A boring technical question that maybe @NickPalmer can answer:
How do the parties decide on their manifesto launches, in a way that each gets a day in the sun? Is there a gentleman's agreement where they settle on who gets to go when? Or does one major party simply announce their date first, then everyone else shuffle theirs dates around the ones announced so far to ensure they don't get drowned out on the Grid? (As the Greens seem to have managed to do with their mistimed clash.)
I know with the party conferences there is agreement not to "shout over" a rival's conference by hogging the limelight with a new policy announcement, for instance, and I presume the way that conference dates are kept separate between parties is a side-feature of that. Does a similar rule apply to manifesto launches?
I think it was one of the things that helped turn the westminster village type of people against Brown. His trip to Iraq to announce our withdrawal all done as the Conservative conference began in 2007.
It just really wasnt cricket, especially when it looked like we were on the verge of him calling a general election. I think the narrative fell away from him that weekend.
Didn`t Martin Boon of ICM claim that the sample was more Tory than usual?
I could have accepted Con36-Lab 33 but a 6 point advantage seems way off the mean of all polls.
The Scottish Tories were far too high for the sample at any rate, and Labour were too low there - even by Scottish Labour standards. That certainly skewed it a bit...
The England only polling showed a swing to Labour still.
I was surprised to see a statement that ICM weights by demographics and certainty to vote; past voting wasn't mentioned. Is this correct?
Nick if I['m remembering correctly we were going to meet up the Saturday evening after you'd done canvassing in a "Strong Labour pub"
Didn`t Martin Boon of ICM claim that the sample was more Tory than usual?
I could have accepted Con36-Lab 33 but a 6 point advantage seems way off the mean of all polls.
The Scottish Tories were far too high for the sample at any rate, and Labour were too low there - even by Scottish Labour standards. That certainly skewed it a bit...
The England only polling showed a swing to Labour still.
I was surprised to see a statement that ICM weights by demographics and certainty to vote; past voting wasn't mentioned. Is this correct?
Nick if I['m remembering correctly we were going to meet up the Saturday evening after you'd done canvassing in a "Strong Labour pub"
Didn`t Martin Boon of ICM claim that the sample was more Tory than usual?
I could have accepted Con36-Lab 33 but a 6 point advantage seems way off the mean of all polls.
The Scottish Tories were far too high for the sample at any rate, and Labour were too low there - even by Scottish Labour standards. That certainly skewed it a bit...
The England only polling showed a swing to Labour still.
I was surprised to see a statement that ICM weights by demographics and certainty to vote; past voting wasn't mentioned. Is this correct?
Nick if I['m remembering correctly we were going to meet up the Saturday evening after you'd done canvassing in a "Strong Labour pub"
'Seems it doesn't matter what Cameron promises, there will be no EU negotiations in the next Parliament.'
Great news, a much better chance to get an 'out' vote.
Hardly great news. There's no chance of getting any vote at all on the EU, given the Tories are not going to secure the majority the policy of a referendum needs.
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
Just to add: They can have negotiations, just not treaty negotiations for a treaty passed by 2017, since they can't pass a treaty by 2017. Presumably some of the things Cameron wants (whatever they are, it's all a bit vague) can be done without a treaty, if he gives the other member states something they want in return.
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
That is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU. It is so big, so fat, and so bloated, that it cannot function in anything near a timely manner.
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
That is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU. It is so big, so fat, and so bloated, that it cannot function in anything near a timely manner.
Dunno about fat and bloated, it's just a matter of having 28 countries that have to agree, each with multiple veto points. For constitutional change a laborious process is sometimes a bug not a feature. Looking at Cameron's thing from the other end, if a country votes to join the EU, it wouldn't be reasonable for some other country to suddenly change their mind about what the EU should be and ram that through without at least their own parliament having a chance to consider it properly. The British would be saying the same thing if the French suddenly said, "We've changed our minds about letting your businesses sell your stuff here, please ratify this by Thursday."
That said, the number of veto points is certainly one of the things that's shafting the Eurozone.
