Not at all, it's a philosophy which it flourishing in its reincarnation, adapted for the twenty-first century, as Cameroonism.
Cameron is not the successor to MacMillan, but to Blair, and in any event, the philosophy the incumbent Prime Minister advocates, if it can be called a philosophy, is not flourishing, but is corrupt, decadent and intellectually bankrupt.
Politicians from all sides have realised it is not a viable suggestion that there will never, ever be any additional freight or passenger services on the WCML given the rapidly growing populations at many towns along the route and increasing need to move freight with so little road or rail capacity.
Look at all the candidates to replace either Miliband or Cameron after the next election, all strongly in favour of the scheme.
Btw - Whom do we think will be culled and promoted?
David Cameron is to carry out a "ruthless" reshuffle within days which could see several senior and long-serving cabinet ministers lose their jobs.
The Prime Minister is expected to work on a coalition shake-up when he returns from European talks in Sweden on Tuesday evening. Whitehall is braced for a reshuffle at the end of this week or the start of next. Some of the ministers being considered for the sack are among the most senior ranks, and the reshuffle's timing, coinciding with the start of the World Cup, could lead it to be dubbed "the night of the long dives".
It may do. But hospitals for 300,000 are already serving 800,000. What's the solution?
So we build hospitals for 850,000. And by the time they are built we need hospitals for well over a million because no one has dealt with the underlying issue of mass immigration. By your methods we would be forever playing catchup.
Nope - it's a given that we stop mass immigration. I am not sure I support that, but for the sake of this argument we do. In such circumstances how do we deal with the problems that we are already said to have?
It's not a given if you don't support it and you don't.
You have no solutions to any current over-crowding issues we may have. You have been unable to provide a single one. Stopping all immigration tomorrow does not solve the problem of a hospital built to serve 300,000 having to look after 800,000. And you have no idea how to do it.
"... you have no idea how to do it. "
Please, Sir, I do, Sir. But you don't like my idea, possibly because though it is too redistrubutionist and progressive.
Still waiting for your ideas on how to stop the problem getting worse and how to fix th problem that already exists.
We either need more infrastructure spending or we need the current size of the population to be reduced. If you accept that the latter proposition is only achievable through forced repatriation and you do not like that idea, which I do not, then it is all about working out how to pay for the additional and unavoidable spending. I would certainly favour tax rises for people with my level of income; I am less keen on them for people who are only earning £35,000. And I am opposed to a 95% rate of tax for anyone.
"We either need more infrastructure spending or we need the current size of the population to be reduced."
Again you're wrongly defining it as a fixed problem when it's a problem over time.
When the problem is correctly defined as a problem over time then your solution requires building *more* extra capacity per year than extra people per year.
Which currently is impossible hence why you don't want to admit it's not a fixed problem.
Handy our rate of population growth is slowing down then.
If true that would mean the problem is still increasing but more slowly.
@antifrank: I have new information about Newark. You were right - there was definite Labour tactical voting for the Conservatives to prevent UKIP winning.
Can you give more information without breaking confidences?
Not really, sorry.
Don't worry, I completely understand and accept that. It seemed the clear inference from the raw figures in any case.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
Politicians from all sides have realised it is not a viable suggestion that there will never, ever be any additional freight or passenger services on the WCML given the rapidly growing populations at many towns along the route and increasing need to move freight with so little road or rail capacity.
Look at all the candidates to replace either Miliband or Cameron after the next election, all strongly in favour of the scheme.
It is expendable because it is a vanity project that will do nothing top solve the problems currently facing the country. There are far better ways to help the North than cutting a few minutes of the travel time to London. Studies from the continent showed that High Speed train links help the centre far more than the periphery so all you will do is continue to centralise more and more economic power in London and do little or nothing to help the other end of the toy train track.
Politicians from all sides have realised it is not a viable suggestion that there will never, ever be any additional freight or passenger services on the WCML given the rapidly growing populations at many towns along the route and increasing need to move freight with so little road or rail capacity.
Look at all the candidates to replace either Miliband or Cameron after the next election, all strongly in favour of the scheme.
Whilst not claiming to be a railway expert, it seems that some very sensible suggestions to the problem outlined in your link have been made below the line on that very site. And none of them involve spending £50 billion that we haven't got.
That could really have implications in Conservative held seats which UKIP hope to target, and where Labour or Libdems are currently in 2nd place at the next GE. Could we see the kind of tactical voting campaign developing whereby Lab/Libdem voters vote Conservative to keep UKIP out in much the same way as they did back in the early years of New Labour when they sought to keep the Tories out?
IIRC, in the latter stages of the Newark campaign, the Tory candidate appealed to Labour/Libdems voters to help him keep UKIP/Helmer out. Was this, in fact, some kind of Conservative test run of a future GE campaign strategy aimed at certain targeted seats? If so, then it must surely have betting implications in any seat that Farage chooses to run in, I still have my doubts that Farage will in fact stand as a candidate at the next GE.
@antifrank: I have new information about Newark. You were right - there was definite Labour tactical voting for the Conservatives to prevent UKIP winning.
Can you give more information without breaking confidences?
RedLibs would be torn between voting against Con and voting against Ukip. I wouldn't be surprised if both happened.
I think there'd be an effect. Hard to know what the net result would be as there could be Lab/Lib voters doing both so it would depend on the balance of numbers.
Education Cameron ScoTE Howard Defence Smith Wales Hague CoTE Major Enviroment Thatcher ScoTE Heath Foreign Sec Home CoTE Macmillan Deputy PM Eden PM Churchill CoTE Chamberlain
5 chancellors/shadows in there.
I did once look into it, and I think found that President of the Board of Trade (or that role renamed) was a a very common early job for future prime ministers.
I also a did study, and I found that most Prime Ministers were MPs before they Prime Minister.
So I concluded, being an MP enhances your chances of becoming PM.
Were you a little bit embarrassed?
Ghastly though the elected are they're better on average than the electors. I wouldn't hold this view unless I'd seen who the electorate actually elect. It's a bit circular. I'm hoping that an MP, or a member of the electorate spots this..
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
Cameron is not the successor to MacMillan, but to Blair, and in any event, the philosophy the incumbent Prime Minister advocates, if it can be called a philosophy, is not flourishing, but is corrupt, decadent and intellectually bankrupt.
Cameron is absolutely the successor to Macmillan, his hero, and the PM whom he most resembles, and his philosophy is identical.
