It was the Conservatives themselves who left the centre right grouping by order of Cameron. We chose not to have a say, so have no cause for complaint now.
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.
There are a number of other countries outside the euro and intending to stay out, so if this was a deciding factor we did not need to isolate ourselves.
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.
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.
I agree about the clowns and they are clowns who in general don't even turn up for the parade or vote. Will they turn up to vote against Juncker? I doubt it.
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.
The ECR group is now the third largest in the EU Parliament. It contains MEPs from 17 member states.
Can and will some of the leaders abstain on the vote? Otherwise the vote will be something like an embarrassing 29-2 in favour of Juncker
Why is it embarrassing? I just don't understand this concern that we're isolated in Europe. It's clear that the Eurozone is marching in one direction and we're not. That's de facto isolation and it's been that way since at least the creation of the Euro.
Many European countries see it as entirely to their benefit to pursue political and economic integration. More power to 'em.
If Cameron genuinely thinks Juncker is the wrong man then clearly he should not be supporting him. I think the trouble is that plenty of other European leaders aren't 100% convinced but for whatever reason are rowing in behind. It remains to be seen how publicly disagreeing with Europe will play, but it's hard to escape the increasingly obvious that our political cultures are just massively divergent.
Pretty much that's the case, The British system is the fairest and most equitable in the world. (SeanT said so). so Europe should just follow our lead. "Fog in Channel, Europe cut off!" as the headline allegedly said?
Fox They stupidly did not put up a candidate, nor did UKIP's group, so the Eurosceptic voice was not heard in the debates at all despite big gains in the elections and the ECR now being the 3rd largest group, so Juncker's claims were unchallenged in the campaign
For all that I think Juncker winning would be very bad in the long run for the EU (and to my mind very good for those of us wanting to leave) I have to say that headline and the associated article is real gutter journalism. There are many reasons why Juncker is the wrong man for the job but the fact that he likes a drink and smokes are certainly not in the top 100 reasons.
For all that I think Juncker winning would be very bad in the long run for the EU (and to my mind very good for those of us wanting to leave) I have to say that headline and the associated article is real gutter journalism. There are many reasons why Juncker is the wrong man for the job but the fact that he likes a drink and smokes are certainly not in the top 100 reasons.
But if he drinks to excess to the point it effects his ability to do the job, it does (ala Charlie Kennedy).
I'm not sure the voter in the street understands quite what is so objectionable about Junckers, and nor is it clear that whoever does get the job will not also have these (or worse) characteristics.
Churchill wasn't adverse to a cigar and brandy. It didn't seem to stop him from doing his job? I wonder how many of those papers wrote him a glowing obituary with only a reference to it as a "justifiable foible"?
I'm not sure the voter in the street understands quite what is so objectionable about Junckers, and nor is it clear that whoever does get the job will not also have these (or worse) characteristics.
The voter in the street has given it's thoughts throughout Europe on what it thinks of the current state of the EU. That should give those which think the current way the EU works is fine and dandy pause for thought.
If Cameron genuinely thinks Juncker is the wrong man then clearly he should not be supporting him. I think the trouble is that plenty of other European leaders aren't 100% convinced but for whatever reason are rowing in behind. It remains to be seen how publicly disagreeing with Europe will play, but it's hard to escape the increasingly obvious that our political cultures are just massively divergent.
Basically there are three different kinds of potential ways to be unconvinced. The EPP leaders, particulary Merkel, generally like the man but dislike the process. The socialist leaders dislike the man less than a lot of other right-wing candidates, and mostly quite like the process because they get shot at unseating him next time. Finally the UK press are obviously going to say negative things about the man, from the template (delete as appropriate):
Inexperienced / Man of the past Drinks too much / Boring nobody Faceless technocrat / Can't manage an organization etc etc
I'm not sure the voter in the street understands quite what is so objectionable about Junckers, and nor is it clear that whoever does get the job will not also have these (or worse) characteristics.
The voter in the street has given it's thoughts throughout Europe on what it thinks of the current state of the EU. That should give those which think the current way the EU works is fine and dandy pause for thought.
Yes they usually adopt the Oliver Twist explanation that voters are saying "please sir, we want some more". It's rubbish of course.
I'm not sure the voter in the street understands quite what is so objectionable about Junckers, and nor is it clear that whoever does get the job will not also have these (or worse) characteristics.
The voter in the street has given it's thoughts throughout Europe on what it thinks of the current state of the EU. That should give those which think the current way the EU works is fine and dandy pause for thought.
As I said, after the votes were counted, the European elite would decide that "more Europe" was the solution.
Churchill wasn't adverse to a cigar and brandy. It didn't seem to stop him from doing his job? I wonder how many of those papers wrote him a glowing obituary with only a reference to it as a "justifiable foible"?
The attitude of people to a leader over 60 years ago is rather different from that of today.
Not to mention the pressures and strains of leading the country through a World War would probably have driven most people to an escape through some means.
Continuing from Antifranks excellent comment: the members of the EU pushing us towards the exit unconsciously,
and David Ls comment (to paraphrase): about the incompatibility between the essential integration that is pursuant to a single currency and the resistance to that direction of travel by us
It is doubtful that there is a recognition by the European public at large at how much our structures have irrevocably changed since 2008 crisis. If we start with the premise that Euro countries want to keep the currency, then the real question is if it is possible for incompatible units such as the Euro Zone countries with greater and full integration to be cohabiting with independent nations using individual currencies.
I suspect the changes detonated by the 2008 crisis have made it impossible in the long term for non Euro countries to be long term fully equal members.
The scary thing is, this moves me towards thinking Out is right, which is not a position I have adopted, and one that could cause me all sorts of business issues as EU is an important area for me, and I would need to add an EU office and staff, and that costs!
Fox They stupidly did not put up a candidate, nor did UKIP's group, so the Eurosceptic voice was not heard in the debates at all despite big gains in the elections and the ECR now being the 3rd largest group, so Juncker's claims were unchallenged in the campaign
There appears to be a distinction between, EU Parliament group, and pan-EU party. Both attract EU funds, but I believe UKIP are only a member of the Parliament group, not the pan-EU party.
Fox They stupidly did not put up a candidate, nor did UKIP's group, so the Eurosceptic voice was not heard in the debates at all despite big gains in the elections and the ECR now being the 3rd largest group, so Juncker's claims were unchallenged in the campaign
There appears to be a distinction between, EU Parliament group, and pan-EU party. Both attract EU funds, but I believe UKIP are only a member of the Parliament group, not the pan-EU party.
