Sounds plausible - reasonably senior-sounding, but not so critically important that you couldn't let Lansley near it.
As I said last night, it all sounds like the Austria Hungary of 100 years ago ( and what an anniversary today is ). Fancy but meaningless titles being divvied up in civilised surroundings as the whole itself just drifts about incapable of reform, waiting for bigger powers to make the real decisions.
I cannot see Con/Lab/Lib recommending in a referendum for the UK to leave the EU. I would say that the real powers in this country, including large businesses would put so much pressure on the leading politicians in these parties, that they would not be able to support coming out of the EU. The polls suggest that the public are split 40/40 with 20% not knowing how they would vote in an in/out referendum.
Mr. 67, until a year or two back I would have agreed with you and any referendum would be a re-run of the 1975. The great and good lined up on the side for "in" and the mavericks and chancers wanting "Out", with the great British Public duly following their natural leaders. Now I am not so sure.
British society is very different now, channels of news of information are far more varied, people are far less deferential. Those factors and others make the leaders of the land far less powerful than they were. Do the views of, of say, Lord Snodbury, the Chairman of XYZ, carry the same weight as the did for his predecessor back in 1975? I don't think so.
On topic, looking at the process I don't agree that exit within a decade is odds-on. Generously say a referendum would be 50/50, you only get one, and referendum-less brexit is almost zero chance. You then have to multiply that by the probability of an in-out referendum, which can't be much higher than 50%, and negatively correlates with the probability of an out vote, because the more likely an out vote looks the more likely it is that the establishment will work out a way to wriggle out of holding the referendum. 30% tops, maybe even less than 20%.
There's also the possibility of brexit in all but name, but getting a new treaty done in ten years is tough. The EU needs a good three years just to choose the font. More likely everyone just muddles along while the UK bad-temperedly threatens secession but never actually does it, like Texas.
That looks a realistic picture of how the political world actually moves. What we're seeing this week is a substantial move in the attitudes of mildly non-BOO Tories, who are well-represented here and starting to feel that withdrawal may be the best option. That's interesting, but it's not quite as seismic as the discussion here might suggest. I doubt if it's shared by Mr Cameron, for a start, ass I think will become apparent in the coming months. He's using the defeat to improve his negotiating position, which is sensible, but I doubt if he's actually planning to engineer an exit.
On the original piece (I'm busy most of today and just looking in), it's worth saying that the view David's disagreeing with is not just held by the potential beneficiaries, the EPP and the socialists, but also by the Liberals and the Green Left., neither of whom will be anywhere near a majority in the next 20 years. On the Continent, it's simply a not very controversial consensus that it's a move towards greater democratic accountability, hence the 26-2 vote.One can take a very different view but it's important not to suppose that it reflects an international alliance - that's the same mistake that Cameron made over Juncker.
More likely everyone just muddles along while the UK bad-temperedly threatens secession but never actually does it, like Texas.
That sounds depressingly likely
Just whinge from the fringes as ever, luckily we will not need to be part of it.
Given the clear direction of travel of the EU would an independent Scotland really want to surrender its new found independence back to an increasingly federal EU?
Richard , My personal preference is to be part of Europe, I am sure many would be happy with a federal position.
I'm genuinely surprised. I'm pro Scottish independence. I just don't see the attraction of full EU membership for a newly independent Scotland.
John, not a burning issue with me , if pushed I would err towards being in but could be easily convinced otherwise.
It's not clear what opposition the "Euro-elite" were meant to take account of. Anti-Europeans won a clear minority of the vote. It was split between Communists and pals, fascists and pals, UKIP-esque single-minded nationalists and Tory-esque very right-wing parties. Between them, they won a noticeable but nonetheless small share of the vote. It's like saying Labour should have taken account of the big anti-Iraq left-leaning Lib Dem vote in 2005. They just didn't get enough votes to make anyone listen.
I cannot see Con/Lab/Lib recommending in a referendum for the UK to leave the EU. I would say that the real powers in this country, including large businesses would put so much pressure on the leading politicians in these parties, that they would not be able to support coming out of the EU. The polls suggest that the public are split 40/40 with 20% not knowing how they would vote in an in/out referendum.
Mr. 67, until a year or two back I would have agreed with you and any referendum would be a re-run of the 1975. The great and good lined up on the side for "in" and the mavericks and chancers wanting "Out", with the great British Public duly following their natural leaders. Now I am not so sure.
British society is very different now, channels of news of information are far more varied, people are far less deferential. Those factors and others make the leaders of the land far less powerful than they were. Do the views of, of say, Lord Snodbury, the Chairman of XYZ, carry the same weight as the did for his predecessor back in 1975? I don't think so.
It's not clear what opposition the "Euro-elite" were meant to take account of. Anti-Europeans won a clear minority of the vote. It was split between Communists and pals, fascists and pals, UKIP-esque single-minded nationalists and Tory-esque very right-wing parties. Between them, they won a noticeable but nonetheless small share of the vote. It's like saying Labour should have taken account of the big anti-Iraq left-leaning Lib Dem vote in 2005. They just didn't get enough votes to make anyone listen.
Yep, you're right. The EU should definitely ignore the rise in the eurosceptic vote and just carry on with federalization.
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but isn't Scotland "already" part of the EU, what with 6 MEPs duly elected in May, and its citizens coming under EU laws?
Quite amusing that all those in praise of Juncker omit his little local difficulty as PM of Luxembourg with spies, Russian plutocrats and his subsequent resignation. He lost the following election too.
So naturally as a failed politician he applied himself to the EU gravy train and there his masterly management of the financial mess magically turned it into a pending catastrophe in the Eurozone.
I am sure he will do well as the head of the commission. Although there is no doubt he can do worse than Barroso, although I never thought they could choose someone to manage that trick.
On topic, looking at the process I don't agree that exit within a decade is odds-on. Generously say a referendum would be 50/50, you only get one, and referendum-less brexit is almost zero chance. You then have to multiply that by the probability of an in-out referendum, which can't be much higher than 50%, and negatively correlates with the probability of an out vote, because the more likely an out vote looks the more likely it is that the establishment will work out a way to wriggle out of holding the referendum. 30% tops, maybe even less than 20%.
There's also the possibility of brexit in all but name, but getting a new treaty done in ten years is tough. The EU needs a good three years just to choose the font. More likely everyone just muddles along while the UK bad-temperedly threatens secession but never actually does it, like Texas.
That looks a realistic picture of how the political world actually moves. What we're seeing this week is a substantial move in the attitudes of mildly non-BOO Tories, who are well-represented here and starting to feel that withdrawal may be the best option. That's interesting, but it's not quite as seismic as the discussion here might suggest. I doubt if it's shared by Mr Cameron, for a start, ass I think will become apparent in the coming months. He's using the defeat to improve his negotiating position, which is sensible, but I doubt if he's actually planning to engineer an exit.
