Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.
LOL, stick to playing with dolls. Obviously a spotty youth who has no clue whatsoever. Some day you will learn that adults with responsible jobs don't drink during work. Trying to compare me to a sad spotty youth like yourself is pretty pathetic even for you. Go forth and multiply.
Angry turps drinkers are not really best placed to hand out advice, you strange, caricature of a chippy jock.
cuckoo
Loser, lost the independence vote, no influence in Westminster, no wonder you're on industrial quantities of turps.
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.
BWP is my new hate figure she will lose more core voters than she will gain from elsewhere IMO
Speedy Though an Out vote over 40% would keep the issue alive
We don't know what the exact result will be, however even now a really long time before the EU referendum we know that it will be a really passionate and divisive thing for the Tories (actually looking at the newspapers, it already is), it's implications are unknown but it could be as profound as the internal Labour split during the scottish referendum.
SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
Wishful thinking there Philip. Whilst I agree there won't be riots in the streets nor hopefully idiotic and pointless vandalism, the idea that Eurosceptics will simply roll over and give up after an IN vote is ludicrous.
I am still campaigning for an OUT win but if the vote goes against us, the EU doesn't become acceptable overnight because a vote went one way or the other. And the idea that the EU will suddenly change its spots and give up on extending its power is naive in the extreme. As soon as one fight finishes the next begins and the fact that Cameron's promises will turn out to be as empty as a dead man's eyes will make it all the easier to continue the fight.
Of course some of us put principle and country before party. Something too many Tories seem to have forgotten.
Yes, everyone who doesn't share your view of the world is an unprincipled liar, a party hack who doesn't care a toss about the country. Of course, that goes without saying in your perverted view of the world.
Meanwhile, there's a referendum, as requested by the BOOers, in less than 18 months time. Odd as it might seem, given the bizarre reaction of the Kippers to this unsurprising news, the referendum is not about the Conservative Party, or David Cameron, but about whether on balance the UK wants to stay in the EU, hopefully in a version of the EU which is a bit better than the mess Labour signed us up to.
Anyone who wants us to leave better focus on the issue at hand, rather than insulting the Conservative Party, or accusing those who think that the pros of remaining in the EU might on balance outweigh the cons of being liars.
I'm not holding my breath, and I'm expecting the referendum to be a decisive vote to stay in, given the fact that no-one seems to be thinking about how to develop the argument for leaving.
Of course some of us put principle and country before party. Something too many Tories seem to have forgotten.
Yes, everyone who doesn't share your view of the world is an unprincipled liar, a party hack who doesn't care a toss about the country. Of course, that goes without saying in your perverted view of the world.
Meanwhile, there's a referendum, as requested by the BOOers, in less than 18 months time. Odd as it might seem, given the bizarre reaction of the Kippers to this unsurprising news, the referendum is not about the Conservative Party, or David Cameron, but about whether on balance the UK wants to stay in the EU, hopefully in a version of the EU which is a bit better than the mess Labour signed us up to.
Anyone who wants us to leave better focus on the issue at hand, rather than insulting the Conservative Party, or accusing those who think that the pros of remaining in the EU might on balance outweigh the cons of being liars.
I'm not holding my breath, and I'm expecting the referendum to be a decisive vote to stay in, given the fact that no-one seems to be thinking about how to develop the argument for leaving.
Nope. Yet more misrepresentation there from you Richard. Funny that you break your avowed silence only to write more falsehoods.
I have said many times before on here that there are honest and admirable Eurofederalists. They believe in something and are willing to stand up before the public and acclaim it even when they know it is not popular.
Cameron is not a liar because he is a Europhile. He is a liar because he pretends he wants to change our relationship with the EU when all he really wants is to do is get the referendum he was forced into holding out of the way with as little or no change in our relationship with the EU as possible.
And of course another falsehood spread by party fanatics like yourself (the real perverts of the political system to use your own words) is that it was Labour who got us where we are today. Whilst they may have put the final nail in the coffin it was the Tories who built the coffin in the first place and have been responsible for almost every major integration since we joined (under that Tory PM Heath)
Crawl back under your rock Richard. You only make a fool of yourself when you try to defend the indefensible.
the referendum is...about whether on balance the UK wants to stay in the EU, hopefully in a version of the EU which is a bit better than the mess Labour signed us up to.