@Charles 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)
I've never heard any Eurosceptic bring up the empire in any modern political context*. The Eurosceptics I know are modern, tolerant, liberally minded and outward looking. They see the world as their playground, and while they greatly appreciate what Europe has to offer they don't see that as a reason to be sublimated into a different political construct.
* I hang out with a lot of historically curious people so it can be a general topic of conversation
I agree Charles. Indeed at times I end up believing that it is the Europhiles who hanker after lost Empire. They seem to think that the natural order in Europe would be for the UK to end up running it.
For all that I think Juncker winning would be very bad in the long run for the EU (and to my mind very good for those of us wanting to leave) I have to say that headline and the associated article is real gutter journalism. There are many reasons why Juncker is the wrong man for the job but the fact that he likes a drink and smokes are certainly not in the top 100 reasons.
But if he drinks to excess to the point it effects his ability to do the job, it does (ala Charlie Kennedy).
I was at an event once where Charles Kennedy was due to speak.
His car turned up and he staggered, literally staggered out, clutching the car for support as he edged round it.
He then straightened himself out, snapped to, and marched straight-as-a-die into the venue before giving a tack-sharp speech including fielding questions for the subsequent hour and a half.
Off-topic, anyone for a France - Germany quarter final with the winner playing Brazil in the semis with Argentina - Holland the other semi ? We'll see.
On-topic, for all the defiant bluff and bluster from some on here and elsewhere, the truth is this has all been about Cameron wanting to "look tough" on Europe as he sees a significant segment of the Conservative vote shift to UKIP and he knows he needs them back if he is going to remain Prime Minister.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. The truth is that with the Conservatives self-exiling to the ECR which for all the spin from some on here remains (along with ALDE) a country mile behind the groups that matter, the EPP and the Socialists, only by voting Labour could we had even the slightest say in the choice of the future Commission President.
Let me be clear - I'm no fan of Juncker in terms of what I read and he's clearly not what those of us who want to see a reformed EU want but David Cameron and the ECR failed to put up a credible dynamic centre-right reformer who could have been sold to the EPP as a viable candidate.
It's also clear that Juncker is no political lightweight - he's outmanoeuvred Cameron by playing politics and has bought off Cameron's potential allies by a superb campaign of promises which is, after all, whether we like it or not, how politics works in the real world.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. The truth is that with the Conservatives self-exiling to the ECR which for all the spin from some on here remains (along with ALDE) a country mile behind the groups that matter, the EPP and the Socialists, only by voting Labour could we had even the slightest say in the choice of the future Commission President.
Was there any point at all, any example where labour made mention of this in the euro election campaign?
Somewhere around the naked tiny Nick Clegg cartoon maybe>
It seems to me that it is more democratic and transparent for directly elected MEPs to choose the EU President than national heads of government, some of whom have not been directly elected e.g. Cameron.
It is not a matter of federalism. It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
Nor is it an issue of subsidiarity. This is the election of the EU President not local council elections or even national general elections.
I think the consequences for Cameron will be that he very temporarily pleases his right wing and permanently creates a powerful enemy. Not a good deal for him or the UK.
"I hadn’t realised that this was how the process was being seen."
It wasn't being seen like that in the rest of the EU either. 92% of the European public had not heard of either the major parties or the preferred candidates. This is just a plot by the eurocrat elite to interpret the results of 28 national elections as somehow giving them legitimacy.
Juncker has neither democratic legitimacy, nor competents, nor morals. He's the the muppet that oversaw the Eurogroup response to their crisis, which is still no closer to being resolved four years later. Some of his choice quotes are "when the going gets tough, you have to lie", " Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" and on referendum results, "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'". If he gets the job it will just show how the EU is determined to push ahead with power grabs and federation and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it.
Cameron's point is that the Euro Parliament usurped this power for themselves and that there was never any agreement that the Euro Election was about the next Commission President.
The Juncker problem is as much about a bad process as a bad candidate.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it.
Yes well given there is nothing anywhere that explicitly states that is the case and the whole process is a chancer's power grab, albeit one that appears likely to be successful, one could be forgiven for ignoring the shenanigans of the candidates.
For all that I think Juncker winning would be very bad in the long run for the EU (and to my mind very good for those of us wanting to leave) I have to say that headline and the associated article is real gutter journalism. There are many reasons why Juncker is the wrong man for the job but the fact that he likes a drink and smokes are certainly not in the top 100 reasons.
But if he drinks to excess to the point it effects his ability to do the job, it does (ala Charlie Kennedy).
Give his mismanagement of the eurocrisis, his incompetence is so bad when he's sober it'd be hard to tell the difference.
It seems to me that it is more democratic and transparent for directly elected MEPs to choose the EU President than national heads of government, some of whom have not been directly elected e.g. Cameron.
Which is only the case, even as an arguement if the public were aware of this...which they clearly weren't.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. The truth is that with the Conservatives self-exiling to the ECR which for all the spin from some on here remains (along with ALDE) a country mile behind the groups that matter, the EPP and the Socialists, only by voting Labour could we had even the slightest say in the choice of the future Commission President.
Was there any point at all, any example where labour made mention of this in the euro election campaign?
Somewhere around the naked tiny Nick Clegg cartoon maybe>
Labour opposed the single candidate standing but declined to nominate a different one, which had they done it would have triggered an EU-wide primary. Then once he'd been selected they asked him not to campaign in the UK. They must have been relieved when Juncker won instead of Schulz, otherwise their group's guy would be in the "most dangerous man in Europe" slot right now.
"Jean-Claude Juncker was forced to resign as prime minister of Luxembourg after he was involved in a lurid spy scandal complete with microphones hidden in wristwatches, that saw the country’s Grand Duke accused of close ties with MI6, and allegations that another member of the royal family was linked to a notorious series of bombings.
With Mr Juncker set to be named president of the European Commission, questions are being asked about the affair that forced him from office less than a year ago. Germany’s Spiegel magazine asked this week why his “entanglement in Luxembourg intelligence affairs” was not “pursued resolutely”.
It emerged last year that Luxembourg’s intelligence service, the SREL, had carried out illegal wiretaps, kept 13,000 secret files on people, and run a fictional counterterror operation as a front to help a Russian oligarch pay $10 million to a Spanish spy."
Are UKIP in a bit of a political bind on this: not wanting to give plaudits to Cameron for standing up to the Gnomes of Brussels - but essentially thinking he is doing the right thing?
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
"The public event also saw Paxman share his opinion of modern politics, saying: "I am in favour of governments getting out of people's lives. Particularly foreign government. "The closer you can take decision-making to the people affected by those decisions, the better.""
The thing is, "the sausage scandal" was actually worth looking into. 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?