Impressive backdrop of the Union Flag on the front page of The Times ..... now that's the sort of thing which will win win votes for the Tories and I joke not. (Well in England & Wales that is)
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
That is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU. It is so big, so fat, and so bloated, that it cannot function in anything near a timely manner.
How long does it take to pass a constitutional amendment in America ?
In both cases the process is designed to be slow and cumbersome to force reflection and thought
Just to add: They can have negotiations, just not treaty negotiations for a treaty passed by 2017, since they can't pass a treaty by 2017. Presumably some of the things Cameron wants (whatever they are, it's all a bit vague) can be done without a treaty, if he gives the other member states something they want in return.
Yes and no. If its not in a treaty it can be overturned by the ECJ, as we have found to our cost several times in the past.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
That is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU. It is so big, so fat, and so bloated, that it cannot function in anything near a timely manner.
How long does it take to pass a constitutional amendment in America ?
In both cases the process is designed to be slow and cumbersome to force reflection and thought
You honestly believe the process was 'designed' to be slow and cumbersome?
And there is very little that I would take from America when developing a political system.
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
That is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU. It is so big, so fat, and so bloated, that it cannot function in anything near a timely manner.
How long does it take to pass a constitutional amendment in America ?
In both cases the process is designed to be slow and cumbersome to force reflection and thought
The longest so far took 202 years to ratify. And the British have been working on the right way to elect the House of Lords since at least 1911.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
Just to add: They can have negotiations, just not treaty negotiations for a treaty passed by 2017, since they can't pass a treaty by 2017. Presumably some of the things Cameron wants (whatever they are, it's all a bit vague) can be done without a treaty, if he gives the other member states something they want in return.
Yes and no. If its not in a treaty it can be overturned by the ECJ, as we have found to our cost several times in the past.
If it's illegal then obviously. But more relevantly, if a change has a lower hurdle and gets passed by QMV, it can be unpassed by QMV.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
Just to add: They can have negotiations, just not treaty negotiations for a treaty passed by 2017, since they can't pass a treaty by 2017. Presumably some of the things Cameron wants (whatever they are, it's all a bit vague) can be done without a treaty, if he gives the other member states something they want in return.
Yes and no. If its not in a treaty it can be overturned by the ECJ, as we have found to our cost several times in the past.
If it's illegal then obviously. But more relevantly, if a change has a lower hurdle and gets passed by QMV, it can be unpassed by QMV.
I mean this sort of nonsense
One of the country’s most senior judges has reignited the debate about the expanding power of European courts by admitting his “surprise” that a controversial EU charter which ministers opted out of is now legally binding in Britain.
Mr Justice Mostyn said it was “absolutely clear” from a protocol signed as part of the Lisbon Treaty that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be enforceable in this country.
But he told the High Court that a ruling in Luxembourg had now reversed this position in a move which he said would permanently extend the reach of human rights legislation in Britain.
Just stating the obvious, isn't it? The EU has too many veto points to pass a treaty of 28 member states in two years, let alone one that only one member state wants.
That is one of the best arguments for leaving the EU. It is so big, so fat, and so bloated, that it cannot function in anything near a timely manner.
How long does it take to pass a constitutional amendment in America ?
In both cases the process is designed to be slow and cumbersome to force reflection and thought
In the case of the EU wasn't it designed to protect national interests? The purpose is to build consensus and to ensure no-one's interests are harmed. But it is also predicated on the idea that everyone is essentially travelling in the same direction. When that is not the case - see UK, see Greece - then it becomes a big problem. But Cameron knew all this when he made his 2017 promise. Nothing that Brussels is saying will surprise or anger him, though he may pretend otherwise. Indeed, it may all be part of the game, with both sides willing players.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
It is really useful having a large organisation that is unable or unwilling to change quickly in our stable world that never changes and where communications are slow. So useful to put arbitrary time frames into the future and expect the world to wait for you.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
The Tory right will probably call bullshit on his meaningless bits of tinsel and the party will split. Well respected right-wingers like Hannan are not going to sit quietly while Cameron attempts to sell the British public a pig in a poke.