On the original piece (I'm busy most of today and just looking in), it's worth saying that the view David's disagreeing with is not just held by the potential beneficiaries, the EPP and the socialists, but also by the Liberals and the Green Left., neither of whom will be anywhere near a majority in the next 20 years. On the Continent, it's simply a not very controversial consensus that it's a move towards greater democratic accountability, hence the 26-2 vote.One can take a very different view but it's important not to suppose that it reflects an international alliance - that's the same mistake that Cameron made over Juncker.
So far the public is split because of antiUKIP feelings and loyalty to the conservative leader among the remaining tories, but during a Miliband government the attitude of the public will be to oppose the arguments of the government of the day so it will increase and harden opposition to EU membership. You will see the attitudes of many pro euro tories here becoming hard eurosceptics just to oppose Miliband.
What happens though if there is a narrow vote to stay in? Do we expect UKIP to shut up shop? Are the Tories likely to be reconciled with Brussels and become good europeans? Will there be a suddenly be a majority to join the Euro? Not likely, we will simply continue to be in the same unhappy estranged relationship we are now and I don't see how that is sustainable or desirable for the UK or the EU.
OT Conservative education secretary Michael Gove has launched an extraordinary attack on Labour’s management of the education system in Wales and accused the Welsh Government of presiding over a “tragedy”.
The leading Westminster cabinet member blasted the Cardiff-based Government for scrapping league tables and national curriculum tests and warned that a “refusal to reform” was hurting children’s education......
Mr Gove points to “damning” OECD figures which show that children in Wales are outperformed by counterparts in the different UK nations and by many international competitors.
In an essay published today, Mr Gove said: “This decline is traceable directly to the Labour Party’s refusal to embrace reforms we’ve been pursuing in England. In 15 years not a single academy or free school has opened in Wales.”
He maintains the Welsh Government lacks both a vision and a strategy to improve schools and warns that in some areas “Welsh Labour have actually gone backwards.”.....
His comments come days after the Welsh Independent Schools Council (Wisc) warned that new GCSE courses set in Wales “lack credibility and portability”. Students at some fee-paying schools will study England’s GCSEs....
Highlighting a lack of male teachers in Welsh schools, he writes: “Wales is an object lesson in what happens when you abandon reform.”
Mildly non-BOO Tories + BOO Tories are together 90% of the party. If the first lot move towards BOO, it's a leadership resisting gravity to maintain an In policy. Plus there's an increasing UKIP threat. In the next couple of years, the top of the Conservative party will realise (a) the case is a lot stronger for leaving than they thought, (b) they will need to back independence to have support among their own voters and activists and (c) there's a huge advantage electorally to being able to form an alliance or merger with UKIP.
Plus there's the other side of the equation if you read the EU press and talk to other Europeans. They're disgusted by us having an independent point of view. This isn't a new thing, but this vote has shown it in clear light, and cemented it further. The same mentality will apply going forward, with any attempt at repatriation, with any attempt at reform, and with the next attempt at further integration, which is only a matter of time. That is only going to increase the effects mentioned in the first paragraph. The spiral has begun in earnest now.
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but isn't Scotland "already" part of the EU, what with 6 MEPs duly elected in May, and its citizens coming under EU laws?
Thats true, Sunil, But Salmond wants to have an independent Scotland with it's own slab of MEP's.
Morning all and excellent piece as always David. I have always considered a better in and fighting for change to be the preferred stance on the EU. However the arrogance of Herr Juncker and chums is such that I am rapidly moving to the "time to leave" camp.
The only hope in the long run for the EU will be an organisation with 2 concentric circles. The inner circle of Euro members who form a virtually United States of Europe and then an outer circle which includes countries like the UK, Denmark etc who want only to share trade agreements with the inner core. I suppose in the EU and EEA/EFTA we already have that so perhaps time for Cameron to start promoting the benefits of EFTA outside the EU.
However I do wonder how our so called EU partners will feel if they realise we aren't kidding and the 2nd biggest paymaster after Germany might just turn off the money tap!
Easterross, It will be NO to leaving in an Independent Scotland.
Indeed. Which means the whole 'independence' debate is an utter sham, based on selling the ignorant the utter falsehood that a small nation within the EU can be anything approaching 'independent' -especially when Salmond has used Scotland's energy reserves and fish stocks etc. as negotiation tools to get back in, under terms that will no doubt be considerably worse than the current terms Scotland has membership on.
In other words, a total disaster for all concerned except Salmond, who having delivered Scotland to the EU on a platter, will be set for life.
That last line is a ballseye. I once thought Salmond was a Scottish patriot, a lefty, but still a patriot, in that he cared about the welfare of the general population. No longer. He is willing to sell out the Scottish nation for a seat at the top EU table and further future goodies.
Well I'm back after shopping and I can see that I am still welcomed to comment on PB. The spat between JackW and myself is personal and has nothing to do with me being a Kipper, nor should anything I say be ascribed to UKIP unless I infer it is.
He's not a scottish patriot he's a scotish nationalist, and scotish nationalism is against everything english even the language, since it was scottish tradition to ally with France against England most scotish nationalists prefer allying with Europe against Britain as a logical thing.
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but isn't Scotland "already" part of the EU, what with 6 MEPs duly elected in May, and its citizens coming under EU laws?
Scotland's people are EU citizens but Scotland is not part of the EU, it is the UK that is a member. Significantly different.
The prospect of a UK outside the EU with low tax, pro-business, global trading, managed migration and thriving universities and R&D would be very frightening to the governments of Northern Europe. Unless they were to put up high trade barriers (is that even possible given WTO?) the UK would prosper, London would become even more so the regional finance centre and manufacturing would flourish even attracting investment away from Eastern Europe eventually...
Given the above... Serious concessions should be on the table... The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU
Luxembourg has very high GDP per capita because a huge chunk of its labor force live across the border in France and Germany, and commute in. So their production counts for the numerator but not the denominator. Its also the reason why there's a low Gini co-efficient. It's too expensive for poor people to live there, but there are low costs just across the international borders. Plus there's all the EU spending it benefits from. It's like saying the Mayor of Washington DC has done a good job as there's so much wealth in the area.
There is another possibility though, the EU nations essentially kick us out. The push for the UK to adopt associate membership, or whatever they want to call it, comes from Brussels and not from London. That may in the end be the most likely outcome
I doubt it - you can work around most places with QMV, or in the worst case non-EU treaty, and the drama will become less dramatic over time. Hundreds of years from now it might be one of those quaint traditions, where the president wins the election and all the member states ceremoniously vote for him, apart from the British who ceremoniously vote against.
Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty, and aside from the small matter of the UK having a veto in that treaty, I'm not sure that the EU will ever be able to get another treaty of the full EU passed and ratified to do anything. They just have too many veto points.
"... you can work around most places with QMV ..."
That is an interesting statement, a true one but not one that is often mentioned. Following the Lisbon Treaty QMV can be used to force the UK to accept many things that may well be against its own best interests. The extent of this danger has hardly been mentioned, but this page gives a convenient table of the areas that are now subject to QMV:
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
"Business" is not absolutely lined up behind membership of the EU
Yes, the multi-nationals such as Samsung, Google and Microsoft who have fallen foul of EU anti-competition laws would love to be able to isolate the UK and bully it.
That is completely wrong. Big Business likes the EU. They like centralised government, and heavy regulation.
The CPS' recent 'Liberty' conference had a session on this subject.
May I propose that the question on the EU referendum on May 2021 be: Do you wish the UK to declare its independence from the European Union?
A declaration of independence is much more historically sounding that mere withdrawal. If its a yes, Britain will have its own independence day holiday.
"Business" is not absolutely lined up behind membership of the EU
Yes, the multi-nationals such as Samsung, Google and Microsoft who have fallen foul of EU anti-competition laws would love to be able to isolate the UK and bully it.
That is completely wrong. Big Business likes the EU. They like centralised government, and heavy regulation.
The CPS' recent 'Liberty' conference had a session on this subject.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
It's not clear what opposition the "Euro-elite" were meant to take account of. Anti-Europeans won a clear minority of the vote. It was split between Communists and pals, fascists and pals, UKIP-esque single-minded nationalists and Tory-esque very right-wing parties. Between them, they won a noticeable but nonetheless small share of the vote. It's like saying Labour should have taken account of the big anti-Iraq left-leaning Lib Dem vote in 2005. They just didn't get enough votes to make anyone listen.
Yep, you're right. The EU should definitely ignore the rise in the eurosceptic vote and just carry on with federalization.
Just like Britain ignored the Liberals and Lib Dems every time they won a but nonetheless small share of the vote. It's called democracy. Except that the Lib Dems aren't a non-coalition including Communists, fascists, single-minded nationalists and very right-wing anti-Europeans, so you can at least come up with policies that satisfy them. As always, the British want one rule for themselves (democracy) and another rule for Europe (Britain should overrule 26 other countries).
Luxembourg has very high GDP per capita because a huge chunk of its labor force live across the border in France and Germany, and commute in. So their production counts for the numerator but not the denominator. Its also the reason why there's a low Gini co-efficient. It's too expensive for poor people to live there, but there are low costs just across the international borders. Plus there's all the EU spending it benefits from. It's like saying the Mayor of Washington DC has done a good job as there's so much wealth in the area.
Doesn't the Luxembourg GDP also benefit from Amazon's massive operation there? Those citizens of the Duchy read so many books and buy so many things on line or is it that the Duchy is used a tax haven to off-shore the profits from Amazon's UK operations? I forget.
Running a low tax economy that attracts overseas investment seems a good idea to me! The Luxembourg economy is diverse though, and demonstrates that it is possible to be a high wage economy exporting both goods and services.
When we look at Junckers time as Prime Minister of Luxembourg and Finance Minister, it is hard to not be impressed.
Luxembourg has the second highest GDP in the world and has had economic growth considerably better than both EU and UK, while having a low gini coefficient. It has successfully diversified its economy away from the traditional areas of Iron and Steel production, into financial services, other manufacturing and telecommunications and e commerce. It has a large immigrant population, and tradition of absorbing these into Luxembourgish life, and low corporate and personal taxes.
It has sound finances and civic peace, and good relations with its neighbours. I stayed a few days in the delightful Luxembourgish village of Wilz a few years ago on a camping tour of battlefields. It is a lovely place to visit.
Junckers has a far better track record of bringing economic and social progress than any UK politician, as well as excellent political nous and negotiating skills. I am glad that he will be leading the Commission.
In other words he did a decent job running the equivalent of Kent County Council with loads of Germans parking money conveniently over his border for tax advantages. Hardly Roosevelt is it?
Juncker resigned (along with all of his ministers) over a spy scandal. This was an out of control secret service bugging people (including Juncker himself) and Junckers fault if any was not overseeing this rogue police department. Would that our governments would resign over bugging scandals...
Quite amusing that all those in praise of Juncker omit his little local difficulty as PM of Luxembourg with spies, Russian plutocrats and his subsequent resignation. He lost the following election too.
So naturally as a failed politician he applied himself to the EU gravy train and there his masterly management of the financial mess magically turned it into a pending catastrophe in the Eurozone.
I am sure he will do well as the head of the commission. Although there is no doubt he can do worse than Barroso, although I never thought they could choose someone to manage that trick.
"Business" is not absolutely lined up behind membership of the EU
Yes, the multi-nationals such as Samsung, Google and Microsoft who have fallen foul of EU anti-competition laws would love to be able to isolate the UK and bully it.
That is completely wrong. Big Business likes the EU. They like centralised government, and heavy regulation.
The CPS' recent 'Liberty' conference had a session on this subject.
I've learned that big business likes the EU for two reasons. One because they believe in the politics of the thing (they are still rich LD voters) even if its bad for their business and Two because they like the corruption oozing from the EU institutions.
Its not different than Wall Street supporting corrupt Big Government moderates for presidents in the USA.
I think those that say we're likely to drift on as normal are ignoring the fact that Europe itself is changing fundamentally and significantly.
If Europe wasn't changing then fair enough, the status quo would be likely to continue, but with Europe now reaching the "end game" for the project that it started 50 years ago it's inevitable that fundamental change is coming to our relationship with the soon to be USE.
I think the Europeans have grasped this before the British ruling class, but I think the penny is dropping even with the establishment.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
Even then you presumably need some kind of new agreement to govern trade and fishing and things - any idea what the process would be for approving that on the EU side?
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
The decision on which role to give to a commissioner is one for the President of the Commission, is it not? So it don't matter who we offer up it will be Mr. Juncker who decides what job they get, subject to the approval of the European Parliament, of course. HMG may apply pressure but has no actual power over individual appointments.
Well for better or for worse Juncker is there now so we will, in all fairness, have to judge him by his actions. That said I doubt the Luxembourg media is quite the same thing as the British version and he'll come under serious scrutiny, if only for the reason that he's an easy target as a panto villain for sections of that media. His name's a tabloid gift sadly for him. Not necessarily fair on the individual to whom I would wish no personal ill will, but that's where we are.