I agree that the prospect of Tory infighting is a sideshow to the main event, but the sentence above is why the Tory position is under scrutiny. On the one hand Dave tells you that the EU needs reform, so you agree with him that it's a mess. But deep down you know that Dave will campaign to stay in, so it's no surprise that the negotiations are being met with scepticism from non-Tories.
Nope. Yet more misrepresentation there from you Richard. Funny that you break your avowed silence only to write more falsehoods.
I have said many times before on here that there are honest and admirable Eurofederalists. They believe in something and are willing to stand up before the public and acclaim it even when they know it is not popular.
Cameron is not a liar because he is a Europhile. He is a liar because he pretends he wants to change our relationship with the EU when all he really wants is to do is get the referendum he was forced into holding out of the way with as little or no change in our relationship with the EU as possible.
And of course another falsehood spread by party fanatics like yourself (the real perverts of the political system to use your own words) is that it was Labour who got us where we are today. Whilst they may have put the final nail in the coffin it was the Tories who built the coffin in the first place and have been responsible for almost every major integration since we joined (under that Tory PM Heath)
Crawl back under your rock Richard. You only make a fool of yourself when you try to defend the indefensible.
Brilliant! Quite apart from anything else, I wasn't defending anything, I was suggesting that the Out side should concentrate on trying to win the referendum.
The strange thing is that you used to be quite reasonable and polite, albeit a bit naive (which is why you will owe me some money when the referendum result comes in). You seem to have gone a bit mad, you are getting worse with your ludicrous insults.
Of course some of us put principle and country before party. Something too many Tories seem to have forgotten.
Yes, everyone who doesn't share your view of the world is an unprincipled liar, a party hack who doesn't care a toss about the country. Of course, that goes without saying in your perverted view of the world.
Meanwhile, there's a referendum, as requested by the BOOers, in less than 18 months time. Odd as it might seem, given the bizarre reaction of the Kippers to this unsurprising news, the referendum is not about the Conservative Party, or David Cameron, but about whether on balance the UK wants to stay in the EU, hopefully in a version of the EU which is a bit better than the mess Labour signed us up to.
Anyone who wants us to leave better focus on the issue at hand, rather than insulting the Conservative Party, or accusing those who think that the pros of remaining in the EU might on balance outweigh the cons of being liars.
I'm not holding my breath, and I'm expecting the referendum to be a decisive vote to stay in, given the fact that no-one seems to be thinking about how to develop the argument for leaving.
There are political and economic arguments for leaving.
The political ones are simple:
The EU is an undemocratic bureaucratic mess that threatens British democracy , freedom of labour and the mass immigration from the failing EU causes an increase in racism and xenophobia and also suppressed wages.
Leaving the EU means that Britain can remain a democratic state and without people being afraid of foreigners and the depressed wages they bring.
The economic ones are also simple:
Britain's economy is losing tens of billions every year in both membership fees and a massive trade deficit with the EU while Britain has a trade surplus with the rest of the world.
Leaving the EU would mean a healthier more balanced economy with revived manufacturing to cover the demand from reduced imports and the government will use the tens of billions saved from the membership fees to reduce debt and improve services and infrastructure for schools, roads and hospitals.
The above is a nice neat example of what can be put in anti-EU leaflet.
John Major's problem (and potentially but not currently David Cameron's) was less the question of Europe itself but the sense in which he (Major) had lost control of the Party. Try as he might and even by going nuclear through resigning the Party leadership and standing for re-election, Major could never regain the sense of authority and control and once a leader has lost that, it's game over.
The electorate doesn't like to see divided parties but nor does it like parties where the leader has or seems or have no control. To have senior Party members and especially Ministers on opposite sides of the question may look good for democracy but it doesn't convey control or dominance.
Wilson allowed his Cabinet free rein in 1975 and we had Labour MPs on opposite platforms (while the likes of Roy Jenkins could share a platform with Jim Prior and Jo Grimond). Wilson knew he wasn't going to be around to deal with the aftermath but the 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to the 1981 schism.
All politicians are imbued with the notion of "if you don't hang together, you'll all hang separately" but it won't be Government that tests Party unity but defeat and opposition. IF IN wins, would a future Conservative Party leader in Opposition campaign for a second referendum from the side of OUT ? I don't know but the legacy of referenda often lasts long after the votes are counted.
I agree that the prospect of Tory infighting is a sideshow to the main event, but the sentence above is why the Tory position is under scrutiny. On the one hand Dave tells you that the EU needs reform, so you agree with him that it's a mess. But deep down you know that Dave will campaign to stay in, so it's no surprise that the negotiations are being met with scepticism from non-Tories.
