Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Cameron-EU stand-off over Jean-Claude Juncker: If the P
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Cameron-EU stand-off over Jean-Claude Juncker: If the PM wins it would be a major coup
Each of the main party groups in Brussels went through a process of selecting a candidate and in the run up to polling day there was a series of TV debates. In a number of member states there was extensive polling.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is the kind of thing that actually firmed up Juncker's position: The heads of government were a bit meh about letting the voters influence the decision and would have quite liked to pick somebody else if they thought they'd get away with it, but Cameron and the British press forced everyone to back him more affirmitively than they might have liked.
"Obama asks Congress to approve $500 million for rebels in Syria":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042309
They weren't seen that way by the voters.
"An AECR/AMR poll conducted in the immediate aftermath of the European elections has found that only 8.2 per cent of EU nationals could name Jean Claude Juncker, the European People’s Party’s candidate for the Commission presidency. Only 13.6 per cent of those surveyed could name any of the candidates standing for the position of European Commission president. Only 8.8 per cent could name any of the European political parties now claiming their ballots as mandates."
http://www.aecr.eu/new-aecramr-poll-destroys-jean-claude-junckers-mandate/
Anyhow the political problem for the member states who participated in the nomination is that even if the voters don't know exacty what you promised, they're still going to be narked off when they find that you broke the promise. Manifestos are similar: If you quizzed the voters on what was in each party's manifesto they wouldn't score very highly, but the voters are still within their rights to expect the winning party to at least try to deliver it.
Apparently Merkel initially thought people cared little enough about this process to scam them on it, but it's to the credit of the German press that they didn't let her get away with it. Obviously this had the unfortunate consequence that Cameron, who had tried to turn her shenanigans into a great diplomatic victory, ended up left high and dry, stuck defending a stand that he wouldn't have taken if he'd suspected the trick would fail. Maybe he should have asked John Major to make sure the playbook was still up-to-date before he started pulling moves out of it...
It's become increasingly clear that the European Establishment doiesnt give a flying f**k about what Britain thinks (witness the FTT, Juncker etc). They wouldn't care if it is Cameron vetoing and they wouldn't care if it was Ed Miliband bending over the table. I'm struggling to name anything that we really care about that we have got our way on for over 20 years.
That's fine: they are entitled to this position. But then we have a very clear decision as a country whether the relationship works for us.
And I'm increasingly coming to the view that, without fundamental reform, it doesn't.
However, he does want to _look_ like he wants it to pass, because it's popular. His ideal scenario is that it doesn't pass because Labour and the LibDems take an open vote against it. The next-best is that they quietly squish it in the Lords.
It's been useful in that it drives home the point that, as a single member in a club of 28 with QMV, the UK has, is, and will be unable to defend what it perceives as its national interest.
I lost the desire to care much about either years ago.
They believe that demos is the UK - but, of course, the Scots are at liberty to disagree if they want
You may be right, but the arguments are the same. "Your lives are miserable and you are being held back by < insert your pet hate here>. I am whole heartedly sick of listening to groups and individuals being demonized because Britain is becoming an irrelevance to the rest of the world.
Britain had an empire, it lost it, deal with the fact and stop blaming everyone else.
(Same for the SNP)
Clearly to those in the Westminster bubble and Euro obsessives of both wings this issue is of the moment to them. To the other 99.95% of the population it's more yawn filling than the latest pronouncement of David Icke and the Lizard people.
Maybe he can just go home and say he fought the good fight and everyone will leave it at that, but you know what his base is like when it comes to EU stuff...
With the spotlight on Suarez, the more important, shining of a laser into the Russian keepers eyes could potentially become an issue if enough people have the same idea.
I am not sure how much of an effect it had on the goal, but it could be bad news for some betting slips?
* I hang out with a lot of historically curious people so it can be a general topic of conversation
Very much a tail end Charlie.
It's also not the date of accession, but when the Treaty was agreed that matters
This is because we of course use these elections as an opportunity to kick the government of the day and have a laugh by electing non serious politicians like UKIP. We simply don't play or frankly even understand the game.
Article 17.7 of the consolidated treaty says this:
"Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure."
The provision is a classic EU fudge but I think it is clear(ish) that the European Council is not obliged to accept the nominated person of the largest grouping in the Parliament. On the other hand if they don't choose that person the EU Parliament is not obliged to accept their nominee either.
Cameron is entitled to his vote but it is QMV and he can and probably will be outvoted. It is very difficult to see how anyone else is now going to get the vote required from the Parliament. If the tories had still been in the EPP their views would have carried more weight, not least with Merkel. But the tories had good reasons to withdraw from what is a federal grouping and I think the vast majority of UK citizens who had any view or interest would agree with their reasoning.
I'll get my lead ....
Economic and social reasons are fair enough, My point is the politicians are vague on those, but big on "posturing".