He represents a philosophy, however, that had had its days by 1968.
Not at all, it's a philosophy which it flourishing in its reincarnation, adapted for the twenty-first century, as Cameroonism.
LOL. Hardly. Cameroonism is simply an extension of the Blairite philosophy of power without principles. It is a million miles from what Carrington represented.
Politicians from all sides have realised it is not a viable suggestion that there will never, ever be any additional freight or passenger services on the WCML given the rapidly growing populations at many towns along the route and increasing need to move freight with so little road or rail capacity.
Look at all the candidates to replace either Miliband or Cameron after the next election, all strongly in favour of the scheme.
It is expendable because it is a vanity project that will do nothing top solve the problems currently facing the country. There are far better ways to help the North than cutting a few minutes of the travel time to London. Studies from the continent showed that High Speed train links help the centre far more than the periphery so all you will do is continue to centralise more and more economic power in London and do little or nothing to help the other end of the toy train track.
Nope. You have clearly missed the last 3 or 4 years of discussion on here. There are far better and cheaper ways of improving rail services to the regions than the idiocy of HS2.
There is currently a hospital having to look after a population of 800,000 when it was built for 300,000. That is why people are being turned away. Thus, the area it serves needs extra capacity now. Until that is supplied to the extent necessary - and that extent will depend on how the population grows, obviously - the capacity problem will worsen.
"and that extent will depend on how the population grows"
Yes.
And if the population is growing at 200,000+ a year then the capacity would need to be increased at 200,000++ a year to have any effect on the deficit of capacity that has built up over the last ten years.
And none of them credibly give us extra rail capacity for freight and passenger services.
Simple fact is WCML is full, you cannot get extra trains onto the line, either add a small amount (~40%) extra seats for ~£20bn and no new freight trains or you build a new railway to take away the intercity trains from the WCML to free up paths for commuters and freight trains on the WCML.
It's very telling that none of those opposed to the scheme have offered a credible alternative in the over 4 years since HS2 Ltd was setup.
Politicians from all sides have realised it is not a viable suggestion that there will never, ever be any additional freight or passenger services on the WCML given the rapidly growing populations at many towns along the route and increasing need to move freight with so little road or rail capacity.
Look at all the candidates to replace either Miliband or Cameron after the next election, all strongly in favour of the scheme.
Whilst not claiming to be a railway expert, it seems that some very sensible suggestions to the problem outlined in your link have been made below the line on that very site. And none of them involve spending £50 billion that we haven't got.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
Which election would be the battle of Wolf359 in this scenario? EP2014 orGE2015?
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
Which election would be the battle of Wolf359 in this scenario? EP2014 orGE2015?
1997, as a Tory I hope EP 2014 was like the Second Battle of Chin'taka. A memorable defeat and that preceded the winning of the war.
The WCML is already the busiest mixed use railway in Europe.
No one other than HS2 have offered a viable and credible suggestion about how to add that capacity going forward to allow for increased freight from the Port of Liverpool, from Trafford Park, from the south to the north, for new passenger services from Milton Keynes....
Unless of course you can show me a website that does offer such a credible alternative? If not, ask yourself why given the efforts those opposed have gone to in an effort to discredit HS2.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
There's one episode that will stand the test of time - Data somehow has a child, can't recall how. It will however last for only a while - the conclusion is probably wrong.
The best political theorising probably happens within a SF framework.
Btw - Whom do we think will be culled and promoted?
David Cameron is to carry out a "ruthless" reshuffle within days which could see several senior and long-serving cabinet ministers lose their jobs.
The Prime Minister is expected to work on a coalition shake-up when he returns from European talks in Sweden on Tuesday evening. Whitehall is braced for a reshuffle at the end of this week or the start of next. Some of the ministers being considered for the sack are among the most senior ranks, and the reshuffle's timing, coinciding with the start of the World Cup, could lead it to be dubbed "the night of the long dives".
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
There's one episode that will stand the test of time - Data somehow has a child, can't recall how. It will however last for only a while - the conclusion is probably wrong.
The best political theorising probably happens within a SF framework.
The episode was season 3's The Offspring, Data created his child.
It may do. But hospitals for 300,000 are already serving 800,000. What's the solution?
So we build hospitals for 850,000. And by the time they are built we need hospitals for well over a million because no one has dealt with the underlying issue of mass immigration. By your methods we would be forever playing catchup.
Nope - it's a given that we stop mass immigration. I am not sure I support that, but for the sake of this argument we do. In such circumstances how do we deal with the problems that we are already said to have?
It's not a given if you don't support it and you don't.
You have no solutions to any current over-crowding issues we may have. You have been unable to provide a single one. Stopping all immigration tomorrow does not solve the problem of a hospital built to serve 300,000 having to look after 800,000. And you have no idea how to do it.
"... you have no idea how to do it. "
Please, Sir, I do, Sir. But you don't like my idea, possibly because though it is too redistrubutionist and progressive.
Still waiting for your ideas on how to stop the problem getting worse and how to fix th problem that already exists.
"We either need more infrastructure spending or we need the current size of the population to be reduced."
Again you're wrongly defining it as a fixed problem when it's a problem over time.
When the problem is correctly defined as a problem over time then your solution requires building *more* extra capacity per year than extra people per year.
Which currently is impossible hence why you don't want to admit it's not a fixed problem.
Handy our rate of population growth is slowing down then.
If true that would mean the problem is still increasing but more slowly.
It's pretty true, I looked it up and everything. Should help with the catching up capacity etc.
Of course you have to balance things against the problems an aging population and a skewing worker-retiree ratio bring.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
There's one episode that will stand the test of time - Data somehow has a child, can't recall how. It will however last for only a while - the conclusion is probably wrong.
The best political theorising probably happens within a SF framework.
The episode was season 3's The Offspring, Data created his child.
I think The Measure of a Man is much better particularly as an exploration of what humanity means.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Yeah, with UKIPers hoping to play the role of Species 8472
Btw - Whom do we think will be culled and promoted?
David Cameron is to carry out a "ruthless" reshuffle within days which could see several senior and long-serving cabinet ministers lose their jobs.
The Prime Minister is expected to work on a coalition shake-up when he returns from European talks in Sweden on Tuesday evening. Whitehall is braced for a reshuffle at the end of this week or the start of next. Some of the ministers being considered for the sack are among the most senior ranks, and the reshuffle's timing, coinciding with the start of the World Cup, could lead it to be dubbed "the night of the long dives".