No, that's not how I see it. I've been consistent for several years on this, and I think Cameron sees it much as I do.
My view has long been that the EU has gradually taken a series of missteps, which could have been avoided, and in particular which the Labour government could have stopped. We didn't need to give away half the rebate, or sign up to financial regulation being passed to people largely hostile to our interests, or give up so much veto power in the Lisbon Treaty.
But we are where we are, and we have to make the best of the bad job we inherited. Yes, we won't be able to get the full set of reforms which we would like, and which would be not only in our interests, but in the interests of our EU partners as well. At the same time, an Out vote is unattainable in a referendum. So, realistically, the best option is what Cameron is trying to do. I'm under no illusions that it's perfect, and I'm sure he isn't either. But we have to deal with the world as it is, not with some fantasy where we can magically keep all the advantages of remaining in the EU with none of the disadvantages.
I'm moderately hopeful (more hopeful than I was five years ago) that the reforms we will be able to negotiate will be a step in the right direction, but ideally we wouldn't have started from here. That we are starting from here is not David Cameron's fault.
For those who read today's newspapers and saw the news, here's a nostalgic piece of history just 7 months after the 1992 election (remember we are currently just 1 month after the election):
"NOVEMBER 4, 1992 European Unity Members of the British House of Commons debated the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Prime Minister Major, who supports the treaty, faced opposition on the basis that the treaty threatened the national sovereignty of Great Britain."
Thank you Richard_Nabavi for the response. Are you suggesting that Cameron shouldn't campaign for Out because there would be a good chance that he would be on the losing team?
One thing that would help is if Cameron was adamant that this referendum was about the here and now. That is, any further changes to the treaties of the EU would require a referendum.
This site is full of nobodies who've spent the last few years rubbishing Cameron. He is still PM now of a majority Conservative government and they are still nobodies
And you're here trolling those nobodies, making you effectively the parasitic grub on the underbelly of nobody. Well done you.
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.
BWP is my new hate figure she will lose more core voters than she will gain from elsewhere IMO
I think it's unfair to talk about her as a primary school teacher. Smacks more than a little of sexism to me. If a man had made the same points, I doubt very much you'd be making that comparison.
She does need to work on overall presentation and how to exude authority, particularly when under pressure.
My biggest criticism would be her naiveté at stating that Britain (or the EU for that matter) should have a strategy for the whole Middle East to address all the political issues. It sounds great, but what is the point in having a strategy if you have no means of effectively implementing it? Having a political strategy won't change the facts on the ground diddly squat, because no-one will listen to the UK or change their behaviors based on our wishes. Consequently, a grand political strategy for the ME would have no impact on the UK's security, and would probably divert resources away from critical thinking of what we can do practically to incrementally improve things on the ground.
Having someone that naive in charge of our national security fills me with dread.
Thank you Richard_Nabavi for the response. Are you suggesting that Cameron shouldn't campaign for Out because there would be a good chance that he would be on the losing team?
One thing that would help is if Cameron was adamant that this referendum was about the here and now. That is, any further changes to the treaties of the EU would require a referendum.
I would like to see a question in an opinion poll to see the impact of Cameron's opinion on IN or OUT, I suspect that he is the swing voter and wherever he swings the result will swing.
I agree that the prospect of Tory infighting is a sideshow to the main event, but the sentence above is why the Tory position is under scrutiny. On the one hand Dave tells you that the EU needs reform, so you agree with him that it's a mess. But deep down you know that Dave will campaign to stay in, so it's no surprise that the negotiations are being met with scepticism from non-Tories.
No, that's not how I see it. I've been consistent for several years on this, and I think Cameron sees it much as I do.
My view has long been that the EU has gradually taken a series of missteps, which could have been avoided, and in particular which the Labour government could have stopped. We didn't need to give away half the rebate, or sign up to financial regulation being passed to people largely hostile to our interests, or give up so much veto power in the Lisbon Treaty.
But we are where we are, and we have to make the best of the bad job we inherited. Yes, we won't be able to get the full set of reforms which we would like, and which would be not only in our interests, but in the interests of our EU partners as well. At the same time, an Out vote is unattainable in a referendum. So, realistically, the best option is what Cameron is trying to do. I'm under no illusions that it's perfect, and I'm sure he isn't either. But we have to deal with the world as it is, not with some fantasy where we can magically keep all the advantages of remaining in the EU with none of the disadvantages.