Forget about banging on about Europe for a minute and remember it is the Pitmens Derby today at Newcastle for which BigThunder at 14-1 is the volcano selection.
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
Even then you presumably need some kind of new agreement to govern trade and fishing and things - any idea what the process would be for approving that on the EU side?
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out the process
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
The decision on which role to give to a commissioner is one for the President of the Commission, is it not? So it don't matter who we offer up it will be Mr. Juncker who decides what job they get, subject to the approval of the European Parliament, of course. HMG may apply pressure but has no actual power over individual appointments.
I would expect Juncker to try to make peace with Britain, and make up for our huge loss here. That means getting the head of the Commission civil service and a big Commissioner post too. If we don't get that, it will be a serious **** you to Britain, and a clear sign they want to squeeze us out.
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
Even then you presumably need some kind of new agreement to govern trade and fishing and things - any idea what the process would be for approving that on the EU side?
There's no agreement needed on fishing. The right policy here is just to kick out the EU ships from plundering our sovereign waters. The Spanish destroyed their own fishing stocks and now they're destroying ours.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
You are dead right, but it reveals the malaise. It's all Buggins turn or " we've got a lefty woman from a big country in job X so we need a righty man from a small country in job Y even if they're both useless and we end up with the Andorran foreign minister rather than a German ( say ) carved up into an external role and utterly failing to stop the traffic in Beijing". Is this how the Holy Roman Empire worked right up until everyone just ignored it.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
The decision on which role to give to a commissioner is one for the President of the Commission, is it not? So it don't matter who we offer up it will be Mr. Juncker who decides what job they get, subject to the approval of the European Parliament, of course. HMG may apply pressure but has no actual power over individual appointments.
Juncker makes the decision with the heads of government. Many cycles from now I expect the president will end up picking and they'll end up rubber-stamp his requests, but we're a long way from that; The candidates need to be a lot more high-profile than they are now before they can start throwing their weight around.
But it doesn't matter who's making the decision, they still have the same problem, assuming Cameron insists on nominating Lansley.
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
Even then you presumably need some kind of new agreement to govern trade and fishing and things - any idea what the process would be for approving that on the EU side?
There's no agreement needed on fishing. The right policy here is just to kick out the EU ships from plundering our sovereign waters. The Spanish destroyed their own fishing stocks and now they're destroying ours.
I don't know much about fish but do they respect the appropriate national maritime boundaries?
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
Even then you presumably need some kind of new agreement to govern trade and fishing and things - any idea what the process would be for approving that on the EU side?
There's no agreement needed on fishing. The right policy here is just to kick out the EU ships from plundering our sovereign waters. The Spanish destroyed their own fishing stocks and now they're destroying ours.
That was one of Ted Heath's unrevealed until it was too late give-aways. We should just take it back - we do not have a share of Greek olive groves or French vineyards. Of course Cleggy would throw a paddy and say over his dead body, but one day someone may take him at his word.
More likely everyone just muddles along while the UK bad-temperedly threatens secession but never actually does it, like Texas.
That sounds depressingly likely
Just whinge from the fringes as ever, luckily we will not need to be part of it.
Given the clear direction of travel of the EU would an independent Scotland really want to surrender its new found independence back to an increasingly federal EU?
How's he going to provide all the free unicorns for every voter, without EU handouts to pay for them?
So what are the big jobs in the Commission? It seems to me just three: high representative, economic and monetary union, and internal markets. I guess we're pretty guaranteed to get the third one. They need a big job to make up for getting screwed over Juncker, but we're not in the Euro and we've just had the high representative position.
I agree with edmundintokyo though: can't give the job to Lansley. We need someone who is (a) eurosceptic and (b) has a record of knocking heads together and getting things done.
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
Even then you presumably need some kind of new agreement to govern trade and fishing and things - any idea what the process would be for approving that on the EU side?
There's no agreement needed on fishing. The right policy here is just to kick out the EU ships from plundering our sovereign waters. The Spanish destroyed their own fishing stocks and now they're destroying ours.
I don't know much about fish but do they respect the appropriate national maritime boundaries?
No they don't, but generally populations will move to where they're not getting overfished.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
You are dead right, but it reveals the malaise. It's all Buggins turn or " we've got a lefty woman from a big country in job X so we need a righty man from a small country in job Y even if they're both useless and we end up with the Andorran foreign minister rather than a German ( say ) carved up into an external role and utterly failing to stop the traffic in Beijing". Is this how the Holy Roman Empire worked right up until everyone just ignored it.
That's right. This is why the spitzenkandidat process is so important. Just get somebody elected somehow. It doesn't particularly matter how, or what job they're officially elected to. Each cycle they'll slightly increase their power, they'll slightly increase the number of voters who think they're good and the number who think they're shit, the winner will have a slightly more powerful mandate, they'll slightly increase their power...
You'll still have the Buggins Turn stuff for quite a long time to come, but the political process takes some time to bed down as well. You wouldn't want to give the guy who most of the voters haven't heard of a lot of authority from the get go. If the voters don't care much the winner won't have much power, but if and when they pay attention that will provide a mandate that the winner can leverage.
That's right. This is why the spitzenkandidat process is so important. Just get somebody elected somehow. It doesn't particularly matter how, or what job they're officially elected to. Each cycle they'll slightly increase their power, they'll slightly increase the number of voters who think they're good and the number who think they're shit, the winner will have a slightly more powerful mandate, they'll slightly increase their power...
It's not elected "somehow". There's no way they could have a directly elected president - there's too much risk that someone like Farage or Lucke could win it. It has to be filted through the European elite. That way they can claim legitimacy but still skew everything in a federalist direction.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
The decision on which role to give to a commissioner is one for the President of the Commission, is it not? So it don't matter who we offer up it will be Mr. Juncker who decides what job they get, subject to the approval of the European Parliament, of course. HMG may apply pressure but has no actual power over individual appointments.
Juncker makes the decision with the heads of government. Many cycles from now I expect the president will end up picking and they'll end up rubber-stamp his requests, but we're a long way from that; The candidates need to be a lot more high-profile than they are now before they can start throwing their weight around.
But it doesn't matter who's making the decision, they still have the same problem, assuming Cameron insists on nominating Lansley.
It maybe I am misunderstanding you, Mr. Tokyo, but the treaties are quite clear on this. Member states nominate commissioners, which role they get is wholly within the gift of the President of the Commission (save for the High Representative for Foreign Affairs). The Whole commission is then subject to ratification by the EU parliament.
No doubt there are many negotiations behind the scenes, but it is Juncker who will decide what job the Brit commissioner gets and if he says it is OIC Paper Clips then there is bugger all HMG can do about it other than lobby the European Parliament to reject the whole commission.
How about John Redwood as our choice to the Commission?
