This is worrying. ISIS are getting fighters into Europe:
www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VE0XL
If you were ISIS, wouldn't you be making use of the open door?
No, I suspect I'd want to keep all my fighters where they could help keep ISIS alive. It'd be like us sneaking Spitfire pilots into Germany during the Battle of Britain.
But they aren't a conventional military force, they primarily exist to carry out terrorist acts on western infidels. Exporting fighters/terrorists to Europe and creating a fifth column must be one of their goals.
It seemed interesting and accurate though I thought it was setting up a bit of a strawman with its claims that any serious analysts might somehow have missed the millenarian and religiously hyperorthodox/reconstructionist nature of IS.
Jihadica was an excellent blog that reported the philosophical/theological underpinnings (with their many internal disputes) and the public propaganda (not always aligned with the internal reasoning) of IS, al-Qaeda and various other jihadist groups. But the site seems to be 404ing me now.
Oh wow. "Legally binding protocols". From the EU. Fantastic. That's as good as folding money on Oxford Street.
So what was your suggestion? You seem to have an immense knowledge of how European law operates, so presumably you can tell what mechanism should have been used instead of legally-binding protocols? Your expertise could be very useful in the post-Brexit negotiations.
The problem we have is that no one knows the answer to your questions nor even if there is an answer. I would like to think that in 1993 Major had the very best legal advice that the protocol he negotiated and which was included in the full treaty was sufficient to keep the UK out of the Social Chapter. It took 3 years for that to be proved wrong.
The whole point of a Supreme Court - whether it us the ECJ, the ECHR or the new UK supreme court is that they are supposed to be neutral and interested only on the strictest interpretation of the law. The ECJ doesn't even pretend to be that and follows a very clear pro integrationist policy. I am not sure there is anyway you can.protect against that
In negotiations, there are many factors that effect the outcome and whether there is an outcome. Framing is critical at the outset. The EU have been very effective in framing the UK's demands, forcing temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree.
An alternative UK strategy, rather than allowing our ambitions to be framed by our opponents, would to have been to have laid our entire wish list on the table and offer the credible threat of leaving if they were not largely or satisfactorily addressed. Ambiguity as to what would be satisfactory would have help the UK's negotiations.
The EU did not force 'temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree'. 28 need to agree. That's an incontrovertible fact, unfortunately.
As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.
I agree that someone else, who genuinely thought that Brexit might be a good idea, could have followed your alternative, provided that he or she was confident of getting a Leave result in the referendum. I don't think that it would have been any more successful, however.
This is worrying. ISIS are getting fighters into Europe:
www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VE0XL
If you were ISIS, wouldn't you be making use of the open door?
No, I suspect I'd want to keep all my fighters where they could help keep ISIS alive. It'd be like us sneaking Spitfire pilots into Germany during the Battle of Britain.
But they aren't a conventional military force, they primarily exist to carry out terrorist acts on western infidels. Exporting fighters/terrorists to Europe and creating a fifth column must be one of their goals.
It seemed interesting and accurate though I thought it was setting up a bit of a strawman with its claims that any serious analysts might somehow have missed the millenarian and religiously hyperorthodox/reconstructionist nature of IS.
Jihadica was an excellent blog that reported the philosophical/theological underpinnings (with their many internal disputes) and the public propaganda (not always aligned with the internal reasoning) of IS, al-Qaeda and various other jihadist groups. But the site seems to be 404ing me now.
The prediction from a majority on here beforehand was of a deal that would be met with indifference and hostility, and I'm translating any 'even worse than expected' sentiment since the document came out simply as an 'as we expected'.
In any case, it seems that this spike in the polls was already priced in.
Be interesting to see whether any tightening in the phone polls has more effect to move the market.
And more. It doesn't matter how crap the LEAVE campaign is, they could be led by Mr Tumble and a retarded cucumber, news like this just makes their job too easy:
Absolutely disgusting. Honestly, normal execution is too good for these people. Death by firing squad in a public square where the rest of these people can see the consequences of these actions.
Clearly sickening. But we should remember that most Syrian refugees are decent people and are badly tarred by these outrages.
