''What's the point of being in a club, when they're only interested in your wallet, and don't want to listen to anything else you want to do?''
Its worse than that. They don't just want to take our money, they want to reduce our ability to pay the bills they are charging (via the financial transaction tax).
They want to beggar the UK. They want to subjugate it.
Socrates - why should they agree to what we want? If there's a critical mass in the EU for Juncker then he'll get the post. You can't please everyone. Tough luck.
I think the point is that we never get what we want, because ultimately the aims and values and direction of travel for the EU is fundamentally at odds with where the UK wants to go, and what it wants to do.
The EU, in very simple terms, wants to be a single country, a United States of Europe, and the UK doesn't.
And Cameron has said he does not agree with ever closer union and wants to negotiate a different position for the UK. Cameron agrees with you. Does Milliband? Do Labour? if we get a labour govt will be get ever closer ot morte distant from the EU. Surely this is what the voters have to consideder How do you bet they will decide?
'The EPP, of course, was the grouping that the UK Conservative party used to belong to. That ended following Cameron becoming Tory leader. ' Cameron did the right thing then in taking the tories out of that group.
Does anyone out there think that even if the Tories were still part of the EPP we wouldn't be in the same position with Juncker?
No..it would have just been another battle he would have lost.
''But the Parliament is refusing to do that. It's saying "our way or the high way, and screw British concerns".
It's worse than that. The parliament is saying 'we share your concerns but we've been bribed to ignore them'.
Not to worry. History shows that the more isolated we are on Europe, the righter we tend to be in the long run.
Maybe that's what is causing some pause for thought.
I don't think I've ever seen the EU be so blatant in their disregard for us. The entire public vote and political class of this country opposed Juncker, and the EU has responded with "we won't even consider anyone else, so screw you."
''But the Parliament is refusing to do that. It's saying "our way or the high way, and screw British concerns".
It's worse than that. The parliament is saying 'we share your concerns but we've been bribed to ignore them'.
Not to worry. History shows that the more isolated we are on Europe, the righter we tend to be in the long run.
Maybe that's what is causing some pause for thought.
I don't think I've ever seen the EU be so blatant in their disregard for us. The entire public vote and political class of this country opposed Juncker, and the EU has responded with "we won't even consider anyone else, so screw you."
Have you not read Mr Smithson's article? He points out they actually had debates about this in Europe. They are pursuing things based on the debates they had. Meanwhile all we got was how upset Farage was at listening to foreigners on the tube.
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.
Sorry for late reply, Socrates, but I got diverted to Bournemouth.
I don't disagree with this but it is not a viable option for Spain and Portugal. They are politically wedded to the Eurozone and must live within the constraints of the marriage.
I know you will answer that there are times when you must think the unthinkable, but really this has to come from the centre not the periphery.
Unless it happens (and I agree it should) then the Iberians must survive or die in accordance with the rules of Sparta.
@DavidL You would think that would be the way to go, especially with George's planned saving on social security. I think however he will load it where he loaded it before.
The country spends upwards of £35bn per year on giving money to people who work in the form of tax credits, and then another £15bn in housing benefits. That is not sustainable. Social security is supposed to be a safety net, Gordon Brown cynically turned it into a way of life, even for the middle classes.
The people in receipt of these benefits and credits are usually on middle income. It is not necessary for them to have their lifestyle funded by the tax payer.
Bang on. A chapo on the radio who earnt £50k down south came on yesterday and although he didn't have much sympathy from some other people on the radio he had a problem in that he had PLANNED for his Child Benefit financially speaking to continue. That is the big problem with middle-high earning benefit programs, people plan round it as part of their regular income, so they may be overcommitted on rental/mortgage when they are taken away.
The mere concept of rewarding people for having sex and producing offspring is ludicrous. Tax breaks for marriage are ludicrous. State funded lifestyle is ludicrous. Wealthy middle class people with two cars, a house and all the kit and caboodle of the modern world holding out the begging bowl to the State and drooling 'gimme more, for I have loins' is disgusting. Labours great trick was convincing well-fed, comfortable people that they are poor and need a crutch from the State. Teach them thrift, teach them industriousness, teach them to value the pound in their pocket.
The counter argument being that with a unfunded pension system and a declining ratio of workers:pensioners the country as a whole benefits from encouraging the birth of new future productive members of society.
I'd probably cap it at 3 children (ie just above the replacement rate of 2.2) - you could probably cap at 2.5 as well, but if there is a positive externality it may be that an incentive scheme makes sense.
Socrates - why should they agree to what we want? If there's a critical mass in the EU for Juncker then he'll get the post. You can't please everyone. Tough luck.
I think the point is that we never get what we want, because ultimately the aims and values and direction of travel for the EU is fundamentally at odds with where the UK wants to go, and what it wants to do.
The EU, in very simple terms, wants to be a single country, a United States of Europe, and the UK doesn't.
And Cameron has said he does not agree with ever closer union and wants to negotiate a different position for the UK. Cameron agrees with you. Does Milliband? Do Labour? if we get a labour govt will be get ever closer ot morte distant from the EU. Surely this is what the voters have to consideder How do you bet they will decide?
Miliband (and labour) never want to mention Europe if they can avoid it, unless it's to damage the tories (like in this case).
As to what Miliband personally believes? Who knows (as is the case on a great many things), my personal opinion is that he would like more Europe (like the Euro etc), but knows he can't sell it to the people.
'The EPP, of course, was the grouping that the UK Conservative party used to belong to. That ended following Cameron becoming Tory leader. ' Cameron did the right thing then in taking the tories out of that group.
Does anyone out there think that even if the Tories were still part of the EPP we wouldn't be in the same position with Juncker?
No..it would have just been another battle he would have lost.