It is really useful having a large organisation that is unable or unwilling to change quickly in our stable world that never changes and where communications are slow. So useful to put arbitrary time frames into the future and expect the world to wait for you.
I agree, they'd be better with a process at least more like the US (2/3 of Congress+Senate and 3/4 of states) rather than giving every single member state a veto on change. But as discussed up-thread, in practice the EU isn't exceptionally slow as far as constitutional change goes, and there are good arguments why it shouldn't be trivial.
Also the process for leaving is reasonably fast (thanks to Lisbon), so if Cameron really wanted out of fundamental things like free movement of people that everybody else wants to keep then that would be the obvious route.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
It is really useful having a large organisation that is unable or unwilling to change quickly in our stable world that never changes and where communications are slow. So useful to put arbitrary time frames into the future and expect the world to wait for you.
I agree, they'd be better with a process at least more like the US (2/3 of Congress+Senate and 3/4 of states) rather than giving every single member state a veto on change. But as discussed up-thread, in practice the EU isn't exceptionally slow as far as constitutional change goes, and there are good arguments why it shouldn't be trivial.
Also the process for leaving is reasonably fast (thanks to Lisbon), so if Cameron really wanted out of fundamental things like free movement of people that everybody else wants to keep then that would be the obvious route.
The EU is far more capable of change within its constitution than the US is at the moment. Partly that's due to the EU's greater willingness to discuss it and that US's apparent contentment with its governance arrangements (for all the obvious flaws); partly it's simply because the EU is still evolving. But in practice, I don't think the high barrier to reform has proven as big a problem as you make out. If it were lower, as you suggest, that would almost certainly lead directly to a secession 'crisis' involving Britain and quite possibly several other states, whether from that group which pays in net terms or from that group which has had austerity 'imposed' on their political culture (which was actually a consequence of signing up to the Euro). Indeed, given the EU's still evolving role, the risk would be solidifying either above internal division - and they're closely related - into set 'blocks' or 'sections', not unakin to the North and South pre-Civil War, where all policies and power relationships become viewed through that prism.
Just to add: They can have negotiations, just not treaty negotiations for a treaty passed by 2017, since they can't pass a treaty by 2017. Presumably some of the things Cameron wants (whatever they are, it's all a bit vague) can be done without a treaty, if he gives the other member states something they want in return.
Yes and no. If its not in a treaty it can be overturned by the ECJ, as we have found to our cost several times in the past.
If it's illegal then obviously. But more relevantly, if a change has a lower hurdle and gets passed by QMV, it can be unpassed by QMV.
I mean this sort of nonsense
One of the country’s most senior judges has reignited the debate about the expanding power of European courts by admitting his “surprise” that a controversial EU charter which ministers opted out of is now legally binding in Britain.
Mr Justice Mostyn said it was “absolutely clear” from a protocol signed as part of the Lisbon Treaty that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be enforceable in this country.
But he told the High Court that a ruling in Luxembourg had now reversed this position in a move which he said would permanently extend the reach of human rights legislation in Britain.
In short, protocols are not worth the paper they are printed on, it has to be in the body of a treaty.
IANAL but reading the Wikipedia write-up it doesn't read like the issue is that they were protocols not the treaty, it seems to be that the specific protocol as worded didn't actually have the effect that Tony Blair said it did and this particular judge thought it did.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Not trusting the British people to state a preference on their own future is a new use of term "better points" I hadn't previously met. If there are five years or Miliband Euro-sycophancy, political correctness, meek and ineffectual responses to Islamic terrorism with a eye over his shoulder on his voters, and the Tories busy with fratricide, Farage's successor could walk to 25% with his eyes shut.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Of course. But since Labour's Scottish collapse I have moved firmly into the JackW camp.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Of course. But since Labour's Scottish collapse I have moved firmly into the JackW camp.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
The Tory right will probably call bullshit on his meaningless bits of tinsel and the party will split. Well respected right-wingers like Hannan are not going to sit quietly while Cameron attempts to sell the British public a pig in a poke.