What don't help is the local mayor saying we should respond to brutal gang rapes by 'explaining our values' to them.
I remain unconvinced on the first statement.
On the second, well liberal wets have been turning a blind eye to Muslim rape gangs for years in this country and now they are being as stupid in Europe. I don't see what value these people bring to Europe or even the world. Removing them from our society is the only way forwards.
As phrased it looks like you are suggesting removing liberal wets from our society!!
The whole point of a Supreme Court - whether it us the ECJ, the ECHR or the new UK supreme court is that they are supposed to be neutral and interested only on the strictest interpretation of the law. The ECJ doesn't even pretend to be that and follows a very clear pro integrationist policy. I am not sure there is anyway you can.protect against that
I agree that that is a potential problem. It's just one of the things we need to factor in to our decision as to which way to vote.
Very relevantly, the EU parliament president (Speaker? Chair? CEO? Head shaman?) Martin Schulz is putting a big German spoke in the wheels of the "deal".
@traynorbrussels 3m3 minutes ago #brexit @schulz on cameron deal - emergency brake effectively discriminatory
The European Parliament won't even ratify the pitiful pledges Cameron brought home t'other day.
They are telling the UK to F off.
I think you were a Blair supporter, back in the day, Plato? Was that despite his euro-love, or did you change your mind?
When you reach that ridiculous point, on an internet forum, with some old twit you've never even met, it is time to seek argumentation elsewhere. I shall do that.
Very wise. You obviously find logical thinking distressing.
There is no doubt that Mr Nabavi and Cammo are blood brothers. Could they, unbeknown to us, been born Zika'd too?
Just catching up on the latest thread over lunch and noticed someone asking earlier about statistics of crime rates in Syrians versus other migrant groups. I posted this the other day:
"I was very interested (and, if I'm honest, surprised) to read of the very different offending rates for Syrians versus other migrant groups:
"The Syrian refugees intentionally welcomed by Merkel have so far proven overwhelmingly law abiding. According to a Jan. 8 police report from North Rhine-Westphalia, the western German state that includes Cologne, only 0.5 percent of Syrian migrants in the city were caught committing crimes within a year.
By contrast, among migrants from North Africa, as many as 40 percent were caught committing crimes within a year, the report says.
Virtually none of the North Africans arriving in Germany have proven to be genuine refugees: last year Germany granted some form of protection to just 0.19 percent of Tunisian migrants, 3.74 percent of Moroccans and 1.6 percent of Algerians."
In the small village in the Lake District where my husband's family are, a village so small and distant that the next landfall is America, there have been Czech and Polish immigrants since before the war as well as, more recently, Kurds. No-one would comment in the way you suggest.
Don't assume that everyone - even in the "dreaded sticks" - is as narrow-minded as you appear to be about your countrymen.
Mind you, while they embrace Eastern Europeans they can be pretty scathing about pompous Metropolitan types.
You're generalising too,though, aren't you? Broxtowe is reasonably suburban and outward-looking, but I certainly know people who are annoyed to hear Chinese students talking to each other in Chinese, Paksistanis talking Urdu, and so on. I remember one constituent - bafflingly a supporter of mine - proposing that foreign language should be illegal in Britain (even for tourists). I'm a bit sceptical whether your husband's family village really hears a lot of foreign languages spoken,or that they'd react well if they did.
As an example of the risks of preconceptions, when I saw someone replying to a comment you made about people marching in and wanting to change the furniture, I thought you were referring to the lofty British attitude to the EU, and I thought "Yes, there's something in that..."
I can assure you that in the village I am talking about they do react as I have described. There has been a surprising amount of immigration since WW2 there and some well established local residents are of Czech and Polish descent.
Of course people will have different reactions in different places. But I was responding to Roger's rather lofty dismissal of English people reacting in horror to a foreign language.
I take your last point: I do wish UK governments had spent the last 40 years building alliances in Europe or trying to. Still, when we are such a significant contributor we are, I think, entitled to express a view on and indeed buy new furniture.......
