The trouble with this whole debate is there are not enough people on either side making a positive case for their cause - either Remain or Leave. This is not helped by comments like 'You can always leave' when someone does actually state clearly they are in favour of the EU.
There is an intellectual case for federalism in the EU - it is just not one that I agree with. But that doesn't mean that those who want 'more EU' are wrong nor that they should be told to leave the UK to get what they want.
Thank you sincerely for that, Richard. Though we are on opposite sides of the debate I'm glad that we can at least agree with one another that we both hold valid and respectable opinions. I feel (much the same as the Leavers do, actually, though for very different reasons) that the renegotiations are an unfortunate distraction. I'd much prefer a straight IN/OUT referendum in which I could vote for what I believe in. I think you would too?
Those others who are suggesting that pro-EUers, such as myself, would be happier living elsewhere in the EU are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding about us. We don't want to chose between the UK and the EU - we want the best of both. Leaving the UK would not bring us any closer to that than leaving the EU would.
If the UK votes to leave the EU then you'll find me saddened but you'll not find me frothing or running away.
Lots of interesting discussion about the EU downthread!
I don't think it's accurate to say Cameron has nothing left in EU negotiations. The most important one is whether us non-Eurozone countries get some sort of blocking power over the Eurozone. Cutting benefits for immigrants was never going to save that much in the scheme of things, and wasn't going to cut the levels of immigration either. That's probably a positive thing, as EU workers tend to be younger and harder working than their British counterparts. We just need to be better at building more infrastructure to keep up.
The "every closer union" opt-out won't change anything, because we won't sign any more integrating treaties anyway, and if a government wanted to it could just overrule it. And the competitiveness one is just the standard EU boilerplate that gets trotted out every summit.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation.
For what it's worth, I don't think the EU would be in a better position without the UK. It would seem to swing the power towards the Southern tendency, which will mean a less competitive, less prudent, more corrupt EU.
Lots of interesting discussion about the EU downthread!
I don't think it's accurate to say Cameron has nothing left in EU negotiations. The most important one is whether us non-Eurozone countries get some sort of blocking power over the Eurozone. Cutting benefits for immigrants was never going to save that much in the scheme of things, and wasn't going to cut the levels of immigration either. That's probably a positive thing, as EU workers tend to be younger and harder working than their British counterparts. We just need to be better at building more infrastructure to keep up.
The "every closer union" opt-out won't change anything, because we won't sign any more integrating treaties anyway, and if a government wanted to it could just overrule it. And the competitiveness one is just the standard EU boilerplate that gets trotted out every summit.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation.
For what it's worth, I don't think the EU would be in a better position without the UK. It would seem to swing the power towards the Southern tendency, which will mean a less competitive, less prudent, more corrupt EU.
It can't be much more corrupt than it already is. And Unelected officials sitting in Brussels is only the start.
Miss Plato, aye. Worse for Sky was Tim Marshall[sp] stepping down. He was/is a top chap. Would've been informative to hear his views on Syria/the migrant crisis.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation
Avoiding Eurozone consistently members ganging up on non-Eurozone members is probably something that most governments would agree with in principle, but how would you structure it?
The problem is that you don't know which countries are going to be in the Euro in the future, and they won't want to end up in a situation where the UK alone has a veto over everything, because in the past British politicians have tended to abuse their veto powers to grandstand for domestic consumption.
Lots of interesting discussion about the EU downthread!
......
I do not think you should take too much notice of EU discussions on here.
There are occasionally some useful insights every now and then - but they are usually of a detailed technical nature. The majority of the discussion is heat rather than light.
Also the US political scene is being discussed on PB through a UK-centric prism so is of little educational value. Few on here really seem to understand the cultural nuances.
Over in my part of the world I'm left with the Spanish election to feed my political interest and on PB only @felix seems to know his onions about that. So there's another dead topic.
We need another by-election. What a shame about O&S.
Good grief. Someone who wants "more EU".... have you considered moving?
No, why should I? What a bizarre suggestion. Why should I run away just because I can't have what I want?
I like the UK. I like the EU. These are not incompatible statements.
The trouble with this whole debate is there are not enough people on either side making a positive case for their cause - either Remain or Leave. This is not helped by comments like 'You can always leave' when someone does actually state clearly they are in favour of the EU.
There is an intellectual case for federalism in the EU - it is just not one that I agree with. But that doesn't mean that those who want 'more EU' are wrong nor that they should be told to leave the UK to get what they want.
I suspect Europe would run better without us, for two reasons.
