Dissolution resolution. That would be a constitutional outrage. Labour could form a minority government and the Opposition could vote them out through a no confidence motion.
I am not saying it will happen though.
This was actually mooted during the first Gulf War when Maggie was ousted. The 'thought' went that as we were at war and the Tories were in disarray could HM appoint Kinnock as prime minister for the good of the nation? The answer was that the monarch would have no part in such a grubby ruse to usurp the will of the electorate, nor should she be embarrassed by being asked to.
Roger Helmer in Newark is finding that the Greens are doing very nicely by being the only party that's not supporting fracking (check out the Newark Advertiser's articles on this topic). Whereas Helmer was pumping fracking a few weeks ago as the way to energy independence for Britain, he's now bulling up coal instead and is not mentioning the 'F' word. The issue (fracking) is hot in Newark as locals are well briefed on it and are very concerned at its implications. Unless UKIP change sides, and start opposing fracking like the Greens, they won't get this seat or many others. Farage's problem is that he's chosen the Murdoch deal route to Westminster seats which may have committed him to support fracking, GMOs etc. I made a video on this topic two days ago explaining the key position that fracking will be playing in politics in the next twelve months, called 'Let's talk About Fracking'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGXA5J7ssw
Sure they can, that's how the Fixed Terms Act is designed. Cameron can say, "I want a dissolution", parliament votes "no". If Cameron resigns, somebody else gets the opportunity to form a government instead.
Labour would need to have enough votes, though, which brings us back to the tight Rainbow Coalition arithmetic, especially now that the rainbow now includes whatever colour George Galloway is. And it's not at all obvious that the voters will be wildly keen about the resulting government.
There is no constitutional precedent to suggest that a government which lost a motion in the House of Commons "that there shall be an early parliamentary general election" would be compelled to resign. Moreover, there is another way under the 2011 Act to achieve a speedy dissolution. The Prime Minister could propose a motion "that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" and whip his party to vote for it. He could then try and hold out for fourteen days until the Crown had the authority to dissolve Parliament.
They can call a vote for an early election, but if parliament tells them to piss off then that's the same as not calling the vote in the first place. They're still in power, but there's no election.
As soon as they call and pass a No Confidence vote, the Queen's job is to find out if there's anyone in the house who the house would have confidence in, be it Ed Miliband or anyone else.
Although you do have to wonder if Theresa May or somebody could squeeze a Tory leadership challenge in that slot and pick up where David Cameron left off before he started dicking around...
I think there needs to be a very big caveat here and that is Newark. If UKIP doesn't win Newark then expect this bubble to burst and those votes to come flooding back to the Conservatives
That is ridiculous. Why on earth should UKIP be expected to collapse because they don't win in one of the Tories' safest seats?
'I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it'
They must be praying Ed wins next year and then they can do whatever they want for the next 5 years. .
Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while
Twaddle. Unelected parties can't just 'take over'. The would mean in effect that the Queen, through royal appointment, was unilaterally picking the government. It would be a constitutional outrage and Her Majesty would never be permitted to be embarrassed in such a way.
The Queen could not dissolve Parliament if there were not enough votes for the Dissolution resolution. That would be a constitutional outrage. Labour could form a minority government and the Opposition could vote them out through a no confidence motion.
I am not saying it will happen though.
This was actually mooted during the first Gulf War when Maggie was ousted. The 'thought' went that as we were at war and the Tories were in disarray could HM appoint Kinnock as prime minister for the good of the nation? The answer was that the monarch would have no part in such a grubby ruse to usurp the will of the electorate, nor should she be embarrassed by being asked to.
That's before the Fixed Terms Act, the whole point of which is to prevent a fresh election unless either time's up or nobody can form a government.
Roger Helmer in Newark is finding that the Greens are doing very nicely by being the only party that's not supporting fracking (check out the Newark Advertiser's articles on this topic). Whereas Helmer was pumping fracking a few weeks ago as the way to energy independence for Britain, he's now bulling up coal instead and is not mentioning the 'F' word. The issue (fracking) is hot in Newark as locals are well briefed on it and are very concerned at its implications. Unless UKIP change sides, and start opposing fracking like the Greens, they won't get this seat or many others. Farage's problem is that he's chosen the Murdoch deal route to Westminster seats which may have committed him to support fracking, GMOs etc. I made a video on this topic two days ago explaining the key position that fracking will be playing in politics in the next twelve months, called 'Let's talk About Fracking'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGXA5J7ssw
Not sure where you get the idea that locals in Newark are concerned about fracking. For a start Newark has been the centre of an oilfield for longer than anywhere else in Britain. There are 3000 oil wells within 30 miles of Newark.