For those betting on the US Presidential election, this may be of interest. Red states now outnumber Blue states for the first time since Obama's first election. The logic is that this swings the electoral college maths towards the GOP:
Thanks for the link. I put money on Rubio for POTUS early this morning, so this little bit of evidence helps might justifications. FL will go Rep if Rubio is candidate.
Apart from being one of the dodgiest looking characters on the planet, he has hidden from justice for years. Odious little twerp, why on earth feed his monstrous ego by paying him any attention at all?
But of course the BBC isn't full of lefties, oh no.
I'm sure that evading capture (or more likely death) is far more challenging.
How is your meningitis? Better I hope.
Sadly I'm still lying in a darkened room. Although today I have the joy of tinnitus as well. ;(
Apparently I may suffer bad headaches for up to two months. I'm not looking forward to that ...
It's so easy to take your body for granted when it's working well. You only appreciate it when it's not.
I do sympathise. Extended periods of pain really suck.
I was stricken with quite severe sciatica last year and for several months couldn't sit down without a lot of pain. It was unutterably tedious but it did get better in the end.
The way I see it, there will come a day when something goes wrong and it doesn't get better. Until that point one has to be phlegmatic.
Very relevantly, the EU parliament president (Speaker? Chair? CEO? Head shaman?) Martin Schulz is putting a big German spoke in the wheels of the "deal".
@traynorbrussels 3m3 minutes ago #brexit @schulz on cameron deal - emergency brake effectively discriminatory
The European Parliament won't even ratify the pitiful pledges Cameron brought home t'other day.
They are telling the UK to F off.
I think you were a Blair supporter, back in the day, Plato? Was that despite his euro-love, or did you change your mind?
Cameron has done the same by promising not to oppose any treaty changes or new treaty required for EMU integration. He has done that in return for literally nothing. It is Blair and the rebate all over again.
In negotiations, there are many factors that effect the outcome and whether there is an outcome. Framing is critical at the outset. The EU have been very effective in framing the UK's demands, forcing temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree.
An alternative UK strategy, rather than allowing our ambitions to be framed by our opponents, would to have been to have laid our entire wish list on the table and offer the credible threat of leaving if they were not largely or satisfactorily addressed. Ambiguity as to what would be satisfactory would have help the UK's negotiations.
The EU did not force 'temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree'. 28 need to agree. That's an incontrovertible fact, unfortunately.
As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.
I agree that someone else, who genuinely thought that Brexit might be a good idea, could have followed your alternative, provided that he or she was confident of getting a Leave result in the referendum. I don't think that it would have been any more successful, however.
Well, as an ex-diplomat who has negotiated against extremely tough counterparties, I agree, threats need to be credible and that means you have to be prepared to do them.
To address SeanTs two anti-UK deal groups:
- those who believe we'll never leave. You have to change that perception. - those who want us to leave. It is easy to hold that view and its budgetary implications for the EU if you don't believe it is a real possibility. Again, make them believe it is not only a possibility but will happen if a satisfactory deal is not reached. Then many in this camp will have to revisit their views based on the real threat to the integrity of the EU budget.
All of a sudden, getting the 28 focused on the need for a deal is not so impossible.
How could this have been achieved? A cabinet strategy meeting before demands were even aired, agreeing that unless the package were acceptable, the government would as a block recommend and campaign for leave.
PS And in the event of having to leave, this strategy would have set up a credible position and reputation for the divorce negotiations. Now they know Cameron is as wet as they come, so even if he loses the referendum, they can screw him in the divorce negotiations.
I'm sure that evading capture (or more likely death) is far more challenging.
How is your meningitis? Better I hope.
Sadly I'm still lying in a darkened room. Although today I have the joy of tinnitus as well. ;(
Apparently I may suffer bad headaches for up to two months. I'm not looking forward to that ...
It's so easy to take your body for granted when it's working well. You only appreciate it when it's not.
Aye, I'll agree with that.
About a decade ago I had about five months of feeling "well" (not "great", just "normal") after years of feeling various shades of lousy, and it felt absolutely extraordinary. Not quite like I was invincible, but that I could physically do anything I might reasonably want to do and my body would be up to it - which at the time I appreciated massively. (Naturally I was promptly taken ill again and had to nab six months off work, but at the time it was good.)