Another interesting subject would be the recent rule changes to the practices in slaughterhouses, where there is now no cutting open of suspect carcases. Last year, there were over 35,000 pigs heads taken out of the food chain in the UK (abscesses, cysts, etc.,) alone.
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.
Pig heads are the source of one of the finest cuts of meat in all Christendom. Pigs cheeks are just about the best and tenderest bit of pork one could ever buy. It is a terrible waste just to put them in sausages.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. The truth is that with the Conservatives self-exiling to the ECR which for all the spin from some on here remains (along with ALDE) a country mile behind the groups that matter, the EPP and the Socialists, only by voting Labour could we had even the slightest say in the choice of the future Commission President.
Was there any point at all, any example where labour made mention of this in the euro election campaign?
Somewhere around the naked tiny Nick Clegg cartoon maybe>
Labour opposed the single candidate standing but declined to nominate a different one, which had they done it would have triggered an EU-wide primary. Then once he'd been selected they asked him not to campaign in the UK. They must have been relieved when Juncker won instead of Schulz, otherwise their group's guy would be in the "most dangerous man in Europe" slot right now.
Labour's EU Parliament campaign did not, as I recall, make any mention of the EU.
It seems to me that it is more democratic and transparent for directly elected MEPs to choose the EU President than national heads of government, some of whom have not been directly elected e.g. Cameron.
It is not a matter of federalism. It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
Nor is it an issue of subsidiarity. This is the election of the EU President not local council elections or even national general elections.
I think the consequences for Cameron will be that he very temporarily pleases his right wing and permanently creates a powerful enemy. Not a good deal for him or the UK.
You seem to elevate Europe above the UK. As several posters have already pointed out, this is an arrogation of privilege by the European parliament - it's a bad process and has nothing to do with democracy or accountability.
Europe isn't about left or right wing. It's about whether membership of an increasingly sclerotic body makes sense in light of the UK's broader national interests.
Given that a good chunk of the EU are on the road to complete political and economic integration, I just don't see that it does. I think a fair few European politicians have already reached the same conclusion. It's just taking longer for the penny to drop over here.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. .
Well you certainly wouldn't have got any clues from Labour's Euro-campaign - which didn't even mention Europe! I assume their MEP's are busy in Brussels fulfilling their manifesto - of trying to overturn the bedroom "tax"....
On topic: I think the press are looking at this too much as a short-term issue. If, as seems likely, Cameron is heavily outvoted, what happens over the next year or so? That's easy to answer: every time something goes wrong in the EU - and, let's face it, there are many rocks ahead and the sea is still stormy - Cameron will be able to say 'Told you so'.
"The public event also saw Paxman share his opinion of modern politics, saying: "I am in favour of governments getting out of people's lives. Particularly foreign government. "The closer you can take decision-making to the people affected by those decisions, the better.""
If they were sold entire, this in itself would not be a problem as you would see yourself any abscesses, and make your own choice, but the majority of them are tipped into a process plant, and turned into "pink slime". This used to be turned into animal feed, but the rules became too proscriptive after the BSE outbreak, so now it gets fed to humans (except in countries that have regulations on labeling and use)
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. .
Well you certainly wouldn't have got any clues from Labour's Euro-campaign - which didn't even mention Europe! I assume their MEP's are busy in Brussels fulfilling their manifesto - of trying to overturn the bedroom "tax"....
To be fair, you wouldn't have got any clues from the Conservative campaign either which was all about a referendum which might be held in 2017 assuming enough people believe David Cameron's promise (or are gullible enough to believe it) and vote for him in 2015.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
It does show our alienation and drifting away from the EU that the group that "won" the Euro elections only had a candidate in one of the British seats. The truth is practically no one in the UK voted for Junker. The EPP candidate in London got 28,014 votes. There were no debates in the UK suggesting these elections had anything to do with the Commission Presidency.
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.
By all accounts the EP won't accept anyone but Juncker. Isn't that the sort of refusal to compromise that Eurocrats always criticise the UK for? It's just pure hypocrisy. The EU gets worse every year. It's a blatant power grab by the parliament taking decisions away from national leaders, with the result that the UK, which has absolutely no support for Juncker whatsoever, has no input into the decision at all.
As yes the Cameron "veto". What specifically did he "veto" and what happened next?
(I'll give you a clue, the answers are "nothing" and " what he supposedly vetoed")
Have you read the fiscal compact? It essentially binds all "Contracting Parties" to a common fiscal goal. Perfectly understandable for economies with a shared currency but bonkers (and intrusive) for others. It is federalism red (!) in tooth and claw and Cam was right to reject it.
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."
The non-toys-out-of-pram strategy would have been to let them do the agreement as a normal EU treaty but with an opt-out for the UK. That would have got him what he actually ended up with, plus some (real but modest) concessions on something else he wanted. The problem was that he over-estimated his leverage and the lever snapped, leaving him with nothing where he coud have got something.
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.
The problem we have seen with that strategy is we then have the ECJ either overruling or circumventing the opt-outs to render them useless.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
That's ridiculous. Most centre-right European parties are in the EPP which is explicitly federalist. That's completely different to the centre-right Conservatives here. In countries like France, Hungary and Greece, nasty fascist parties like New Dawn and the National Front have major chunks of the vote, while the BNP have always been marginalised here. The unpleasant parties that can be found in the ECR, EPP and PES all show how different European politics is to here.
Britain has the same democratic right with the EU as British citizens have with the UK Parliament. In fact, probably more rights given what passes for democracy here.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
Are UKIP in a bit of a political bind on this: not wanting to give plaudits to Cameron for standing up to the Gnomes of Brussels - but essentially thinking he is doing the right thing?
I'm a UKIP supporter, and am happy to give credit to Cameron for publicly opposing Juncker. It's also good that he's forcing a public vote, which will reveal the backroom deals provided to each country. It's absurd - imagine cabinet positions being given out on the basis of regional background.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
Britain has the same democratic right with the EU as British citizens have with the UK Parliament. In fact, probably more rights given what passes for democracy here.
Name one part of the UK where less than 1% of citizens voted for Cameron's party.
It seems to me that it is more democratic and transparent for directly elected MEPs to choose the EU President than national heads of government, some of whom have not been directly elected e.g. Cameron.
It is not a matter of federalism. It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
Nor is it an issue of subsidiarity. This is the election of the EU President not local council elections or even national general elections.
I think the consequences for Cameron will be that he very temporarily pleases his right wing and permanently creates a powerful enemy. Not a good deal for him or the UK.
Most MEPs owe their posts to their position on party lists. The input of the voters is very limited. Democratic accountability really doesn't come into it. Few people thought they were voting for a President.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
Canada?