Why exactly is Cameron doing a major reshuffle, if indeed it ends up being pretty major? He's seemed awfully reluctant to make changes up to this point, and apart from a few obvious ones like dropping Clarke (sorry Ken, won't be breaking that longest in the Cabinet record) as a gesture of not flirting with dangerous now non-Tory ideals like being anything other than fervently anti-EU, to make a statement, having most of the others in place for a long time and therefore their successors little time left, what's the point?
People obviously won't change their votes much because Cameron has dropped Paterson from Environment or whatever, so I presume it is for internal party consumption, but for any others replaced, it is only happening when it hardly matters, in the final year of the parliament and possiblty government, so they didn't do so bad they needed to be replaced sooner, and if they have done well why drop them and lose allies.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Yeah, with UKIPers hoping to play the role of Species 8472
As I recall Species 8472 were much lamer once we got to know more about them.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
I can't speak to the reaction of Eurosceptics to a Juncker Commision. But after a brief reading of http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities , it reinforces a nagging concern I have about this, namely "Why is Cameron objecting to Juncker in the first place?"
I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Stable solutions include "reforming the EU with an inner and outer shell, with UK in the outer" and "UK leaving the EU", the latter being similar to the former, and the discussion revolves over which of the two is most desirable and achievable.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Yeah, with UKIPers hoping to play the role of Species 8472
As I recall Species 8472 were much lamer once we got to know more about them.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Yeah, with UKIPers hoping to play the role of Species 8472
I like your thinking Mr E. Voyager was my favourite series, although that may be because of Jeri Ryan
Did you know Jeri Ryan, who played 7 of 9 was directly responsible for Barack Obama becoming US President?
In 1990, while dealing blackjack at a charity event, the actress met investment banker and future Republican political candidate Jack Ryan. The couple married on June 15, 1991, and had a son, Alex, on August 15, 1994.......Although Ryan mentioned in an interview for Star Trek that the frequent separations had been difficult for the marriage, the reasons for the divorce were kept sealed at their mutual request.
Ryan had at one point dated Star Trek: Voyager producer Brannon Braga. Between February and November 2000, they were stalked by Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan, who was convicted for harassment and threats in May 2001.[27][28][29] According to Crime Stories, aired on the UK Crime channel on 05/07/2009, the stalker had letters stating that he was going to sexually assault Ryan and torture Braga.
When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[30]
On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[31] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[32] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[30][33]
Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[34] Jack Ryan denied these allegations. Although Jeri Ryan only made a brief statement,[35] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack Ryan to withdraw his candidacy;[36][37] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.[38]
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
As opposed to the United Federation of Planets?
(I did have to google that).
Worth noting that despite it's high minded ideals and much more inclusive multi ethnic approach compared to the Klingons or Cardassins for example, the Federation was utterly dominated at every level by a single species, ensuring that however well meaning they might have been, they likely overwhelmed the culture of any new entrant to that single species' preference, hopefully for the better but still dominating. Well intentioned people destroying the culture of others enveloped into their union?
@kle4 I think it is a good idea plus it puts more politically attractive people front and centre.
But only 1 year out, when they can do little good or harm in real terms, it is surely just a token gesture. Good idea if a Tory government looks likely post 2015, but that doesn't appear to be the case, so not much to gain as a new Environment Secretary being more appealing to certain people in political terms is not likely to sway many people at this stage, particularly as the key people will be the same old faces.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
It's a good question, but perhaps Juncker is making that statement in order to get Cameron to drop his opposition.
More generally - who knows what's going on in the haggling behind the scenes?
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Yeah, with UKIPers hoping to play the role of Species 8472
I like your thinking Mr E. Voyager was my favourite series, although that may be because of Jeri Ryan
It is noticable how much the show at times became the Seven of Nine show after her arrival, to the point I find the earlier seasons a bit off as a result. Fanservice aside, she was leagues ahead of most of the other actors in acting ability as well.
Did you know Jeri Ryan, who played 7 of 9 was directly responsible for Barack Obama becoming US President?
In 1990, while dealing blackjack at a charity event, the actress met investment banker and future Republican political candidate Jack Ryan. The couple married on June 15, 1991, and had a son, Alex, on August 15, 1994.......Although Ryan mentioned in an interview for Star Trek that the frequent separations had been difficult for the marriage, the reasons for the divorce were kept sealed at their mutual request.
Ryan had at one point dated Star Trek: Voyager producer Brannon Braga. Between February and November 2000, they were stalked by Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan, who was convicted for harassment and threats in May 2001.[27][28][29] According to Crime Stories, aired on the UK Crime channel on 05/07/2009, the stalker had letters stating that he was going to sexually assault Ryan and torture Braga.
When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[30]
On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[31] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[32] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[30][33]
Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[34] Jack Ryan denied these allegations. Although Jeri Ryan only made a brief statement,[35] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack Ryan to withdraw his candidacy;[36][37] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.[38]
Yes, I thought exactly the same at the time. I also remember thinking that it was a good job for him that Star Trek fans are so nerdy. As doing nasty things to the lovely Jeri may well result in one of the less well balanced fans trying to take him out.
Junker's Five Immigration policies are built on hope more than on practicality and he does not explain really how he would stop Immigration from Africa.
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
I can't speak to the reaction of Eurosceptics to a Juncker Commision. But after a brief reading of http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities , it reinforces a nagging concern I have about this, namely "Why is Cameron objecting to Juncker in the first place?"
I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Stable solutions include "reforming the EU with an inner and outer shell, with UK in the outer" and "UK leaving the EU", the latter being similar to the former, and the discussion revolves over which of the two is most desirable and achievable.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
A good question, especially as any candidate will be fervently pro-EU I would have thought, so arguing which is better placed to address the concerns raised by voters who voted for anti-EU parties is an exercise in frustration only I would have thought. I assumed Cameron in part just needed to pick a fight for the sake of it with the EU, and something he had a chance of getting a win from even if it means little in real terms, to make it seem more probable he could win support from other leaders for getting real changes for Britain. Or maybe Juncker is a lying snake, IDK.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
It's a good question, but perhaps Juncker is making that statement in order to get Cameron to drop his opposition.
More generally - who knows what's going on in the haggling behind the scenes?