1. The EU would lose a reluctant member. 2. I think it would force it to address it's democratic deficit.
Really, leaving the EU could be the best thing for us, and for the people of the continent.
I do not really see any logic in the EU being better without us. And - if we leave and join the EU then there will not be much difference for us, we would still be involved in all the usual EU things - payments (not as much but still significant) single market rules, free movement of labour and various other regs and rules that we would simply join in with. But no political stuff,and as now no common currency. It makes you wonder what the fuss is about. What would happen, far from the EU being better for our absence it would go its own sweet way and we would have no veto and would still be influenced by this massive continental wide ever closer union block on our doorstep.
Exactly. Surely the only people who are remotely surprised by how things are panning out currently are those who failed to notice that the sole reason Cameron made the commitment in the first place was to placate the Tory right at a time when UKIP looked like it might eat into the Tory vote and cost the party seats in the GE.
Yes, and he's still trying to placate these people who can never be placated. That's why we're going to be offered the choice of either "less EU" or "no EU" in this stupid referendum. It's like being asked to choose between stale bread and mouldy bread.
I find the comments about US elections and issues generally in UK TV/papers a waste of time.
It's incredibly ignorant in the main. I'm just glad I pay attention to the US a lot myself, and have been traveled there quite a bit. I don't proclaim any expertise, but feel at least I've a bit of an idea culture wise.
Lots of interesting discussion about the EU downthread!
......
I do not think you should take too much notice of EU discussions on here.
There are occasionally some useful insights every now and then - but they are usually of a detailed technical nature. The majority of the discussion is heat rather than light.
Also the US political scene is being discussed on PB through a UK-centric prism so is of little educational value. Few on here really seem to understand the cultural nuances.
Over in my part of the world I'm left with the Spanish election to feed my political interest and on PB only @felix seems to know his onions about that. So there's another dead topic.
We need another by-election. What a shame about O&S.
Mr. G, one must assume you're unfamiliar with the shenanigans of Caligula if you think Mone becoming a peer is the biggest disgrace of all time
MD, there can have been no bigger injustice in history. An absolute donkey who has done nothing is made a peer by that plonker Cameron, one wonders what motive was behind such a bizarre decision.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation.
Is there any indication that this is still on the table ? A treaty has supposedly been ruled out (Junker/Schultz), and without that any such changes would be meaningless hot air. If there was such a treaty it would have to pass referendum in countries like France, whose people are not disposes to give us anything.
The current "yellow card" system has not be any sort of success, the Commission has ignored any yellow cards it has found inconvenient (see formation of European Public Prosecutor’s Office). Both yellow and orange cards are currently usable only for the reason of subsidiarity, not say because the idea is crap.
Exactly. Surely the only people who are remotely surprised by how things are panning out currently are those who failed to notice that the sole reason Cameron made the commitment in the first place was to placate the Tory right at a time when UKIP looked like it might eat into the Tory vote and cost the party seats in the GE.
Yes, and he's still trying to placate these people who can never be placated. That's why we're going to be offered the choice of either "less EU" or "no EU" in this stupid referendum. It's like being asked to choose between stale bread and mouldy bread.
Also the US political scene is being discussed on PB through a UK-centric prism so is of little educational value. Few on here really seem to understand the cultural nuances.
It'll be better once the voting starts and the polling starts to become meaningful. In the past pb discussions of US elections have been as good as nearly any site anywhere in the world, including the US. (It varies a bit by time of the day though.)
Decided to check the odds for Conor McGregor for Overseas SPOTY and... he's not shortlisted. That's even more bemusing than some of the inclusions on the UK list.
I find the comments about US elections and issues generally in UK TV/papers a waste of time.
It's incredibly ignorant in the main. I'm just glad I pay attention to the US a lot myself, and have been traveled there quite a bit. I don't proclaim any expertise, but feel at least I've a bit of an idea culture wise.
Lots of interesting discussion about the EU downthread!
......
I do not think you should take too much notice of EU discussions on here.
There are occasionally some useful insights every now and then - but they are usually of a detailed technical nature. The majority of the discussion is heat rather than light.
Also the US political scene is being discussed on PB through a UK-centric prism so is of little educational value. Few on here really seem to understand the cultural nuances.
Over in my part of the world I'm left with the Spanish election to feed my political interest and on PB only @felix seems to know his onions about that. So there's another dead topic.
We need another by-election. What a shame about O&S.
Agree with that completely. Your travelling and awareness of the culture matches my own experiences. Unfortunately we've got months of UK culture-bias comments to trudge through before all this is over.