ToryJim's view was overstated, but even Canada has one overwhelming majority language. And most of the French-language people also speak English.
@Socratese In Britain we vote in the main for our existing political parties rather than an EU grouping, the system might be usefully changed in that respect. As for percentage of votes? Under FPT only a limited number of vote make the real difference, for the rest of us the result is more or less a foregone conclusion.
On topic: I think the press are looking at this too much as a short-term issue. If, as seems likely, Cameron is heavily outvoted, what happens over the next year or so? That's easy to answer: every time something goes wrong in the EU - and, let's face it, there are many rocks ahead and the sea is still stormy - Cameron will be able to say 'Told you so'.
Opposing the likely winner and making sure to be on the losing side is the obvious strategy given that events may not be favourable to the winner, and the British press definitely won't. The less obvious bit is the exit threats, which make him look a tit unless he actually does something when he loses, and raises expectations from the antis, yet again. Maybe he didn't mean for it to go public, somebody leaked amd maybe exaggerated it and he figured it was too late to kill the story and he had no option but to roll with it...
@Socratese In Britain we vote in the main for our existing political parties rather than an EU grouping, the system might be usefully changed in that respect. As for percentage of votes? Under FPT only a limited number of vote make the real difference, for the rest of us the result is more or less a foregone conclusion.
I have criticisms of FPTP, but it's still better than the party stitch-up in a party list system. And it's a hell of a lot better than grouping leaders trying to claim democratic legitimacy from a system where most people had never heard of them or their groupings.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
Continuing from Antifranks excellent comment: the members of the EU pushing us towards the exit unconsciously,
and David Ls comment (to paraphrase): about the incompatibility between the essential integration that is pursuant to a single currency and the resistance to that direction of travel by us
It is doubtful that there is a recognition by the European public at large at how much our structures have irrevocably changed since 2008 crisis. If we start with the premise that Euro countries want to keep the currency, then the real question is if it is possible for incompatible units such as the Euro Zone countries with greater and full integration to be cohabiting with independent nations using individual currencies.
I suspect the changes detonated by the 2008 crisis have made it impossible in the long term for non Euro countries to be long term fully equal members.
The scary thing is, this moves me towards thinking Out is right, which is not a position I have adopted, and one that could cause me all sorts of business issues as EU is an important area for me, and I would need to add an EU office and staff, and that costs!
You are very far from alone in that analysis and that conclusion.
Either we have an EU divided into 2 unequally sized camps with a rule book that ensures each camp is treated fairly or, as I have said already, in making the decision not to join the Euro we ultimately made the decision to leave the club.
I think Cameron is right to at least have a go at creating the first scenario but no one should underestimate the scale of the task, particularly when the majority have a completely different set of concerns and priorities.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
That's ridiculous. Most centre-right European parties are in the EPP which is explicitly federalist. That's completely different to the centre-right Conservatives here. In countries like France, Hungary and Greece, nasty fascist parties like New Dawn and the National Front have major chunks of the vote, while the BNP have always been marginalised here. The unpleasant parties that can be found in the ECR, EPP and PES all show how different European politics is to here.
I am relieved to see that you at least consider "our" Conservatives as centre-right.
Good grief, look what Cameron has started! The Russians are warning the Ukranians of "grave consequences" over the EU now. (Typical Russians, no innovation, just copies.....allegedly)
@Socratese In Britain we vote in the main for our existing political parties rather than an EU grouping, the system might be usefully changed in that respect. As for percentage of votes? Under FPT only a limited number of vote make the real difference, for the rest of us the result is more or less a foregone conclusion.
Spot on, Comrade! If, as seems possible, the next government will be elected with the votes of about one in four of the electorate overall then surely the time as come for radical reform.
The UK National Accounts for Q1 2014 have just been published. With their publication comes the third revision to Q1 2014 GDP and a range of other econometrics.
The good news is that the UK has avoided any unexpected or material revisions to the headline GDP number as happened this week in the US. The GDP growth figure for the quarter remains 0.8% the same as the first and second estimates.
Some may have been expecting an upward revision of 0.1% due to the late upgrading of Construction output figures, but offsetting revisions mainly to Services have prevented the GDP nudging over the 0.85% trigger.
Here are the key findings:
• UK gross domestic product (GDP) in volume terms was estimated to have increased by 0.8% between Q4 2013 and Q1 2014, unrevised from the second estimate of GDP published 22 May 2014.
• GDP is estimated to have increased by 1.7% in 2013, compared with 2012, unrevised from the estimate published on 22 May 2014.
• Between Q1 2013 and Q1 2014, GDP in volume terms increased by 3.0%, revised down 0.1 percentage points from the previously published estimate.
• The households’ saving ratio was estimated to be 4.9% in Q1 2014.
• Real households’ disposable income fell by 0.2% between Q4 2013 and Q1 2014.
• GDP in current prices was estimated to have increased by 1.3% between Q4 2013 and Q1 2014, revised up 0.1 percentage points from the previously published estimate.
The fall in real Households' disposable Income index (RHDI) will not be welcome although this index can be volatile as can be seen in the table posted below.
Also noteworthy is the fall in Household Savings Ratio over the past two years. Whilst the ratio is still above its long term trend and not at an alarming level, it does indicate the one of the fuel tanks feeding growth is half depleted even though it rose slightly over the last quarter.
The need for growth in RHDI is highlighted. My guess is that if growth in real disposable income doesn't come from real wages increase over the rest of the year, Osborne may well consider mid year tax cuts to sustain growth.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
Canada?
Made me laugh reminded me of the Spanish inquisition sketch.
Apart from Canada, the UK and the other 30 if you google it just name one
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
Britain has the same democratic right with the EU as British citizens have with the UK Parliament. In fact, probably more rights given what passes for democracy here.
Name one part of the UK where less than 1% of citizens voted for Cameron's party.
The question here is how Cameron responds to this huge snub to not just him, but all four UK parties and the great British public. Will he just take the voting defeat lying down, or will he see the "consequences" he promised through. The obvious answer is to put a serious eurosceptic up for Commissioner. Liam Fox perhaps? Whoever it is, we need someone who is seriously willing to leave the EU if they continue to refuse to listen.
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your response late last night to my post about the stability of the polling. You asked me "Why do you think polls will shift substantially either way?"
I think you've slightly misunderstood what I was saying. My point, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, is much simpler than that. I wasn't saying that the polls will shift substantially. I was saying that, on past form, there is often a considerable difference between the polls ten months from an election and the final result. Professor Fisher has done the statistical analysis on that, based on past UK elections, and comes up with his central forecast (based on polls only) . He's run the model again today:
The most crucial thing to notice is the that the error bars on the forecast Con vote share are plus or minus 7.8%.