Hope you're fighting fit as soon as can be expected. The thing that annoys me most about periods of ill-health, and it wouldn't surprise me if you're the same, is the sense of confinement and the inability to just pootle off for a good few hours of walk in the fresh air (or more pressingly. the inability to nip out for five minutes to do the shopping). It feels very limiting, and the ability to escape "virtually" through our electronic windows to the world lacks something quintessential, which becomes increasingly obvious the longer you're reduced to the the e-ether.
Apart from being one of the dodgiest looking characters on the planet, he has hidden from justice for years. Odious little twerp, why on earth feed his monstrous ego by paying him any attention at all?
But of course the BBC isn't full of lefties, oh no.
When you reach that ridiculous point, on an internet forum, with some old twit you've never even met, it is time to seek argumentation elsewhere. I shall do that.
Very wise. You obviously find logical thinking distressing.
There is no doubt that Mr Nabavi and Cammo are blood brothers. Could they, unbeknown to us, been born Zika'd too?
Apart from being one of the dodgiest looking characters on the planet, he has hidden from justice for years. Odious little twerp, why on earth feed his monstrous ego by paying him any attention at all?
But of course the BBC isn't full of lefties, oh no.
'As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.'
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
When you reach that ridiculous point, on an internet forum, with some old twit you've never even met, it is time to seek argumentation elsewhere. I shall do that.
Very wise. You obviously find logical thinking distressing.
But this issue is not about logic is it? It's about identity. It's about who's in charge. It's about are we British or are we Europeans? It's about 'do you want to be governed buy someone you can vote out of office or not'? You seem genuinely excited that Dave has negotiated that the meaningless words 'ever close union' might possibly be removed as long as all 28 vote that way. Even if they might reverse this is in future.
Dave has achieved precisely nothing in the EU negotiations. Which is to say he has achieved 100% of his ambitions and 100% of all that was ever going to be possible. That's OK to me. What sticks in my craw is that he now pretends the nothing is in fact something. We're having trivial arguments about ephemera. To even contemplate remaining I would want: 1. UK law to be above EU law and the highest court with jurisdiction over Brits to be a UK court. 2. A 90% reduction in our EU contributions and a massive downsizing of the EU machine - including, for symbolic reasons alone, the end of the Strasbourg charade. 3. A democratically elected government of the EU (and Democracy meaning you can specifically vote out of power named individuals - no damn party lists). Kill the Commission. 4. A deeply two-speed EU with non Eurozone countries largely left to their own devices. 5. EU external borders to be enforced rigidly. 6. A truly free single market including in services. Actually. 7. etc In other words a totally unachievable and fundamental reframing of the whole EU and its structures via a monster Treaty. It will never happen.
This is worrying. ISIS are getting fighters into Europe:
www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VE0XL
If you were ISIS, wouldn't you be making use of the open door?
No, I suspect I'd want to keep all my fighters where they could help keep ISIS alive. It'd be like us sneaking Spitfire pilots into Germany during the Battle of Britain.
But they aren't a conventional military force, they primarily exist to carry out terrorist acts on western infidels. Exporting fighters/terrorists to Europe and creating a fifth column must be one of their goals.
It seemed interesting and accurate though I thought it was setting up a bit of a strawman with its claims that any serious analysts might somehow have missed the millenarian and religiously hyperorthodox/reconstructionist nature of IS.
Jihadica was an excellent blog that reported the philosophical/theological underpinnings (with their many internal disputes) and the public propaganda (not always aligned with the internal reasoning) of IS, al-Qaeda and various other jihadist groups. But the site seems to be 404ing me now.
The link to Jihadica worked for me.
The first link was just to a description of the site sadly, I wonder if you're referring to that?
The second link doesn't work for me either on my broadband or on my phone internet so I have the horrible suspicion the site has died. If you can see it, that's good news.
Well, as an ex-diplomat who has negotiated against extremely tough counterparties, I agree, threats need to be credible and that means you have to be prepared to do them.