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
TNG S03E26 is "Best of Both Worlds Part 1", possibly the most famous TNG episode ("Mr Worf...fire!"). In that episode the crew go up against an implacable enemy and lose their captain, forcing the loyal subordinate to take command and save the day...
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
Yeah, with UKIPers hoping to play the role of Species 8472
I like your thinking Mr E. Voyager was my favourite series, although that may be because of Jeri Ryan
It is noticable how much the show at times became the Seven of Nine show after her arrival, to the point I find the earlier seasons a bit off as a result. Fanservice aside, she was leagues ahead of most of the other actors in acting ability as well.
Yes, she is a class actor and dashed pretty to boot.
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”. “Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. “When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
I can't speak to the reaction of Eurosceptics to a Juncker Commision. But after a brief reading of http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities , it reinforces a nagging concern I have about this, namely "Why is Cameron objecting to Juncker in the first place?"
I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Stable solutions include "reforming the EU with an inner and outer shell, with UK in the outer" and "UK leaving the EU", the latter being similar to the former, and the discussion revolves over which of the two is most desirable and achievable.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
Perhaps because he's a committed federalist and he doesn't actually want a solution along those lines when he's confident of getting us to go the whole hog?
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
That's quite funny. I see at least two mentions of "more Europe" in his manifesto there (albeit for the eurozone) He sees that as the way forward for 18 of the 27 member states.
Sean Fear mockingly joked that this would be the EU's answer, upon reflection, to the European parliament election results less than a fortnight ago. And here we are..
It's pretty true, I looked it up and everything. Should help with the catching up capacity etc.
Of course you have to balance things against the problems an aging population and a skewing worker-retiree ratio bring.
"It's pretty true, I looked it up and everything."
No-one knows the total numbers. They're all estimates.
But even if it was true
"Should help with the catching up capacity etc."
Obviously not.
If the *rate* of population *growth* is slowing down the population is still increasing.
So a slow-down in the *rate* of growth does nothing to catch up capacity. It increases the deficit of capacity but slower than previously.
Even if it was true.
Hence pretty true. They're estimates, but they're not wild guesses.
You were making the point about it being a moving time problem, our target is ahead and moving but slowing down. So it should be easier to catch.
(Also a kers button could help).
As no-one has the faintest idea the number of people entering the country illegaly all the govt stats relating to this are wild guesses and have been for years.
But yes if it was true and it was say only 150,000 extra people a year then yes we'd only need to be building more than 150,000 people's worth of extra capacity each and every year to reduce the current shortfall.
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”. “Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. “When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
John Prescott is the left hand side of the bell (end) curve, this is not news.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover...He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
I have spent most of the weekend resisting the urge doing a Star Trek themed thread on this.
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
On a Star Trek theme. Would the EU be the Borg? Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
As opposed to the United Federation of Planets?
(I did have to google that).
Worth noting that despite it's high minded ideals and much more inclusive multi ethnic approach compared to the Klingons or Cardassins for example, the Federation was utterly dominated at every level by a single species, ensuring that however well meaning they might have been, they likely overwhelmed the culture of any new entrant to that single species' preference, hopefully for the better but still dominating. Well intentioned people destroying the culture of others enveloped into their union?
(To be honest I've always been more of a Foundation fan, I was never really that into Star Trek).
(Although I remember enough to say the Federation is an allegory for the early USA, so maybe the EU are the Romulans/Vulcans/don't really know?)
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”. “Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. “When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
She already is letting Charles take on more of the burden, nothing more need be done I think.
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
I can't speak to the reaction of Eurosceptics to a Juncker Commision. But after a brief reading of http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities , it reinforces a nagging concern I have about this, namely "Why is Cameron objecting to Juncker in the first place?"
I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Stable solutions include "reforming the EU with an inner and outer shell, with UK in the outer" and "UK leaving the EU", the latter being similar to the former, and the discussion revolves over which of the two is most desirable and achievable.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
I suspect because Juncker is really not concerned about Britain and would happily see us out if it meant getting the EU unification project back on course.
Bear in mind that points 1&2 are simply not possible without substantial further transfers opf power from national governments to the EU. A European Energy Union for example would inevitably mean that energy policy would have to be decided entirely at EU level and not at national government levels.
The sections on immigration and foreign policy will also probably be unacceptable to the UK as they call for both greater legal immigration and more EU control over foreign policy
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
It's a good question, but perhaps Juncker is making that statement in order to get Cameron to drop his opposition.
More generally - who knows what's going on in the haggling behind the scenes?
Richard
I think the answer to that question is that Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries.
Juncker is pursuing the exception for Britain line which would isolate the UK and diminish its influence. It is an extension of the Barroso's proposal of a special deal for Britain but not for anyone else.
The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
So 'a new face, break with the past, open to new ideas man or woman' is the person they are looking for.
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
That's quite funny. I see at least two mentions of "more Europe" in his manifesto there (albeit for the eurozone) He sees that as the way forward for 18 of the 27 member states.
Sean Fear mockingly joked that this would be the EU's answer, upon reflection, to the European parliament election results less than a fortnight ago. And here we are..
Oh, what larks.
All the candidates called for more Europe for any and every conceivable issue.
As far as Juncker is concerned, it could be argued that Cameron is just trying to throw his weight about to prove he has some EU clout. It's all a PR stunt; he doesn't really care.
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
Juncker getting the post would be just about the best news the EU could give to Eurosceptics. It is no wonder Cameron is so desperate to keep him out.
I can't speak to the reaction of Eurosceptics to a Juncker Commision. But after a brief reading of http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities , it reinforces a nagging concern I have about this, namely "Why is Cameron objecting to Juncker in the first place?"
I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Stable solutions include "reforming the EU with an inner and outer shell, with UK in the outer" and "UK leaving the EU", the latter being similar to the former, and the discussion revolves over which of the two is most desirable and achievable.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
Perhaps because he's a committed federalist and he doesn't actually want a solution along those lines when he's confident of getting us to go the whole hog?
Given that he specifically rejects that option ("confident of getting us to go the whole hog") in that link about his priorities, I'm not sure that interpretation reflects current reality. He may change his mind in the future (then again, so may anybody else) but right now it looks like he's offering a quid pro quo: "give me the job and I'll get you your opt outs"
Surely if Juncker loses out on the Commission job, the biggest losers will be the Parliament, which did its best to present its interpretation of the rules as an inevitable democratic mandate for its favoured candidate to get the job, as since I don't think anyone expects any real change in direction whoever gets the job, the Commission won't be damaged, leaving only them.