Oh yes. It will be fun to watch. There's nothing like the Conservative party tearing itself to pieces over Europe to bring a smile to the face of an old Leftie like me. Hopefully, LOTO Jarvis will make hay on the back of it.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
The Tory right will probably call bullshit on his meaningless bits of tinsel and the party will split. Well respected right-wingers like Hannan are not going to sit quietly while Cameron attempts to sell the British public a pig in a poke.
The Tory Party does not split. Sometimes there is internal dissent. Sometimes there are defections. But a split? No. In the event that Cameron didn't get what some want - and he won't - the scenario would be more like the Labour old guard campaigning for No in the AV referendum (which was lost, it's worth noting).
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Not trusting the British people to state a preference on their own future is a new use of term "better points" I hadn't previously met. If there are five years or Miliband Euro-sycophancy, political correctness, meek and ineffectual responses to Islamic terrorism with a eye over his shoulder on his voters, and the Tories busy with fratricide, Farage's successor could walk to 25% with his eyes shut.
I don't think so. Farage will be a busted flush after this election.
I have never been a fan of referenda. Has the Scottish one settled anything or just poisoned relationships? Politicians are elected to make decisions and Parliament should decide. Isn't the whole point that the Westminster Parliament should be sovereign?
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
A cursory analysis of your comment might lead the unwary to consider that you've conceded the election to Cameron and the Conservatives.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
That's the best argument for leaving the EU that you could give. Are you a secret Europhobe? ;-)
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
Apparently Cameron's plan for 2019 is to say, "Thanks everybody, I've enjoyed being your Prime Minister, best of luck to the next guy"...
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
That's the best argument for leaving the EU that you could give. Are you a secret Europhobe? ;-)
No; I think that Nick is making the argument that Parliament should decide rather than have a neverendum.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
Cameron will be passing this problem onto his successor. All he needed was something to get him through to 8th May.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
I disagree that it's impossible to negotiations to be concluded within two years. I assume there's a draft treaty already in place at the Foreign Office. A majority Conservative government would be in a very powerful position to ask for a new Treaty to be negotiated among the members. There is sympathy for some of the criticisms of the existing EU process and structure within other member states, who (along with the Commission) would be happy to get the British Problem off their backs. A referendum, unless within 10% or so, would resolve that one way or the other for the foreseeable future.
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Not trusting the British people to state a preference on their own future is a new use of term "better points" I hadn't previously met. If there are five years or Miliband Euro-sycophancy, political correctness, meek and ineffectual responses to Islamic terrorism with a eye over his shoulder on his voters, and the Tories busy with fratricide, Farage's successor could walk to 25% with his eyes shut.
I don't think so. Farage will be a busted flush after this election.
I have never been a fan of referenda. Has the Scottish one settled anything or just poisoned relationships? Politicians are elected to make decisions and Parliament should decide. Isn't the whole point that the Westminster Parliament should be sovereign?
The problem for the Tories under your scenario is that they would tear themselves apart. A referendum promise was the only way to keep the party's right on board. It's merely pushed things on a couple of years, but Dave does not have to fight another election after this one.
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
And then we have France saying they are not remotely interested in ratifying a treaty that caters only to British interests, and Poland saying they will not ratify any treaty that restricts access to benefits to non-nationals.
So ratification fails, and yet the British people have voted for IN on the basis of Cameron's now dead treaty, interesting times.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
I disagree that it's impossible to negotiations to be concluded within two years. I assume there's a draft treaty already in place at the Foreign Office. A majority Conservative government would be in a very powerful position to ask for a new Treaty to be negotiated among the members. There is sympathy for some of the criticisms of the existing EU process and structure within other member states, who (along with the Commission) would be happy to get the British Problem off their backs. A referendum, unless within 10% or so, would resolve that one way or the other for the foreseeable future.
