Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
Hell has truly frozen over. The Heathites are slowly and reluctantly, but nevertheless unmistakeably turning to Euroscepticism...
Discrimination, either way was only in a very limited number of areas (Liverpool, Glasgow) and it was very difficult to differentiate unless there were religiously segregated schools.
One of the reasons why there should NOT be faith schools! People like Gove who happily approve them are storing up problems for their successors.
Firstly, I am sick and tired of people criticising faith schools without mentioning academic performance i.e. the criterion all schools should be judged on.
Secondly, if faith schools led to discrimination against Catholics, why did we bother to set them up and send our children there?
Usually I would agree academic performance should be seen as the best benchmark, but I personally feel that the potential institutional divisiveness of faith schools trumps that negatively ( so to speak ). I can think of few things worse than teaching a bunch of kids in isolation for ten years or whatever that their "special book" is the "truth" and that the other lot''s "special book " down the road isn't. Far better to mix us all in and learn to be tolerant.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
Hell has truly frozen over. The Heathites are slowly and reluctantly, but nevertheless unmistakeably turning to Euroscepticism...
What Heathites are those? We Cameroons are not Heathites, we are pragmatists, with no ideological obsession either in favour of or against the EU. The EU is a means to an end - increased prosperity. If it doesn't deliver that end, or if the collateral damage in other ways becomes too great, then the balance changes.
As I have posted many times over the last year or so, in my view the balance has been moving towards leaving. Today was a further push in that direction.
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
Just when the Tories should be advancing towards crossover, Stephen Fisher's latest weekly projection of the 2015 GE result shows them moving sharply into reverse - a very, very disappointing result for the Blues .... I'm hoping without any great conviction that it's all down to the footy shambles. His numbers with last week's shown in brackets are:
The big change is that another week has gone by and the Tory polling position has edged back a touch. Stephen's model is very time sensitive because the closer we get to polling the more accurate it assumes that the polls will be.
The uncertainty range on the Tory vote share is +/- 7.8%, I think that's unchanged on last week.
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
Yeah, well, I don't think we'll agree on that. The prospect of the European Parliament having any power at all terrifies me. This, let us not forget, is the body which decided that insurance companies should be forbidden from using objective actuarial data in setting premiums, i.e. a body which attempts to deny mathematical reality.
In essence, all "special books" are the same, a set of standards that bind a society together. The problem is that we get caught up in our personal prejudices,and that blinds us to the obvious similarities. Oddly enough, the humanists and atheist share the same core principles as the religious, or at least the majority do. We end up arguing over petty details instead of matching up the frayed edges, but that's human nature?
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I see your point but, and it's a big but, do I feel any loyalty to the European Parliament as my representative? Would I fight to defend it? No and no.
I feel we are exactly on the same page on this. This has been a momentous moment in the history of the EU, and will be looked back on as one of the major steps on the way to federation. The fact it's been done with such an appalling candidate is the shocking thing. The EU badly needs good leadership right now, as it continues to stare down the economic abyss. Juncker's ineptitude could make a lot of people suffer a lot more. Cameron is being mocked right now, but him and the Hungarian chap will the two people whose hands will be clean when Juncker screws up.
I feel we are exactly on the same page on this. This has been a momentous moment in the history of the EU, and will be looked back on as one of the major steps on the way to federation. The fact it's been done with such an appalling candidate is the shocking thing. The EU badly needs good leadership right now, as it continues to stare down the economic abyss. Juncker's ineptitude could make a lot of people suffer a lot more. Cameron is being mocked right now, but him and the Hungarian chap will the two people whose hands will be clean when Juncker screws up.
In essence, all "special books" are the same, a set of standards that bind a society together. The problem is that we get caught up in our personal prejudices,and that blinds us to the obvious similarities. Oddly enough, the humanists and atheist share the same core principles as the religious, or at least the majority do. We end up arguing over petty details instead of matching up the frayed edges, but that's human nature?
Yes fair enough. But faith schools IMO will emphasis the petty details over the similarities.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
Hell has truly frozen over. The Heathites are slowly and reluctantly, but nevertheless unmistakeably turning to Euroscepticism...