I certainly think the Tories could have stopped Juncker and got somebody else. As with a lot of things, the trick is to do it before anybody else is committed to the decision; Once you're in a big, public You vs World+Dog argument, that normally means you've already lost.
That said, I'm not sure that they'd have wanted any other plausible EPP candidate. It comes down to how exceptionally bad you think Juncker is; My view is that the specific objections to Juncker are entirely manufactured, and if anybody else had won the election, the Tories would now be pushing Juncker as the low-tax, conservative, UK-friendly compromise candidate.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
And let's remember this is all happening because of the Lisbon Treaty, negotiated by Blair (who also gave away half of our rebate and got back nothing whatsoever) and signed (by the back door, like the coward he always was) by Brown.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
And let's remember this is all happening because of the Lisbon Treaty, negotiated by Blair (who also gave away half of our rebate and got back nothing whatsoever) and signed (by the back door, like the coward he always was) by Brown.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
“yerbut" as it stands Milliband’s going to get the worst of both worlds. Cameron’s going to look silly and Milliband can’t do anything about it.
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
Mr Sox is of course correct that a government which is handing out £100bn+ of goodies more than it is taking in tax is statistically more likely to have more recipients than contributors.
My concern is that this is the true "structural" deficit. When we have a system that encourages marginal employment as ours does by paying in work benefits at anything like the current rate deficit reduction becomes almost impossible.
OTOH I think Max's solutions are somewhat simplistic. If you are on a low wage additional tax relief is of little or no benefit.
If you do not subsidise marginal employment you end up with the mass unemployment you see in the EZ and have seen here in the past.
There is a social good in having children growing up in families where work is the norm. We have tried the alternative and it was not good.
So encouraging marginal work is a good thing. It is really a question of how much of a good thing we can afford. The simple answer is about £100bn less than now but even we do not spend that much on in work benefits so where does the additional money come from?
This is why I think taxes will have to go up. If we want to spend £120bn a year on the NHS, pay pensions, have some sort of armed forces, have police, courts and prisons and social work to care for the feckless, the incapacitated and the old we have to pay for it. At the moment we are not.
We are not only loading up our children with student debt we are eating their lunch and it really needs to stop.
I listened to Laws' keynote address. The comments underneath on Libdemvoice were not complimentary to say the least. He represents a small fringe within the Party that has, somehow, managed to take it over. The Party is struggling though and once Clegg is gone I'd be amazed if they didn't abandon the ultra liberalism. Ultimately I think the attempt to change the ideology of the Party will be seen to have failed. That is unless the Party keeps losing left wing members and starts gaining 'Orange Book' types and they recover their position in the polls. Neither looks likely right now.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
And let's remember this is all happening because of the Lisbon Treaty, negotiated by Blair (who also gave away half of our rebate and got back nothing whatsoever) and signed (by the back door, like the coward he always was) by Brown.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
“yerbut" as it stands Milliband’s going to get the worst of both worlds. Cameron’s going to look silly and Milliband can’t do anything about it.
Not convinced he will look silly - if he manages to make it a point of principle. "I stood up for what I believe in but was outvoted" is an ok line to have
Miliband had to choose between "rolling over" or a blunted attack. He chose to forego an opportunity to capitalise on the situation to defang a more potent counter attack. Where it will be interesting is if the Labour MEPs vote for Juncker.
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
What mandate and what importance?
A majority of EU governments that control the EU parliament essentially choose the commission president, current the majority (eurozone) is controlled by Germany. And always the person selected is a failure and a puppet with as little political weight as possible so that he will always do what his masters say (or he wont be reappointed or worst case fired from the post) .
That position will never become independent of governments as long as national party heads select the candidates for the EU parliament (so that those elected will do what the party leaders in their countries want) and the commission members are appointed by governments (so that they will do what their governments want).
The president of the commission has and will continue to have mostly symbolic power since all the decisions are made by someone else for him before he even knows it (more like the Queen) and only serves on the pleasure of the most powerfull country in europe.
After the summit is over and the deal is done Cameron is going to come out and face the worlds media - What he say's then and in The House of Commons on Monday - Will be very interesting.
Anyone see Jack Straw's interview on Newsnight last night? Didn't criticise Cameron for opposing Juncker, but said he went about it in a totally incompetent way. If you're going to play the man not the ball make sure no-one sees you. Labour should be making clear that Cameron didn't fail because he a sucker for noble if improbable causes but because he's a useless politician.
I listened to Laws' keynote address. The comments underneath on Libdemvoice were not complimentary to say the least. He represents a small fringe within the Party that has, somehow, managed to take it over. The Party is struggling though and once Clegg is gone I'd be amazed if they didn't abandon the ultra liberalism. Ultimately I think the attempt to change the ideology of the Party will be seen to have failed. That is unless the Party keeps losing left wing members and starts gaining 'Orange Book' types and they recover their position in the polls. Neither looks likely right now.
I was there for the whole conference. The message i took from it was that different service delivery solutions were fine, but what does it actually mean in practice for the recipient?
I thought that Tim Montgomery and Maajid Nawaz were the most interesting speakers, which tells its own story.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
And let's remember this is all happening because of the Lisbon Treaty, negotiated by Blair (who also gave away half of our rebate and got back nothing whatsoever) and signed (by the back door, like the coward he always was) by Brown.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
“yerbut" as it stands Milliband’s going to get the worst of both worlds. Cameron’s going to look silly and Milliband can’t do anything about it.
Not convinced he will look silly - if he manages to make it a point of principle. "I stood up for what I believe in but was outvoted" is an ok line to have
Miliband had to choose between "rolling over" or a blunted attack. He chose to forego an opportunity to capitalise on the situation to defang a more potent counter attack. Where it will be interesting is if the Labour MEPs vote for Juncker.
Charles
I am sticking my neck out here, but my experience of multi-national organisations who are used to consensus driven decision making is that a rogue member who creates a stink is at least rewarded by a delay.