In other words, in past elections, polls have shifted substantially over the ten months before the election. You might be right that this time they won't; as you rightly point out, it's a small sample, and every election is different. That's a political judgement, and in making it, you need to assess subjectively lots of factors, such as the economy and the electability of Ed Miliband. Different observers will have different opinions on that.
However, what you can't conclude is that, on past form, the current polls are likely to be close to the final result. They might be, but, typically, they won't. What is more, you'd reach the same conclusion from other countries and other electoral systems - Angela Merkel's reelection, for example, or Holyrood 2011.
In other words, anyone betting on the election on the assumption that the current polls indicate what the final result will be is making just as brave a punt as someone betting on the assumption that the Tories will be 5 points ahead, or ten points behind.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
Speaking the same language isn't necessary for democracy. The issues and personalities translate.
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
I cannot think of an example of a successful democracy that doesn't operate on the basis of a single language.
It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
It really isn't. How can you have a demos when people don't even speak the same language let alone share a broad political outlook. The whole thing is a bad taste joke.
We will be giving it a go here in 20 years or so on current trends
Interest rates will be around 2.5%, this is apparently because the old normal is not the same as the new normal. (and by extension Carney knows all about the new normal). On the plus side he is not overly worried about house prices till after 2017. I may be being slightly cynical here, but an awful lot has been put off till after the next election?
The liberals have joined the EP's grand coalition. Even if we WERE voting for party groupings, what the hell would be the point if they're all going to join together at the end anyway?
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your response late last night to my post about the stability of the polling. You asked me "Why do you think polls will shift substantially either way?"
I think you've slightly misunderstood what I was saying. My point, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, is much simpler than that. I wasn't saying that the polls will shift substantially. I was saying that, on past form, there is often a considerable difference between the polls ten months from an election and the final result. Professor Fisher has done the statistical analysis on that, based on past UK elections, and comes up with his central forecast (based on polls only) . He's run the model again today:
The most crucial thing to notice is the that the error bars on the forecast Con vote share are plus or minus 7.8%.
In other words, in past elections, polls have shifted substantially over the ten months before the election. You might be right that this time they won't; as you rightly point out, it's a small sample, and every election is different. That's a political judgement, and in making it, you need to assess subjectively lots of factors, such as the economy and the electability of Ed Miliband. Different observers will have different opinions on that.
However, what you can't conclude is that, on past form, the current polls are likely to be close to the final result. They might be, but, typically, they won't. What is more, you'd reach the same conclusion from other countries and other electoral systems - Angela Merkel's reelection, for example, or Holyrood 2011.
In other words, anyone betting on the election on the assumption that the current polls indicate what the final result will be is making just as brave a punt as someone betting on the assumption that the Tories will be 5 points ahead, or ten points behind.
From mid 2012 onwards the German polls clearly indicated Angela Merkel's reelection and from the end of December 2012 barely changed .
That's ridiculous. Most centre-right European parties are in the EPP which is explicitly federalist. That's completely different to the centre-right Conservatives here. In countries like France, Hungary and Greece, nasty fascist parties like New Dawn and the National Front have major chunks of the vote, while the BNP have always been marginalised here. The unpleasant parties that can be found in the ECR, EPP and PES all show how different European politics is to here.
There are a lot of reasons why British and European politics have diverged so sharply. Some are cultural and historical but not all. There was a time (not so long ago) when the British Conservatives and the German CDU were close allies (Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl). Thatcher was happy to be part of the Single European Market and did take us into the ERM.
I don't think we can fully appreciate the severity of the economic shock in places like Spain and Greece and the political impact this has had. Put simply, it destroyed lives, hopes and dreams and left the victims angry and resentful and that's why the siren calls of extreme parties resonated (as they always do in these circumstances).
For cultural and historical reasons, Britain has not (to the same extent) embraced some of the more odious racial sentiments prevalent in parts of Europe.
The Liberals would gain some traction on other issues as part of the deal. Coalition politics is the inevitable outcome of PR elections. Those kippers wanting it should be aware that compromise does not mean getting your own way.
Juncker outclasses our politicians as much as group D did our footballers.
The liberals have joined the EP's grand coalition. Even if we WERE voting for party groupings, what the hell would be the point if they're all going to join together at the end anyway?
From mid 2012 onwards the German polls clearly indicated Angela Merkel's reelection and from the end of December 2012 barely changed .
I know that - my point (why is this so hard for people to understand?) is that in various elections, over multiple jurisdictions, opinion polls are poor predictors of the final result over the kinds of period we are talking about. In the particular case of Angela Merkel's reelection, it is true that they shifted earlier than 10 months before. That doesn't alter the conclusion, which is a statistical one about the expected volatility of opinion over time.
As it happens, I had exactly the same exchange with Nick P about Angela Merkel, at a time when she was far behind in the polls and he thought this showed she'd lose. He was making the same assumption then that he's making now, albeit over a longer timecale.
The question, therefore, is at what point should you start assuming the polls are a good predictor - clearly they will be a week before the election, but are they now? The answer to that is: look at Stephen Fisher's weekly blogpost. He's done all the work for you, and makes it available for free.
He has to be given a concesion with other EU appointments - a win because he was never going to stop Junker anyway so was not conceding anything in return.
Interest rates will be around 2.5%, this is apparently because the old normal is not the same as the new normal. (and by extension Carney knows all about the new normal). On the plus side he is not overly worried about house prices till after 2017. I may be being slightly cynical here, but an awful lot has been put off till after the next election?
I heard Carney on R4 this morning just after 8. He is worth listening to. Getting him to be governor was one of the smartest things that Osborne has done.
What I understood from him was that going forward we are going to have a financial system that is much better capitalised. The cost of that extra capitalisation will be passed on to borrowers making borrowing relatively more expensive (the banks will require higher margins) with the result that the level of interest rates for a "normal" supply of credit will be lower than in the past. It does not mean that the mortgage rate will be significantly lower than it might have been with the old "normal" of 5%, it just means the composition of the ultimate cost has changed.
Carney was clear that we are going to have a slow and gradual increase in rates to this new normal over a period of years to 2017. The slowness recognised that the recovery has a long way to go and households in particular are still over borrowed and vulnerable to increases in rates.
Recovery from the collapse of 2008 and the chronic misjudgements that led to it is not a done deal, not by a long chalk. But we do seem to be on the right road.
The range of Tories with a five point lead, to a ten point deficit is a large one, but it does make it almost certain that Labour would be the largest party and probably a working majority.
Not all results within the range are equally likely either, those in the centre of the range are most likely. I think the Miliband factor is now priced in. While I do not think it will be a great government, the alternative of a government tearing itself apart over europe is not appealing either.