What Heathites are those? We Cameroons are not Heathites, we are pragmatists, with no ideological obsession either in favour of or against the EU. The EU is a means to an end - increased prosperity. If it doesn't deliver that end, or if the collateral damage in other ways becomes too great, then the balance changes.
As I have posted many times over the last year or so, in my view the balance has been moving towards leaving. Today was a further push in that direction.
Today was a big day for me with regard to the EU. The EU leaders put consensus ahead of suitability of leader and against the clear opposition of British interests. The lack of interest paid to the British perspective greatly increased the prospect that I will vote against continued EU membership in a future referendum on the EU.
What is most depressing is that my strong impression is that most Eurocrats are completely unaware of the impact of today's decision on British floating voters like me.
The fact it's been done with such an appalling candidate is the shocking thing.
I'm not sure it's even that. If our EU friends were appointing him because they thought he was the right candidate, then we might disagree, but at least it would be a genuine difference of opinion, on which we got out-voted. The extraordinary thing is that no-one seems to think he's the right candidate; we got outvoted not because the others think he's any good, but because they think they cannot resist the name which the machine has put forward.
Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
It is absurd to argue that all the special books are fundamentally the same, or that their interpretation is the same. Even casual reading of the New Testament shows it to be fundamentally different to the Koran.
In essence, all "special books" are the same, a set of standards that bind a society together. The problem is that we get caught up in our personal prejudices,and that blinds us to the obvious similarities. Oddly enough, the humanists and atheist share the same core principles as the religious, or at least the majority do. We end up arguing over petty details instead of matching up the frayed edges, but that's human nature?
Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
Hell has truly frozen over. The Heathites are slowly and reluctantly, but nevertheless unmistakeably turning to Euroscepticism...
What Heathites are those? We Cameroons are not Heathites, we are pragmatists, with no ideological obsession either in favour of or against the EU. The EU is a means to an end - increased prosperity. If it doesn't deliver that end, or if the collateral damage in other ways becomes too great, then the balance changes.
As I have posted many times over the last year or so, in my view the balance has been moving towards leaving. Today was a further push in that direction.
Today was a big day for me with regard to the EU. The EU leaders put consensus ahead of suitability of leader and against the clear opposition of British interests. The lack of interest paid to the British perspective greatly increased the prospect that I will vote against continued EU membership in a future referendum on the EU.
What is most depressing is that my strong impression is that most Eurocrats are completely unaware of the impact of today's decision on British floating voters like me.
I agree. I'm for the "devo max" option with Europe, but the more I see lately the more "max" the better looks the best bet. Something like the right to work here but no social security for EU citizens, no CAP, fishing back please, no working time directive nonsense,but free trade, would be a start. I'd bin the European Court too at the same time.
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I see your point but, and it's a big but, do I feel any loyalty to the European Parliament as my representative? Would I fight to defend it? No and no.
That's not necessary for the process of democratic accountability to work. All it requires is two things: Firstly you think the current incumbent is a tit, and secondly you vote for somebody else. I think we can declare Mission Accomplished on at least the first one of those?
@welshowl I mean that you would not fight for the European parliament, but if Russia flexed its muscles,you would not be against our soldiers their bit. (NATO)? We co-operate at one level, but disagree at another. Are we really that far apart that we can't work out a standard set of values that would aid us to live better lives, rather than fear?
The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a very optimistic gloss. It might make some sense if the EU elections were being used in a show of strength by voters across the EU determined to do what they can to limit the power of unelected bureaucrats and national governments, but there's precious little sign of that.
Anyway, even if you're right, it only makes sense in the context of establishing a United States of Europe. Some people want that, of course - if you live in Luxembourg, why not? But I don't think many Brits do.
@welshowl I mean that you would not fight for the European parliament, but if Russia flexed its muscles,you would not be against us doing our soldiers doing their bit. (NATO)? We co-operate at one level, but disagree at another. Are we really that far apart that we can't work out a standard set of values that would aid us to live better lives, rather than fear?