I think it quite possible that this will be the result of today's meeting. Allowing a vote where Cameron is in even a minority of one will only allow the UK to repeatedly say "I told you so, you didn't listen" when anything goes wrong in the future and will also give Cameron the pretext to behave out of line in future or at least demand a significant quid pro quo.
A delay followed by back room negotiations and concessions (maybe a clear undertaking that additional EU borrowing to finance an pan-Eurozone stimulus package will not require the UK to contribute) would avoid the division and risks. Or a delay might give Juncker the option to 'voluntarily' withdraw his candidacy and for consensus to be reached over an alternate candidate.
Allowing the UK to be a high profile dissenter is just too much of a risk. It would be the equivalent of giving Cameron the power to capsize that Swedish rowing boat at the moment of his choosing.
After the summit is over and the deal is done Cameron is going to come out and face the worlds media - What he say's then and in The House of Commons on Monday - Will be very interesting.
It depends on how symbolic the defeat will become by the media because the voters don't really care about the post of commission president, but might notice headlines like historic defeat etc etc.
Anyone see Jack Straw's interview on Newsnight last night? Didn't criticise Cameron for opposing Juncker, but said he went about it in a totally incompetent way. If you're going to play the man not the ball make sure no-one sees you. Labour should be making clear that Cameron didn't fail because he a sucker for noble if improbable causes but because he's a useless politician.
Er, what on earth did Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, etc... Ever achieve in Europe in terms of the British national interest?
Labour 97-10 used to pretend that by being "good Europeans" we could do more effective business with the EU, but they never achieved anything of note.
Every treaty was signed through on a nod and wink, including the Lisbon Treaty which has landed us in this Juncker mess in the first place.
Blair blew half the rebate and got nothing back in return.
No reform of CAP.
The list goes on.... If Milliband was in Cameron's position we'd still end up with Juncker, the only difference would be that he wouldn't even be making an argument about it.
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
What mandate and what importance?
A majority of EU governments that control the EU parliament essentially choose the commission president, current the majority (eurozone) is controlled by Germany. And always the person selected is a failure and a puppet with as little political weight as possible so that he will always do what his masters say (or he wont be reappointed or worst case fired from the post) .
That position will never become independent of governments as long as national party heads select the candidates for the EU parliament (so that those elected will do what the party leaders in their countries want) and the commission members are appointed by governments (so that they will do what their governments want).
The president of the commission has and will continue to have mostly symbolic power since all the decisions are made by someone else for him before he even knows it (more like the Queen) and only serves on the pleasure of the most powerfull country in europe.
Delors? It was not always like this and it may not be again in the future. Do countries really control the EU Parliament? Will Labour MEPs follow instructions from home and vote against Junckers or will they follow the majority view in the Socialist group and vote for him in exchange for a period as President of the Parliament?
The Parliament wants a role. It's role of choice is to be the Parliament to which the executive (the Commission) is accountable. The Heads of State have been used in recent times to the Commission being their servant. There is a change happening here and it is a change which gives more power to an EU body over the heads of government.
That is what Cameron is complaining about. Some of the other heads agree but they also think the EU institutions need to get stronger so ultimately they will live with this. It is a different vision of where the EU is going. It is much more important than some no mark from Luxembourg.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
And let's remember this is all happening because of the Lisbon Treaty, negotiated by Blair (who also gave away half of our rebate and got back nothing whatsoever) and signed (by the back door, like the coward he always was) by Brown.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
“yerbut" as it stands Milliband’s going to get the worst of both worlds. Cameron’s going to look silly and Milliband can’t do anything about it.
Not convinced he will look silly - if he manages to make it a point of principle. "I stood up for what I believe in but was outvoted" is an ok line to have
Miliband had to choose between "rolling over" or a blunted attack. He chose to forego an opportunity to capitalise on the situation to defang a more potent counter attack. Where it will be interesting is if the Labour MEPs vote for Juncker.
I think he’s got to convince people he has a point of principle. I don’t think he has yet.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
“yerbut" as it stands Milliband’s going to get the worst of both worlds. Cameron’s going to look silly and Milliband can’t do anything about it.
Charles
I am sticking my neck out here, but my experience of multi-national organisations who are used to consensus driven decision making is that a rogue member who creates a stink is at least rewarded by a delay.
I think it quite possible that this will be the result of today's meeting. Allowing a vote where Cameron is in even a minority of one will only allow the UK to repeatedly say "I told you so, you didn't listen" when anything goes wrong in the future and will also give Cameron the pretext to behave out of line in future or at least demand a significant quid pro quo.
A delay followed by back room negotiations and concessions (maybe a clear undertaking that additional EU borrowing to finance an pan-Eurozone stimulus package will not require the UK to contribute) would avoid the division and risks. Or a delay might give Juncker the option to 'voluntarily' withdraw his candidacy and for consensus to be reached over an alternate candidate.
Allowing the UK to be a high profile dissenter is just too much of a risk. It would be the equivalent of giving Cameron the power to capsize that Swedish rowing boat at the moment of his choosing.
But what is the alternative to Juncker? You have to find a big failure with no political weight who will do as he is told by Germany, but more of a fit that a failed ex-PM of tiny Luxembourg is difficult to find. He has to be from a small eurozone country and have a bad record in politics, may I suggest the appalling ex-PM of Ireland Brian Cowen (he fits the job description perfectly and he has the public image in Ireland of a corrupt pig).
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 19m Ed Miliband: Juncker's appointment would represent a "total failure to deliver and an utter humiliation" for David Cameron.
The problem for Ed Milliband with this is that nobody would seriously expect an ardent europhile like him to do any better. At least Cameron is having a row over this - Milliband would just give the EU what it wants without a second thought.