I do not really see any logic in the EU being better without us. And - if we leave and join the EU then there will not be much difference for us, we would still be involved in all the usual EU things - payments (not as much but still significant) single market rules, free movement of labour and various other regs and rules that we would simply join in with. But no political stuff,and as now no common currency.
The massive difference being those market rules would only apply when selling into the EU market, a dwindling part of our exports. At the moment those rules also apply when selling domestically, and crucially when selling to countries like say Japan, which have their own standards, and where we are currently required to meet BOTH the EU standards and the Japanese standards, which none of our competitors outside the EU are, and so can under cut us.
I don't have the strength to refute your disinformation about free movement again, expected to say I wasn't aware that there was a free movement of Labour between South Korea or Mexico and the members of the EU.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation.
Is there any indication that this is still on the table ? A treaty has supposedly been ruled out (Junker/Schultz), and without that any such changes would be meaningless hot air. If there was such a treaty it would have to pass referendum in countries like France, whose people are not disposes to give us anything.
TBF I think it would be at least _technically_ possible to do something without a treaty of the full EU. If a blocking majority - not necessarily everybody - were to agree to vote against any measure that had the opposition of [something], that would be applicable in practice without even having to go through EU institutions at all. And I can't see why those countries wouldn't be able to make a legally binding international agreement to stick to whatever it was.
As I say up-thread the real problem is more what the [something] would actually be. Other governments aren't going to be too keen to give the British new powers to hold things up after that time the Euro caught fire and Cameron tried to veto the use of the fire extinguishers in the hope of a few days of headlines.
Genuine question for @plato_says (i.e. Not looking for an argument but help in understanding the referendum choice):
What do you mean by the principal of sovereignty and why does it take precedence in your referendum decision?
I ask because I'm instinctively in the same place but would like to articulate the reasoning better than a simple "bring back power from Brussels".
I will throw my hat into this one.
Quite simply at the moment its easily possible for us to democratically elect a government, even with a landslide majority and then be in the position of them not actually being able to carry out the democratic will of the people.
Exhibit A in this regard would be votes for prisoners. The will as expressed in parliament by a large majority, was not to give votes to prisoners, an issue which affects no other country, and is totally internal to the UK, and yet we have been told that this is unlawful by the ECJ, and there are continuing efforts on both the legal and political front to make us give them the vote.
The trouble with this whole debate is there are not enough people on either side making a positive case for their cause - either Remain or Leave. This is not helped by comments like 'You can always leave' when someone does actually state clearly they are in favour of the EU.
There is an intellectual case for federalism in the EU - it is just not one that I agree with. But that doesn't mean that those who want 'more EU' are wrong nor that they should be told to leave the UK to get what they want.
Thank you sincerely for that, Richard. Though we are on opposite sides of the debate I'm glad that we can at least agree with one another that we both hold valid and respectable opinions. I feel (much the same as the Leavers do, actually, though for very different reasons) that the renegotiations are an unfortunate distraction. I'd much prefer a straight IN/OUT referendum in which I could vote for what I believe in. I think you would too?
Those others who are suggesting that pro-EUers, such as myself, would be happier living elsewhere in the EU are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding about us. We don't want to chose between the UK and the EU - we want the best of both. Leaving the UK would not bring us any closer to that than leaving the EU would.
If the UK votes to leave the EU then you'll find me saddened but you'll not find me frothing or running away.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Agree entirely. One of the problems I have with many British pro Europeans (at the politician or business leader level) is that they do not have the courage of their convictions. If you look at Europe their are strong advocates for a united European State going right back to Jean Monnet. There is a long and honorable tradition of federalism which, though I may fundamentally disagree with it, is never the less honest and open.
In the UK the whole pro EU debate seems to have been run ever since we joined on the basis of lies and dissemination. Those who want ever closer union won't or can't simply come out and argue for it. They seem to feel that the only way to get their aims is to mislead the British public about the nature and aims of the EU and of their pro-EU views. It is always framed in terms of begrudging acceptance and no real change rather than a clear intent for 'more Europe'.
Obviously I don't want 'more Europe' but I have a lot of time for those, like John Stevens, who openly advocate what they believe in rather than trying to achieve their ends by misleading the public.
You have to be kidding , have you not seen the riff raff and ne'er do wells that have got past them. If you look at the assorted merde that have made it then Ken would be a shining star amonst the turds. Perfect example Alexander , Foulkes , Mone. One from each sorry party of lowlifes. Mone is the biggest disgrace of all time.