Think I understand. Yes if Russia rolled westwards and invaded Germany ( say ) I imagine it would be the settled will of the British people to assist, in any way possible, our German allies. No issue there at all. But I'd prefer to do it through the auspices of the UK Parliament which I see as my representative not via Brussels ( or Strasbourg). Of course in the example of the Russians rolling west I'd assume and hope there would be a communality of interest between the UK and Brussels of course. But it would've been a free British sovereign choice not going along as an outlying European province,
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
Further thoughts on Juncker: It seems to me that, not for the first time, the UK media has largely missed the point. Of course it's not surprising that UK journalists and politicians have concentrated on Cameron's position in all this, but what they are missing is the underlying power shift. The reason that Cameron was left isolated wasn't poor tactics, nor was it exactly that he (and, more to the point, we) got shafted by the other heads of government. We did, but the reason we did was that they couldn't deliver on what they had previously promised, or at least indicated they were minded to do. And that in turn is because the European parliament has successfully carried out a power-grab, which even Angela Merkel has been powerless to resist.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I see your point but, and it's a big but, do I feel any loyalty to the European Parliament as my representative? Would I fight to defend it? No and no.
That's not necessary for the process of democratic accountability to work. All it requires is two things: Firstly you think the current incumbent is a tit, and secondly you vote for somebody else. I think we can declare Mission Accomplished on at least the first one of those?
Indeed. It's the second bit that's a bit opaque in a European context.
Academic success is one feature of a good school, but not the only one.
Why should a minority set up schools that foster segregation? Perhaps because it reinforces the social solidarity of the group and cements the position of its conservative hierarchy and values. If a community values indoctrinating its young more then integrating into the wider community then setting up schools that foster discrimination may be a logical response.
Well, that is our choice, not yours.
Assimilation is distinctly unfavourable to the minority being assimilated.
@Richard_Nabavi A reasonable number of "Brits" quite like the limitations the EU imposes on Britain. Rather than the "devil take the hindmost" view of those like yourself. It is what the next election will be about. May the best spinner win, with no biting or punching below the belt. (snowballs chance in hell though).
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
It is so nice that OGH's regulars converse with Dr 'Sven' Palmer. Yet it is sad in many ways....
Without spoiling seanT's election special on Broxtowe:
The guy is a neo; someone that believes you are guilty unless proven innocent,
The guy prefers "Asian 'conservative' voters" yet despises many [multi-ethnic] folk who call themselves English,
The guy boasts about 'setting his own tax-rate in Switzerland', yet voted for pecuniary taxes upon "us common [English] folk". All the while his expenses claimed to the English tax-payer went upwards to infinity, and
The geezer wants to feck-orf to some troll-hole in Norway once he screws the English tax-payer of another 5-years of pension-crack!
Anyone who finds any decency in Sven Palmer should either a) stop posting, or b) stop breathing....
If I could understand what you were on about, I suppose I'd be more offended. Just for the record, though:
- I don't think people are guilty until proven innocent - I don't prefer conservative voters, Asian or otherwise - I don't despise anyone at all. Not Cameron. Not Farage. Not you. - I paid normal taxes in Swizerland, IIRC at a marginal rate higher than in Britain because I was earning more in industry than I earned as an MP - There was nothing odd about my expenses, which is why they got a one-line "No Issues" report - I'd quite like to retire to Norway one day, but I don't suppose it'll happen.
As I said the other day, PB is least interesting when we talk about each other...
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
Who voted for Juncker? Names and addresses, please.
Academic success is one feature of a good school, but not the only one.
Why should a minority set up schools that foster segregation? Perhaps because it reinforces the social solidarity of the group and cements the position of its conservative hierarchy and values. If a community values indoctrinating its young more then integrating into the wider community then setting up schools that foster discrimination may be a logical response.
Well, that is our choice, not yours.
Assimilation is distinctly unfavourable to the minority being assimilated.