But more to the point there is no possibility of fracking around Newark since the rocks are not right for it. The nearest place fracking might take place is around Gainsborough which is well to the north and well outside the constituency.
Judging by all the posters in the villages around Newark and the constant news items in teh Advertiser, people are far more concerned about stopping large numbers of wind turbines being planned in the constituency.
They can call a vote for an early election, but if parliament tells them to piss off then that's the same as not calling the vote in the first place. They're still in power, but there's no election.
As soon as they call and pass a No Confidence vote, the Queen's job is to find out if there's anyone in the house who the house would have confidence in, be it Ed Miliband or anyone else.
Although you do have to wonder if Theresa May or somebody could squeeze a Tory leadership challenge in that slot and pick up where David Cameron left off before he started dicking around...
Not strictly true. When there have been previous motions of no confidence, the monarch has not of his/her own motion gone looking for candidates in the House of Commons. In 1979 and 1924 (October), the PM advised the Queen/King (and his advice was accepted) that Parliament should be dissolved. In 1924 (January), the Prime Minister tendered the government's resignation to the King, and would have given advice about the appointment of his successor. Suppose therefore that the Prime Minister proposed a motion of no-confidence in his own government in order to be able to appoint a polling day under s. 2(7) of the 2011 Act. That would be a situation without precedent. The motion is carried. The Prime Minister then advises the Queen that he intends to take his case to the country. Would the Queen really be prepared to sack him, and appoint the Leader of the Opposition? I wonder...
The horse trading comes from the 'main parliamentary groups' picking candidate.
Or, we could have a Presidential system of a number of candidates fighting for the nomination. European primary season would present plenty of betting opportunities.
They'd have that with a presidential election too, presumably. I assume the parties would run candidates rather than it being a bunch of random individuals.
The way the parties pick their candidates is obviously going to be up to them, but this time the Greens ran an open primary (anyone with a phone in the EU who promises they're a citizen can vote), and the PES planned for a primary (member parties administer it however they like), but had a strong front-runner and quite a high hurdle for nominations and the winner won unopposed.
I think ultimately this ends up as a primary system, too. Sooner or later once the PES have a contested nomination then win, the members of the EPP parties will want a primary, too.
They can call a vote for an early election, but if parliament tells them to piss off then that's the same as not calling the vote in the first place. They're still in power, but there's no election.
As soon as they call and pass a No Confidence vote, the Queen's job is to find out if there's anyone in the house who the house would have confidence in, be it Ed Miliband or anyone else.
Although you do have to wonder if Theresa May or somebody could squeeze a Tory leadership challenge in that slot and pick up where David Cameron left off before he started dicking around...
Not strictly true. When there have been previous motions of no confidence, the monarch has not of his/her own motion gone looking for candidates in the House of Commons. In 1979 and 1924 (October), the PM advised the Queen/King (and his advice was accepted) that Parliament should be dissolved. In 1924 (January), the Prime Minister tendered the government's resignation to the King, and would have given advice about the appointment of his successor. Suppose therefore that the Prime Minister proposed a motion of no-confidence in his own government in order to be able to appoint a polling day under s. 2(7) of the 2011 Act. That would be a situation without precedent. The motion is carried. The Prime Minister then advises the Queen that he intends to take his case to the country. Would the Queen really be prepared to sack him, and appoint the Leader of the Opposition? I wonder...
It's a situation without precedent because they only just passed the Fixed Terms Act.
The Queen wouldn't be sacking Cameron, he'd have sacked himself by calling a no-confidence motion in his own government.
The "UKIP will collapse and their voters go home to the Tories" is starting to sound as desperately silly as Hodges "why any event of any description is a disaster for Ed Milliband" arguments.
On the bright side even these levels of delusional madness aren't as insane as the LibDems "if we communicate better and Get Behind Nick we will be ok in next year's elections"......