I'm moderately hopeful (more hopeful than I was five years ago) that the reforms we will be able to negotiate will be a step in the right direction, but ideally we wouldn't have started from here. That we are starting from here is not David Cameron's fault.
This won't wash. The history of the coalition was littered with opportunities to step in that 'right direction' of which you speak. Every single one was side-stepped.
"Rail staff are being told not to offer passengers the cheapest tickets because it would "cause problems" if "everybody did it", an investigation found.
An undercover reporter working as a trainee at First Great Western, one of Britain's biggest operators, was warned against volunteering information that would help customers save money."
It probably caused Grant Shapps to have a poor election result in Welwyn Hatfield. His seat was the only one in the area where the Tory vote was down significantly.
SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
Wishful thinking there Philip. Whilst I agree there won't be riots in the streets nor hopefully idiotic and pointless vandalism, the idea that Eurosceptics will simply roll over and give up after an IN vote is ludicrous.
I am still campaigning for an OUT win but if the vote goes against us, the EU doesn't become acceptable overnight because a vote went one way or the other. And the idea that the EU will suddenly change its spots and give up on extending its power is naive in the extreme. As soon as one fight finishes the next begins and the fact that Cameron's promises will turn out to be as empty as a dead man's eyes will make it all the easier to continue the fight.
This is a helpful debate.
It helps to clarify why I am not a Conservative, and how (in retrospect) I wasted 25 years of my life as a member of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are obviously better than Labour, but that's like being drier than water.
But really, the Conservatives' values aren't my values.
Got to love BBC idea of impartiality....R5 doing GM crops.
In the "yes" corner, former GreenPeace director, who says GM crops in very special limited circumstances and as long as absolutely nothing to do "nasty corporate" interests.
In the no corner, former GreenPeace directory, who says no under all circumstances.
Got to love BBC idea of impartiality....R5 doing GM crops.
In the "yes" corner, former GreenPeace director, who says GM crops in very special limited circumstances and as long as absolutely nothing to do "nasty corporate" interests.
In the no corner, former GreenPeace directory, who says no under all circumstances.
Amazing, listening to John Major's speech that was on July 11th 1992 (not Nov.4th) on the EU is almost exactly the same as David Cameron speech on the EU like not a single day has passed. I'm posting it again just for amusement, remember this was just 3 months after his 1992 election triumph.
I would like to see a question in an opinion poll to see the impact of Cameron's opinion on IN or OUT, I suspect that he is the swing voter and wherever he swings the result will swing.
Indeed and I'm very much of the view an integral part of the Conservative victory last month was the section of the electorate who voted for David Cameron rather than the Conservative Party.
Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.
I was disappointed not to be called a turnip
Rob, You are on the "not so bad boys list" so will not receive that accolade very often.
I'm either honoured or disappointed, can't really tell.....
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.
BWP is my new hate figure she will lose more core voters than she will gain from elsewhere IMO
I think it's unfair to talk about her as a primary school teacher. Smacks more than a little of sexism to me. If a man had made the same points, I doubt very much you'd be making that comparison.
She does need to work on overall presentation and how to exude authority, particularly when under pressure.
My biggest criticism would be her naiveté at stating that Britain (or the EU for that matter) should have a strategy for the whole Middle East to address all the political issues. It sounds great, but what is the point in having a strategy if you have no means of effectively implementing it? Having a political strategy won't change the facts on the ground diddly squat, because no-one will listen to the UK or change their behaviors based on our wishes. Consequently, a grand political strategy for the ME would have no impact on the UK's security, and would probably divert resources away from critical thinking of what we can do practically to incrementally improve things on the ground.
Having someone that naive in charge of our national security fills me with dread.
It wasn't Liz at her best. She seems to have been overcoached out of her natural style and charm.
None of the candidates have any background in foreign affairs (though Creagh did work in Europe for a while), and frankly no-one has a decent plan for the Middle East. No-one at all, not the UK, not the EU, not NATO, not the USA, not Russia and not even the peoples of the Middle East themselves. To expect Liz Kendall to pop out a few sentences answering all concerns about the region does seem a little harsh. At least she wants to preserve our military from cuts.
It probably caused Grant Shapps to have a poor election result in Welwyn Hatfield. His seat was the only one in the area where the Tory vote was down significantly.
Yet another example of the Guardian publishing unproven lies.