To address SeanTs two anti-UK deal groups:
- those who believe we'll never leave. You have to change that perception. - those who want us to leave. It is easy to hold that view and its budgetary implications for the EU if you don't believe it is a real possibility. Again, make them believe it is not only a possibility but will happen if a satisfactory deal is not reached. Then many in this camp will have to revisit their views based on the real threat to the integrity of the EU budget.
All of a sudden, getting the 28 focused on the need for a deal is not so impossible.
How could this have been achieved? A cabinet strategy meeting before demands were even aired, agreeing that unless the package were acceptable, the government would as a block recommend and campaign for leave.
Yes, I remember my manager at SCE negotiating with an external technology provider once, the only way we got a good deal and full access to the desired technology was walking away from the deal. With so much money on the line for them from licencing income a different rep called up a few days later and negotiated a higher fee in return for full access to the technology we wanted.
When a company or organisation is such a huge buyer it puts them in a position of power. £11bn in contributions and a £120bn trade deficit makes us the single biggest purchaser of EU goods. A coordinated threat of walking away from a crap deal and recommending leave would have concentrated minds within the EU. They can't afford to lose our contributions or our purchasing power from the group. The compromise would have been made for us where other countries might not be able to do it, our economic power gives us the leverage necessary to get a good deal, but what good is power if you aren't willing to use it.
'As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.'
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
It's not circular reasoning, it's facing the fact that our negotiating position was weak. Obviously this should all have been sorted out before Lisbon - when we could have got real progress without having to paint ourselves into a Brexit corner - but it wasn't.
Dial back a year or two and you will find dear Richard disagreeing strongly with people who were then arguing that nothing of note could be achieved in negotiating with the EU, quoting Maggie's handbag etc.
But now apparently we should have known all along nothing would be achieved.
The problem we have is that no one knows the answer to your questions nor even if there is an answer. I would like to think that in 1993 Major had the very best legal advice that the protocol he negotiated and which was included in the full treaty was sufficient to keep the UK out of the Social Chapter. It took 3 years for that to be proved wrong.
Maybe I'm missing something here but Labour joined of their own volition; I don't think Major ever assumed that the opt-out banned Britain from ever joining the social chapter even if it elected a government that wanted to.
Dial back a year or two and you will find dear Richard disagreeing strongly with people who were then arguing that nothing of note could be achieved in negotiating with the EU, quoting Maggie's handbag etc
No you won't. Don't make things up. As I've pointed out many times, Maggie's handbag was unfortunately thrown away by Blair and Brown.
Dial back a year or two and you will find dear Richard disagreeing strongly with people who were then arguing that nothing of note could be achieved in negotiating with the EU, quoting Maggie's handbag etc
No you won't. Don't make things up. As I've pointed out many times, Maggie's handbag was unfortunately thrown away by Blair and Brown.
Your argument that "I wouldn't start from here" is a bit thin though.
It's the equivalent of shrugging and building a 3rd runway at Heathrow because its crap but less of a hassle and Boris Island sounds difficult.
'As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.'
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
It's not circular reasoning, it's facing the fact that our negotiating position was weak. Obviously this should all have been sorted out before Lisbon - when we could have got real progress without having to paint ourselves into a Brexit corner - but it wasn't.
We are the second main contributor to the EU. We do not have a weak negotiating position. But the way the negotiations have been conducted - with Cameron more or less admitting in public in advance that he would recommend Remain regardless - have made our position much weaker than it need have been.
You play the hand you are given as well as possible. Not endlessly moan about how you wished you had a better hand that someone else a few years ago had.
And if you really have nothing to negotiate with then you are honest and say so not go round pretending that you've got the moon on a stick.
Had France been in the position the UK was in I am quite certain that she would have ended up with far more than Cameron has got. But that would have been because she was focused and determined and ruthless.
This is worrying. ISIS are getting fighters into Europe:
www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VE0XL
If you were ISIS, wouldn't you be making use of the open door?
No, I suspect I'd want to keep all my fighters where they could help keep ISIS alive. It'd be like us sneaking Spitfire pilots into Germany during the Battle of Britain.