From mid 2012 onwards the German polls clearly indicated Angela Merkel's reelection and from the end of December 2012 barely changed .
I know that - my point (why is this so hard for people to understand?) is that in various elections, over multiple jurisdictions, opinion polls are poor predictors of the final result over the kinds of period we are talking about. In the particular case of Angela Merkel's reelection, it is true that they shifted earlier than 10 months before. That doesn't alter the conclusion, which is a statistical one about the expected volatility of opinion over time.
As it happens, I had exactly the same exchange with Nick P about Angela Merkel, at a time when she was far behind in the polls and he thought this showed she'd lose. He was making the same assumption then that he's making now, albeit over a longer timecale.
He said: "What I am telling you is that the old normal is not the new normal." Sounds like a vague attempt at a well known phrase by G.Brown? Carney, Brown and Osbourne, peas in a household debt pod.
I don't think we can fully appreciate the severity of the economic shock in places like Spain and Greece and the political impact this has had. Put simply, it destroyed lives, hopes and dreams and left the victims angry and resentful and that's why the siren calls of extreme parties resonated (as they always do in these circumstances).
Oh, I've appreciated it very clearly, and have been telling everyone who will listen about the devastation of lives for years and years. And the suffering is overwhelmingly due to Euro membership - just compare it with Iceland and the UK, who have bounced back relatively quickly despite financial crises.
There's a lot of guilty men responsible for this suffering - and Jean-Claude Juncker is one of them.
That's ridiculous. Most centre-right European parties are in the EPP which is explicitly federalist. That's completely different to the centre-right Conservatives here. In countries like France, Hungary and Greece, nasty fascist parties like New Dawn and the National Front have major chunks of the vote, while the BNP have always been marginalised here. The unpleasant parties that can be found in the ECR, EPP and PES all show how different European politics is to here.
There are a lot of reasons why British and European politics have diverged so sharply. Some are cultural and historical but not all. There was a time (not so long ago) when the British Conservatives and the German CDU were close allies (Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl). Thatcher was happy to be part of the Single European Market and did take us into the ERM.
I don't think we can fully appreciate the severity of the economic shock in places like Spain and Greece and the political impact this has had. Put simply, it destroyed lives, hopes and dreams and left the victims angry and resentful and that's why the siren calls of extreme parties resonated (as they always do in these circumstances).
For cultural and historical reasons, Britain has not (to the same extent) embraced some of the more odious racial sentiments prevalent in parts of Europe.
Ave Stodgius
Britain has also avoided some of the more extreme fiscal consolidation measures forced on the peripheral EZ countries. We have not seen substantial cuts in nominal pensions and social benefits for example. Nor have we seen adult unemployment rates at 25% and youth rates at over 50%.
But the short, sharp, shock treatments applied to, say, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are now resulting in downsized and restructured economies growing again. So there is visible gain for all the pain. This may mean that the growth in votes for extremist protest parties in these countries may abate as their economies recover.
The problem countries are Italy and France, where little structural reform has been implemented (particularly in their labour markets) and tax rises to plug deficits are just destroying growth. Death by slow suffocation to these two large countries is probably much more dangerous to the whole EU than any short-lived protest in the periphery.
The problem with the Juncker appointment is that it comes with budgetary concessions to both France and Italy which will enable them continue down the wrong economic path believing further borrowing, this time underwritten by the whole EU membership, will solve their problems.
The old joke about the stopped Soviet train applies. The solution being applied is that of Brezhnev: "let's pull down the blinds and pretend we are moving". No Leonid, now is the time to shoot the drivers!
@Charles 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)
Or in your case it's the fault of the those vile British. I guess often it's bankers, the rich, Europeans in general or maybe Christians when the mood takes you. We all scapegoat just the left targets the wrong people.
Spain and Portugal are not due to recover to pre-crisis employment levels for another two decades. The growth you are talking about is a piddling fraction of what they've lost. This is entirely because they can't devalue and can't have expansive monetary policy.
Off topic but as Avery is around - what should we make of Ukraine now signing the arrangement with the EU, which is what Putin and his gang were so desperate to avoid?
OK, he's got Crimea and continues to stir up trouble in the East, but has Vlad emerged as the ultimate loser?
The release points out this is the first time there has been an increase in business investment and gross fixed capital formation for 5 consecutive quarters since 1998. There was an upward revision of 2.3 percentage points between the provisional and revised publication in the growth rate of business investment in Q1 2014.
It is mildly disappointing that this did not result in an upward revision of GDP growth but it bodes well for the future.
Comments
Many European countries see it as entirely to their benefit to pursue political and economic integration. More power to 'em.
Some will see it as a heroic failure, others will see it as an embarrassment, and the media will largely be ignored on the subject?
Pretty much that's the case, The British system is the fairest and most equitable in the world. (SeanT said so). so Europe should just follow our lead.
"Fog in Channel, Europe cut off!" as the headline allegedly said?
I assume that the ECR does not agree with that, and did not have a candidate.
Their founding constitution includes "opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity."
http://www.aecr.eu/legal/
I'm not sure the voter in the street understands quite what is so objectionable about Junckers, and nor is it clear that whoever does get the job will not also have these (or worse) characteristics.
Churchill wasn't adverse to a cigar and brandy. It didn't seem to stop him from doing his job?
I wonder how many of those papers wrote him a glowing obituary with only a reference to it as a "justifiable foible"?
Inexperienced / Man of the past
Drinks too much / Boring nobody
Faceless technocrat / Can't manage an organization
etc etc
Some of the voters in the street surely? The rest just ignored it as best they could.
A bit like when the spoiled kid next door has a tantrum.
Not to mention the pressures and strains of leading the country through a World War would probably have driven most people to an escape through some means.
and David Ls comment (to paraphrase):
about the incompatibility between the essential integration that is pursuant to a single currency and the resistance to that direction of travel by us
It is doubtful that there is a recognition by the European public at large at how much our structures have irrevocably changed since 2008 crisis. If we start with the premise that Euro countries want to keep the currency, then the real question is if it is possible for incompatible units such as the Euro Zone countries with greater and full integration to be cohabiting with independent nations using individual currencies.
I suspect the changes detonated by the 2008 crisis have made it impossible in the long term for non Euro countries to be long term fully equal members.
The scary thing is, this moves me towards thinking Out is right, which is not a position I have adopted, and one that could cause me all sorts of business issues as EU is an important area for me, and I would need to add an EU office and staff, and that costs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament
I never realized you were one of the Obit. writers.....but thanks for proving the point.
His car turned up and he staggered, literally staggered out, clutching the car for support as he edged round it.