Don't think Cameron would go that far, but I notice Dr Liam Fox is being very complimentary about the Prime Minister in The Sun today...
Redwood supported Cameron over Davis and has previously been given jobs by him, so I don't see why not. Fox would be a fine choice however: he's not someone that would drop our interests without a fight like Lansley would.
That's right. This is why the spitzenkandidat process is so important. Just get somebody elected somehow. It doesn't particularly matter how, or what job they're officially elected to. Each cycle they'll slightly increase their power, they'll slightly increase the number of voters who think they're good and the number who think they're shit, the winner will have a slightly more powerful mandate, they'll slightly increase their power...
It's not elected "somehow". There's no way they could have a directly elected president - there's too much risk that someone like Farage or Lucke could win it. It has to be filted through the European elite. That way they can claim legitimacy but still skew everything in a federalist direction.
Not all elections are direct. The UK PM isn't, even the US president isn't, although they've come as close as they can with the available chewing gum.
The issue here isn't that they're worried about Farage or somebody, it's that you can't get unanimous agreement of the Heads of Government you're taking power away from to take their power away. Hence the epic fudge in Lisbon which describes a process in a way that doesn't say anything coherent, and the very gradual, informal accretion of power that doesn't really threaten any of the current incumbents, because it kicks so slowly that by the time the president is pushing the member states around they'll all have retired.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
The decision on which role to give to a commissioner is one for the President of the Commission, is it not? So it don't matter who we offer up it will be Mr. Juncker who decides what job they get, subject to the approval of the European Parliament, of course. HMG may apply pressure but has no actual power over individual appointments.
Juncker makes the decision with the heads of government. Many cycles from now I expect the president will end up picking and they'll end up rubber-stamp his requests, but we're a long way from that; The candidates need to be a lot more high-profile than they are now before they can start throwing their weight around.
But it doesn't matter who's making the decision, they still have the same problem, assuming Cameron insists on nominating Lansley.
It maybe I am misunderstanding you, Mr. Tokyo, but the treaties are quite clear on this. Member states nominate commissioners, which role they get is wholly within the gift of the President of the Commission (save for the High Representative for Foreign Affairs). The Whole commission is then subject to ratification by the EU parliament.
No doubt there are many negotiations behind the scenes, but it is Juncker who will decide what job the Brit commissioner gets and if he says it is OIC Paper Clips then there is bugger all HMG can do about it other than lobby the European Parliament to reject the whole commission.
Ah, I thought the member states had to agree to the specific jobs as well, but maybe you're right.
That's right. This is why the spitzenkandidat process is so important. Just get somebody elected somehow. It doesn't particularly matter how, or what job they're officially elected to. Each cycle they'll slightly increase their power, they'll slightly increase the number of voters who think they're good and the number who think they're shit, the winner will have a slightly more powerful mandate, they'll slightly increase their power...
It's not elected "somehow". There's no way they could have a directly elected president - there's too much risk that someone like Farage or Lucke could win it. It has to be filted through the European elite. That way they can claim legitimacy but still skew everything in a federalist direction.
Not all elections are direct. The UK PM isn't, even the US president isn't, although they've come as close as they can with the available chewing gum.
The issue here isn't that they're worried about Farage or somebody, it's that you can't get unanimous agreement of the Heads of Government you're taking power away from to take their power away. Hence the epic fudge in Lisbon which describes a process in a way that doesn't say anything coherent, and the very gradual, informal accretion of power that doesn't really threaten any of the current incumbents, because it kicks so slowly that by the time the president is pushing the member states around they'll all have retired.
This just shows how stupid/mendacious the Labour party were to sign Lisbon, describing it as a "tidying up exercise". I doubt there'll be another government as bad as the one from 1997-2010 in my life time.
How about John Redwood as our choice to the Commission?
Don't think Cameron would go that far, but I notice Dr Liam Fox is being very complimentary about the Prime Minister in The Sun today...
Redwood supported Cameron over Davis and has previously been given jobs by him, so I don't see why not. Fox would be a fine choice however: he's not someone that would drop our interests without a fight like Lansley would.
But, Mr. Socrates, each commissioner has to take an oath to move forward the EU's objectives and to forswear any national interest. So any commissioner that would look out for the UK's interest would be in breach of his oath. No commissioner from another country (*cough* France) would do that and therefore we should not expect anyone form this country to do so either.
On topic: It may not come down to a simple In or Out; where I think this may be leading is to some kind of Associate status for the UK, and possibly for a couple of other countries. This is something which various of the Eurocrats (including Juncker) have pointed to in recent weeks as a possibility. It actually makes very good sense: we are already somewhat anomalous with our existing opt-outs and not being in the Eurozone or Schengen. Also the issue of Eurozone governance hasn't gone away.
Such a status could actually end up as similar to leaving and negotiating a trade treaty, but it might be an easier sell both internally in the UK and in the EU generally. It would be a face-saving measure for the EU, avoiding the embarrassment of having one of the biggest economies exiting. It would also mean we could retain some protections on EU decision-making which affects us.
The Secretary-General of the Commission has been Irish for... a decade and a half, perhaps? Britain doesn't gain much by filling this post relative to taking a position normally held by an anti-British country. First, in European Union terms, Ireland is for obvious reasons very pro-British membership. Second, the Secretary-General doesn't wield much influence on behalf of her own country, as is clear from Ireland's recent treatment by the EU.
Fair enough, but where do you suggest parking Lansley? It needs to sound important enough not to seem like a deliberate slight to the British, but also be practically irrelevant enough to leave in the hands with the only minister incompetent enough for David Cameron to fire.
You are dead right, but it reveals the malaise. It's all Buggins turn or " we've got a lefty woman from a big country in job X so we need a righty man from a small country in job Y even if they're both useless and we end up with the Andorran foreign minister rather than a German ( say ) carved up into an external role and utterly failing to stop the traffic in Beijing". Is this how the Holy Roman Empire worked right up until everyone just ignored it.
That's right. This is why the spitzenkandidat process is so important. Just get somebody elected somehow. It doesn't particularly matter how, or what job they're officially elected to. Each cycle they'll slightly increase their power, they'll slightly increase the number of voters who think they're good and the number who think they're shit, the winner will have a slightly more powerful mandate, they'll slightly increase their power...
You'll still have the Buggins Turn stuff for quite a long time to come, but the political process takes some time to bed down as well. You wouldn't want to give the guy who most of the voters haven't heard of a lot of authority from the get go. If the voters don't care much the winner won't have much power, but if and when they pay attention that will provide a mandate that the winner can leverage.