Roger Helmer in Newark is finding that the Greens are doing very nicely by being the only party that's not supporting fracking (check out the Newark Advertiser's articles on this topic). Whereas Helmer was pumping fracking a few weeks ago as the way to energy independence for Britain, he's now bulling up coal instead and is not mentioning the 'F' word. The issue (fracking) is hot in Newark as locals are well briefed on it and are very concerned at its implications. Unless UKIP change sides, and start opposing fracking like the Greens, they won't get this seat or many others. Farage's problem is that he's chosen the Murdoch deal route to Westminster seats which may have committed him to support fracking, GMOs etc. I made a video on this topic two days ago explaining the key position that fracking will be playing in politics in the next twelve months, called 'Let's talk About Fracking'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGXA5J7ssw
Not sure where you get the idea that locals in Newark are concerned about fracking. For a start Newark has been the centre of an oilfield for longer than anywhere else in Britain. There are 3000 oil wells within 30 miles of Newark.
But more to the point there is no possibility of fracking around Newark since the rocks are not right for it. The nearest place fracking might take place is around Gainsborough which is well to the north and well outside the constituency.
Judging by all the posters in the villages around Newark and the constant news items in the Advertiser, people are far more concerned about stopping large numbers of wind turbines being planned in the constituency.
The windfarms ploy is to draw peoples' attention away from the real attack which is fracking. The Advertiser quotes that the pull of the Greens is based on awareness and concern about fracking. Note also that Helmer has dropped all mention of fracking in his Newark videos. His pitch for votes is based entirely on bulling up coal as the future for Britain's energy requirements. UKIP has a problem here which will torpedo their pitch for Newark.
I do not understand Cameron's comment to Merkel. Very few people in the UK have heard of Juncker. He is a typical pro EU leader. Maybe Cameron thinks that Juncker would be difficult to negotiate with, and would prefer someone easier as EU Commision president? Any ideas who?
Roger Helmer in Newark is finding that the Greens are doing very nicely by being the only party that's not supporting fracking (check out the Newark Advertiser's articles on this topic). Whereas Helmer was pumping fracking a few weeks ago as the way to energy independence for Britain, he's now bulling up coal instead and is not mentioning the 'F' word. The issue (fracking) is hot in Newark as locals are well briefed on it and are very concerned at its implications. Unless UKIP change sides, and start opposing fracking like the Greens, they won't get this seat or many others. Farage's problem is that he's chosen the Murdoch deal route to Westminster seats which may have committed him to support fracking, GMOs etc. I made a video on this topic two days ago explaining the key position that fracking will be playing in politics in the next twelve months, called 'Let's talk About Fracking'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGXA5J7ssw
Not sure where you get the idea that locals in Newark are concerned about fracking. For a start Newark has been the centre of an oilfield for longer than anywhere else in Britain. There are 3000 oil wells within 30 miles of Newark.
But more to the point there is no possibility of fracking around Newark since the rocks are not right for it. The nearest place fracking might take place is around Gainsborough which is well to the north and well outside the constituency.
Judging by all the posters in the villages around Newark and the constant news items in the Advertiser, people are far more concerned about stopping large numbers of wind turbines being planned in the constituency.
The windfarms ploy is to draw peoples' attention away from the real attack which is fracking. The Advertiser quotes that the pull of the Greens is based on awareness and concern about fracking. Note also that Helmer has dropped all mention of fracking in his Newark videos. His pitch for votes is based entirely on bulling up coal as the future for Britain's energy requirements. UKIP has a problem here which will torpedo their pitch for Newark.
All that comment reveals is how little you know about the constituency. Helmer has no need to worry about fracking in Newark as it is not an issue. He would push coal since Newark was long part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield community. Indeed the long serving Tory MP, the late Richard Alexander consistently voted against pit closures during the 80s as he knew how much of his vote relied upon the industry.
I do not understand Cameron's comment to Merkel. Very few people in the UK have heard of Juncker. He is a typical pro EU leader. Maybe Cameron thinks that Juncker would be difficult to negotiate with, and would prefer someone easier as EU Commision president? Any ideas who?
It's a standing up to Europe gesture, designed to attract UKIP supporters back to the Tories. Purely political, and, I think, probably a good move.
The horse trading comes from the 'main parliamentary groups' picking candidate.
Or, we could have a Presidential system of a number of candidates fighting for the nomination. European primary season would present plenty of betting opportunities.
They'd have that with a presidential election too, presumably. I assume the parties would run candidates rather than it being a bunch of random individuals.