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
Just to provide some context to that assertion, the Delors Report tabled its recommendations in 1989. By the end of 1990, the Maastricht Treaty, based in large part on the report, had been agreed. True, there are more than twice as many members now as then but it's a negative and defeatist attitude to suggest that Cameron's timetable cannot be achieved when history, never mind willpower, suggests it can.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Not trusting the British people to state a preference on their own future is a new use of term "better points" I hadn't previously met. If there are five years or Miliband Euro-sycophancy, political correctness, meek and ineffectual responses to Islamic terrorism with a eye over his shoulder on his voters, and the Tories busy with fratricide, Farage's successor could walk to 25% with his eyes shut.
I don't think so. Farage will be a busted flush after this election.
Farage might well be a busted flush. UKIP wont be, at worst they will probably have tripled the number of people that voted for them, and have 2-3 MPs and a couple of dozen or more seats with close second places that they can build on. A new leader, a bit of a freshen up of the platform and they will be in business in 2020, and possibly do quite well if we have Labour idiocy and Tory fratricide.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
I disagree that it's impossible to negotiations to be concluded within two years. I assume there's a draft treaty already in place at the Foreign Office. A majority Conservative government would be in a very powerful position to ask for a new Treaty to be negotiated among the members. There is sympathy for some of the criticisms of the existing EU process and structure within other member states, who (along with the Commission) would be happy to get the British Problem off their backs. A referendum, unless within 10% or so, would resolve that one way or the other for the foreseeable future.
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
Just to provide some context to that assertion, the Delors Report tabled its recommendations in 1989. By the end of 1990, the Maastricht Treaty, based in large part on the report, had been agreed. True, there are more than twice as many members now as then but it's a negative and defeatist attitude to suggest that Cameron's timetable cannot be achieved when history, never mind willpower, suggests it can.
The commission and the EU machine wanted Maastricht, not sure they are going to want to Conservative proposals, and that will probably be a key difference in the alacrity with which they are brought forward. The EU is even better at creative inertia that the British civil service, which takes some doing.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Not trusting the British people to state a preference on their own future is a new use of term "better points" I hadn't previously met. If there are five years or Miliband Euro-sycophancy, political correctness, meek and ineffectual responses to Islamic terrorism with a eye over his shoulder on his voters, and the Tories busy with fratricide, Farage's successor could walk to 25% with his eyes shut.
I don't think so. Farage will be a busted flush after this election.
I have never been a fan of referenda. Has the Scottish one settled anything or just poisoned relationships? Politicians are elected to make decisions and Parliament should decide. Isn't the whole point that the Westminster Parliament should be sovereign?
The problem for the Tories under your scenario is that they would tear themselves apart. A referendum promise was the only way to keep the party's right on board. It's merely pushed things on a couple of years, but Dave does not have to fight another election after this one.
I cannot say that I would be sorry if the Tories started another decade or two of navel gazing and fratricide over Europe. It would help revive the LibDems as the sensible centrist party.
It appears the EU has intellectual self confidence. It may be misplaced or turn out to be an instinct that leads to self destruction.
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
They're not poking anyone with a stick, they're stating the bleeding obvious.
What, that they are a dysfunctional organisation? Not the best self promotion I've ever heard.
What's self-promotion got to do with it, somebody asked an official a question and he answered it. Obviously if you were a fan of the EU because you loved constitutional treaties and you were under the impression it could pass them really, really fast on the say-so of a single member state then you'd be disappointed, but most devoted treaty-spotters probably already knew that they take a bit longer.
Brussels is helping Dave play the game. He now gets the chance to posture before the GE and to woo the UKIP vote. After the election, when he knows he's not standing again, the UK and the rest will start working on a few concessions that mean very little, that Dave can present as a triumph and which will cement the UK's EU position after Dave wins his referendum. The Tory right will love it!!
If he doesn't win a majority then he has no mandate for renegotiation either at home or abroad. No mandate for a referendum either.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
Not trusting the British people to state a preference on their own future is a new use of term "better points" I hadn't previously met. If there are five years or Miliband Euro-sycophancy, political correctness, meek and ineffectual responses to Islamic terrorism with a eye over his shoulder on his voters, and the Tories busy with fratricide, Farage's successor could walk to 25% with his eyes shut.