Yup I think you are right. But that's exactly the salami tactics that's been going on since 1973. A push on a treaty meaning here, a court judgement there negating an opt out, a QM vote rather than unity here, and we end up where we are now compared to the Common Market we (or more likely out parents) voted for, and all without us being asked once as a nation if we agree and with this. The people are not being taken along with this project the Junckers of this world have, they are being taken for granted. It's a USE by stealth, it lacks legitimacy, there is no European "polis " and a Spitzekandidaten debate on BBC Three one evening doesn't make one. I'm blowed if I owe the post he fills any loyalty at all.
Hopefully the outcome of all this will be that European issues get a lot more attention. They more they get covered, the more eurosceptics will be recruited.
On topic: It may not come down to a simple In or Out; where I think this may be leading is to some kind of Associate status for the UK, and possibly for a couple of other countries. This is something which various of the Eurocrats (including Juncker) have pointed to in recent weeks as a possibility. It actually makes very good sense: we are already somewhat anomalous with our existing opt-outs and not being in the Eurozone or Schengen. Also the issue of Eurozone governance hasn't gone away.
Such a status could actually end up as similar to leaving and negotiating a trade treaty, but it might be an easier sell both internally in the UK and in the EU generally. It would be a face-saving measure for the EU, avoiding the embarrassment of having one of the biggest economies exiting. It would also mean we could retain some protections on EU decision-making which affects us.
Quite right, Mr. N., but this associate status would need looking at carefully. Whose law would be supreme, the UK's or the EU's? Cut the cackle, that is the core question. If the ECJ said the law is X and Parliament said it was Y which judgement would UK courts be obliged to follow?
A prominent Conservative backbencher said that, with Mr Juncker in place, Mr Cameron would now have to set out exactly what reforms he wants to see in Europe.
The prime minister has done this in broad terms in a newspaper article, but they wanted to see specifics this side of an election - and in the Conservative manifesto.
And, they said, if Mr Cameron remained vague on the issue, MPs would in any case simply draw up their own list of powers to be repatriated and put this in their election addresses next year.
And there is likely to be more of a clamour for the prime minster to set out a very different view of Britain's relationship with Brussels. As one MP put it: "It's crunch time."
As the Eurosceptic MP John Baron said on the record about the Juncker affair: "Having played the man, we now need to play the ball. We need greater clarity regarding our reform agenda in order to both better form alliances across the EU and convince a sceptical public at home that we are serious about reform."
That's exactly right. I don't see how Cameron can't announce his aims. We need to set expectations out to the EU now so they realise they can't buy us off with a few fluff issues. Cameron partially had difficulty on Juncker because he didn't set out an alternative early. He can't make the same mistake again.
On topic: It may not come down to a simple In or Out; where I think this may be leading is to some kind of Associate status for the UK, and possibly for a couple of other countries. This is something which various of the Eurocrats (including Juncker) have pointed to in recent weeks as a possibility. It actually makes very good sense: we are already somewhat anomalous with our existing opt-outs and not being in the Eurozone or Schengen. Also the issue of Eurozone governance hasn't gone away.
Such a status could actually end up as similar to leaving and negotiating a trade treaty, but it might be an easier sell both internally in the UK and in the EU generally. It would be a face-saving measure for the EU, avoiding the embarrassment of having one of the biggest economies exiting. It would also mean we could retain some protections on EU decision-making which affects us.
Quite right, Mr. N., but this associate status would need looking at carefully. Whose law would be supreme, the UK's or the EU's? Cut the cackle, that is the core question. If the ECJ said the law is X and Parliament said it was Y which judgement would UK courts be obliged to follow?
I find it somewhat ironic that 100 years to the day of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination, the nations of Europe are queuing up to take orders from Berlin.
It shows the utter pointlessness of the UK's involvement in 2 world wars. Let them get on with it and we can go back to looking after ourselves in the wider world.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
given there are more European jobs dependent on trading with us ( hence our trade deficit ) why do we never hear about the 4-5 million European jobs at risk ?
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Right I must be off. Diplomacy awaits and I must go off and conspire with Freggles how he is to defeat Pulpstar and with Pulpstar how we can together defeat the evil Morris Dancer who has just viciously, wickedly and treacherously stabbed him.
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
And that line whether from Clegg or Miliband or whomever is scaremongering bollocks. I cannot think of a single customer we'd lose just because we left. About 30% of our sales go to Europe so for me unlike the politicos it's a real world issue. There are far too many price, quality, delivery, and technical issues pulling in the opposite direction.
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
How about John Redwood as our choice to the Commission?
Don't think Cameron would go that far, but I notice Dr Liam Fox is being very complimentary about the Prime Minister in The Sun today...
Redwood supported Cameron over Davis and has previously been given jobs by him, so I don't see why not. Fox would be a fine choice however: he's not someone that would drop our interests without a fight like Lansley would.
Saw Liam Fox at Gib airport earlier in the month. It'd be too much to hope that he was on recon for the job
"Business" is not absolutely lined up behind membership of the EU
Yes, the multi-nationals such as Samsung, Google and Microsoft who have fallen foul of EU anti-competition laws would love to be able to isolate the UK and bully it.
Yeah, right. What form would this bullying take?
A threat to move their operations without a tax concession would be a liquefy starting point. I'd probably call their bluff.
Mr. Llama, what a coincidence. I shall be spending my time discussing with Kaiser Zen the best way to conquer England, and with President Monty the optimal method of reclaiming Brest.
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Has the 3 million figure ever been fact checked by C4?
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Has the 3 million figure ever been fact checked by C4?
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Countries supporting Churchill = UK = 1 Countries supporting Cameron = UK + (plucky) Hungary = 2
So what's wrong with my maths?
What's wrong with your history is that in 1940 all those countries stood alongside Britain and were beaten. Just like Hungary was yesterday. So the analogy I pointed out is correct and your point is both fatuous and false. No surprise since you recently proudly stated you were not interested in facts only politics.
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but isn't Scotland "already" part of the EU, what with 6 MEPs duly elected in May, and its citizens coming under EU laws?
Scotland's people are EU citizens but Scotland is not part of the EU, it is the UK that is a member. Significantly different.
Indeed, hence a vote to leave the UK, is also a vote to leave the EU......
Glad you've finally got your head around that......
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Countries supporting Churchill = UK = 1 Countries supporting Cameron = UK + (plucky) Hungary = 2
So what's wrong with my maths?
What's wrong with your history is that in 1940 all those countries stood alongside Britain and were beaten. Just like Hungary was yesterday. So the analogy I pointed out is correct and your point is both fatuous and false. No surprise since you recently proudly stated you were not interested in facts only politics.
"fatuous and false"?
I fear you have been taking lessons from the wrong College, Mr. Tyndall.
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but isn't Scotland "already" part of the EU, what with 6 MEPs duly elected in May, and its citizens coming under EU laws?