Thanks once again for showing how crass you are. A 'shining star' is he? One that feels sorry for terrorists.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation
Avoiding Eurozone consistently members ganging up on non-Eurozone members is probably something that most governments would agree with in principle, but how would you structure it?
The problem is that you don't know which countries are going to be in the Euro in the future, and they won't want to end up in a situation where the UK alone has a veto over everything, because in the past British politicians have tended to abuse their veto powers to grandstand for domestic consumption.
I'm sure there's a lot of ways it could be done. Off the top of my head, requiring a qualified majority of non-Euro members, or two non-Euro members (whatever is highest) would prevent the UK being able to act unilaterally.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation
Avoiding Eurozone consistently members ganging up on non-Eurozone members is probably something that most governments would agree with in principle, but how would you structure it?
The problem is that you don't know which countries are going to be in the Euro in the future, and they won't want to end up in a situation where the UK alone has a veto over everything, because in the past British politicians have tended to abuse their veto powers to grandstand for domestic consumption.
I'm sure there's a lot of ways it could be done. Off the top of my head, requiring a qualified majority of non-Euro members, or two non-Euro members (whatever is highest) would prevent the UK being able to act unilaterally.
Unless in a decades time, we are the only non-Euro member, or there are one or two tiny countries and everyone starts to says in effect the are not "real" non-Euro members.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation.
Is there any indication that this is still on the table ? A treaty has supposedly been ruled out (Junker/Schultz), and without that any such changes would be meaningless hot air. If there was such a treaty it would have to pass referendum in countries like France, whose people are not disposes to give us anything.
TBF I think it would be at least _technically_ possible to do something without a treaty of the full EU. If a blocking majority - not necessarily everybody - were to agree to vote against any measure that had the opposition of [something], that would be applicable in practice without even having to go through EU institutions at all. And I can't see why those countries wouldn't be able to make a legally binding international agreement to stick to whatever it was.
As I say up-thread the real problem is more what the [something] would actually be. Other governments aren't going to be too keen to give the British new powers to hold things up after that time the Euro caught fire and Cameron tried to veto the use of the fire extinguishers in the hope of a few days of headlines.
A gentleman's agreement wouldn't survive a few changes of government. I don't see why they can't just agree an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. If it doesn't pass in other countries we will have our answer of what to do.
The devastating setback to embattled Lord Feldman came as it emerged the peer WAS warned of Clarke’s ‘rude, lazy and aggressive’ streak when he was put in charge of the Party’s ‘Road Trip’ Election campaign in 2014. Feldman’s fellow Tory, co-chairman Grant Shapps, read out to Feldman a damning confidential report on Clarke – and Feldman supported the decision to make Clarke ‘Road Trip’ director.
It conflicts with Feldman’s persistent claims that he was ‘wholly unaware’ of Clarke’s bullying until four months ago.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation
Avoiding Eurozone consistently members ganging up on non-Eurozone members is probably something that most governments would agree with in principle, but how would you structure it?
The problem is that you don't know which countries are going to be in the Euro in the future, and they won't want to end up in a situation where the UK alone has a veto over everything, because in the past British politicians have tended to abuse their veto powers to grandstand for domestic consumption.
I'm sure there's a lot of ways it could be done. Off the top of my head, requiring a qualified majority of non-Euro members, or two non-Euro members (whatever is highest) would prevent the UK being able to act unilaterally.
Unless in a decades time, we are the only non-Euro member, or there are one or two tiny countries and everyone starts to says in effect the are not "real" non-Euro members.
The EU isn't generally mean to small member states but yup, this thing doesn't work if there's only one non-Euro country.
What might work politically would be to make something that protects non-Eurozone members a bit more than the status quo assuming nobody else joins. This would work because hardly anyone in Britain will believe that anybody else would actually join the Euro. I think the non-Eurozone members are pretty close to a QMV blocking majority already (maybe they already have one?) so that wouldn't be much of a lift.
Thinking about this some more, what if Cameron made a compact with the other non-Euro-members to stick together if and when more than x of them felt they were getting screwed? No need to deal with the Euro members at all...
Golly, well here goes. This is in no particular order, but describes my attitude to it all.
- I don't suffer from any *white guilt*, overall I believe that we did a great deal of positive stuff overseas and the Commonwealth is a lasting legacy of it. Those who've decided to leave like Gambia are becoming basket cases again. A great pity.
- I think for far too long [since 70s], we've had a real downer Sick Man of Europe mindset that craved acceptance from the more fashionable Europeans. Everyone else is allowed to celebrate their culture, but us. Apparently we don't have one or it's all jingoism and BNPish.