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”. “Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. “When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
Why doesn't Prescott step aside from public spouting and become John Prescott Emeritus? I am sure he has offspring which can succeed him in the meritocratic, non-aristocratic Labour Party (qv Straws, Benns)
Junker's Five Immigration policies are built on hope more than on practicality and he does not explain really how he would stop Immigration from Africa.
Immediate deportation works in ROW, people won't try if they know it will never work, self deportation works well on current illegals and there is always the Eisenhower option of an operation Setback. All a substantial cost saving on the current policy of legalisation.
Why are we talking about a failed former PM of Luxembourg? I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”. “Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. “When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
She already is letting Charles take on more of the burden, nothing more need be done I think.
Agreed. If she became incapable of performing her duties there would be a regency, with Charles as prince regent.
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”. “Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. “When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
She already is letting Charles take on more of the burden, nothing more need be done I think.
Agreed. If she became incapable of performing her duties there would be a regency, with Charles as prince regent.
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The principles of crown immunity in this jurisdiction and state immunity more generally do protect politicians to a greater extent than they do the average citizen. That does not mean that the immunities are unjustified. Once you start changing the law with retrospective effect to allow politically-convenient criminal prosecutions, it is a royal road to tyranny.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
It's a good question, but perhaps Juncker is making that statement in order to get Cameron to drop his opposition.
More generally - who knows what's going on in the haggling behind the scenes?
Richard
I think the answer to that question is that Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries.
Juncker is pursuing the exception for Britain line which would isolate the UK and diminish its influence. It is an extension of the Barroso's proposal of a special deal for Britain but not for anyone else.
The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
So 'a new face, break with the past, open to new ideas man or woman' is the person they are looking for.
New Labour's deliberate decision to open the immigration floodgates was criminally negligent: it seriously harmed the people Labour are meant to protect.
Equally, Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was so inept, calamitous and badly-planned that, even if you believe he did not lie to parliament and people (I think he did) he should be charged with something akin to corporate manslaughter.
How can you get away with doing something that catastrophic and stupid and utterly destructive of lives and treasure, and yet get away, scot free?
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The open borders to immigration was deliberate in my opinion, it was and is a social engineering project. Like Thatcherism that promoted ownership in that property owners are more conservative and free market lovers than non owners, immigrants especially from the third world are inclined to vote for left wing parties because when they arrive they are poor and dependent on the government plus they are very tribal so all that suits Labour and other left wing parties in other countries do the same thing.
New Labour's deliberate decision to open the immigration floodgates was criminally negligent: it seriously harmed the people Labour are meant to protect.
Equally, Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was so inept, calamitous and badly-planned that, even if you believe he did not lie to parliament and people (I think he did) he should be charged with something akin to corporate manslaughter.
How can you get away with doing something that catastrophic and stupid and utterly destructive of lives and treasure, and yet get away, scot free?
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The open borders to immigration was deliberate in my opinion, it was and is a social engineering project. Like Thatcherism that promoted ownership in that property owners are more conservative and free market lovers than non owners, immigrants especially from the third world are inclined to vote for left wing parties because when they arrive they are poor and dependent on the government plus they are very tribal so all that suits Labour and other left wing parties in other countries do the same thing.
It was quite deliberate. To rub the political right's nose in diversity.
...Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries...The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
Christ, that's a big ask. If we take Lisbon as a continuation of the Constitution treaty, then that's 8-10 years from beginning to end, with multiple referendums. And that's with most of the governments in broad agreement. Cameron would need to build consensus among 27 other nations on the way ahead, and outline the structures necessary to make them happen. As of this moment, we have...a list of broad principles.
If your belief is true (I don't know CamOsHague, but I don't know what you know either, so let's run with it for the mo'), then....well, I can't fault them for ambition, but their reach may exceed their grasp on this one.
Cameron, Hague and Osborne have managed to convince other European leaders that a deal for Britain is essential to secure our continued participation in the EU.
The EU establishment wants to isolate such a deal to the UK to prevent 'pollution' to the rest of the EU.
A handful of mainly Northern European EU members are sympathetic to the UK's vision and want some of what we might be getting. They will not want to be excluded.
Germany is prepared to be flexible provided it can secure the Eurozone.
The rise of anti-EU sentiment throughout the continent, as evidenced by the votes for extremist or anti-political parties in the EP elections, is being held up as an example and threat of where Europe is heading if the EU doesn't embrace reform and start creating a demos.
The timing is therefore absolutely right for the Cameron, Hague and Osborne initiative to be broadened from a deal for the UK to a deal for all Europe.
Perhaps Cameron has even offered Merkel, Hollande and Renzi the services of one William Hague?
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
It's a good question, but perhaps Juncker is making that statement in order to get Cameron to drop his opposition.
More generally - who knows what's going on in the haggling behind the scenes?
Richard
I think the answer to that question is that Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries.
Juncker is pursuing the exception for Britain line which would isolate the UK and diminish its influence. It is an extension of the Barroso's proposal of a special deal for Britain but not for anyone else.
The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
So 'a new face, break with the past, open to new ideas man or woman' is the person they are looking for.
Massa back to his old ways it seems - has the speed to try a move on poor Perez on the final lap, who'd gained 10 places in the race, and seems to just line up wrong and smash into the guy.
New Labour's deliberate decision to open the immigration floodgates was criminally negligent: it seriously harmed the people Labour are meant to protect.
Equally, Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was so inept, calamitous and badly-planned that, even if you believe he did not lie to parliament and people (I think he did) he should be charged with something akin to corporate manslaughter.
How can you get away with doing something that catastrophic and stupid and utterly destructive of lives and treasure, and yet get away, scot free?
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
Prosecuted? Prosecuted?
The SeanT of old would have wanted them strung up from lamp posts, and their gizzards eaten by radioactive ravens. Or something.
New Labour's deliberate decision to open the immigration floodgates was criminally negligent: it seriously harmed the people Labour are meant to protect.
Equally, Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was so inept, calamitous and badly-planned that, even if you believe he did not lie to parliament and people (I think he did) he should be charged with something akin to corporate manslaughter.
How can you get away with doing something that catastrophic and stupid and utterly destructive of lives and treasure, and yet get away, scot free?
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
Prosecuted? Prosecuted?
The SeanT of old would have wanted them strung up from lamp posts, and their gizzards eaten by radioactive ravens. Or something.