Scotland's people are EU citizens but Scotland is not part of the EU, it is the UK that is a member. Significantly different.
Indeed, hence a vote to leave the UK, is also a vote to leave the EU......
Glad you've finally got your head around that......
But they still have representation in Strasbourg (6 MEPs)! This isn't like the Irish Westminster MPs unilaterally leaving to setting up the Dáil in 1918!
David Cameron did very well in Brussels yesterday.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Really? I am sure the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French might have something to say about that.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Mr. Eagles, the example of the Sicilian expedition in the Peloponnesian War would have served as warning against the invasion of Iraq. No uncouth modernity required for us to be furnished with such wisdom.
On topic: It may not come down to a simple In or Out; where I think this may be leading is to some kind of Associate status for the UK, and possibly for a couple of other countries. This is something which various of the Eurocrats (including Juncker) have pointed to in recent weeks as a possibility. It actually makes very good sense: we are already somewhat anomalous with our existing opt-outs and not being in the Eurozone or Schengen. Also the issue of Eurozone governance hasn't gone away.
Such a status could actually end up as similar to leaving and negotiating a trade treaty, but it might be an easier sell both internally in the UK and in the EU generally. It would be a face-saving measure for the EU, avoiding the embarrassment of having one of the biggest economies exiting. It would also mean we could retain some protections on EU decision-making which affects us.
Yeah, that's where I think is probably heading, but only if Cameron is Prime Minister in 2015.
If it's Milliband we'll just carry on muddling through...
Ed Miliband pulling a Clegg with the three million jobs lie:
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Has the 3 million figure ever been fact checked by C4?
I posted a link to one of the official reports t'other day. It's not unreasonable to say that 3 million jobs are linked to businesses trading with the EU. It is unreasonable to imagine that those jobs would evaporate overnight if we were to leave.
Anyone with any business experience knows that success in overseas markets is more nuanced than 'in the club: make hay, outside the club: bankruptcy'.
After all the doomsaying when we stayed outside the Euro, I'm going to take anything about the economic impacts of Brexit with a wagon load of salt.
Mr. Eagles, the example of the Sicilian expedition in the Peloponnesian War would have served as warning against the invasion of Iraq. No uncouth modernity required for us to be furnished with such wisdom.
The Second Punic War would have served as a warning to George W Bush as well.
When he stuck up the Mission Accomplished Sign I thought, that's his Cannae moment.
You may have won the Battle, but that doesn't mean you've won the war.
Comments
British society is very different now, channels of news of information are far more varied, people are far less deferential. Those factors and others make the leaders of the land far less powerful than they were. Do the views of, of say, Lord Snodbury, the Chairman of XYZ, carry the same weight as the did for his predecessor back in 1975? I don't think so.
On the original piece (I'm busy most of today and just looking in), it's worth saying that the view David's disagreeing with is not just held by the potential beneficiaries, the EPP and the socialists, but also by the Liberals and the Green Left., neither of whom will be anywhere near a majority in the next 20 years. On the Continent, it's simply a not very controversial consensus that it's a move towards greater democratic accountability, hence the 26-2 vote.One can take a very different view but it's important not to suppose that it reflects an international alliance - that's the same mistake that Cameron made over Juncker.
"Lord who?"
So naturally as a failed politician he applied himself to the EU gravy train and there his masterly management of the financial mess magically turned it into a pending catastrophe in the Eurozone.
I am sure he will do well as the head of the commission. Although there is no doubt he can do worse than Barroso, although I never thought they could choose someone to manage that trick.
You will see the attitudes of many pro euro tories here becoming hard eurosceptics just to oppose Miliband.
Conservative education secretary Michael Gove has launched an extraordinary attack on Labour’s management of the education system in Wales and accused the Welsh Government of presiding over a “tragedy”.
The leading Westminster cabinet member blasted the Cardiff-based Government for scrapping league tables and national curriculum tests and warned that a “refusal to reform” was hurting children’s education......
Mr Gove points to “damning” OECD figures which show that children in Wales are outperformed by counterparts in the different UK nations and by many international competitors.
In an essay published today, Mr Gove said: “This decline is traceable directly to the Labour Party’s refusal to embrace reforms we’ve been pursuing in England. In 15 years not a single academy or free school has opened in Wales.”
He maintains the Welsh Government lacks both a vision and a strategy to improve schools and warns that in some areas “Welsh Labour have actually gone backwards.”.....
His comments come days after the Welsh Independent Schools Council (Wisc) warned that new GCSE courses set in Wales “lack credibility and portability”. Students at some fee-paying schools will study England’s GCSEs....
Highlighting a lack of male teachers in Welsh schools, he writes: “Wales is an object lesson in what happens when you abandon reform.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/education-secretary-michael-goves-impassioned-7339250
Mildly non-BOO Tories + BOO Tories are together 90% of the party. If the first lot move towards BOO, it's a leadership resisting gravity to maintain an In policy. Plus there's an increasing UKIP threat. In the next couple of years, the top of the Conservative party will realise (a) the case is a lot stronger for leaving than they thought, (b) they will need to back independence to have support among their own voters and activists and (c) there's a huge advantage electorally to being able to form an alliance or merger with UKIP.
Plus there's the other side of the equation if you read the EU press and talk to other Europeans. They're disgusted by us having an independent point of view. This isn't a new thing, but this vote has shown it in clear light, and cemented it further. The same mentality will apply going forward, with any attempt at repatriation, with any attempt at reform, and with the next attempt at further integration, which is only a matter of time. That is only going to increase the effects mentioned in the first paragraph. The spiral has begun in earnest now.
Given the above... Serious concessions should be on the table... The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU
Luxembourg has very high GDP per capita because a huge chunk of its labor force live across the border in France and Germany, and commute in. So their production counts for the numerator but not the denominator. Its also the reason why there's a low Gini co-efficient. It's too expensive for poor people to live there, but there are low costs just across the international borders. Plus there's all the EU spending it benefits from. It's like saying the Mayor of Washington DC has done a good job as there's so much wealth in the area.
That is an interesting statement, a true one but not one that is often mentioned. Following the Lisbon Treaty QMV can be used to force the UK to accept many things that may well be against its own best interests. The extent of this danger has hardly been mentioned, but this page gives a convenient table of the areas that are now subject to QMV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
"Actually kicking the UK out would require a treaty"
No, it wouldn't. There are several routes that could be used. The most obvious one is keep using QMV to the UKs disadvantage that eventually, even the most ardent Europhile UK government would have to give in to the demands of its people and invoke article 50.
The CPS' recent 'Liberty' conference had a session on this subject.
http://www.cps.org.uk/about/news/q/date/2014/06/19/watch-the-full-livestream-of-liberty2014/
Do you wish the UK to declare its independence from the European Union?