The way the parties pick their candidates is obviously going to be up to them, but this time the Greens ran an open primary (anyone with a phone in the EU who promises they're a citizen can vote), and the PES planned for a primary (member parties administer it however they like), but had a strong front-runner and quite a high hurdle for nominations and the winner won unopposed.
I think ultimately this ends up as a primary system, too. Sooner or later once the PES have a contested nomination then win, the members of the EPP parties will want a primary, too.
I was firmly in favour of fracking myself (who wouldn't be), till I researched it a little more and found that the success story of US fracking has been grossly exaggerated, with massive depletion rates and the oil companies getting badly burned. This article is long but worth it: http://nsnbc.me/2014/03/13/fracked-usa-shale-gas-bubble/
I do not understand Cameron's comment to Merkel. Very few people in the UK have heard of Juncker. He is a typical pro EU leader. Maybe Cameron thinks that Juncker would be difficult to negotiate with, and would prefer someone easier as EU Commision president? Any ideas who?
Another name floated have been Helle Thorning-Schmidt, on the grounds that Danes are a bit grumpy about the EU like the British or something, who would be fun but is a Socialist. It's rather odd for Cameron to be threatening to throw his toys out of the pram unless Labour get the job, despite losing the election.
The plan may have been for Katainen, who is resigning just in time. This may have been Merkel's plan as well that she's been plotting for a while, since she probably doesn't really like giving the power to nominate to the parliament / voters and wants to avoid setting the precedent. So maybe Cameron thought the EPP leaders were really going to switch out Juncker into a different job, and he could take a stand and take the credit for it. Then Juncker seems to have decided not to play ball, and meanwhile while the voters were less impressed than the EPP hoped by them saying, "This is our candidate. Vote for him. Oh, you did? Actually we've changed our minds".
close to 300 UKIP activists very active in Newark today.
@OliverCooper: Brilliant to have 600 Conservative activists in #Newark today: the largest action day I've ever seen. @RoadTrip2015's the real #PeoplesArmy.
I thought the tories wanted a thousand activist in Newark today ?
If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.
You're probably right.
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.
This is absurd. UKIP have shown how many Labour votes were ripe for the taking. A principled, working class Tory could clearly have won them over.
Provide evidence, rather than mere assertion, and I may engage on the topic.
It's a fact that UKIP have been able to come first, or a strong second, in places where the Conservatives haven't featured for decades, like Rotherham, Sheffield, Doncaster, Sunderland, Hartlepool etc. That suggests there are anti-Labour voters there that the Conservatives can't attract.
I agree, which is why I don't believe that a DD-led Conservative party would have been able to attract these voters either.
Moreover, the guy showed himself lacking in judgement and political nous - and stubborn enough that he couldn't be talked out of his idiotic gesture by the application of rational thought. That's not a good set of characteristics for a successful leader.
I do not understand Cameron's comment to Merkel. Very few people in the UK have heard of Juncker. He is a typical pro EU leader. Maybe Cameron thinks that Juncker would be difficult to negotiate with, and would prefer someone easier as EU Commision president? Any ideas who?
Another name floated have been Helle Thorning-Schmidt, on the grounds that Danes are a bit grumpy about the EU like the British or something, who would be fun but is a Socialist. It's rather odd for Cameron to be threatening to throw his toys out of the pram unless Labour get the job, despite losing the election.
The plan may have been for Katainen, who is resigning just in time. This may have been Merkel's plan as well that she's been plotting for a while, since she probably doesn't really like giving the power to nominate to the parliament / voters and wants to avoid setting the precedent. So maybe Cameron thought the EPP leaders were really going to switch out Juncker into a different job, and he could take a stand and take the credit for it. Then Juncker seems to have decided not to play ball, and meanwhile while the voters were less impressed than the EPP hoped by them saying, "This is our candidate. Vote for him. Oh, you did? Actually we've changed our minds".
I suspect choosing the daughter in law of Neil and Glenys Kinnock would just reinforce the view of many in the UK that the EU is a nepotistic gravy train.
MRNAMELESS 'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
It's a situation without precedent because they only just passed the Fixed Terms Act.
The Queen wouldn't be sacking Cameron, he'd have sacked himself by calling a no-confidence motion in his own government.