- Culturally, we're an island nation and this fierce independence contrasts very strongly with our European neighbours experience. We're rarely on the same page.
- I believe that the EU restricts us trading internationally - and that the price we pay for the club isn't worth it. I expect very little to change if we leave trade wise. The world existed beforehand and will continue to rumble on.
- I immensely dislike the notion that we're unable to exist without the EU or its associated bodies as a crutch. It's laughable - see my first point and our Gwhatever standing.
- I feel that being a nation independent of the various multi-dimensional demands of 27 other countries would free us to be ourselves again. I feel we're wriggling and uncomfortable in this set-up. Like getting a job in a place where the whole culture rubs against your instincts. It ends with one being sacked or leaving first.
Decided to check the odds for Conor McGregor for Overseas SPOTY and... he's not shortlisted. That's even more bemusing than some of the inclusions on the UK list.
I don't see why they can't just agree an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. If it doesn't pass in other countries we will have our answer of what to do.
Because even if everyone agreed it would have to go through like 100 different lower houses, upper houses and presidents, plus potentially several referendums. In many cases these institutions would be in the hands of the opposition (or in the case of referendums a bunch of disgruntled voters) who wouldn't be interested in making things easy.
Thinking about this some more, what if Cameron made a compact with the other non-Euro-members to stick together if and when more than x of them felt they were getting screwed? No need to deal with the Euro members at all...
It has been coming down the road for some time but what we once called the "Lisbon Treaty's ticking time bomb" has finally gone off. The eurozone will now have a 'Qualified Majority' in the EU Council, meaning that any UK attempts at forming last minute blocking minorities will now be that bit harder.
Golly, well here goes. This is in no particular order, but describes my attitude to it all.
- I don't suffer from any *white guilt*, overall I believe that we did a great deal of positive stuff overseas and the Commonwealth is a lasting legacy of it. Those who've decided to leave like Gambia are becoming basket cases again. A great pity.
- I think for far too long [since 70s], we've had a real downer Sick Man of Europe mindset that craved acceptance from the more fashionable Europeans. Everyone else is allowed to celebrate their culture, but us. Apparently we don't have one or it's all jingoism and BNPish.
- Culturally, we're an island nation and this fierce independence contrasts very strongly with our European neighbours experience. We're rarely on the same page.
- I believe that the EU restricts us trading internationally - and that the price we pay for the club isn't worth it. I expect very little to change if we leave trade wise. The world existed beforehand and will continue to rumble on.
- I immensely dislike the notion that we're unable to exist without the EU or its associated bodies as a crutch. It's laughable - see my first point and our Gwhatever standing.
- I feel that being a nation independent of the various multi-dimensional demands of 27 other countries would free us to be ourselves again. I feel we're wriggling and uncomfortable in this set-up. Like getting a job in a place where the whole culture rubs against your instincts. It ends with one being sacked or leaving first.
Genuine question for @plato_says (i.e. Not looking for an argument but help in understanding the referendum choice):
What do you mean by the principal of sovereignty and why does it take precedence in your referendum decision?
I ask because I'm instinctively in the same place but would like to articulate the reasoning better than a simple "bring back power from Brussels".
I will throw my hat into this one.
Quite simply at the moment its easily possible for us to democratically elect a government, even with a landslide majority and then be in the position of them not actually being able to carry out the democratic will of the people.
Exhibit A in this regard would be votes for prisoners. The will as expressed in parliament by a large majority, was not to give votes to prisoners, an issue which affects no other country, and is totally internal to the UK, and yet we have been told that this is unlawful by the ECJ, and there are continuing efforts on both the legal and political front to make us give them the vote.
And as usual your example is nonsense.
Votes for Prisoners is a consequence of rulings by the European Court for Human Rights. This has nothing to do with the EU, it is a body founded after WW2 BY THE UNITED KINGDOM. It was Churchill's legacy.
The only competence of the ECJ on voting is with regard to European elections and all they have done is incorporate existing EHCR precedent.
You also are utterly clueless about how government works. No "democratically elected" government can carry out the "democratic will of the people" without relating this to outside influence and reality. All governments regardless of membership of specific trading blocs are constrained by all manner of international agreements, laws, customs and economics.
The devastating setback to embattled Lord Feldman came as it emerged the peer WAS warned of Clarke’s ‘rude, lazy and aggressive’ streak when he was put in charge of the Party’s ‘Road Trip’ Election campaign in 2014. Feldman’s fellow Tory, co-chairman Grant Shapps, read out to Feldman a damning confidential report on Clarke – and Feldman supported the decision to make Clarke ‘Road Trip’ director. It conflicts with Feldman’s persistent claims that he was ‘wholly unaware’ of Clarke’s bullying until four months ago.