I cannot understand why, given the situation, Milliband expressed an opinion at all re Juncker. There was always a very good chance that Cameron would make a bog of it somehow.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
“yerbut" as it stands Milliband’s going to get the worst of both worlds. Cameron’s going to look silly and Milliband can’t do anything about it.
...
But what is the alternative to Juncker? You have to find a big failure with no political weight who will do as he is told by Germany, but more of a fit that a failed ex-PM of tiny Luxembourg is difficult to find. He has to be from a small eurozone country and have a bad record in politics, may I suggest the appalling ex-PM of Ireland Brian Cowen (he fits the job description perfectly and he has the public image in Ireland of a corrupt pig).
The alternative to Juncker, at least at this stage of the negotiations, is anybody but Juncker.
Not convinced he will look silly - if he manages to make it a point of principle. "I stood up for what I believe in but was outvoted" is an ok line to have
Whether Cameron looks silly or not will I imagine depend on what he does after he loses.
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
What mandate and what importance?
A majority of EU governments that control the EU parliament essentially choose the commission president, current the majority (eurozone) is controlled by Germany. And always the person selected is a failure and a puppet with as little political weight as possible so that he will always do what his masters say (or he wont be reappointed or worst case fired from the post) .
That position will never become independent of governments as long as national party heads select the candidates for the EU parliament (so that those elected will do what the party leaders in their countries want) and the commission members are appointed by governments (so that they will do what their governments want).
The president of the commission has and will continue to have mostly symbolic power since all the decisions are made by someone else for him before he even knows it (more like the Queen) and only serves on the pleasure of the most powerfull country in europe.
I don't think you've been following this thing. Merkel thought she had control of Juncker, who was supposed to volunteer for a different job, so she could stick somebody else in as Commission president. But Juncker wouldn't stick to the script. He immediately did a deal with Schulz whereby the EP would support him for the Commission job, and refused to give up the post he'd been elected to in return for the presidency of EUCO. Then Merkel thought she could just roll over him, but the German media came right back at her and she had to back down, incidentally leaving Cameron twisting in the wind.
You can forgive Merkel for making this mistake, because it's the same mistake made by incumbents over and over again. This is how democracies are created. Occasionally you have revolutions and things, but usually it's like this. The incumbents obviously never want to give up power, but they think they can make some small concession to the small minority of obsessives who are interested in voting and elections. But then the elected people start to assert themselves, and eventually what used to be actual power becomes symbolic, and the real power ends up with the person with the most direct electoral mandate. It doesn't matter how you write your constitution, democracy finds a way. The US constitution was designed specifically to avoid having anyone with the authority of the current president, but it happened anyway.
BBC Politics @BBCPolitics 2m MPs' watchdog considers a complaint about Labour's Jon Cruddas and Rachel Reeves over links to IPPR think tank. http://bbc.in/1poNQ35
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
We don't want to become Iowa.
Iowas has... 4.3% unemployment Lower divorce rate Higher GDP per capita Cheaper housing Lower taxes
''But the Parliament is refusing to do that. It's saying "our way or the high way, and screw British concerns".
It's worse than that. The parliament is saying 'we share your concerns but we've been bribed to ignore them'.
Not to worry. History shows that the more isolated we are on Europe, the righter we tend to be in the long run.
Maybe that's what is causing some pause for thought.
I don't think I've ever seen the EU be so blatant in their disregard for us. The entire public vote and political class of this country opposed Juncker, and the EU has responded with "we won't even consider anyone else, so screw you."
Have you not read Mr Smithson's article? He points out they actually had debates about this in Europe. They are pursuing things based on the debates they had. Meanwhile all we got was how upset Farage was at listening to foreigners on the tube.
Having debates does not mean that anyone listened. 92% of the European public had never heard of these guys, so they do not have any legitimacy. The fact that the PES and the EPP announced they were doing it this way doesn't mean it has to be the way things are done. The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this. This is why Hague was right when he said it was madness to think we were agreeing to a static constitution. It is just another example of the way the EU can transfer power without treaties.
Things will keep going this way until we're in the position of New Hampshire or Iowa, as Edmund says. A region of a superstate that is far more corrupt, protectionist, bureaucratic and elitist then the UK. This episode has really brought this into clarity. Those "in but reform" people need to take their head out of the sand. Powers will never flow away from the centre. It's get on board with the United States of Europe or leave and just have a free trade agreement. There is no middle option. People need to get off the fence and pick a side.
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
We don't want to become Iowa.
Are you sure? It doesn't have to be biofuel subsidies, you could get preferential financial regulation...
Anyone see Jack Straw's interview on Newsnight last night? Didn't criticise Cameron for opposing Juncker, but said he went about it in a totally incompetent way. If you're going to play the man not the ball make sure no-one sees you. Labour should be making clear that Cameron didn't fail because he a sucker for noble if improbable causes but because he's a useless politician.
Er, what on earth did Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, etc... Ever achieve in Europe in terms of the British national interest?
Labour 97-10 used to pretend that by being "good Europeans" we could do more effective business with the EU, but they never achieved anything of note.
Every treaty was signed through on a nod and wink, including the Lisbon Treaty which has landed us in this Juncker mess in the first place.
Blair blew half the rebate and got nothing back in return.
No reform of CAP.
The list goes on.... If Milliband was in Cameron's position we'd still end up with Juncker, the only difference would be that he wouldn't even be making an argument about it.
Well Jack mentioned that they stopped Verhofstadt becoming EU commission President. Whether he would have done anyway is another matter. The point is that rather than criticise the objective, Labour should criticise how Cameron has gone about this.
I am not sure you would have written this paragraph, Smarmy:
To be fair, Mr. Carney himself suggested in that interview with the CBC that his repeated warnings about the housing market and debt levels here were, in large part, meant to prevent a potential problem from turning into a real problem by convincing Canadians to slow down their debt binge.
But then it is the most significant in the article.