In 1649 we killed a king, and we were right to do so.
For the same reasons I believe we should prosecute most senior members of the Labour government 1997-2010, starting with Blair, because of Iraq.
Divine right = political immunity.
Things have changed since 1649, and the principles which then prevailed no longer have practical application. In any event, Charles I was convicted of treason, which was an offence against the law of England as it then stood. Suppose, however, that it is acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to enable the indictment, conviction and sentence of divers ministers of the crown in the previous government. Why should it not also be acceptable to amend retrospectively the criminal law to make an activity criminal that was lawful and practised by many loyal and law abiding subjects? Individuals must be able to know what the law is, and what they must do to abide by it. Once you allow the criminal law to be amended retrospectively, you destroy legal certainty, due process and the rule of law.
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The principles of crown immunity in this jurisdiction and state immunity more generally do protect politicians to a greater extent than they do the average citizen. That does not mean that the immunities are unjustified. Once you start changing the law with retrospective effect to allow politically-convenient criminal prosecutions, it is a royal road to tyranny.
If people came to the view that politicians ought to be criminally liable for the consequences of opening the borders e.g. over loading the health service, then even if it didn't apply backwards it would apply going forwards i.e. since 2007 - unless of course there was already some other law that covered it earlier than that.
...Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries...The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
Christ, that's a big ask. If we take Lisbon as a continuation of the Constitution treaty, then that's 8-10 years from beginning to end, with multiple referendums. And that's with most of the governments in broad agreement. Cameron would need to build consensus among 27 other nations on the way ahead, and outline the structures necessary to make them happen. As of this moment, we have...a list of broad principles.
If your belief is true (I don't know CamOsHague, but I don't know what you know either, so let's run with it for the mo'), then....well, I can't fault them for ambition, but their reach may exceed their grasp on this one.
No kidding. The entire edifice would collapse before something like that could happen.
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The principles of crown immunity in this jurisdiction and state immunity more generally do protect politicians to a greater extent than they do the average citizen. That does not mean that the immunities are unjustified. Once you start changing the law with retrospective effect to allow politically-convenient criminal prosecutions, it is a royal road to tyranny.
In 1649 we killed a king, and we were right to do so.
For the same reasons I believe we should prosecute most senior members of the Labour government 1997-2010, starting with Blair, because of Iraq.
Divine right = political immunity.
When it comes to politics (and business), justice is not blind. When was the last time a political leader or a bureaucrat prosecuted in a western democracy for the policies that they enacted? Western democracy is designed with the democratic mandate so that political leaders and bureaucrats have almost complete immunity and protection from the public to do anything they like for the duration of their term. Dictatorships are different, its leaders and bureaucrats have to be very cautious and proactive because of the lack of a democratic mandate can make even the smallest screwup into something that might cost their lives.
...Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries...The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
Christ, that's a big ask. If we take Lisbon as a continuation of the Constitution treaty, then that's 8-10 years from beginning to end, with multiple referendums. And that's with most of the governments in broad agreement. Cameron would need to build consensus among 27 other nations on the way ahead, and outline the structures necessary to make them happen. As of this moment, we have...a list of broad principles.
If your belief is true (I don't know CamOsHague, but I don't know what you know either, so let's run with it for the mo'), then....well, I can't fault them for ambition, but their reach may exceed their grasp on this one.
If people came to the view that politicians ought to be criminally liable for the consequences of opening the borders e.g. over loading the health service, then even if it didn't apply backwards it would apply going forwards i.e. since 2007 - unless of course there was already some other law that covered it earlier than that.
'Overloading the health service' is not, and has never been a criminal offence. It is, if anything, a political failure by Her majesty's Government, and the remedy lies at the next general election to the House of Commons. It is something which is entirely different in principle to being directly mixed up in an unlawful death, to which the quite different principles set out in the 2007 Act apply.
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The principles of crown immunity in this jurisdiction and state immunity more generally do protect politicians to a greater extent than they do the average citizen. That does not mean that the immunities are unjustified. Once you start changing the law with retrospective effect to allow politically-convenient criminal prosecutions, it is a royal road to tyranny.
In 1649 we killed a king, and we were right to do so.
For the same reasons I believe we should prosecute most senior members of the Labour government 1997-2010, starting with Blair, because of Iraq.
Divine right = political immunity.
When it comes to politics (and business), justice is not blind. When was the last time a political leader or a bureaucrat prosecuted in a western democracy for the policies that they enacted? Western democracy is designed with the democratic mandate so that political leaders and bureaucrats have almost complete immunity and protection from the public to do anything they like for the duration of their term. Dictatorships are different, its leaders and bureaucrats have to be very cautious and proactive because of the lack of a democratic mandate can make even the smallest screwup into something that might cost their lives.
I think in Western democracies there are at least a few things that stop politicians and bureucrats from doing anything they like. Many would no doubt like to do far more dodgy stuff than they manage.
I do remember a line from the Temeraire series of books where a character poses the question of which is worse, a single vicious dictator, but still only one man who can be stopped or removed, or 300 MPs working in concert, who collectively are much harder to stop.
Why are we talking about a failed former PM of Luxembourg? I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
How would that work? I'm currently translating proposed Danish regulations on energy tariffs, which are important for energy companies in Britain and elsewhere to know. When I've finished, the paper will go to the Commission, who will take a view on whether it meets the rules of the free internal market. Their opinion may be referred to the Council of Ministers, but more usually it'll be settled bilaterally between Denmark and the Commission.
If the Commission were abolished, who would practically do the job of taking this view - all 27 countries? Or would you abolish the internal market and let each country maniuplate the taxes and regulations to suit domestic suppliers?
I'm not convinced that most critics really know how the EU works before they criticise it.
Only a politician can hope for such immunity. Anyone else would be in the dock. I do not believe politicians should be immune.
If the law does not allow for his prosecution, or the prosecution of other New Labour ministers, then change the law so they CAN be arraigned.
The principles of crown immunity in this jurisdiction and state immunity more generally do protect politicians to a greater extent than they do the average citizen. That does not mean that the immunities are unjustified. Once you start changing the law with retrospective effect to allow politically-convenient criminal prosecutions, it is a royal road to tyranny.
Perhaps this is a case where our ancestors had the right ideas?
"Two pregnant women were turned away from the Queen’s Hospital maternity unit when the department became full and closed for four hours in April, it has emerged.