But the constitutional precedents show that the effect of a motion of no-confidence is not to end the government's commission. If the Prime Minister advised the Queen that he intended to wait a fortnight and then dissolve Parliament, for such an early election not to happen, the Queen would be obliged not to follow the advice of Her ministers. Nothing like that has happened in the last hundred and fifty years in the United Kingdom (c.f. Australia 1975)
It's a situation without precedent because they only just passed the Fixed Terms Act.
The Queen wouldn't be sacking Cameron, he'd have sacked himself by calling a no-confidence motion in his own government.
But the constitutional precedents show that the effect of a motion of no-confidence is not to end the government's commission. If the Prime Minister advised the Queen that he intended to wait a fortnight and then dissolve Parliament, for such an early election not to happen, the Queen would be obliged not to follow the advice of Her ministers. Nothing like that has happened in the last hundred and fifty years in the United Kingdom (c.f. Australia 1975)
This is specifically the situation the Fixed Term Parliament Act is designed to address, the Queen isn't just going to ignore it.
In other words, you would in fact favour, at least in principle, all extradition treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party to be under the jurisdiction of an international court or courts. It is an eccentric view, certainly.
In a small minority of extradition cases, a media campaign can apply sufficient pressure on the government to override the legal process. This undermines the rule of law and the good faith upon which the parties originally entered into their treaty obligations.
An independent appeal process would re-establish the primacy of law and due process. It would also allow media and political considerations to play in the first instance. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect any country to attempt to suppress or disallow such media or political involvement.
If sovereignty is a matter which should be protected on principle then a further public interest appeal to the Supreme Court (or equivalent) or an Head of State pardon (on ministerial advice) could be allowed.
It is a fallacy to think that international obligations ultimately rest for their efficacy on underpinning by international courts. They depend on the willingness of parties to the agreement to recognise that it is in their mutual self-interest to have reciprocal extradition arrangements. If HMG really thought that a country was failing to meets its obligations, it could denounce the treaty, with the consequence that no suspect from that country would, in the United Kingdom, be liable to extradition to it.
A very small minority of cases will become a cause célèbre and lead to poor legal process and judgement. Denouncing the treaty in response would be disproportionate, irrational and damaging to the long term interests of all signatories. Agreeing a way to adjudicate on disputes would be much simpler and less costly.
The gravest threat to the reciprocal working of extradition arrangements in recent years has not come from a failure to be subject to the CJEU. Indeed, the British courts have, quite properly, implemented the Extradition Act 2003 to the letter. It came from Theresa May's wholly unjustifiable refusal for political reasons to order the extradition of Mr McKinnon to the United States of America.
The McKinnon case was a clear example of a decision where media and political influence over-rode legal considerations. An agreed appeal process have been beneficial. Similarly, the other way, the German doctor extradition application to Germany would benefit from the availability of an appeal to an international and independent body.
We don't have to fight the EU on every issue whether relevant or not. We could just end up like Farage whose statement today on the Meriam Ibrahim case was perverted into an undignified and obnoxious anti-foreign aid rant.
TONY DEAN @ MrNameless “A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.” I’m sad to hear that. However, did you get any take on the UKIP v Tory support levels from the canvassing you did?
MRNAMELESS @Tony Dean, In the town (only place I campaigned today) many more UKIP voters than Tory voters. Not sure what the situation is outside although my Tory flatmates (on the train with them and getting some weird looks) went to a village and saw a couple of UKIP posters.
I was firmly in favour of fracking myself (who wouldn't be), till I researched it a little more and found that the success story of US fracking has been grossly exaggerated, with massive depletion rates and the oil companies getting badly burned. This article is long but worth it: http://nsnbc.me/2014/03/13/fracked-usa-shale-gas-bubble/
I believe that the geology in the States is quite different and UK frackers will find fewer worthwhile sites. So don't prejudge the UK situation.
MRNAMELESS 'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
The impression one got from the Euro elections was that the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties in contention. Newark is similar.
TONY DEAN @ MrNameless “A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.” I’m sad to hear that. However, did you get any take on the UKIP v Tory support levels from the canvassing you did?
MRNAMELESS @Tony Dean, In the town (only place I campaigned today) many more UKIP voters than Tory voters. Not sure what the situation is outside although my Tory flatmates (on the train with them and getting some weird looks) went to a village and saw a couple of UKIP posters.
Sir Roderick
Did any of the canvassers report on whether Roger Helmer was being assisted in his campaign by his Italian employee?