This means they reckon playing the "national card" is advantageous, I find it grotesque and annoying.
(your own mileage may vary)
Perhaps to his own surprise, Cameron has proved a lot better at principle than he is at fudge. His position is strong and simple: he wants a reformed Europe, and wants that Europe to make its best offer direct to the British public. The result is something the Tories have not had for a generation: a European policy that is clear, effective and popular – and might actually work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10928211/David-Cameron-is-the-only-leader-with-the-courage-to-take-on-Europe.html
(I'll give you a clue, the answers are "nothing" and " what he supposedly vetoed")
Breaking news: Fraser Nelson thinks Tories are wonderful.
Didn't he veto the use of a building or something?
I am sure it wasn't British sausages. the Sun won that one?
That means that the UK is not on the hook for any of the associated liabilities (we helped in Ireland vountarily because they are an important trading partner and because RBS would have been in masses of trouble if Ulster Bank had gone down in flames).
That's actually a big deal, but it doesn't suit your political prejudices so you just ignore it.
What you need to do is try to reason and explain why your version of the future is the one that works and build a consensus towards it. Such an approach is inconsistent with "taking on" anyone because once you adopt this approach your motives are suspect.
Taking Juncker as an example has the British Government position made it more or less likely that this consensus will be achieved? I would say less, much less.
This is because the consensus on the continent, at least among the political classes, is that a more integrated EU is the way to go and their desperate fight to hold onto their currency in the last 5 years has added impetus to that rather than diminished it.
The Euro cannot survive as an effective currency without a more integrated economy for the Member States and they are focussed on achieving that. We, as non members, are heading in the opposite direction. Our vision of a less integrated Europe simply does not compute for EZ members. They have seen the consequences of inadequate institutions and a failure to integrate policy and they have been horrendous.
I do not see at the moment how these 2 visions can be integrated within the same club. When the UK decided that we did not want the Euro we really were starting a long walk to the door. We just did not seem to realise it.
It seems that those mad foreign chappies had this idea that a "sausage should contain at least 75% pure meat. We British know that sausages only need about 5% meat, the rest being made up of rusk, "recovered meat" and fat.
You can sense their confusion on learning this?
It's also not the date of accession, but when the Treaty was agreed that matters
Signed 2011, ratified 2013.
We helped Ireland because several of our banks had liabilities there that could put them in an even deeper hole.
I am familiar with his work, and the subtle changes that come on columnists as election time approaches.
The simple fact is that Juncker is the choice of the largest party in the European parliament, and supported by most governments. We have been fairly outvoted.
We sent a bunch of clowns as MEPs on May 22nd. We should not be surprised by being laughed at followed by a custard pie in the face.
As I said, a tail end Charlie.
Championed by Germany, not the UK. The UK was the driving force behind the earlier wave - Poland, Czech, Romania etc. We didn't get Turkey, which we wanted, but Germany got Croatia.
"Europe" means something different in Britain that it does in the remainder.
Here it is a political tool for the politicians to play with, as a result, no one really knows much about it other than screaming headlines.
Britain hasn’t really had a foreign secretary under William Hague, and it could do with one. The incumbent is entirely absent from this debate (and most others). Indeed, he is proving the most disappointing Foreign Secretary in a generation, having refused to find the “on” switch for his undoubtedly brilliant mind. Posing with Angelina Jolie is, at present, the high point of his time in office. His colleagues believe this speaks to his wider ambition: to shuffle off the political stage and settle down on the American lecture circuit.
While not a disaster like Mili Major, he clearly has not remotely put his back into it. "didn't cock it up" will be the best that could be said of him......
Last post should have been for @foxinsoxuk.
You must have got stuck to my clipboard, sorry.
He should have put Andy Coulson's name up for a laugh.
It was a sinecure, and when we use posts like this or European Commissioners as a way to pension off politicians beyond their sell by dates we are all diminished.
We need to send someone capable and forceful as our next Euro Commissioner who can keep Mr Juncker on his toes.
But it really doesn't matter for anyone other than Labour who remain in the socialist group (although the indication from Miliband is that they are going to defy that group and vote against Juncker). The largest grouping in the EU Parliament got 28K votes in the UK. We have no influence over it at all. If we had elected more Lib Dems or tories it would have made no difference to the result. They are not players in the groupings that matter.
Perhaps we might as well send in the clowns.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/the-war-on-rupert-murdoch-is-the-real-story-of-the-hacking-saga/
We are a member of a club. It isn't working for us. We change things so it works for us, we accept a subordinate role, or we leave.
It really is that simple.
There is no harm in trying to change things, especially if there is the threat of leaving as that really forces your partners to think.
But in respect of antifrank's point about carelessness, I think the Europols are assuming Cameron won't be around after May 2015 so they don't need to accomodate him. There may be some rapid changes if he wins/remains head of a coalition after the GE. But I do take the point that they haven't thought about the long term implications if he loses - there has to be a decent chance of a BOOer becoming Tory leader
And since May 2010 I've said, and been roundly abused for it, that Clegg should have insisted on one of the top jobs, such as FS, instead of the non-job of DPM & Constitutional Affairs.