A declaration of independence is much more historically sounding that mere withdrawal.
If its a yes, Britain will have its own independence day holiday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2360592/Entire-government-Luxembourg-resigns-spying-corruption-scandal-forces-prime-minister-quit.html
One because they believe in the politics of the thing (they are still rich LD voters) even if its bad for their business and Two because they like the corruption oozing from the EU institutions.
Its not different than Wall Street supporting corrupt Big Government moderates for presidents in the USA.
If Europe wasn't changing then fair enough, the status quo would be likely to continue, but with Europe now reaching the "end game" for the project that it started 50 years ago it's inevitable that fundamental change is coming to our relationship with the soon to be USE.
I think the Europeans have grasped this before the British ruling class, but I think the penny is dropping even with the establishment.
"Luxembourg economy is diverse"
No it isn't. It is even more dependent on financial services than the UK.
'Given the above... Serious concessions should be on the table... The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU'
Yes, unfettered access to the second largest market in Europe should focus a few governments attention.
Well for better or for worse Juncker is there now so we will, in all fairness, have to judge him by his actions. That said I doubt the Luxembourg media is quite the same thing as the British version and he'll come under serious scrutiny, if only for the reason that he's an easy target as a panto villain for sections of that media. His name's a tabloid gift sadly for him. Not necessarily fair on the individual to whom I would wish no personal ill will, but that's where we are.
Interesting times.
But it doesn't matter who's making the decision, they still have the same problem, assuming Cameron insists on nominating Lansley.
I agree with edmundintokyo though: can't give the job to Lansley. We need someone who is (a) eurosceptic and (b) has a record of knocking heads together and getting things done.
You'll still have the Buggins Turn stuff for quite a long time to come, but the political process takes some time to bed down as well. You wouldn't want to give the guy who most of the voters haven't heard of a lot of authority from the get go. If the voters don't care much the winner won't have much power, but if and when they pay attention that will provide a mandate that the winner can leverage.
No doubt there are many negotiations behind the scenes, but it is Juncker who will decide what job the Brit commissioner gets and if he says it is OIC Paper Clips then there is bugger all HMG can do about it other than lobby the European Parliament to reject the whole commission.
"For all the criticism, Mr Juncker is widely credited with playing a key role in the creation of the EU’s single currency in the early 1990s…"
Say what you will about Nero, he knows how to light a good fire.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381218/junckered-andrew-stuttaford
The issue here isn't that they're worried about Farage or somebody, it's that you can't get unanimous agreement of the Heads of Government you're taking power away from to take their power away. Hence the epic fudge in Lisbon which describes a process in a way that doesn't say anything coherent, and the very gradual, informal accretion of power that doesn't really threaten any of the current incumbents, because it kicks so slowly that by the time the president is pushing the member states around they'll all have retired.
He got twice as many European countries supporting him than Churchill had in 1940.
That is a 100% improvement on the Prime Minister who almost invariably polls as best of the 20th century.
Go Dave, Go.
Such a status could actually end up as similar to leaving and negotiating a trade treaty, but it might be an easier sell both internally in the UK and in the EU generally. It would be a face-saving measure for the EU, avoiding the embarrassment of having one of the biggest economies exiting. It would also mean we could retain some protections on EU decision-making which affects us.
That can only be Ken Clarke, surely?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28060930
The prime minister has done this in broad terms in a newspaper article, but they wanted to see specifics this side of an election - and in the Conservative manifesto.
And, they said, if Mr Cameron remained vague on the issue, MPs would in any case simply draw up their own list of powers to be repatriated and put this in their election addresses next year.
And there is likely to be more of a clamour for the prime minster to set out a very different view of Britain's relationship with Brussels. As one MP put it: "It's crunch time."
As the Eurosceptic MP John Baron said on the record about the Juncker affair: "Having played the man, we now need to play the ball. We need greater clarity regarding our reform agenda in order to both better form alliances across the EU and convince a sceptical public at home that we are serious about reform."
That's exactly right. I don't see how Cameron can't announce his aims. We need to set expectations out to the EU now so they realise they can't buy us off with a few fluff issues. Cameron partially had difficulty on Juncker because he didn't set out an alternative early. He can't make the same mistake again.
It shows the utter pointlessness of the UK's involvement in 2 world wars. Let them get on with it and we can go back to looking after ourselves in the wider world.
Mr Miliband said the prime minister now posed "a clear and present danger" to the UK's future.
"David Cameron, by his own admission, is taking us closer to the exit door of the European Union, which would threaten three million jobs across the United Kingdom," he said.
Seems like history is not one of your strong points. (Nor maths given that Cameron got one country to support him yesterday and by your calculations that would mean half a European country supported Churchill in 1940)
Thanks all for an interesting discussion today.
Denmark - Occupied
Netherlands - Occupied
Belgium - Occupied
France - Surrendered
So what's wrong with my history?
Countries supporting Churchill = UK = 1
Countries supporting Cameron = UK + (plucky) Hungary = 2
So what's wrong with my maths?
Barely anything.
What to make of that?
I'm really looking forward to a canvasser door stepping me with that line. I will eat them alive.
Can't he open a door either....
Mr. Llama, what a coincidence. I shall be spending my time discussing with Kaiser Zen the best way to conquer England, and with President Monty the optimal method of reclaiming Brest.
Free France
Free Belgium
Free Netherlands
Free Norway
Free Denmark (from 1943 - between 1940 and 1943 largely accommodating to the Nazi occupiers).
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/what-are-the-odds-of-the-uk-leaving-the-eu-anytime-soon-20-say-bookies/
I have even dined in the cabinet room of the Free Norwegian Government (next to and upstairs from the Camelot Lottery office off Trafalgar Square).
It is just that I am not counting them.
And I myself forgot about Free Poland and Greece (the latter weren't defeated till 1941).
[not C4]
Glad you've finally got your head around that......
Chile to beat Brazil. Note prices vary. I've gone for to qualify market rather than the win in 90mins market.
Also gone for Sanchez to be FGS.
Uruguay to defeat Colombia.
I fear you have been taking lessons from the wrong College, Mr. Tyndall.
It would explain a lot.
His lectures were over-subscribed.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"
If it's Milliband we'll just carry on muddling through...
Anyone with any business experience knows that success in overseas markets is more nuanced than 'in the club: make hay, outside the club: bankruptcy'.
After all the doomsaying when we stayed outside the Euro, I'm going to take anything about the economic impacts of Brexit with a wagon load of salt.
When he stuck up the Mission Accomplished Sign I thought, that's his Cannae moment.
You may have won the Battle, but that doesn't mean you've won the war.