He then straightened himself out, snapped to, and marched straight-as-a-die into the venue before giving a tack-sharp speech including fielding questions for the subsequent hour and a half.
Off-topic, anyone for a France - Germany quarter final with the winner playing Brazil in the semis with Argentina - Holland the other semi ? We'll see.
On-topic, for all the defiant bluff and bluster from some on here and elsewhere, the truth is this has all been about Cameron wanting to "look tough" on Europe as he sees a significant segment of the Conservative vote shift to UKIP and he knows he needs them back if he is going to remain Prime Minister.
OGH's point about most people not realising the significance of the elections in terms of choosing the next Commission President was interesting - I hadn't appreciated it. The truth is that with the Conservatives self-exiling to the ECR which for all the spin from some on here remains (along with ALDE) a country mile behind the groups that matter, the EPP and the Socialists, only by voting Labour could we had even the slightest say in the choice of the future Commission President.
Let me be clear - I'm no fan of Juncker in terms of what I read and he's clearly not what those of us who want to see a reformed EU want but David Cameron and the ECR failed to put up a credible dynamic centre-right reformer who could have been sold to the EPP as a viable candidate.
It's also clear that Juncker is no political lightweight - he's outmanoeuvred Cameron by playing politics and has bought off Cameron's potential allies by a superb campaign of promises which is, after all, whether we like it or not, how politics works in the real world.
"Anyone know who Cameron wants for the post?
Doesn't Cleggy fetch it for him?
Somewhere around the naked tiny Nick Clegg cartoon maybe>
It is not a matter of federalism. It is a matter of democratic accountability and the new process is a step in the right direction.
Nor is it an issue of subsidiarity. This is the election of the EU President not local council elections or even national general elections.
I think the consequences for Cameron will be that he very temporarily pleases his right wing and permanently creates a powerful enemy. Not a good deal for him or the UK.
It wasn't being seen like that in the rest of the EU either. 92% of the European public had not heard of either the major parties or the preferred candidates. This is just a plot by the eurocrat elite to interpret the results of 28 national elections as somehow giving them legitimacy.
Juncker has neither democratic legitimacy, nor competents, nor morals. He's the the muppet that oversaw the Eurogroup response to their crisis, which is still no closer to being resolved four years later. Some of his choice quotes are "when the going gets tough, you have to lie", " Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" and on referendum results, "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'". If he gets the job it will just show how the EU is determined to push ahead with power grabs and federation and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
The Juncker problem is as much about a bad process as a bad candidate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/luxembourg/10929711/Jean-Claude-Juncker-the-lurid-spy-scandal-that-forced-him-from-office.html
"Jean-Claude Juncker was forced to resign as prime minister of Luxembourg after he was involved in a lurid spy scandal complete with microphones hidden in wristwatches, that saw the country’s Grand Duke accused of close ties with MI6, and allegations that another member of the royal family was linked to a notorious series of bombings.
With Mr Juncker set to be named president of the European Commission, questions are being asked about the affair that forced him from office less than a year ago.
Germany’s Spiegel magazine asked this week why his “entanglement in Luxembourg intelligence affairs” was not “pursued resolutely”.
It emerged last year that Luxembourg’s intelligence service, the SREL, had carried out illegal wiretaps, kept 13,000 secret files on people, and run a fictional counterterror operation as a front to help a Russian oligarch pay $10 million to a Spanish spy."
Are UKIP in a bit of a political bind on this: not wanting to give plaudits to Cameron for standing up to the Gnomes of Brussels - but essentially thinking he is doing the right thing?
"The public event also saw Paxman share his opinion of modern politics, saying: "I am in favour of governments getting out of people's lives. Particularly foreign government.
"The closer you can take decision-making to the people affected by those decisions, the better.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10929289/Newsnight-is-made-by-13-year-olds-says-Jeremy-Paxman.html
Devious buggers these security services Just as well ours are above reproach.
Europe isn't about left or right wing. It's about whether membership of an increasingly sclerotic body makes sense in light of the UK's broader national interests.
Given that a good chunk of the EU are on the road to complete political and economic integration, I just don't see that it does. I think a fair few European politicians have already reached the same conclusion. It's just taking longer for the penny to drop over here.
If they were sold entire, this in itself would not be a problem as you would see yourself any abscesses, and make your own choice, but the majority of them are tipped into a process plant, and turned into "pink slime". This used to be turned into animal feed, but the rules became too proscriptive after the BSE outbreak, so now it gets fed to humans (except in countries that have regulations on labeling and use)
I would say that the broad political outlook across Europe is similar to that across the UK from left to right, from authoritarian to liberal. In fact the EPP, which is the grouping most similar to the UK Tories, got the most votes and therefore gets to choose the leader. It is entirely analogous to how the system operates in the UK.
Britain has the same democratic right with the EU as British citizens have with the UK Parliament.
In fact, probably more rights given what passes for democracy here.
http://www.broxtowelabour.com/2014/05/14/answering-your-questions-about-the-euro-elections/
http://www.broxtowelabour.com/2014/05/21/the-european-elections-thursday-22nd-may/
In Britain we vote in the main for our existing political parties rather than an EU grouping, the system might be usefully changed in that respect.
As for percentage of votes? Under FPT only a limited number of vote make the real difference, for the rest of us the result is more or less a foregone conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_in_India
Either we have an EU divided into 2 unequally sized camps with a rule book that ensures each camp is treated fairly or, as I have said already, in making the decision not to join the Euro we ultimately made the decision to leave the club.
I think Cameron is right to at least have a go at creating the first scenario but no one should underestimate the scale of the task, particularly when the majority have a completely different set of concerns and priorities.
The Russians are warning the Ukranians of "grave consequences" over the EU now.
(Typical Russians, no innovation, just copies.....allegedly)
The UK National Accounts for Q1 2014 have just been published. With their publication comes the third revision to Q1 2014 GDP and a range of other econometrics.
The good news is that the UK has avoided any unexpected or material revisions to the headline GDP number as happened this week in the US. The GDP growth figure for the quarter remains 0.8% the same as the first and second estimates.
Some may have been expecting an upward revision of 0.1% due to the late upgrading of Construction output figures, but offsetting revisions mainly to Services have prevented the GDP nudging over the 0.85% trigger.
Here are the key findings:
• UK gross domestic product (GDP) in volume terms was estimated to have increased by 0.8% between Q4 2013 and Q1 2014, unrevised from the second estimate of GDP published 22 May 2014.
• GDP is estimated to have increased by 1.7% in 2013, compared with 2012, unrevised from the estimate published on 22 May 2014.