This is an area where I disagree a bit with Carney. The current (not long term) problems in the UK are driven more by lack of liquidity in the market rather than lack of supply.
Sales of dwellings are only running at a sixth of the level they were in the mid noughties and new houses have historically only accounted for one in eight of new purchases. Restoring liquidity is the first and most urgent step to take (insofar as a central bank can influence such market developments).
Solving the supply problem will happen slowly. In the private sector, it will happen naturally. The problem lies in the social sector, where a new business model and creative political thinking is needed.
Stand by for a battle of manifesto solutions coming up in the next few months.
The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this.
Actually it's even worse than that. The treaty says that the president is nominated by the European Council (taking account of the results of the election), and then approved by the European Parliament. The parliament has abrogated to itself the power to reverse the sequence by nominating the candidate whom it then expects the Council to approve. So Cameron is right that there is a point of principle.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
The advantage of doing a second-generation product is that you can see what the first-generation one did wrong and make sure your own design fixes it. I'm pretty sure the EU has the whole cheese situation covered.
Juncker will be selected for the simple reason all his predecessors were selected as well, he is a political failure. European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels. Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
We don't want to become Iowa.
I like Iowa! Not as much as Missouri, but it's still pretty nice.
The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this.
Actually it's even worse than that. The treaty says that the president is nominated by the European Council (taking account of the results of the election), and then approved by the European Parliament. The parliament has abrogated to itself the power to reverse the sequence by nominating the candidate whom it then expects the Council to approve. So Cameron is right that there is a point of principle.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
I produced the relevant article way down thread. I agree it is astonishingly ineptly drafted. As it stands it would be a recipe for deadlock so one or other of the institutions involved has to give way. It appears that this is going to be the heads of government.
It is an example of the nonsense of the European Union Act 2011. This is not a change in the wording of the treaty but it is a significant change in power from the member states including Britain to an EU Institution but because there is no change in the words a referendum is not automatically triggered.
The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this.
Actually it's even worse than that. The treaty says that the president is nominated by the European Council (taking account of the results of the election), and then approved by the European Parliament. The parliament has abrogated to itself the power to reverse the sequence by nominating the candidate whom it then expects the Council to approve. So Cameron is right that there is a point of principle.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
I think it was written to be deliberately incoherent. The Council "nominates" then the Parliament "elects", both of which imply multiple candidates to choose from of which only one goes through to the next stage.
I suppose it's the next-best thing to a British-style unwritten constitution. If you absolutely have to write something down, do it in such a way that nobody can figure out what the hell it means. For extra points they should have written it in Klingon.
The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this.
Actually it's even worse than that. The treaty says that the president is nominated by the European Council (taking account of the results of the election), and then approved by the European Parliament. The parliament has abrogated to itself the power to reverse the sequence by nominating the candidate whom it then expects the Council to approve. So Cameron is right that there is a point of principle.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
I think it was written to be deliberately incoherent. The Council "nominates" then the Parliament "elects", both of which imply multiple candidates to choose from of which only one goes through to the next stage.
I suppose it's the next-best thing to a British-style unwritten constitution. If you absolutely have to write something down, do it in such a way that nobody can figure out what the hell it means. For extra points they should have written it in Klingon.
Unwritten and vague constitutions are just recipes for the elites to exploit them.
I don't think you've been following this thing. Merkel thought she had control of Juncker, who was supposed to volunteer for a different job, so she could stick somebody else in as Commission president. But Juncker wouldn't stick to the script. He immediately did a deal with Schulz whereby the EP would support him for the Commission job, and refused to give up the post he'd been elected to in return for the presidency of EUCO. Then Merkel thought she could just roll over him, but the German media came right back at her and she had to back down, incidentally leaving Cameron twisting in the wind.
You can forgive Merkel for making this mistake, because it's the same mistake made by incumbents over and over again. This is how democracies are created. Occasionally you have revolutions and things, but usually it's like this. The incumbents obviously never want to give up power, but they think they can make some small concession to the small minority of obsessives who are interested in voting and elections. But then the elected people start to assert themselves, and eventually what used to be actual power becomes symbolic, and the real power ends up with the person with the most direct electoral mandate. It doesn't matter how you write your constitution, democracy finds a way. The US constitution was designed specifically to avoid having anyone with the authority of the current president, but it happened anyway.
If Merkel didn't control tiny Juncker she wouldn't be the most powerfull politician in Europe today. You are not following what is going on or what the stakes are. Juncker is Merkel's man, he is absolutely useless and powerless and with less authority than a mouse in a cat's den, ideal for such a symbolic position. Cameron is making a fuss over it for equally symbolic reasons, if Germany gets its way the UK would have shown how powerless it is against it and Merkel is simply working to show how isolated Britain is. Schulz is german, his party is in government with Merkel so he will do what he is told as a good german social democrat, ideal yet again to show the broad support Juncker has from all sides of the spectrum and Merkel would appear to say that "its the people's will, look at the german papers as well".
It's a symbolic fight for a purely symbol post using court politics methods, democracy has nothing to do with this. If the Socialists had got more seats i'm sure it would have been a german favourite as a candidate as well.
The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this.
Actually it's even worse than that. The treaty says that the president is nominated by the European Council (taking account of the results of the election), and then approved by the European Parliament. The parliament has abrogated to itself the power to reverse the sequence by nominating the candidate whom it then expects the Council to approve. So Cameron is right that there is a point of principle.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
I think it was written to be deliberately incoherent. The Council "nominates" then the Parliament "elects", both of which imply multiple candidates to choose from of which only one goes through to the next stage.
I suppose it's the next-best thing to a British-style unwritten constitution. If you absolutely have to write something down, do it in such a way that nobody can figure out what the hell it means. For extra points they should have written it in Klingon.
Unwritten and vague constitutions are just recipes for the elites to exploit them.