I don't think so. Farage will be a busted flush after this election.
Farage might well be a busted flush. UKIP wont be, at worst they will probably have tripled the number of people that voted for them, and have 2-3 MPs and a couple of dozen or more seats with close second places that they can build on. A new leader, a bit of a freshen up of the platform and they will be in business in 2020, and possibly do quite well if we have Labour idiocy and Tory fratricide.
It's always been obvious to anyone who knows the EU that the chance of a Treaty negotiation starting, proceeding and concluding in 2015-17 was zero. So Cameron's 2017 referendum isn't going to be about a Treaty but something else - presumably "Do you approve of our negotiating package or would you rather just leave?"
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
That's the best argument for leaving the EU that you could give. Are you a secret Europhobe? ;-)
No; I think that Nick is making the argument that Parliament should decide rather than have a neverendum.
I hope he at least wants at least one referendum: it's the democratic thing to do.
Morning all. One of Osborne's many talents is that he very rarely makes the same mistake twice. Every budget and statement since the pasty nonsense has been far more carefully road tested for example.
What he has obviously concluded from 2010 is that being straight with the British people and telling them what it is really going to be like goes down like a cup of cold sick. They would rather live in a fantasy land where money is available for all their pet indulgences and any penalties are only paid by those richer than the voter who is being spoken to.
So that is what he has provided. And it does seem to be popular. Labour must be as sick as the proverbial parrot about this manoeuvre. Shame.
Is it possible to download and save that amazing resource compiled by AndyJS? I mean, without installing any software by Google, such as that company's Chrome web browser. Thanks AndyJS! :-)
Comments
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04-09/conservatives-delay-manifesto-launch-to-avoid-labour-clash/
'Seems it doesn't matter what Cameron promises, there will be no EU negotiations in the next Parliament.'
Great news, a much better chance to get an 'out' vote.
'There's no chance of getting any vote at all on the EU, given the Tories are not going to secure the majority the policy of a referendum needs.'
Are you a soothsayer?
https://www.twitter.com/ChrisGibsonNews/status/587967536026746880
That said, the number of veto points is certainly one of the things that's shafting the Eurozone.
(Well in England & Wales that is)
How long does it take to pass a constitutional amendment in America ?
In both cases the process is designed to be slow and cumbersome to force reflection and thought
I'm not sure what they gain from poking the UK sceptics with a stick, but I assume they don't believe we would leave. I'm not so sure about that. It would be close.
And there is very little that I would take from America when developing a political system.
In short, protocols are not worth the paper they are printed on, it has to be in the body of a treaty.
Also the process for leaving is reasonably fast (thanks to Lisbon), so if Cameron really wanted out of fundamental things like free movement of people that everybody else wants to keep then that would be the obvious route.
If Ed is PM we stay in the EU. Which is one of his better points.
In short, protocols are not worth the paper they are printed on, it has to be in the body of a treaty.
IANAL but reading the Wikipedia write-up it doesn't read like the issue is that they were protocols not the treaty, it seems to be that the specific protocol as worded didn't actually have the effect that Tony Blair said it did and this particular judge thought it did.
Suppose it passes. Negotiations follow and in, say, 2019, there's a Treaty. Inevitably, it will not be identical to the British negotiating package. Do we then have another referendum? Or does Cameron say hey, you voted to stay in just 2 years ago, do stop whinging?
I have never been a fan of referenda. Has the Scottish one settled anything or just poisoned relationships? Politicians are elected to make decisions and Parliament should decide. Isn't the whole point that the Westminster Parliament should be sovereign?
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
So ratification fails, and yet the British people have voted for IN on the basis of Cameron's now dead treaty, interesting times.
What he has obviously concluded from 2010 is that being straight with the British people and telling them what it is really going to be like goes down like a cup of cold sick. They would rather live in a fantasy land where money is available for all their pet indulgences and any penalties are only paid by those richer than the voter who is being spoken to.
So that is what he has provided. And it does seem to be popular. Labour must be as sick as the proverbial parrot about this manoeuvre. Shame.
Thanks AndyJS! :-)