MRNAMELESS 'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
The impression one got from the Euro elections was that the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties in contention. Newark is similar.
I'm laughing at the suggestion of a few Tories in Newark today. There was an action team of 600 volunteers from the Team2015 group.
I would suggest the claim of few is probably based upon the fact that the Tory campaign machine was concentrating on getting out around the constituency knocking on doors rather than hanging around the town centre.
MRNAMELESS 'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
The impression one got from the Euro elections was that the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties in contention. Newark is similar.
You mean you expect the Conservatives to come third, as in the Euros?
MRNAMELESS 'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
The impression one got from the Euro elections was that the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties in contention. Newark is similar.
You mean you expect the Conservatives to come third, as in the Euros?
Nick, you ignored my question earlier.
Does "sensible cooperation" with our EU partners include giving up our rebate for nothing but empty promises?
Are we still expecting a Newark poll in one of the papers tonight? If so, I'd expect it to be casting a shadow on betting price movements.
The fact that two of UKIP's principal donors, Stuart Wheeler and Alan Bown, made their fortunes in bookmaking might lead to an eventful day in the betting markets tomorrow.
I would be most surprised and disappointed if we didn't see some 'strategic' betting.
MRNAMELESS 'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
The impression one got from the Euro elections was that the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties in contention. Newark is similar.
You mean you expect the Conservatives to come third, as in the Euros?
Amazing spin from the Tories, to somehow give the impression coming third in the Euros was a good result.
I have a feeling this is going to be UKIP's 'Crosby moment'...
So who is the upper-middle class Tory sounding, Labour renouncing, photogenic Catholic woman appealing to a Catholic population?
Different seat, different times.
But Helmer has the mo'.
I wouldn't be surprised if the independent folks of Newark prefer UKIP's mustachioed Gerald Nabarro lookalike over the Tory who looks like he's just left the sixth form...
Why not? It might only be for a year anyhow. Would put the town on the map...
Interesting that the Conservative staged thumbs up campaign photo that is doing the rounds, there were only 135 'volunteers'.
They called for a 1000, they said they got 600, yet they could only find 135 to have their photo taken. UKIP said their were about 170 Conservative 'volunteers' there today, the evidence would suggest those naughty blues are telling fibs.
Or they were too busy canvassing to be involved with the photo-op. Last weekend before the vote is probably the best time to meet working folk.
'I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it'
They must be praying Ed wins next year and then they can do whatever they want for the next 5 years. .
Possibly. Not that I think they care politically whether Ed or Cameron win, but if Cameron does his people will bang on about the issue a lot more even if Ed will be forced to make the occasional anti-EU comments to try and address what people actually feel about the EU without actually doing so.
Interesting that the Conservative staged thumbs up campaign photo that is doing the rounds, there were only 135 'volunteers'.
They called for a 1000, they said they got 600, yet they could only find 135 to have their photo taken. UKIP said their were about 170 Conservative 'volunteers' there today, the evidence would suggest those naughty blues are telling fibs.
Indeed. Much of the media bought this risible dummy: despite that fact it was the first time in Tory Party history they have finished outside the top two in a national election. A woeful performance.
Comments
This is Cameron's entire coalition. If they can't stop Juncker despite everyone being on board, I don't believe they will ever achieve anything.
My example mainly derives from work in the FSU (pre EU accession of the Baltics) and particularly in Russia, where Swedish arbitration has been a strong preference dating back to communist times.
In early post Soviet days most contracts were subject to the non-Russian party's jurisdiction, but increasingly Russian law and policy started to insist on contracts being subject to their own jurisdiction (at least where the Russians had sufficient negotiating power). Arbitration however remains at the option of the parties.
It is a fallacy to think that international obligations ultimately rest for their efficacy on underpinning by international courts. They depend on the willingness of parties to the agreement to recognise that it is in their mutual self-interest to have reciprocal extradition arrangements. If HMG really thought that a country was failing to meets its obligations, it could denounce the treaty, with the consequence that no suspect from that country would, in the United Kingdom, be liable to extradition to it.