"I am not sure you would have written this paragraph, Smarmy:
To be fair, Mr. Carney himself suggested in that interview with the CBC that his repeated warnings about the housing market and debt levels here were, in large part, meant to prevent a potential problem from turning into a real problem by convincing Canadians to slow down their debt binge."
Nice warning. Did he do the same in Canada as he has just done here? Which as you know is nothing, bar a vague mutter and a sort of promise to do something more substantial in 2017?
Give it a few of cycles after the election system beds down while the incumbents use their mandate to increase the importance of the job. People will be complaining that their Prime Ministers spend all their time campaigning for the all-important British primary. (First in the continent, they hold it on a Thursday.)
What mandate and what importance?
That position will never become independent of governments as long as national party heads select the candidates for the EU parliament (so that those elected will do what the party leaders in their countries want) and the commission members are appointed by governments (so that they will do what their governments want).
The president of the commission has and will continue to have mostly symbolic power since all the decisions are made by someone else for him before he even knows it (more like the Queen) and only serves on the pleasure of the most powerfull country in europe.
Delors? It was not always like this and it may not be again in the future. Do countries really control the EU Parliament? Will Labour MEPs follow instructions from home and vote against Junckers or will they follow the majority view in the Socialist group and vote for him in exchange for a period as President of the Parliament?
The Parliament wants a role. It's role of choice is to be the Parliament to which the executive (the Commission) is accountable. The Heads of State have been used in recent times to the Commission being their servant. There is a change happening here and it is a change which gives more power to an EU body over the heads of government.
That is what Cameron is complaining about. Some of the other heads agree but they also think the EU institutions need to get stronger so ultimately they will live with this. It is a different vision of where the EU is going. It is much more important than some no mark from Luxembourg.
If MEPs want to be reselected then they will do as they are told, same goes for the commission. Its the power of appointments, no change will occur. As for Delors, he was a french political heavyweight from the most powerfull EEC state, the transformation of the EEC to the EU was a french idea to dilute the power of a resurgent Germany at the end of the cold war. It didn't work though because ironically Britain supported a constant enlargement in order to dilute French influence by adding lots of poor central european countries that are now easily controlled by Germany, so now Germany calls the shots.
The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this.
Actually it's even worse than that. The treaty says that the president is nominated by the European Council (taking account of the results of the election), and then approved by the European Parliament. The parliament has abrogated to itself the power to reverse the sequence by nominating the candidate whom it then expects the Council to approve. So Cameron is right that there is a point of principle.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
I think it was written to be deliberately incoherent. The Council "nominates" then the Parliament "elects", both of which imply multiple candidates to choose from of which only one goes through to the next stage.
I suppose it's the next-best thing to a British-style unwritten constitution. If you absolutely have to write something down, do it in such a way that nobody can figure out what the hell it means. For extra points they should have written it in Klingon.
Unwritten and vague constitutions are just recipes for the elites to exploit them.
I don't think I've ever seen the EU be so blatant in their disregard for us. The entire public vote and political class of this country opposed Juncker, and the EU has responded with "we won't even consider anyone else, so screw you."
Have you not read Mr Smithson's article? He points out they actually had debates about this in Europe. They are pursuing things based on the debates they had. Meanwhile all we got was how upset Farage was at listening to foreigners on the tube.
Having debates does not mean that anyone listened. 92% of the European public had never heard of these guys, so they do not have any legitimacy. The fact that the PES and the EPP announced they were doing it this way doesn't mean it has to be the way things are done. The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this. This is why Hague was right when he said it was madness to think we were agreeing to a static constitution. It is just another example of the way the EU can transfer power without treaties.
Things will keep going this way until we're in the position of New Hampshire or Iowa, as Edmund says. A region of a superstate that is far more corrupt, protectionist, bureaucratic and elitist then the UK. This episode has really brought this into clarity. Those "in but reform" people need to take their head out of the sand. Powers will never flow away from the centre. It's get on board with the United States of Europe or leave and just have a free trade agreement. There is no middle option. People need to get off the fence and pick a side.</blockquote
So there is no legitimacy to our general elections then? Governments can do what they want on the assumption that no body listens? You know thats wrong so why make the argument about the EU. You cannot say we are being ignored when you look at the substance of Mr Smithsons arguments. We in the form of Cameron are putting forward our view. Its a good view - its the right view. We do not want a federalist type in the Chair we want someone open to reform. Cameron is stating that and leting us all know how he feels and he is reflecting the country's views I think. Cameon has said he does not want ever closer union. This is what he will be negotiating about if re-elected. If the EU thinks differently thats a fact of life and without a doubt this will come to the crunch in 2017 - if Cameron is re-elected. Meantime the EU for its own good does not need Junkner and Cameron is right to oppose him. Its not everyone ganging up against Britain - if people have different views its up to them.
Comments
Its worse than that. They don't just want to take our money, they want to reduce our ability to pay the bills they are charging (via the financial transaction tax).
They want to beggar the UK. They want to subjugate it.
Does Milliband? Do Labour?
if we get a labour govt will be get ever closer ot morte distant from the EU.
Surely this is what the voters have to consideder
How do you bet they will decide?
No..it would have just been another battle he would have lost.
He points out they actually had debates about this in Europe. They are pursuing things based on the debates they had.
Meanwhile all we got was how upset Farage was at listening to foreigners on the tube.
I don't disagree with this but it is not a viable option for Spain and Portugal. They are politically wedded to the Eurozone and must live within the constraints of the marriage.
I know you will answer that there are times when you must think the unthinkable, but really this has to come from the centre not the periphery.
Unless it happens (and I agree it should) then the Iberians must survive or die in accordance with the rules of Sparta.
I'd probably cap it at 3 children (ie just above the replacement rate of 2.2) - you could probably cap at 2.5 as well, but if there is a positive externality it may be that an incentive scheme makes sense.