Considering the Guardian are supposed to be hip and up on all this modern technology lark, they're rather clueless when it comes to tech - at least when it damages the Conservatives or other newspapers:
*) Not bothering to understand how voicemails work in the Milly Dowler madness; *) This Shapps business. *) worst of all, publishing passwords in a book that allows the unredacted Wikileaks contents to be decrypted.
Can you imagine how they'd react if it was another newspaper doing this?
Considering the Guardian are supposed to be hip and up on all this modern technology lark, they're rather clueless when it comes to tech - at least when it damages the Conservatives or other newspapers:
They currently have a podcast series with a behind the scenes account of how their anti-fossil fuels campaign came about. Apart from the expected self-aggrandisement, there's the moment where they debate the options for what to focus on and determine that divestment would be a largely empty gesture that would achieve little before deciding that they will base the campaign around exactly that.
Comments
'Referenda do not settle things. Look at Scotland. Look at the SDP. The fun is only just beginning.'
Keep clutching at those straws.
I am still campaigning for an OUT win but if the vote goes against us, the EU doesn't become acceptable overnight because a vote went one way or the other. And the idea that the EU will suddenly change its spots and give up on extending its power is naive in the extreme. As soon as one fight finishes the next begins and the fact that Cameron's promises will turn out to be as empty as a dead man's eyes will make it all the easier to continue the fight.
Meanwhile, there's a referendum, as requested by the BOOers, in less than 18 months time. Odd as it might seem, given the bizarre reaction of the Kippers to this unsurprising news, the referendum is not about the Conservative Party, or David Cameron, but about whether on balance the UK wants to stay in the EU, hopefully in a version of the EU which is a bit better than the mess Labour signed us up to.
Anyone who wants us to leave better focus on the issue at hand, rather than insulting the Conservative Party, or accusing those who think that the pros of remaining in the EU might on balance outweigh the cons of being liars.
I'm not holding my breath, and I'm expecting the referendum to be a decisive vote to stay in, given the fact that no-one seems to be thinking about how to develop the argument for leaving.
Edit: Ah, got it. Nice to see the Labour Party taking such a mature view of what went wrong.
I have said many times before on here that there are honest and admirable Eurofederalists. They believe in something and are willing to stand up before the public and acclaim it even when they know it is not popular.
Cameron is not a liar because he is a Europhile. He is a liar because he pretends he wants to change our relationship with the EU when all he really wants is to do is get the referendum he was forced into holding out of the way with as little or no change in our relationship with the EU as possible.
And of course another falsehood spread by party fanatics like yourself (the real perverts of the political system to use your own words) is that it was Labour who got us where we are today. Whilst they may have put the final nail in the coffin it was the Tories who built the coffin in the first place and have been responsible for almost every major integration since we joined (under that Tory PM Heath)
Crawl back under your rock Richard. You only make a fool of yourself when you try to defend the indefensible.
The strange thing is that you used to be quite reasonable and polite, albeit a bit naive (which is why you will owe me some money when the referendum result comes in). You seem to have gone a bit mad, you are getting worse with your ludicrous insults.
The political ones are simple:
The EU is an undemocratic bureaucratic mess that threatens British democracy , freedom of labour and the mass immigration from the failing EU causes an increase in racism and xenophobia and also suppressed wages.
Leaving the EU means that Britain can remain a democratic state and without people being afraid of foreigners and the depressed wages they bring.
The economic ones are also simple:
Britain's economy is losing tens of billions every year in both membership fees and a massive trade deficit with the EU while Britain has a trade surplus with the rest of the world.
Leaving the EU would mean a healthier more balanced economy with revived manufacturing to cover the demand from reduced imports and the government will use the tens of billions saved from the membership fees to reduce debt and improve services and infrastructure for schools, roads and hospitals.
The above is a nice neat example of what can be put in anti-EU leaflet.
John Major's problem (and potentially but not currently David Cameron's) was less the question of Europe itself but the sense in which he (Major) had lost control of the Party. Try as he might and even by going nuclear through resigning the Party leadership and standing for re-election, Major could never regain the sense of authority and control and once a leader has lost that, it's game over.
The electorate doesn't like to see divided parties but nor does it like parties where the leader has or seems or have no control. To have senior Party members and especially Ministers on opposite sides of the question may look good for democracy but it doesn't convey control or dominance.
Wilson allowed his Cabinet free rein in 1975 and we had Labour MPs on opposite platforms (while the likes of Roy Jenkins could share a platform with Jim Prior and Jo Grimond). Wilson knew he wasn't going to be around to deal with the aftermath but the 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to the 1981 schism.