Why???? Why is assimilation bad? Surely if you arrive in country X you should expect that over two or three generations an entirely natural process of intermingling, marriage, kids, etc is likely if not inevitable? I have nieces and nephews born and living in France. They are bilingual and essentially "French" except they speak English at home. I suspect their kids will support les Bleus at the 2044 World Cup whilst having only halting English. Please point out what's " unfavourable" about that?
It is rare that I agree with you, but this is one of the rare times.
While there are some clowns in the European Parliament and other institutions, they do act as a useful protection of workers and other rights. It is one reason that BOOers are rare on the left compared to 30 years ago and more common on the right.
@Richard_Nabavi A reasonable number of "Brits" quite like the limitations the EU imposes on Britain. Rather than the "devil take the hindmost" view of those like yourself. It is what the next election will be about. May the best spinner win, with no biting or punching below the belt. (snowballs chance in hell though).
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I see your point but, and it's a big but, do I feel any loyalty to the European Parliament as my representative? Would I fight to defend it? No and no.
That's not necessary for the process of democratic accountability to work. All it requires is two things: Firstly you think the current incumbent is a tit, and secondly you vote for somebody else. I think we can declare Mission Accomplished on at least the first one of those?
Indeed. It's the second bit that's a bit opaque in a European context.
It'll be clearer next time now the precedent has been set. Whether the voters vote mainly on the candidates or the parties or local incumbents will depend how relatively wonderful or terrible the candidates are. If Juncker is as disastrous as a lot of British people seem to think, the next Euro elections will mainly be used as an opportunity to get rid of him.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
Who voted for Juncker? Names and addresses, please.
Can you give me names and addresses of people who voted for the last government's manifesto?
You said the voters were irrelevant. In fact the way they voted determined the outcome.
My understanding is that the Parliament does not initiate legislation, but only deliberates on items proposed by the Commission. Previously the Commissioners were appointed by an undemocratic process, not before time the democratic body has flexed its muscles over appointments.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
I see your point but, and it's a big but, do I feel any loyalty to the European Parliament as my representative? Would I fight to defend it? No and no.
That's not necessary for the process of democratic accountability to work. All it requires is two things: Firstly you think the current incumbent is a tit, and secondly you vote for somebody else. I think we can declare Mission Accomplished on at least the first one of those?
Indeed. It's the second bit that's a bit opaque in a European context.
It'll be clearer next time now the precedent has been set. Whether the voters vote mainly on the candidates or the parties or local incumbents will depend how relatively wonderful or terrible the candidates are. If Juncker is as disastrous as a lot of British people seem to think, the next Euro elections will mainly be used as an opportunity to get rid of him.
Your assertions get more bizarre. Can you imagine the UK electorate voting next time on the basis of the respective merits of Jean-Claude Juncker or Martin Schulz?
It is rare that I agree with you, but this is one of the rare times.
While there are some clowns in the European Parliament and other institutions, they do act as a useful protection of workers and other rights. It is one reason that BOOers are rare on the left compared to 30 years ago and more common on the right.
@Richard_Nabavi A reasonable number of "Brits" quite like the limitations the EU imposes on Britain. Rather than the "devil take the hindmost" view of those like yourself. It is what the next election will be about. May the best spinner win, with no biting or punching below the belt. (snowballs chance in hell though).
Yes but it's precisely that that's turning the EU into a 21st century Austro Hungarian empire. Uncompetitive with the outside world, obsessed with its own internal protocols, and a bit moth eaten. In fifty years we'll be a museum/theme park for Chinese and Brazilian tourists.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
Who voted for Juncker? Names and addresses, please.
Can you give me names and addresses of people who voted for the last government's manifesto?
You said the voters were irrelevant. In fact the way they voted determined the outcome.
They didn't. The European leaders determined the outcome.
They did so on a bloody awful basis. As a result of this, the EU is likely to suffer several years of further crisis.
As I said the other day, PB is least interesting when we talk about each other
No worries Sven: I have 'smoked out' the answer I was looking for. It is - IMHO - not just decent English people like PtP that will be supporting you next May.
Academic success is one feature of a good school, but not the only one.
Why should a minority set up schools that foster segregation? Perhaps because it reinforces the social solidarity of the group and cements the position of its conservative hierarchy and values. If a community values indoctrinating its young more then integrating into the wider community then setting up schools that foster discrimination may be a logical response.