As to what Miliband personally believes? Who knows (as is the case on a great many things), my personal opinion is that he would like more Europe (like the Euro etc), but knows he can't sell it to the people.
That said, I'm not sure that they'd have wanted any other plausible EPP candidate. It comes down to how exceptionally bad you think Juncker is; My view is that the specific objections to Juncker are entirely manufactured, and if anybody else had won the election, the Tories would now be pushing Juncker as the low-tax, conservative, UK-friendly compromise candidate.
Because otherwise Cameron would say "I stood up for the national interest in Europe - you rolled over"
European institutions like its parliament and its commission are like the house of lords, full of people who cannot be elected or re-elected in their countries, so they are sent into political exile in Brussels.
Juncker is currently the greatest political failure in the EU at present (his party lost for the first time since 1974) so its only logical that he will take that position of most symbolism but little practical importance (Germany makes the decisions).
Sportsbook into 66-1 on the bet now...
http://theconversation.com/the-little-orange-book-that-put-the-lib-dems-in-the-big-leagues-28470
Lord Mandelson?
My concern is that this is the true "structural" deficit. When we have a system that encourages marginal employment as ours does by paying in work benefits at anything like the current rate deficit reduction becomes almost impossible.
OTOH I think Max's solutions are somewhat simplistic. If you are on a low wage additional tax relief is of little or no benefit.
If you do not subsidise marginal employment you end up with the mass unemployment you see in the EZ and have seen here in the past.
There is a social good in having children growing up in families where work is the norm. We have tried the alternative and it was not good.
So encouraging marginal work is a good thing. It is really a question of how much of a good thing we can afford. The simple answer is about £100bn less than now but even we do not spend that much on in work benefits so where does the additional money come from?
This is why I think taxes will have to go up. If we want to spend £120bn a year on the NHS, pay pensions, have some sort of armed forces, have police, courts and prisons and social work to care for the feckless, the incapacitated and the old we have to pay for it. At the moment we are not.
We are not only loading up our children with student debt we are eating their lunch and it really needs to stop.
Miliband had to choose between "rolling over" or a blunted attack. He chose to forego an opportunity to capitalise on the situation to defang a more potent counter attack. Where it will be interesting is if the Labour MEPs vote for Juncker.
A majority of EU governments that control the EU parliament essentially choose the commission president, current the majority (eurozone) is controlled by Germany. And always the person selected is a failure and a puppet with as little political weight as possible so that he will always do what his masters say (or he wont be reappointed or worst case fired from the post) .
That position will never become independent of governments as long as national party heads select the candidates for the EU parliament (so that those elected will do what the party leaders in their countries want) and the commission members are appointed by governments (so that they will do what their governments want).
The president of the commission has and will continue to have mostly symbolic power since all the decisions are made by someone else for him before he even knows it (more like the Queen) and only serves on the pleasure of the most powerfull country in europe.
I thought that Tim Montgomery and Maajid Nawaz were the most interesting speakers, which tells its own story.
I am sticking my neck out here, but my experience of multi-national organisations who are used to consensus driven decision making is that a rogue member who creates a stink is at least rewarded by a delay.
I think it quite possible that this will be the result of today's meeting. Allowing a vote where Cameron is in even a minority of one will only allow the UK to repeatedly say "I told you so, you didn't listen" when anything goes wrong in the future and will also give Cameron the pretext to behave out of line in future or at least demand a significant quid pro quo.
A delay followed by back room negotiations and concessions (maybe a clear undertaking that additional EU borrowing to finance an pan-Eurozone stimulus package will not require the UK to contribute) would avoid the division and risks. Or a delay might give Juncker the option to 'voluntarily' withdraw his candidacy and for consensus to be reached over an alternate candidate.
Allowing the UK to be a high profile dissenter is just too much of a risk. It would be the equivalent of giving Cameron the power to capsize that Swedish rowing boat at the moment of his choosing.
Labour 97-10 used to pretend that by being "good Europeans" we could do more effective business with the EU, but they never achieved anything of note.
Every treaty was signed through on a nod and wink, including the Lisbon Treaty which has landed us in this Juncker mess in the first place.
Blair blew half the rebate and got nothing back in return.
No reform of CAP.
The list goes on.... If Milliband was in Cameron's position we'd still end up with Juncker, the only difference would be that he wouldn't even be making an argument about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28059782
The Parliament wants a role. It's role of choice is to be the Parliament to which the executive (the Commission) is accountable. The Heads of State have been used in recent times to the Commission being their servant. There is a change happening here and it is a change which gives more power to an EU body over the heads of government.
That is what Cameron is complaining about. Some of the other heads agree but they also think the EU institutions need to get stronger so ultimately they will live with this. It is a different vision of where the EU is going. It is much more important than some no mark from Luxembourg.
You have to find a big failure with no political weight who will do as he is told by Germany, but more of a fit that a failed ex-PM of tiny Luxembourg is difficult to find.
He has to be from a small eurozone country and have a bad record in politics, may I suggest the appalling ex-PM of Ireland Brian Cowen (he fits the job description perfectly and he has the public image in Ireland of a corrupt pig).
Fraser Nelson in Coffee House Blogs - David Cameron is acting in a principled way over Juncker – so let’s back him
Whether Cameron looks silly or not will I imagine depend on what he does after he loses.
You can forgive Merkel for making this mistake, because it's the same mistake made by incumbents over and over again. This is how democracies are created. Occasionally you have revolutions and things, but usually it's like this. The incumbents obviously never want to give up power, but they think they can make some small concession to the small minority of obsessives who are interested in voting and elections. But then the elected people start to assert themselves, and eventually what used to be actual power becomes symbolic, and the real power ends up with the person with the most direct electoral mandate. It doesn't matter how you write your constitution, democracy finds a way. The US constitution was designed specifically to avoid having anyone with the authority of the current president, but it happened anyway.