The gravest threat to the reciprocal working of extradition arrangements in recent years has not come from a failure to be subject to the CJEU. Indeed, the British courts have, quite properly, implemented the Extradition Act 2003 to the letter. It came from Theresa May's wholly unjustifiable refusal for political reasons to order the extradition of Mr McKinnon to the United States of America.
a) Do nothing. He looks like a total and utter twonk.
b) "Try" to bring forward the referendum bill again and make Labour block it. Potential to embarrass Labour but not much because there are subtle ways to kill it. He still looks like a twonk.
c) Bring down the coalition if he can't get a referendum bill through, try to put the whole thing on the LibDems and go for an early election. Labour could refuse to vote for the dissolution and take over the government for a while then call an election off the Ed-mania bounce, but that seems high-risk. Should Cameron hope to win Newark, then ride the momentum to an early election?
The left is in the minority, and shrinking. Europhilia is in the minority, and shrinking. You should have never sent Bryan Gould packing,
As LIAMT has already pointed out the ability for an supranational court to decide on the extradition of UK citizens to another jurisdiction is indeed unprecedented. And you are conflating contract and criminal law.
Sometimes the pro-EU cause can only be defended by ignorance and lies.
If the referendum is still after the next election and Cameron is still campaigning for in then nothing has changed in that respect except the referendum may be in 2016 not 2017.
This looks more to me a move against labour and lib dems for this election. Juncker gets put in the job. Cameron tries to get a referendum through expecting labour and lib dems to block it then when he do ensures that the country knows they blocked it. That will get him a couple of percent going into the election
Mark Urban @MarkUrban01 7h
Scotland 'Yes' campaign train fail
pic.twitter.com/nt6ZUr2JTQ
via @jon_hodgkins
He'd need 4 Lib Dems on board
Dave could also send Nick, Vince and Danny on a trade mission to The Federated States of Micronesia on the day of the vote
Think of the betting opportunities.
1/3 Public
1/3 National Parliaments
1/3 EU Parliament
It'll be interesting to see if anyone polls British voters on the process here. I know picking the person who gets the most votes sounds like an anti-democratic outrage to people highly conversant in Euroscepticology, but the scandalousness of this may not be as obvious to Joe Public.
I am not saying it will happen though.
I want something where the public can upset the apple cart
Or do something like Eurovision, where each country selects a candidate and then a straight number of votes election. No extra weighting of the minnows involved.
Labour would need to have enough votes, though, which brings us back to the tight Rainbow Coalition arithmetic, especially now that the rainbow now includes whatever colour George Galloway is. And it's not at all obvious that the voters will be wildly keen about the resulting government.
That said, direct elections with a simple popular vote would be better.
It reminds me of when Private Eye described NP as being willing to eat his own feet if the whips told him to (or something like that).
Not that it will happen. Politically a minority Labour and all the others government with no election to appoint it surely is impossible. That new minority would want to be legitimized and surely the Conservative opposition wouldn't vote against an early election?
Or, we could have a Presidential system of a number of candidates fighting for the nomination. European primary season would present plenty of betting opportunities.
As soon as they call and pass a No Confidence vote, the Queen's job is to find out if there's anyone in the house who the house would have confidence in, be it Ed Miliband or anyone else.
Although you do have to wonder if Theresa May or somebody could squeeze a Tory leadership challenge in that slot and pick up where David Cameron left off before he started dicking around...
'I said here a year or two ago that Continental interest in Cameron's posturing was exhausted. They'll give us anything that they don't care about, and that's it'
They must be praying Ed wins next year and then they can do whatever they want for the next 5 years.
.
But more to the point there is no possibility of fracking around Newark since the rocks are not right for it. The nearest place fracking might take place is around Gainsborough which is well to the north and well outside the constituency.
Judging by all the posters in the villages around Newark and the constant news items in teh Advertiser, people are far more concerned about stopping large numbers of wind turbines being planned in the constituency.
The way the parties pick their candidates is obviously going to be up to them, but this time the Greens ran an open primary (anyone with a phone in the EU who promises they're a citizen can vote), and the PES planned for a primary (member parties administer it however they like), but had a strong front-runner and quite a high hurdle for nominations and the winner won unopposed.
I think ultimately this ends up as a primary system, too. Sooner or later once the PES have a contested nomination then win, the members of the EPP parties will want a primary, too.
The Queen wouldn't be sacking Cameron, he'd have sacked himself by calling a no-confidence motion in his own government.