• Between Q1 2013 and Q1 2014, GDP in volume terms increased by 3.0%, revised down 0.1 percentage points from the previously published estimate.
• The households’ saving ratio was estimated to be 4.9% in Q1 2014.
• Real households’ disposable income fell by 0.2% between Q4 2013 and Q1 2014.
• GDP in current prices was estimated to have increased by 1.3% between Q4 2013 and Q1 2014, revised up 0.1 percentage points from the previously published estimate.
[to be continued]
The fall in real Households' disposable Income index (RHDI) will not be welcome although this index can be volatile as can be seen in the table posted below.
Also noteworthy is the fall in Household Savings Ratio over the past two years. Whilst the ratio is still above its long term trend and not at an alarming level, it does indicate the one of the fuel tanks feeding growth is half depleted even though it rose slightly over the last quarter.
The need for growth in RHDI is highlighted. My guess is that if growth in real disposable income doesn't come from real wages increase over the rest of the year, Osborne may well consider mid year tax cuts to sustain growth.
I think you've slightly misunderstood what I was saying. My point, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, is much simpler than that. I wasn't saying that the polls will shift substantially. I was saying that, on past form, there is often a considerable difference between the polls ten months from an election and the final result. Professor Fisher has done the statistical analysis on that, based on past UK elections, and comes up with his central forecast (based on polls only) . He's run the model again today:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/
The most crucial thing to notice is the that the error bars on the forecast Con vote share are plus or minus 7.8%.
In other words, in past elections, polls have shifted substantially over the ten months before the election. You might be right that this time they won't; as you rightly point out, it's a small sample, and every election is different. That's a political judgement, and in making it, you need to assess subjectively lots of factors, such as the economy and the electability of Ed Miliband. Different observers will have different opinions on that.
However, what you can't conclude is that, on past form, the current polls are likely to be close to the final result. They might be, but, typically, they won't. What is more, you'd reach the same conclusion from other countries and other electoral systems - Angela Merkel's reelection, for example, or Holyrood 2011.
In other words, anyone betting on the election on the assumption that the current polls indicate what the final result will be is making just as brave a punt as someone betting on the assumption that the Tories will be 5 points ahead, or ten points behind.
On the plus side he is not overly worried about house prices till after 2017.
I may be being slightly cynical here, but an awful lot has been put off till after the next election?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28053045
I don't think we can fully appreciate the severity of the economic shock in places like Spain and Greece and the political impact this has had. Put simply, it destroyed lives, hopes and dreams and left the victims angry and resentful and that's why the siren calls of extreme parties resonated (as they always do in these circumstances).
For cultural and historical reasons, Britain has not (to the same extent) embraced some of the more odious racial sentiments prevalent in parts of Europe.
"what the hell would be the point if they're all going to join together at the end anyway"
Funnily enough, a lot of Liberal voters felt the same way after our General Election.
Juncker outclasses our politicians as much as group D did our footballers.
As it happens, I had exactly the same exchange with Nick P about Angela Merkel, at a time when she was far behind in the polls and he thought this showed she'd lose. He was making the same assumption then that he's making now, albeit over a longer timecale.
The question, therefore, is at what point should you start assuming the polls are a good predictor - clearly they will be a week before the election, but are they now? The answer to that is: look at Stephen Fisher's weekly blogpost. He's done all the work for you, and makes it available for free.
Either he stops Junker - a win or
He has to be given a concesion with other EU appointments - a win because he was never going to stop Junker anyway so was not conceding anything in return.
What I understood from him was that going forward we are going to have a financial system that is much better capitalised. The cost of that extra capitalisation will be passed on to borrowers making borrowing relatively more expensive (the banks will require higher margins) with the result that the level of interest rates for a "normal" supply of credit will be lower than in the past. It does not mean that the mortgage rate will be significantly lower than it might have been with the old "normal" of 5%, it just means the composition of the ultimate cost has changed.
Carney was clear that we are going to have a slow and gradual increase in rates to this new normal over a period of years to 2017. The slowness recognised that the recovery has a long way to go and households in particular are still over borrowed and vulnerable to increases in rates.
Recovery from the collapse of 2008 and the chronic misjudgements that led to it is not a done deal, not by a long chalk. But we do seem to be on the right road.
Not all results within the range are equally likely either, those in the centre of the range are most likely. I think the Miliband factor is now priced in. While I do not think it will be a great government, the alternative of a government tearing itself apart over europe is not appealing either.
He said: "What I am telling you is that the old normal is not the new normal."
Sounds like a vague attempt at a well known phrase by G.Brown?
Carney, Brown and Osbourne, peas in a household debt pod.
There's a lot of guilty men responsible for this suffering - and Jean-Claude Juncker is one of them.
Britain has also avoided some of the more extreme fiscal consolidation measures forced on the peripheral EZ countries. We have not seen substantial cuts in nominal pensions and social benefits for example. Nor have we seen adult unemployment rates at 25% and youth rates at over 50%.
But the short, sharp, shock treatments applied to, say, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are now resulting in downsized and restructured economies growing again. So there is visible gain for all the pain. This may mean that the growth in votes for extremist protest parties in these countries may abate as their economies recover.
The problem countries are Italy and France, where little structural reform has been implemented (particularly in their labour markets) and tax rises to plug deficits are just destroying growth. Death by slow suffocation to these two large countries is probably much more dangerous to the whole EU than any short-lived protest in the periphery.
The problem with the Juncker appointment is that it comes with budgetary concessions to both France and Italy which will enable them continue down the wrong economic path believing further borrowing, this time underwritten by the whole EU membership, will solve their problems.
The old joke about the stopped Soviet train applies. The solution being applied is that of Brezhnev: "let's pull down the blinds and pretend we are moving". No Leonid, now is the time to shoot the drivers!
Spain and Portugal are not due to recover to pre-crisis employment levels for another two decades. The growth you are talking about is a piddling fraction of what they've lost. This is entirely because they can't devalue and can't have expansive monetary policy.
OK, he's got Crimea and continues to stir up trouble in the East, but has Vlad emerged as the ultimate loser?
How are we getting such strong growth in such circumstance? Well, in part, from the real good news which is the significant increase in business investment: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-invest/business-investment/q1-2014-revised-results/stb.html?WT.mc_id=5dfaa5c313550c47d46f34fe513b596c&WT.z_taxonomy=econ&WT.z_format=headline&WT.z_content=post
The release points out this is the first time there has been an increase in business investment and gross fixed capital formation for 5 consecutive quarters since 1998. There was an upward revision of 2.3 percentage points between the provisional and revised publication in the growth rate of business investment in Q1 2014.
It is mildly disappointing that this did not result in an upward revision of GDP growth but it bodes well for the future.