Well, that is our choice, not yours.
Assimilation is distinctly unfavourable to the minority being assimilated.
Why???? Why is assimilation bad? Surely if you arrive in country X you should expect that over two or three generations an entirely natural process of intermingling, marriage, kids, etc is likely if not inevitable? I have nieces and nephews born and living in France. They are bilingual and essentially "French" except they speak English at home. I suspect their kids will support les Bleus at the 2044 World Cup whilst having only halting English. Please point out what's " unfavourable" about that?
Thank you for your racial rant.
Please explain what it has to do with religious schools, the subject in question?
Academic success is one feature of a good school, but not the only one.
Why should a minority set up schools that foster segregation? Perhaps because it reinforces the social solidarity of the group and cements the position of its conservative hierarchy and values. If a community values indoctrinating its young more then integrating into the wider community then setting up schools that foster discrimination may be a logical response.
Well, that is our choice, not yours.
Assimilation is distinctly unfavourable to the minority being assimilated.
Why???? Why is assimilation bad? Surely if you arrive in country X you should expect that over two or three generations an entirely natural process of intermingling, marriage, kids, etc is likely if not inevitable? I have nieces and nephews born and living in France. They are bilingual and essentially "French" except they speak English at home. I suspect their kids will support les Bleus at the 2044 World Cup whilst having only halting English. Please point out what's " unfavourable" about that?
Thank you for your racial rant.
Please explain what it has to do with religious schools, the subject in question?
Didn't realise it was about schools only. What on earth is racial about what I wrote above????? I thought rather it was a tale of harmony. Silly me.
Thank god that other people don't go around murdering prostitutes for vague reasons, and it is only those crazy muslims? At least we now know where to look when a suspect is needed?
The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a very optimistic gloss. It might make some sense if the EU elections were being used in a show of strength by voters across the EU determined to do what they can to limit the power of unelected bureaucrats and national governments, but there's precious little sign of that.
That's not required. Merkel had to back down in the face of a more direct electoral mandate. It wasn't necessarily an uprising against her. Most of the Germans who voted EPP also supported her. Likewise you can have gradual increases in the power of parliaments and PMs at the expense of kings, against the wishes of the kings. This can even happen when the people rate the king higher than they rate their politicians...
Anyway, even if you're right, it only makes sense in the context of establishing a United States of Europe. Some people want that, of course - if you live in Luxembourg, why not? But I don't think many Brits do.
They're probably not keen right now, but it'll be interesting to see how it develops. If you ask the voters after 25 years of elections whether they want to go back to the old system of member-state stitch-ups I doubt they'll be keen. In a lot of ways the EU already takes more power from the states than the US, so the question is then how you provide democratic accountability. The pre-spitzenkandidat EU was democratic in that everyone was ultimately chosen by somebody elected, but it was short on democratic accountability, because it wasn't obvious how to kick the leadership out.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
Who voted for Juncker? Names and addresses, please.
Can you give me names and addresses of people who voted for the last government's manifesto?
You said the voters were irrelevant. In fact the way they voted determined the outcome.
They didn't. The European leaders determined the outcome.
They did so on a bloody awful basis. As a result of this, the EU is likely to suffer several years of further crisis.
They did it on the basis of votes cast and seats won. I don't see how you can say that was nothing to do with the voters.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
Who voted for Juncker? Names and addresses, please.
Can you give me names and addresses of people who voted for the last government's manifesto?
You said the voters were irrelevant. In fact the way they voted determined the outcome.
They didn't. The European leaders determined the outcome.
They did so on a bloody awful basis. As a result of this, the EU is likely to suffer several years of further crisis.
They did it on the basis of votes cast and seats won. I don't see how you can say that was nothing to do with the voters.
Since you're apparently of the belief that the electorate voted on the basis of people they had never heard of, I'm not sure how we can sensibly continue the discussion.
It is rare that I agree with you, but this is one of the rare times.