On the bright side even these levels of delusional madness aren't as insane as the LibDems "if we communicate better and Get Behind Nick we will be ok in next year's elections"......
http://www3.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/video/EurovisionDebate.html
The plan may have been for Katainen, who is resigning just in time. This may have been Merkel's plan as well that she's been plotting for a while, since she probably doesn't really like giving the power to nominate to the parliament / voters and wants to avoid setting the precedent. So maybe Cameron thought the EPP leaders were really going to switch out Juncker into a different job, and he could take a stand and take the credit for it. Then Juncker seems to have decided not to play ball, and meanwhile while the voters were less impressed than the EPP hoped by them saying, "This is our candidate. Vote for him. Oh, you did? Actually we've changed our minds".
Moreover, the guy showed himself lacking in judgement and political nous - and stubborn enough that he couldn't be talked out of his idiotic gesture by the application of rational thought. That's not a good set of characteristics for a successful leader.
Mene, mene, tekel upharsin
MRNAMELESS
'Just about to get the train home. Been out with the candidate, nice guy fighting a pretty horrid battle. A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.'
In other words, you would in fact favour, at least in principle, all extradition treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party to be under the jurisdiction of an international court or courts. It is an eccentric view, certainly.
In a small minority of extradition cases, a media campaign can apply sufficient pressure on the government to override the legal process. This undermines the rule of law and the good faith upon which the parties originally entered into their treaty obligations.
An independent appeal process would re-establish the primacy of law and due process. It would also allow media and political considerations to play in the first instance. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect any country to attempt to suppress or disallow such media or political involvement.
If sovereignty is a matter which should be protected on principle then a further public interest appeal to the Supreme Court (or equivalent) or an Head of State pardon (on ministerial advice) could be allowed.
It is a fallacy to think that international obligations ultimately rest for their efficacy on underpinning by international courts. They depend on the willingness of parties to the agreement to recognise that it is in their mutual self-interest to have reciprocal extradition arrangements. If HMG really thought that a country was failing to meets its obligations, it could denounce the treaty, with the consequence that no suspect from that country would, in the United Kingdom, be liable to extradition to it.
A very small minority of cases will become a cause célèbre and lead to poor legal process and judgement. Denouncing the treaty in response would be disproportionate, irrational and damaging to the long term interests of all signatories. Agreeing a way to adjudicate on disputes would be much simpler and less costly.
The gravest threat to the reciprocal working of extradition arrangements in recent years has not come from a failure to be subject to the CJEU. Indeed, the British courts have, quite properly, implemented the Extradition Act 2003 to the letter. It came from Theresa May's wholly unjustifiable refusal for political reasons to order the extradition of Mr McKinnon to the United States of America.
The McKinnon case was a clear example of a decision where media and political influence over-rode legal considerations. An agreed appeal process have been beneficial. Similarly, the other way, the German doctor extradition application to Germany would benefit from the availability of an appeal to an international and independent body.
We don't have to fight the EU on every issue whether relevant or not. We could just end up like Farage whose statement today on the Meriam Ibrahim case was perverted into an undignified and obnoxious anti-foreign aid rant.
TONY DEAN
@ MrNameless
“A few positive responses but I’m resigned to Labour coming third.”
I’m sad to hear that.
However, did you get any take on the UKIP v Tory support levels from the canvassing you did?
MRNAMELESS
@Tony Dean,
In the town (only place I campaigned today) many more UKIP voters than Tory voters. Not sure what the situation is outside although my Tory flatmates (on the train with them and getting some weird looks) went to a village and saw a couple of UKIP posters.
Did any of the canvassers report on whether Roger Helmer was being assisted in his campaign by his Italian employee?
I see The Sun is concerned: http://bit.ly/1oVnaTT
I can't see what all the fuss is about as that still leaves 28,999,999 Europeans looking for a job in the UK.
Ignore canvasser reports.
Does "sensible cooperation" with our EU partners include giving up our rebate for nothing but empty promises?
I would be most surprised and disappointed if we didn't see some 'strategic' betting.
But Helmer has the mo'.
I wouldn't be surprised if the independent folks of Newark prefer UKIP's mustachioed Gerald Nabarro lookalike over the Tory who looks like he's just left the sixth form...
Why not? It might only be for a year anyhow. Would put the town on the map...
Indeed. Much of the media bought this risible dummy: despite that fact it was the first time in Tory Party history they have finished outside the top two in a national election. A woeful performance.