Although to be fair if he’d got the AV referendum and HoL reform through things would have been very different.
If we have a Con/LD coalition after May 2015 I wonder if the LD’s will get some different posts.
Unless their polling improves, their next post will be emptying the waste paper baskets.
And all that is achieved is that we have destroyed any possibility of a constructive relationship with the president of the commission because of ineffective political posturing for a UK audience. This is quite possibly the stupidest thing that Cameron has done.
I listened to R4 the other day and was surprised at the fact and vast size of the industry of stripping of meat from pigs heads for sausage and other pork processed products.
Oh, nearly forgot, these EU wide rule changes were brought in by pressure from, I am given to understand, by British food processors with a large amount of help and input from UK civil servants.
Enjoy your breakfast sausages, some how, I've started back on porridge.
The EU is acting like a bit of a dinosaur in that any club/association needs reform after a fair time, just to make sure that it is relevant to today and the future.
Having rushed without due diligence into the EZ and enlargement, this dinosaur (lumbering and ponderous and requiring to consume vast amounts of resources to sustain itself) and with neither wings nor sufficient teeth - vulnerable to all who attack it. Also it has become reliant on its major potential predator (Russia) for its life-giving energy.
Juncker, with his advance along the same lines without reform policy, is not the person with the vision required to be able to reform the EU so that it can become an effective and efficient coalition of nation states.
There used to be a joke during the "great" depression about a Catholic housewife coming out of a butchers on Friday. The priest spots her, and calls out "I hope those sausages aren't for your tea tonight Mary?"
The woman calls back " They are indeed Father, but don't worry, there is no meat in them"
"The Conservative Party's lead over Labour on the economy is higher than ever, while the economy is no longer the top concern of voters
The Conservatives may be winning the economic argument – or at least Labour may be losing it – according to several measures in public opinion about the country’s finances tracked by YouGov.
The key finding is that voters now prefer the Tories over Labour when it comes to handling the economy by a net margin of 15 points, the largest lead since David Cameron moved into 10 Downing Street.
This is only an increase of 2 points over the previous high of 13 points, but the historical data suggests a broader trend. The percentage who prefer the Conservative Party on this issue has not fallen below 35% for over six weeks, something that hasn’t happened since the early days of the coalition government. At the same time, only 20% think the Labour Party would best handle the economy, their lowest rating over the same period. Only 63% of Labour voters back Labour on the economy, compared to 90% of Conservatives who back their own party."
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/26/tories-widen-their-lead-on-the-economy/
The cases are still open, as are others for NI.
And nothing at all wrong with the sausages made with a high proportion of rusk. that's dietary fibre.. and jolly tasty, and good on a budget too.
No idea about slaughterhouse rules though. Presumably the microbiologists won?
The Conservatives stand in NI elections after all.
Here's Article 5.1 for a flavour
"A Contracting Party that is subject to an excessive deficit procedure under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded shall put in place a budgetary and economic partnership programme including a detailed description of the structural reforms which must be put in place and implemented to ensure an effective and durable correction of its excessive deficit. The content and format of such programmes shall be defined in European Union law. Their submission to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission for endorsement and their monitoring will take place within the context of the existing surveillance procedures under the Stability and Growth Pact."
european-council.europa.eu/media/639235/st00tscg26_en12.pdf
there y'go you've got me all nostalgic for British foods
Nothing wrong in making full use of carcasses, But arguing against rules on meat, not long after " the horseburger incident" would seem a tad churlish to some.
Just as well few knew about it, and the media didn't create a fuss?
That said, it made domestic political sense because the concessions wouldn't have been huge, passing stuff through the Commons would have been a PITA and chewed up government time, the antis would have screamed betrayal and the "veto" was popular.
As you say, not politics at its best but politics as is.
She's done the same on Juncker: it's perfectly possible that she won't support renegotiation. But then we get to say whether we like that construct or not.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625874-fianna-fail-europe/
http://ecrgroup.eu/
The media line is that Juncker will be appointed. So be it. The consequences are that the EC will not have a President focused on reforming itself into ways that make its economies more competitive nor in ways that make it better for the UK to remain. In essence the EC Leaders think that they can postpone action and hope that something turns up. An "it'll be alright on the night" approach. Juncker does have an election manifesto, which is a 5 point plan for "more integration". That will just accelerate the disputes and delay economic reforms. Unless of course the alleged drinking problems brings about an early change. The europhiles should pray for that.
We could probably shorten that to "There are few journalists competent"
I can understand the pressures they are under these days, but headlines based on bad info should be no part of the profession.
There should be a debate about EU rules and regulation, but only the "drama" makes into onto page and screen.