But they aren't a conventional military force, they primarily exist to carry out terrorist acts on western infidels. Exporting fighters/terrorists to Europe and creating a fifth column must be one of their goals.
It seemed interesting and accurate though I thought it was setting up a bit of a strawman with its claims that any serious analysts might somehow have missed the millenarian and religiously hyperorthodox/reconstructionist nature of IS.
Jihadica was an excellent blog that reported the philosophical/theological underpinnings (with their many internal disputes) and the public propaganda (not always aligned with the internal reasoning) of IS, al-Qaeda and various other jihadist groups. But the site seems to be 404ing me now.
The link to Jihadica worked for me.
The first link was just to a description of the site sadly, I wonder if you're referring to that?
The second link doesn't work for me either on my broadband or on my phone internet so I have the horrible suspicion the site has died. If you can see it, that's good news.
Ah... Down for me too. It looks like McCants has moved from Princeton to the Brookings Institute. I wonder if that move spelled the death of Jihadica? No doubt, he is continuing his work in his new home, probably closer to being able to affect US policy (at least Dem policy)
Dial back a year or two and you will find dear Richard disagreeing strongly with people who were then arguing that nothing of note could be achieved in negotiating with the EU, quoting Maggie's handbag etc.
But now apparently we should have known all along nothing would be achieved.
What changed in the meantime, I wonder?
There is no consistency in any if Richard's positions on the EU. He has spent months telling us that he would not make a decision on in or out until Cameron had finished his negotiations. New in this thread he tells us there was no point Cameron making threats because any alternative to staying in the EU was completely unpalatable. Effectively and in spite of his denials Richard has always favoured staying in even if Cameron got nothing at all out if the negotiations.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
On these two polls, the other clear news is that Kasich has bled his NH support to Rubio. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can expect at least Christie and Kasich to drop out of the race soon after NH. Bush will probably wait until after SC.
'As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.'
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
It's not circular reasoning, it's facing the fact that our negotiating position was weak. Obviously this should all have been sorted out before Lisbon - when we could have got real progress without having to paint ourselves into a Brexit corner - but it wasn't.
I'm sorry Richard but I don't accept that. Cameron's Bloomberg position was an excellent starting point and should have formed the basis for discussions. Getting sidetracked onto migrant benefits was a serious error because it will be difficult to square with existing treaties and having raised the bar so high, it does look like a pretty small return (because it is).
At the very minimum, Cameron should have sought to win agreement for his five principles, which ought to be in the interests of all members. The problem with benefit reform is that many countries (including some which ought to be natural allies on reform in principle), will find their populations taking a hit and so will object.
But why couldn't he have gone further and published and circulated a draft treaty that would have embedded the principles into EU law? Which would have formally recognised the flexible nature of the Union and its Ins and Outs, making provision and protection for all?
'As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.'
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
It's not circular reasoning, it's facing the fact that our negotiating position was weak. Obviously this should all have been sorted out before Lisbon - when we could have got real progress without having to paint ourselves into a Brexit corner - but it wasn't.
We are the second main contributor to the EU. We do not have a weak negotiating position. But the way the negotiations have been conducted - with Cameron more or less admitting in public in advance that he would recommend Remain regardless - have made our position much weaker than it need have been.
You play the hand you are given as well as possible. Not endlessly moan about how you wished you had a better hand that someone else a few years ago had.
And if you really have nothing to negotiate with then you are honest and say so not go round pretending that you've got the moon on a stick.
Had France been in the position the UK was in I am quite certain that she would have ended up with far more than Cameron has got. But that would have been because she was focused and determined and ruthless.
Yes, that seems to be the problem, the Tories seem to be ruthless with their own side, but with the actual opponents they seem to soft-ball. The negotiation needed laser-like focus and absolute ruthlessness, even threatening to withhold EU payments if we didn't get a deal done and threatening to leave without bothering with a referendum if they didn't take us seriously. That's what the French would do.
Our team seems to have gone in with the "we're all friends here, please give us something and we can all be nice to each other". It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
In negotiations, there are many factors that effect the outcome and whether there is an outcome. Framing is critical at the outset. The EU have been very effective in framing the UK's demands, forcing temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree.