While there are some clowns in the European Parliament and other institutions, they do act as a useful protection of workers and other rights. It is one reason that BOOers are rare on the left compared to 30 years ago and more common on the right.
@Richard_Nabavi A reasonable number of "Brits" quite like the limitations the EU imposes on Britain. Rather than the "devil take the hindmost" view of those like yourself. It is what the next election will be about. May the best spinner win, with no biting or punching below the belt. (snowballs chance in hell though).
Yes but it's precisely that that's turning the EU into a 21st century Austro Hungarian empire. Uncompetitive with the outside world, obsessed with its own internal protocols, and a bit moth eaten. In fifty years we'll be a museum/theme park for Chinese and Brazilian tourists.
Today is the 100th anniversary of Arch-Duke Ferdinand's assassination in Sarajevo.
So the people voted on things they did not understand? Can you point the finger directly at the EU for the lack or our own political parties?
Neither Jean-Claude Juncker nor Martin Schulz campaigned in Britain. I don't blame the public in Britain for not having heard of them or not voting on their respective very limited merits. If they laid claim to being candidates in an election, might they have tried seeking support in a major constituency?
As it happens, they weren't known anywhere else in Europe either.
I have just linked to Ed Miliband's interview on the BBC. Scroll down the page to get the link.
Dear God!
How can Labour ever hope to win the election with him as leader? Mike did a piece recently about how David Miliband wouldn't have been any better a choice as leader than Ed Miliband and quoted Edmund in Tokyo agreeing, as supporting evidence. I disagreed but I admit I didn't make a particularly strong case for DM. Perhaps I will attempt this another time - but as DM is not "in play", he really isn't the issue.
The issue is that Labour have - AGAIN!- chosen a completely unelectable leader. Gordon Brown was completely unsuitable to be PM because of his well known psychological flaws and his inability to make decisions and to delegate.
Ed Miliband's problem is perhaps even worse electorally. He is a nicer person but he simply doesn't work/connect with the electorate. Leaders must, above all, be able to communicate in a way which makes the public comfortable. He can't do this.
Academic success is one feature of a good school, but not the only one.
Why should a minority set up schools that foster segregation? Perhaps because it reinforces the social solidarity of the group and cements the position of its conservative hierarchy and values. If a community values indoctrinating its young more then integrating into the wider community then setting up schools that foster discrimination may be a logical response.
Well, that is our choice, not yours.
Assimilation is distinctly unfavourable to the minority being assimilated.
Why???? Why is assimilation bad? Surely if you arrive in country X you should expect that over two or three generations an entirely natural process of intermingling, marriage, kids, etc is likely if not inevitable? I have nieces and nephews born and living in France. They are bilingual and essentially "French" except they speak English at home. I suspect their kids will support les Bleus at the 2044 World Cup whilst having only halting English. Please point out what's " unfavourable" about that?
Thank you for your racial rant.
Please explain what it has to do with religious schools, the subject in question?
What a nasty smear. The man never mentioned race. One of the lowest forms of debate is to arbitrarily play the racist accusation.
I agree that this is on the main story. But if power had just been moving to the European Parliament, Merkel wouldn't have been powerless to resist it. It's power moving to the voters. That's why she had to give in.
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
That's a quite bizarre reading of what's happened. Political power has moved from Government leaders to Eurocrats. Voters were irrelevant in the process.
You think Juncker would still have got the job if the EPP had lost?
Who voted for Juncker? Names and addresses, please.
Can you give me names and addresses of people who voted for the last government's manifesto?
You said the voters were irrelevant. In fact the way they voted determined the outcome.
They didn't. The European leaders determined the outcome.
They did so on a bloody awful basis. As a result of this, the EU is likely to suffer several years of further crisis.
They did it on the basis of votes cast and seats won. I don't see how you can say that was nothing to do with the voters.
Since you're apparently of the belief that the electorate voted on the basis of people they had never heard of, I'm not sure how we can sensibly continue the discussion.