Thinking about this some more, what if Cameron made a compact with the other non-Euro-members to stick together if and when more than x of them felt they were getting screwed? No need to deal with the Euro members at all...
It has been coming down the road for some time but what we once called the "Lisbon Treaty's ticking time bomb" has finally gone off. The eurozone will now have a 'Qualified Majority' in the EU Council, meaning that any UK attempts at forming last minute blocking minorities will now be that bit harder.
Nice catch. So he'd need to rope in a few more countries. But it's still a much less implausible prospect than a treaty of the full EU, especially at short notice.
I assume he'll be gone in some Yuletide dead zone - TBH, I've no idea who he is and care less. Ditto Tatler Tory's sorry tale.
If nothing else was happening - say in August, this would get some temporary cut-through/they'd be gone sooner. But on the impact scale, it doesn't register. If we applied similar bullying tests to Labour right now, there'd be few left given the various death threats and Twit Mobbery.
The devastating setback to embattled Lord Feldman came as it emerged the peer WAS warned of Clarke’s ‘rude, lazy and aggressive’ streak when he was put in charge of the Party’s ‘Road Trip’ Election campaign in 2014. Feldman’s fellow Tory, co-chairman Grant Shapps, read out to Feldman a damning confidential report on Clarke – and Feldman supported the decision to make Clarke ‘Road Trip’ director. It conflicts with Feldman’s persistent claims that he was ‘wholly unaware’ of Clarke’s bullying until four months ago.
Votes for Prisoners is a consequence of rulings by the European Court for Human Rights. This has nothing to do with the EU, it is a body founded after WW2 BY THE UNITED KINGDOM. It was Churchill's legacy.
The only competence of the ECJ on voting is with regard to European elections and all they have done is incorporate existing EHCR precedent.
You also are utterly clueless about how government works. No "democratically elected" government can carry out the "democratic will of the people" without relating this to outside influence and reality. All governments regardless of membership of specific trading blocs are constrained by all manner of international agreements, laws, customs and economics.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) yesterday ruled that the vote may be stripped from inmates who have been convicted of “serious” crimes and where they have a right to appeal.
Doesn't it occur to you that a sovereign nation is free to abrogate any of those agreements, laws, customs and economics and live with the consequences. Isn't that why you are trying to hard for an independent Scotland, to be free from the rUK's international agreements, laws, customs and economics, and do it your own way - except you will be joining the EU, so you can't.
In a private meeting in Parliament on 9 December, Mr Corbyn’s aides told MPs that the influential National Policy Forum – set up by Tony Blair to get a grip on policy-making – would be overhauled and replaced by a new system.
Mr Corbyn (inset) wants to see party members consulted in more “e-referendums” – a device he used to gauge opinion on Syrian air strikes before the House of Commons vote earlier this month. He also wants the annual party conference to be given much more say on policy.
What is this obsession with being "ruled by" the EU? Judging by the comments on here, nobody thinks our home-grown politicians are any good. So why would they make a better job of running things than they do now? Who would you blame then for all the duff decisions?
What is this obsession with being "ruled by" the EU? Judging by the comments on here, nobody thinks our home-grown politicians are any good. So why would they make a better job of running things than they do now? Who would you blame then for all the duff decisions?
What is this obsession with being "ruled by" the EU? Judging by the comments on here, nobody thinks our home-grown politicians are any good. So why would they make a better job of running things than they do now? Who would you blame then for all the duff decisions?
If we don't like what they are doing, how do we vote them out ?
Plato, I used to respect your opinions. You have been steadily travelling rightwards for the last few years, and now you are in danger of UKIPpery or - worse in a way - of joining the likes of Chope and Davies on the lunatic Tory fringe. Reconsider. Before it's too late.
The devastating setback to embattled Lord Feldman came as it emerged the peer WAS warned of Clarke’s ‘rude, lazy and aggressive’ streak when he was put in charge of the Party’s ‘Road Trip’ Election campaign in 2014. Feldman’s fellow Tory, co-chairman Grant Shapps, read out to Feldman a damning confidential report on Clarke – and Feldman supported the decision to make Clarke ‘Road Trip’ director. It conflicts with Feldman’s persistent claims that he was ‘wholly unaware’ of Clarke’s bullying until four months ago.
Feldman's departure is inevitable. Cameron is just prolonging the damage.