An alternative UK strategy, rather than allowing our ambitions to be framed by our opponents, would to have been to have laid our entire wish list on the table and offer the credible threat of leaving if they were not largely or satisfactorily addressed. Ambiguity as to what would be satisfactory would have help the UK's negotiations.
The EU did not force 'temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree'. 28 need to agree. That's an incontrovertible fact, unfortunately.
As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.
I agree that someone else, who genuinely thought that Brexit might be a good idea, could have followed your alternative, provided that he or she was confident of getting a Leave result in the referendum. I don't think that it would have been any more successful, however.
If a British government recommended Leave, I don't think the Referendum result would be in doubt.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
On these two polls, the other clear news is that Kasich has bled his NH support to Rubio. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can expect at least Christie and Kasich to drop out of the race soon after NH. Bush will probably wait until after SC.
There is no consistency in any if Richard's positions on the EU. He has spent months telling us that he would not make a decision on in or out until Cameron had finished his negotiations. New in this thread he tells us there was no point Cameron making threats because any alternative to staying in the EU was completely unpalatable. Effectively and in spite of his denials Richard has always favoured staying in even if Cameron got nothing at all out if the negotiations.
Whilst it's flattering to have so much attention paid by so many of my fans to the finer nuances of my position, that's not correct. I have moved more firmly to Remain not because of the renegotiations, but as a result of looking in more detail at the alternatives. It is the case that my view is now that the alternatives look so bad on close examination that I would now vote Remain even if Cameron had got nothing, unless the Leave side can come up with something convincing to persuade me that I'm wrong about the alternatives.
The problem we have is that no one knows the answer to your questions nor even if there is an answer. I would like to think that in 1993 Major had the very best legal advice that the protocol he negotiated and which was included in the full treaty was sufficient to keep the UK out of the Social Chapter. It took 3 years for that to be proved wrong.
Maybe I'm missing something here but Labour joined of their own volition; I don't think Major ever assumed that the opt-out banned Britain from ever joining the social chapter even if it elected a government that wanted to.
I wasn't talking about when Blair signed us up. I was talking about 1996 when the ECJ decided to circumvent Britain's opt out by redifining sections of the social chapter so they fell under areas from which the UK had no opt out.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
On these two polls, the other clear news is that Kasich has bled his NH support to Rubio. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can expect at least Christie and Kasich to drop out of the race soon after NH. Bush will probably wait until after SC.
Please clap
Indeed. Cringeworthy and utterly un-Presidential. He is toast. That is not the question. It was when will he drop out. After SC is my guess as he has GWB campaigning on his behalf there.
I'm sorry Richard but I don't accept that. Cameron's Bloomberg position was an excellent starting point and should have formed the basis for discussions. Getting sidetracked onto migrant benefits was a serious error because it will be difficult to square with existing treaties and having raised the bar so high, it does look like a pretty small return (because it is).
I agree with both parts of that, although I can see the political imperative of the migrants benefits stuff. As I've said, I'm surprised he didn't get more on that.
Our team seems to have gone in with the "we're all friends here, please give us something and we can all be nice to each other". It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
The lack of aggression, considering we are footing the bill for much of this shooting match, is utterly astonishing.
In negotiations, there are many factors that effect the outcome and whether there is an outcome. Framing is critical at the outset. The EU have been very effective in framing the UK's demands, forcing temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree.
An alternative UK strategy, rather than allowing our ambitions to be framed by our opponents, would to have been to have laid our entire wish list on the table and offer the credible threat of leaving if they were not largely or satisfactorily addressed. Ambiguity as to what would be satisfactory would have help the UK's negotiations.
The EU did not force 'temerity upon Cameron on the basis of needing all 28 to agree'. 28 need to agree. That's an incontrovertible fact, unfortunately.
As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.
I agree that someone else, who genuinely thought that Brexit might be a good idea, could have followed your alternative, provided that he or she was confident of getting a Leave result in the referendum. I don't think that it would have been any more successful, however.
If a British government recommended Leave, I don't think the Referendum result would be in doubt.