Not what I said. In parliamentary systems you can vote for a local MP, a party or a PM. That still works OK for choosing the PM, because if you voted for the MP or the party they can make the decision for you. But even for the first two it's better if the party announces its PM candidate beforehand, because if it's someone really great or terrible you may base your decision on that when you'd otherwise have picked by MP or party.
@antifrank Is your position that we were led blindly into this by the EU?, Or that it was a failing of our politicians? Perhaps it suited them all for us to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit like the happy mushrooms they think we are?
Since you're apparently of the belief that the electorate voted on the basis of people they had never heard of, I'm not sure how we can sensibly continue the discussion.
Not what I said. In parliamentary systems you can vote for a local MP, a party or a PM. That still works OK for choosing the PM, because if you voted for the MP or the party they can make the decision for you. But even for the first two it's better if the party announces its PM candidate beforehand, because if it's someone really great or terrible you may base your decision on that when you'd otherwise have picked by MP or party.
So, to get this straight, you're happy that someone that no one had voted for, that no one had heard of, whose bloc does not command a majority in the European Parliament and who had no constitutional right to be chosen should be selected by European government leaders as the next European Commission president, and that's a democratic mandate?
@antifrank Is your position that we were led blindly into this by the EU?, Or that it was a failing of our politicians? Perhaps it suited them all for us to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit like the happy mushrooms they think we are?
It's my position that it's a bullshit system dreamt up after the election by Eurocrats seeking jobs for the boys with complete disregard for the actual election result.
Before the end of his term Jean-Claude Juncker is likely to be utterly humiliated, and to bitterly regret taking the job. But that's his look-out.
Since you're apparently of the belief that the electorate voted on the basis of people they had never heard of, I'm not sure how we can sensibly continue the discussion.
Not what I said. In parliamentary systems you can vote for a local MP, a party or a PM. That still works OK for choosing the PM, because if you voted for the MP or the party they can make the decision for you. But even for the first two it's better if the party announces its PM candidate beforehand, because if it's someone really great or terrible you may base your decision on that when you'd otherwise have picked by MP or party.
So, to get this straight, you're happy that someone that no one had voted for, that no one had heard of, whose bloc does not command a majority in the European Parliament and who had no constitutional right to be chosen should be selected by European government leaders as the next European Commission president, and that's a democratic mandate?
Interesting.
All those things are also true of Cameron except the "nobody heard of" one. This isn't ideal, but it's still better than the previous method, and it'll be fixed next time not least because we've all heard of the incumbent now.
Comments
To a large extent this is an intentional power-grab by the Euro elite, in cahoots with MEPs, seeking to reduce the power of national governments in favour of the EU centre. Clearly we in the UK - or at least, the Conservatives - definitely do not want this. What is less reflected in the UK coverage is that some other EU governments - especially Germany's - may not want it either.
The capitulation of Angela Merkel to this shift in the balance of power is the big story here. It has major ramifications for the future of the EU. And, yes, it means that the arguments in favour of the UK leaving altogether (or, perhaps more realistically, negotiating some special associate status) have become that much stronger. The vision of an EU run nominally by an anti-business, anti-City, anti-prosperity European parliament, but in practice run by the Commission, is not one which should ever be acceptable to the UK.
Our EU friends need to decide what direction they want to take. Today indicates that it's the opposite direction from that which we should want the EU to take.
As I have posted many times over the last year or so, in my view the balance has been moving towards leaving. Today was a further push in that direction.
To me this looks like increased democratic accountability, and broadly I am in favour.
In essence, all "special books" are the same, a set of standards that bind a society together.
The problem is that we get caught up in our personal prejudices,and that blinds us to the obvious similarities.
Oddly enough, the humanists and atheist share the same core principles as the religious, or at least the majority do.
We end up arguing over petty details instead of matching up the frayed edges, but that's human nature?
I feel we are exactly on the same page on this. This has been a momentous moment in the history of the EU, and will be looked back on as one of the major steps on the way to federation. The fact it's been done with such an appalling candidate is the shocking thing. The EU badly needs good leadership right now, as it continues to stare down the economic abyss. Juncker's ineptitude could make a lot of people suffer a lot more. Cameron is being mocked right now, but him and the Hungarian chap will the two people whose hands will be clean when Juncker screws up.