Who's doing the bullying now without the result of an independent inquiry? As has been said many times don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, especially if quoted by a kipper
What complete piffle - the world around me has changed - I haven't. I'd rather be mistaken for a Kipper, than a LD quite frankly too. All that handwringing must be very wearing.
Plato, I used to respect your opinions. You have been steadily travelling rightwards for the last few years, and now you are in danger of UKIPpery or - worse in a way - of joining the likes of Chope and Davies on the lunatic Tory fringe. Reconsider. Before it's too late.
, I used to respect your opinions. You have been steadily travelling rightwards for the last few years, and now you are in danger of UKIPpery or - worse in a way - of joining the likes of Chope and Davies on the lunatic Tory fringe. Reconsider http://www.wrestlng.com/watch-stone-cold-podcast-with-shawn-michaels-12132015/
Comments
Those others who are suggesting that pro-EUers, such as myself, would be happier living elsewhere in the EU are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding about us. We don't want to chose between the UK and the EU - we want the best of both. Leaving the UK would not bring us any closer to that than leaving the EU would.
If the UK votes to leave the EU then you'll find me saddened but you'll not find me frothing or running away.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Lots of interesting discussion about the EU downthread!
I don't think it's accurate to say Cameron has nothing left in EU negotiations. The most important one is whether us non-Eurozone countries get some sort of blocking power over the Eurozone. Cutting benefits for immigrants was never going to save that much in the scheme of things, and wasn't going to cut the levels of immigration either. That's probably a positive thing, as EU workers tend to be younger and harder working than their British counterparts. We just need to be better at building more infrastructure to keep up.
The "every closer union" opt-out won't change anything, because we won't sign any more integrating treaties anyway, and if a government wanted to it could just overrule it. And the competitiveness one is just the standard EU boilerplate that gets trotted out every summit.
On the other hand, stopping the Eurozone having the qualified majority on its own would put us in a very difficult position, where another power (once they integrate further) could legislate over us at will. I'm supportive of the EU, but that would be an untenable position for us to be in long term. I don't think any major country in the world could accept being in that situation.
For what it's worth, I don't think the EU would be in a better position without the UK. It would seem to swing the power towards the Southern tendency, which will mean a less competitive, less prudent, more corrupt EU.
The problem is that you don't know which countries are going to be in the Euro in the future, and they won't want to end up in a situation where the UK alone has a veto over everything, because in the past British politicians have tended to abuse their veto powers to grandstand for domestic consumption.
Also the US political scene is being discussed on PB through a UK-centric prism so is of little educational value. Few on here really seem to understand the cultural nuances.
Over in my part of the world I'm left with the Spanish election to feed my political interest and on PB only @felix seems to know his onions about that. So there's another dead topic.
We need another by-election. What a shame about O&S.
And - if we leave and join the EU then there will not be much difference for us, we would still be involved in all the usual EU things - payments (not as much but still significant) single market rules, free movement of labour and various other regs and rules that we would simply join in with. But no political stuff,and as now no common currency.
It makes you wonder what the fuss is about.
What would happen, far from the EU being better for our absence it would go its own sweet way and we would have no veto and would still be influenced by this massive continental wide ever closer union block on our doorstep.
When we're out they can appoint them by lottery, or alphabetically, or something.
It's incredibly ignorant in the main. I'm just glad I pay attention to the US a lot myself, and have been traveled there quite a bit. I don't proclaim any expertise, but feel at least I've a bit of an idea culture wise.
The current "yellow card" system has not be any sort of success, the Commission has ignored any yellow cards it has found inconvenient (see formation of European Public Prosecutor’s Office). Both yellow and orange cards are currently usable only for the reason of subsidiarity, not say because the idea is crap.
I don't have the strength to refute your disinformation about free movement again, expected to say I wasn't aware that there was a free movement of Labour between South Korea or Mexico and the members of the EU.
As I say up-thread the real problem is more what the [something] would actually be. Other governments aren't going to be too keen to give the British new powers to hold things up after that time the Euro caught fire and Cameron tried to veto the use of the fire extinguishers in the hope of a few days of headlines.
What do you mean by the principal of sovereignty and why does it take precedence in your referendum decision?
I ask because I'm instinctively in the same place but would like to articulate the reasoning better than a simple "bring back power from Brussels".
Ten years on: David Cameron the least disliked party leader of a generation – https://t.co/0tjiFNCZYl https://t.co/Ya3c58xTEm
Quite simply at the moment its easily possible for us to democratically elect a government, even with a landslide majority and then be in the position of them not actually being able to carry out the democratic will of the people.