Jas Athwal, leader of the Redbridge Labour party, described the news as an “absolute shock”.
He added: “Queen’s was built for 300,000 people in mind but now it has to cope with 800,000 - it is not right. "
Indeed - a complete disgrace. Clearly another hospital is needed.
Clearly the people responsible for opening the borders before building the housing, schools and hospitals needed for such a suddenly and vastly increased population should be held criminally responsible for all the harm they did to other people by their policy.
If people came to the view that politicians ought to be criminally liable for the consequences of opening the borders e.g. over loading the health service, then even if it didn't apply backwards it would apply going forwards i.e. since 2007 - unless of course there was already some other law that covered it earlier than that.
'Overloading the health service' is not, and has never been a criminal offence. It is, if anything, a political failure by Her majesty's Government, and the remedy lies at the next general election to the House of Commons. It is something which is entirely different in principle to being directly mixed up in an unlawful death, to which the quite different principles set out in the 2007 Act apply.
Deaths caused by for example overloading the maternal hospitals when that overloading was deliberate policy (because they couldn't build more hospitals in advance because they didn't want people to know what they were doing) *ought* imo to count as corporate manslaughter.
I'm not saying it is covered by the corporate manslaughter act i'm saying it ought to be and if enough people come to that view than that would make for an interesting time.
Canadian GP has happily repaid my UKIP losses. I'd bet that they wouldn't be the biggest party in the Euros, and having been smacked all over the place with that view had assumed that they could sail home in Newark.
What's clear is that I have no idea what UKIP's support thinks. I've been a Euro-sceptic for 30 years. Really rather oddly the arguments have come to rest on the grounds I've long thought they should.
What really embitters me is that my mates have all become more right wing than I am. They've also conveniently forgotten what their views were in the past. Now I find myself labelled a fool (fair enough!), but no recognition whatsoever as to my oracle like foresight.
Now clearly this tale should end with some fantastic prediction. Sadly I can't help. I will let you know though.
(Oh, if you insist: 2020: UK will be in EU. William will be King. Ed will be a footnote, but Labour will be doing well. Scotland will be part of the Union, but a poll will say that the English wish that they weren't. Boris will be Mayor of London and have a 70%+ approval rate)
Comments
David Cameron is to carry out a "ruthless" reshuffle within days which could see several senior and long-serving cabinet ministers lose their jobs.
The Prime Minister is expected to work on a coalition shake-up when he returns from European talks in Sweden on Tuesday evening. Whitehall is braced for a reshuffle at the end of this week or the start of next. Some of the ministers being considered for the sack are among the most senior ranks, and the reshuffle's timing, coinciding with the start of the World Cup, could lead it to be dubbed "the night of the long dives".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/senior-tories-await-david-camerons-ruthless-reshuffle-9507176.html
...is Mr Javid trying to tell us something?..:-)
Are you seriously suggesting that there can never ever be another freight or passenger service added to the WCML? Ever?
And this is not already, in 2014 doing harm to the economies of Blackpool and Shrewsbury?
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/07/31-orr-refuses-virgin-bid-for.html
Were you a little bit embarrassed?
Ghastly though the elected are they're better on average than the electors. I wouldn't hold this view unless I'd seen who the electorate actually elect. It's a bit circular. I'm hoping that an MP, or a member of the electorate spots this..
And the next episode led to Starfleet's, then biggest, defeat in history.
Yes.
And if the population is growing at 200,000+ a year then the capacity would need to be increased at 200,000++ a year to have any effect on the deficit of capacity that has built up over the last ten years.
Same with houses, schools, roads etc.
LOL!
Simple fact is WCML is full, you cannot get extra trains onto the line, either add a small amount (~40%) extra seats for ~£20bn and no new freight trains or you build a new railway to take away the intercity trains from the WCML to free up paths for commuters and freight trains on the WCML.
It's very telling that none of those opposed to the scheme have offered a credible alternative in the over 4 years since HS2 Ltd was setup.
The WCML is already the busiest mixed use railway in Europe.
No one other than HS2 have offered a viable and credible suggestion about how to add that capacity going forward to allow for increased freight from the Port of Liverpool, from Trafford Park, from the south to the north, for new passenger services from Milton Keynes....
Unless of course you can show me a website that does offer such a credible alternative? If not, ask yourself why given the efforts those opposed have gone to in an effort to discredit HS2.
There's one episode that will stand the test of time - Data somehow has a child, can't recall how. It will however last for only a while - the conclusion is probably wrong.
The best political theorising probably happens within a SF framework.
Ken Clarke
Owen Patterson
Theresa Villiers
Baroness Warsi
I would also expect Sir George Young to be put out to seed as he's standing down at the election.
Of course you have to balance things against the problems an aging population and a skewing worker-retiree ratio bring.
Seeking to assimilate us in to the Brussels hive mind.
People obviously won't change their votes much because Cameron has dropped Paterson from Environment or whatever, so I presume it is for internal party consumption, but for any others replaced, it is only happening when it hardly matters, in the final year of the parliament and possiblty government, so they didn't do so bad they needed to be replaced sooner, and if they have done well why drop them and lose allies.
(I did have to google that).
I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Stable solutions include "reforming the EU with an inner and outer shell, with UK in the outer" and "UK leaving the EU", the latter being similar to the former, and the discussion revolves over which of the two is most desirable and achievable.
I assume from his utterances that Cameron is in the former camp.I note from Juncker's webpage that so is Juncker. Given a candidate in pole position who is amenable to UK demands...why is Cameron so agin him? Yes, Junker is a eurofederalist, but so are the others (Hannan has already pointed this out) and any alternative candidates may not be so amenable. So why is Cameron so opposed?
I think it is a good idea plus it puts more politically attractive people front and centre.
Voyager was my favourite series, although that may be because of Jeri Ryan
No-one knows the total numbers. They're all estimates.
But even if it was true
"Should help with the catching up capacity etc."
Obviously not.
If the *rate* of population *growth* is slowing down the population is still increasing.
So a slow-down in the *rate* of growth does nothing to catch up capacity. It increases the deficit of capacity but slower than previously.
Even if it was true.
Did you know Jeri Ryan, who played 7 of 9 was directly responsible for Barack Obama becoming US President?