MPs' watchdog considers a complaint about Labour's Jon Cruddas and Rachel Reeves over links to IPPR think tank. http://bbc.in/1poNQ35
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/carney-says-supply-behind-uks-housing-woes-defends-canadian-record/article18752556/
4.3% unemployment
Lower divorce rate
Higher GDP per capita
Cheaper housing
Lower taxes
What's wrong with Iowa?
Things will keep going this way until we're in the position of New Hampshire or Iowa, as Edmund says. A region of a superstate that is far more corrupt, protectionist, bureaucratic and elitist then the UK. This episode has really brought this into clarity. Those "in but reform" people need to take their head out of the sand. Powers will never flow away from the centre. It's get on board with the United States of Europe or leave and just have a free trade agreement. There is no middle option. People need to get off the fence and pick a side.
To be fair, Mr. Carney himself suggested in that interview with the CBC that his repeated warnings about the housing market and debt levels here were, in large part, meant to prevent a potential problem from turning into a real problem by convincing Canadians to slow down their debt binge.
But then it is the most significant in the article.
This is an area where I disagree a bit with Carney. The current (not long term) problems in the UK are driven more by lack of liquidity in the market rather than lack of supply.
Sales of dwellings are only running at a sixth of the level they were in the mid noughties and new houses have historically only accounted for one in eight of new purchases. Restoring liquidity is the first and most urgent step to take (insofar as a central bank can influence such market developments).
Solving the supply problem will happen slowly. In the private sector, it will happen naturally. The problem lies in the social sector, where a new business model and creative political thinking is needed.
Stand by for a battle of manifesto solutions coming up in the next few months.
Incidentally, one has to ask which half-wit devised this bonkers and unworkable treaty provision.
It is an example of the nonsense of the European Union Act 2011. This is not a change in the wording of the treaty but it is a significant change in power from the member states including Britain to an EU Institution but because there is no change in the words a referendum is not automatically triggered.
However.....
I suppose it's the next-best thing to a British-style unwritten constitution. If you absolutely have to write something down, do it in such a way that nobody can figure out what the hell it means. For extra points they should have written it in Klingon.
You are not following what is going on or what the stakes are.
Juncker is Merkel's man, he is absolutely useless and powerless and with less authority than a mouse in a cat's den, ideal for such a symbolic position. Cameron is making a fuss over it for equally symbolic reasons, if Germany gets its way the UK would have shown how powerless it is against it and Merkel is simply working to show how isolated Britain is. Schulz is german, his party is in government with Merkel so he will do what he is told as a good german social democrat, ideal yet again to show the broad support Juncker has from all sides of the spectrum and Merkel would appear to say that "its the people's will, look at the german papers as well".
It's a symbolic fight for a purely symbol post using court politics methods, democracy has nothing to do with this. If the Socialists had got more seats i'm sure it would have been a german favourite as a candidate as well.
"I am not sure you would have written this paragraph, Smarmy:
To be fair, Mr. Carney himself suggested in that interview with the CBC that his repeated warnings about the housing market and debt levels here were, in large part, meant to prevent a potential problem from turning into a real problem by convincing Canadians to slow down their debt binge."
Nice warning. Did he do the same in Canada as he has just done here? Which as you know is nothing, bar a vague mutter and a sort of promise to do something more substantial in 2017?
Its the power of appointments, no change will occur.
As for Delors, he was a french political heavyweight from the most powerfull EEC state, the transformation of the EEC to the EU was a french idea to dilute the power of a resurgent Germany at the end of the cold war. It didn't work though because ironically Britain supported a constant enlargement in order to dilute French influence by adding lots of poor central european countries that are now easily controlled by Germany, so now Germany calls the shots.
It's fun being a big cheese.
I don't think I've ever seen the EU be so blatant in their disregard for us. The entire public vote and political class of this country opposed Juncker, and the EU has responded with "we won't even consider anyone else, so screw you."
Have you not read Mr Smithson's article?
He points out they actually had debates about this in Europe. They are pursuing things based on the debates they had.
Meanwhile all we got was how upset Farage was at listening to foreigners on the tube.
Having debates does not mean that anyone listened. 92% of the European public had never heard of these guys, so they do not have any legitimacy. The fact that the PES and the EPP announced they were doing it this way doesn't mean it has to be the way things are done. The treaties only say it should be done in consultation between the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament has effectively made a power grab from nation states to do this. This is why Hague was right when he said it was madness to think we were agreeing to a static constitution. It is just another example of the way the EU can transfer power without treaties.
Things will keep going this way until we're in the position of New Hampshire or Iowa, as Edmund says. A region of a superstate that is far more corrupt, protectionist, bureaucratic and elitist then the UK. This episode has really brought this into clarity. Those "in but reform" people need to take their head out of the sand. Powers will never flow away from the centre. It's get on board with the United States of Europe or leave and just have a free trade agreement. There is no middle option. People need to get off the fence and pick a side.</blockquote
So there is no legitimacy to our general elections then? Governments can do what they want on the assumption that no body listens? You know thats wrong so why make the argument about the EU. You cannot say we are being ignored when you look at the substance of Mr Smithsons arguments.
We in the form of Cameron are putting forward our view. Its a good view - its the right view. We do not want a federalist type in the Chair we want someone open to reform. Cameron is stating that and leting us all know how he feels and he is reflecting the country's views I think.
Cameon has said he does not want ever closer union. This is what he will be negotiating about if re-elected. If the EU thinks differently thats a fact of life and without a doubt this will come to the crunch in 2017 - if Cameron is re-elected.
Meantime the EU for its own good does not need Junkner and Cameron is right to oppose him. Its not everyone ganging up against Britain - if people have different views its up to them.