Perhaps not, but if the Russians started encroaching you would let others fight for it?
What is most depressing is that my strong impression is that most Eurocrats are completely unaware of the impact of today's decision on British floating voters like me.
Wrong troosers ?
And that's from the first, not very satisfying election: No contested primary on the left, ambiguity about whether the winner would really win, slightly low-key candidates, limited candidate recognition. But even there, she wasn't able to resist the power of somebody saying, "We had an election, and X won". She thought she could go along with the process then override the result. This is the same thought that kings and nobles have had over and over again in history. The power of an election, even a not very good one, turns out to be a lot greater than they expect. Democracy always finds a way.
I mean that you would not fight for the European parliament, but if Russia flexed its muscles,you would not be against our soldiers their bit. (NATO)?
We co-operate at one level, but disagree at another. Are we really that far apart that we can't work out a standard set of values that would aid us to live better lives, rather than fear?
:- edited to change bad edit
Anyway, even if you're right, it only makes sense in the context of establishing a United States of Europe. Some people want that, of course - if you live in Luxembourg, why not? But I don't think many Brits do.
Assimilation is distinctly unfavourable to the minority being assimilated.
A reasonable number of "Brits" quite like the limitations the EU imposes on Britain. Rather than the "devil take the hindmost" view of those like yourself.
It is what the next election will be about. May the best spinner win, with no biting or punching below the belt. (snowballs chance in hell though).
- I don't think people are guilty until proven innocent
- I don't prefer conservative voters, Asian or otherwise
- I don't despise anyone at all. Not Cameron. Not Farage. Not you.
- I paid normal taxes in Swizerland, IIRC at a marginal rate higher than in Britain because I was earning more in industry than I earned as an MP
- There was nothing odd about my expenses, which is why they got a one-line "No Issues" report
- I'd quite like to retire to Norway one day, but I don't suppose it'll happen.
As I said the other day, PB is least interesting when we talk about each other...
While there are some clowns in the European Parliament and other institutions, they do act as a useful protection of workers and other rights. It is one reason that BOOers are rare on the left compared to 30 years ago and more common on the right.
Can you give me names and addresses of people who voted for the last government's manifesto?
You said the voters were irrelevant. In fact the way they voted determined the outcome.
:good-luck[sic]-and-carry-on:
Please explain what it has to do with religious schools, the subject in question?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2672538/Muslim-man-murders-pregnant-prostitute-working-near-mosque.html
Thank god that other people don't go around murdering prostitutes for vague reasons, and it is only those crazy muslims?
At least we now know where to look when a suspect is needed?
So the people voted on things they did not understand?
Can you point the finger directly at the EU, or the lack or our own political parties?
As it happens, they weren't known anywhere else in Europe either.
Dear God!
How can Labour ever hope to win the election with him as leader? Mike did a piece recently about how David Miliband wouldn't have been any better a choice as leader than Ed Miliband and quoted Edmund in Tokyo agreeing, as supporting evidence. I disagreed but I admit I didn't make a particularly strong case for DM. Perhaps I will attempt this another time - but as DM is not "in play", he really isn't the issue.
The issue is that Labour have - AGAIN!- chosen a completely unelectable leader. Gordon Brown was completely unsuitable to be PM because of his well known psychological flaws and his inability to make decisions and to delegate.
Ed Miliband's problem is perhaps even worse electorally. He is a nicer person but he simply doesn't work/connect with the electorate. Leaders must, above all, be able to communicate in a way which makes the public comfortable. He can't do this.
So he can't win, in my opinion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28053791
Is your position that we were led blindly into this by the EU?, Or that it was a failing of our politicians?
Perhaps it suited them all for us to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit like the happy mushrooms they think we are?
Interesting.
Before the end of his term Jean-Claude Juncker is likely to be utterly humiliated, and to bitterly regret taking the job. But that's his look-out.
Exclusive! The Sunil's front page: Stick it up your #Juncker!
pic.twitter.com/Mhzcc4h4Vb
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Anderson_(tennis)