Exhibit A in this regard would be votes for prisoners. The will as expressed in parliament by a large majority, was not to give votes to prisoners, an issue which affects no other country, and is totally internal to the UK, and yet we have been told that this is unlawful by the ECJ, and there are continuing efforts on both the legal and political front to make us give them the vote.
In the UK the whole pro EU debate seems to have been run ever since we joined on the basis of lies and dissemination. Those who want ever closer union won't or can't simply come out and argue for it. They seem to feel that the only way to get their aims is to mislead the British public about the nature and aims of the EU and of their pro-EU views. It is always framed in terms of begrudging acceptance and no real change rather than a clear intent for 'more Europe'.
Obviously I don't want 'more Europe' but I have a lot of time for those, like John Stevens, who openly advocate what they believe in rather than trying to achieve their ends by misleading the public.
What might work politically would be to make something that protects non-Eurozone members a bit more than the status quo assuming nobody else joins. This would work because hardly anyone in Britain will believe that anybody else would actually join the Euro. I think the non-Eurozone members are pretty close to a QMV blocking majority already (maybe they already have one?) so that wouldn't be much of a lift.
Thinking about this some more, what if Cameron made a compact with the other non-Euro-members to stick together if and when more than x of them felt they were getting screwed? No need to deal with the Euro members at all...
- I don't suffer from any *white guilt*, overall I believe that we did a great deal of positive stuff overseas and the Commonwealth is a lasting legacy of it. Those who've decided to leave like Gambia are becoming basket cases again. A great pity.
- I think for far too long [since 70s], we've had a real downer Sick Man of Europe mindset that craved acceptance from the more fashionable Europeans. Everyone else is allowed to celebrate their culture, but us. Apparently we don't have one or it's all jingoism and BNPish.
- Culturally, we're an island nation and this fierce independence contrasts very strongly with our European neighbours experience. We're rarely on the same page.
- I believe that the EU restricts us trading internationally - and that the price we pay for the club isn't worth it. I expect very little to change if we leave trade wise. The world existed beforehand and will continue to rumble on.
- I immensely dislike the notion that we're unable to exist without the EU or its associated bodies as a crutch. It's laughable - see my first point and our Gwhatever standing.
- I feel that being a nation independent of the various multi-dimensional demands of 27 other countries would free us to be ourselves again. I feel we're wriggling and uncomfortable in this set-up. Like getting a job in a place where the whole culture rubs against your instincts. It ends with one being sacked or leaving first.
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/lisbon-treatys-new-voting-weights-kick.html
Votes for Prisoners is a consequence of rulings by the European Court for Human Rights. This has nothing to do with the EU, it is a body founded after WW2 BY THE UNITED KINGDOM. It was Churchill's legacy.
The only competence of the ECJ on voting is with regard to European elections and all they have done is incorporate existing EHCR precedent.
You also are utterly clueless about how government works. No "democratically elected" government can carry out the "democratic will of the people" without relating this to outside influence and reality. All governments regardless of membership of specific trading blocs are constrained by all manner of international agreements, laws, customs and economics.
Feldman's departure is inevitable. Cameron is just prolonging the damage.
If nothing else was happening - say in August, this would get some temporary cut-through/they'd be gone sooner. But on the impact scale, it doesn't register. If we applied similar bullying tests to Labour right now, there'd be few left given the various death threats and Twit Mobbery. Feldman's departure is inevitable. Cameron is just prolonging the damage.
It makes no sense to me.
What am I not seeing? What is the logic that justifies those odds?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11914341/Prisoners-can-be-stripped-of-the-vote-EUs-top-court-rules.html Doesn't it occur to you that a sovereign nation is free to abrogate any of those agreements, laws, customs and economics and live with the consequences. Isn't that why you are trying to hard for an independent Scotland, to be free from the rUK's international agreements, laws, customs and economics, and do it your own way - except you will be joining the EU, so you can't.
Also why is Rubio 2.58 ?!
C Christie +175
Trump +247
Bush -46
Rubio -80
Paul +570
Cruz +234
Fiorina +139
Carson +254
Kasich +98
Romney +2
Ryan +369
The Field +230
What's with the love for Paul?
Trump 6-4
Cruz 3-1
Rubio 7-2
Bush 20-1
C Christie 25-1
Carson 50-1
Something like that ?
£366 tied up :P
Rubio has a hedge for Presidency.
Clinton 15.29
Rubio 138.31
Male Repub -37.89
Female Repub -2.89
Male democrat -19.71
Female Democrat 15.29
Who's doing the bullying now without the result of an independent inquiry? As has been said many times don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, especially if quoted by a kipper
New Thread