In 1990, while dealing blackjack at a charity event, the actress met investment banker and future Republican political candidate Jack Ryan. The couple married on June 15, 1991, and had a son, Alex, on August 15, 1994.......Although Ryan mentioned in an interview for Star Trek that the frequent separations had been difficult for the marriage, the reasons for the divorce were kept sealed at their mutual request.
Ryan had at one point dated Star Trek: Voyager producer Brannon Braga. Between February and November 2000, they were stalked by Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan, who was convicted for harassment and threats in May 2001.[27][28][29] According to Crime Stories, aired on the UK Crime channel on 05/07/2009, the stalker had letters stating that he was going to sexually assault Ryan and torture Braga.
When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[30]
On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[31] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[32] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[30][33]
Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[34] Jack Ryan denied these allegations. Although Jeri Ryan only made a brief statement,[35] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack Ryan to withdraw his candidacy;[36][37] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ryan#Personal_life
More generally - who knows what's going on in the haggling behind the scenes?
You were making the point about it being a moving time problem, our target is ahead and moving but slowing down. So it should be easier to catch.
(Also a kers button could help).
I also remember thinking that it was a good job for him that Star Trek fans are so nerdy.
As doing nasty things to the lovely Jeri may well result in one of the less well balanced fans trying to take him out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10884681/King-Juan-Carlos-I-dont-want-my-son-to-grow-old-waiting-like-Prince-Charles.html
; what is much more astonishing is the downright impertinence of John Prescott in presuming to suggest that we would all accept the retirement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament.
Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”.
“Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said.
“It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly.
“When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”"
Sean Fear mockingly joked that this would be the EU's answer, upon reflection, to the European parliament election results less than a fortnight ago. And here we are..
Oh, what larks.
But yes if it was true and it was say only 150,000 extra people a year then yes we'd only need to be building more than 150,000 people's worth of extra capacity each and every year to reduce the current shortfall.
(Although I remember enough to say the Federation is an allegory for the early USA, so maybe the EU are the Romulans/Vulcans/don't really know?)
Bear in mind that points 1&2 are simply not possible without substantial further transfers opf power from national governments to the EU. A European Energy Union for example would inevitably mean that energy policy would have to be decided entirely at EU level and not at national government levels.
The sections on immigration and foreign policy will also probably be unacceptable to the UK as they call for both greater legal immigration and more EU control over foreign policy
I think the answer to that question is that Cameron, Hague and Osborne all believe that the EU needs reform not just to satisfy Britain's national interest but to secure the future for EU itself and its member countries.
Juncker is pursuing the exception for Britain line which would isolate the UK and diminish its influence. It is an extension of the Barroso's proposal of a special deal for Britain but not for anyone else.
The Cameron/Hague/Osborne goal is not therefore so much to repatriate powers to the UK but to restructure the entire basis upon which the EU will develop.
So 'a new face, break with the past, open to new ideas man or woman' is the person they are looking for.
http://www3.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/video/EurovisionDebate.html
Starts of with noble aims, but gets corrupted by a power mad man.
I wonder if Juncker can fire force lightening out of his hands?
It's all a PR stunt; he doesn't really care.
I have the opinion that the role of the EU commission is obsolete and should be abolished, EU heads of state and governments are much more competent in dealing with the day to day issues, they should abolish that collection of failed politicians and give its power to the individual national governments.
Like Thatcherism that promoted ownership in that property owners are more conservative and free market lovers than non owners, immigrants especially from the third world are inclined to vote for left wing parties because when they arrive they are poor and dependent on the government plus they are very tribal so all that suits Labour and other left wing parties in other countries do the same thing.
To rub the political right's nose in diversity.
If your belief is true (I don't know CamOsHague, but I don't know what you know either, so let's run with it for the mo'), then....well, I can't fault them for ambition, but their reach may exceed their grasp on this one.
The EU establishment wants to isolate such a deal to the UK to prevent 'pollution' to the rest of the EU.
A handful of mainly Northern European EU members are sympathetic to the UK's vision and want some of what we might be getting. They will not want to be excluded.
Germany is prepared to be flexible provided it can secure the Eurozone.
The rise of anti-EU sentiment throughout the continent, as evidenced by the votes for extremist or anti-political parties in the EP elections, is being held up as an example and threat of where Europe is heading if the EU doesn't embrace reform and start creating a demos.
The timing is therefore absolutely right for the Cameron, Hague and Osborne initiative to be broadened from a deal for the UK to a deal for all Europe.
Perhaps Cameron has even offered Merkel, Hollande and Renzi the services of one William Hague?
The SeanT of old would have wanted them strung up from lamp posts, and their gizzards eaten by radioactive ravens. Or something.
What's happened?
Juncker is the Pope Alexander VI of our times.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/2
When was the last time a political leader or a bureaucrat prosecuted in a western democracy for the policies that they enacted?
Western democracy is designed with the democratic mandate so that political leaders and bureaucrats have almost complete immunity and protection from the public to do anything they like for the duration of their term.
Dictatorships are different, its leaders and bureaucrats have to be very cautious and proactive because of the lack of a democratic mandate can make even the smallest screwup into something that might cost their lives.
It would be an "aim for the stars and settle for the moon (if necessary) strategy".
I do remember a line from the Temeraire series of books where a character poses the question of which is worse, a single vicious dictator, but still only one man who can be stopped or removed, or 300 MPs working in concert, who collectively are much harder to stop.
If the Commission were abolished, who would practically do the job of taking this view - all 27 countries? Or would you abolish the internal market and let each country maniuplate the taxes and regulations to suit domestic suppliers?
I'm not convinced that most critics really know how the EU works before they criticise it.
Very exciting race in Canada.
I'm not saying it is covered by the corporate manslaughter act i'm saying it ought to be and if enough people come to that view than that would make for an interesting time.
What's clear is that I have no idea what UKIP's support thinks. I've been a Euro-sceptic for 30 years. Really rather oddly the arguments have come to rest on the grounds I've long thought they should.
What really embitters me is that my mates have all become more right wing than I am. They've also conveniently forgotten what their views were in the past. Now I find myself labelled a fool (fair enough!), but no recognition whatsoever as to my oracle like foresight.
Now clearly this tale should end with some fantastic prediction. Sadly I can't help. I will let you know though.
(Oh, if you insist: 2020: UK will be in EU. William will be King. Ed will be a footnote, but Labour will be doing well. Scotland will be part of the Union, but a poll will say that the English wish that they weren't. Boris will be Mayor of London and have a 70%+ approval rate)