All politicians are imbued with the notion of "if you don't hang together, you'll all hang separately" but it won't be Government that tests Party unity but defeat and opposition. IF IN wins, would a future Conservative Party leader in Opposition campaign for a second referendum from the side of OUT ? I don't know but the legacy of referenda often lasts long after the votes are counted.
My view has long been that the EU has gradually taken a series of missteps, which could have been avoided, and in particular which the Labour government could have stopped. We didn't need to give away half the rebate, or sign up to financial regulation being passed to people largely hostile to our interests, or give up so much veto power in the Lisbon Treaty.
But we are where we are, and we have to make the best of the bad job we inherited. Yes, we won't be able to get the full set of reforms which we would like, and which would be not only in our interests, but in the interests of our EU partners as well. At the same time, an Out vote is unattainable in a referendum. So, realistically, the best option is what Cameron is trying to do. I'm under no illusions that it's perfect, and I'm sure he isn't either. But we have to deal with the world as it is, not with some fantasy where we can magically keep all the advantages of remaining in the EU with none of the disadvantages.
I'm moderately hopeful (more hopeful than I was five years ago) that the reforms we will be able to negotiate will be a step in the right direction, but ideally we wouldn't have started from here. That we are starting from here is not David Cameron's fault.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?34251-1/european-unity
"NOVEMBER 4, 1992
European Unity
Members of the British House of Commons debated the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Prime Minister Major, who supports the treaty, faced opposition on the basis that the treaty threatened the national sovereignty of Great Britain."
One thing that would help is if Cameron was adamant that this referendum was about the here and now. That is, any further changes to the treaties of the EU would require a referendum.
Remember the Grant Shapps / Wikipedia sockpuppet controversy before the election?
Well,it appears it was a load of unproved rubbish, and the Wikipedia editor who made the claim to the Guardian has been slapped down:
http://order-order.com/2015/06/08/wikipedia-slaps-down-grant-schapps-libdem-wikipedia-tormentor/
Yet another example of the Guardian publishing unproven lies.
She does need to work on overall presentation and how to exude authority, particularly when under pressure.
My biggest criticism would be her naiveté at stating that Britain (or the EU for that matter) should have a strategy for the whole Middle East to address all the political issues. It sounds great, but what is the point in having a strategy if you have no means of effectively implementing it? Having a political strategy won't change the facts on the ground diddly squat, because no-one will listen to the UK or change their behaviors based on our wishes. Consequently, a grand political strategy for the ME would have no impact on the UK's security, and would probably divert resources away from critical thinking of what we can do practically to incrementally improve things on the ground.
Having someone that naive in charge of our national security fills me with dread.
"Rail staff are being told not to offer passengers the cheapest tickets because it would "cause problems" if "everybody did it", an investigation found.
An undercover reporter working as a trainee at First Great Western, one of Britain's biggest operators, was warned against volunteering information that would help customers save money."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11644075/Train-rip-off-dont-mention-cheapest-tickets-station-staff-told.html
It helps to clarify why I am not a Conservative, and how (in retrospect) I wasted 25 years of my life as a member of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are obviously better than Labour, but that's like being drier than water.
But really, the Conservatives' values aren't my values.
In the "yes" corner, former GreenPeace director, who says GM crops in very special limited circumstances and as long as absolutely nothing to do "nasty corporate" interests.
In the no corner, former GreenPeace directory, who says no under all circumstances.
Well that was a balanced debate...
I'm posting it again just for amusement, remember this was just 3 months after his 1992 election triumph.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?34251-1/european-unity
None of the candidates have any background in foreign affairs (though Creagh did work in Europe for a while), and frankly no-one has a decent plan for the Middle East. No-one at all, not the UK, not the EU, not NATO, not the USA, not Russia and not even the peoples of the Middle East themselves. To expect Liz Kendall to pop out a few sentences answering all concerns about the region does seem a little harsh. At least she wants to preserve our military from cuts.
United Passions was funded by about £17m of Fifa cash, and was completed before corruption charges were made against 14 of its officials in May."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33050289
Hur hur hur....
*) Not bothering to understand how voicemails work in the Milly Dowler madness;
*) This Shapps business.
*) worst of all, publishing passwords in a book that allows the unredacted Wikileaks contents to be decrypted.
Can you imagine how they'd react if it was another newspaper doing this?