80% of Tory voters, 95% of UKIP voters, 25% of Labour voters would be enough to get over the line and I suspect it would be more Tories than 80% if the government recommended leave.
Our team seems to have gone in with the "we're all friends here, please give us something and we can all be nice to each other". It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
The lack of aggression, considering we are footing the bill for much of this shooting match, is utterly astonishing.
It's not when you consider that these talks are all basically a sham and so are these current objections to the draft deal. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that nothing changes in our favour, if anything the red card will just end up being QMV to block laws and hamper any future attempts by countries to repatriate power.
But this issue is not about logic is it? It's about identity. It's about who's in charge. It's about are we British or are we Europeans? It's about 'do you want to be governed buy someone you can vote out of office or not'? You seem genuinely excited that Dave has negotiated that the meaningless words 'ever close union' might possibly be removed as long as all 28 vote that way. Even if they might reverse this is in future.
Dave has achieved precisely nothing in the EU negotiations. Which is to say he has achieved 100% of his ambitions and 100% of all that was ever going to be possible. That's OK to me. What sticks in my craw is that he now pretends the nothing is in fact something. We're having trivial arguments about ephemera. To even contemplate remaining I would want: 1. UK law to be above EU law and the highest court with jurisdiction over Brits to be a UK court. 2. A 90% reduction in our EU contributions and a massive downsizing of the EU machine - including, for symbolic reasons alone, the end of the Strasbourg charade. 3. A democratically elected government of the EU (and Democracy meaning you can specifically vote out of power named individuals - no damn party lists). Kill the Commission. 4. A deeply two-speed EU with non Eurozone countries largely left to their own devices. 5. EU external borders to be enforced rigidly. 6. A truly free single market including in services. Actually. 7. etc In other words a totally unachievable and fundamental reframing of the whole EU and its structures via a monster Treaty. It will never happen.
Let's just be friends.
It's interesting that at least two of your points are ones that Federalists would support
3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.
5. How do you do that without a Federal / Union border force, funded and run by the EU itself? The proposal implies a huge transfer of power to the centre - is that what you really want?
But this issue is not about logic is it? It's about identity. It's about who's in charge. It's about are we British or are we Europeans? It's about 'do you want to be governed buy someone you can vote out of office or not'? You seem genuinely excited that Dave has negotiated that the meaningless words 'ever close union' might possibly be removed as long as all 28 vote that way. Even if they might reverse this is in future.
Dave has achieved precisely nothing in the EU negotiations. Which is to say he has achieved 100% of his ambitions and 100% of all that was ever going to be possible. That's OK to me. What sticks in my craw is that he now pretends the nothing is in fact something. We're having trivial arguments about ephemera. To even contemplate remaining I would want: 1. UK law to be above EU law and the highest court with jurisdiction over Brits to be a UK court. 2. A 90% reduction in our EU contributions and a massive downsizing of the EU machine - including, for symbolic reasons alone, the end of the Strasbourg charade. 3. A democratically elected government of the EU (and Democracy meaning you can specifically vote out of power named individuals - no damn party lists). Kill the Commission. 4. A deeply two-speed EU with non Eurozone countries largely left to their own devices. 5. EU external borders to be enforced rigidly. 6. A truly free single market including in services. Actually. 7. etc In other words a totally unachievable and fundamental reframing of the whole EU and its structures via a monster Treaty. It will never happen.
Let's just be friends.
It's interesting that at least two of your points are ones that Federalists would support
3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.
5. How do you do that without a Federal / Union border force, funded and run by the EU itself? The proposal implies a huge transfer of power to the centre - is that what you really want?
The external border is a difficult one because the EU border is only as strong as the weakest member, which is currently poverty stricken Greece. I think in times of emergency an EU border force could be mobilised to take over from the national border force. How that could be stopped from turning into a permanent EU border force I don't know.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
On these two polls, the other clear news is that Kasich has bled his NH support to Rubio. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can expect at least Christie and Kasich to drop out of the race soon after NH. Bush will probably wait until after SC.
Please clap
Indeed. Cringeworthy and utterly un-Presidential. He is toast. That is not the question. It was when will he drop out. After SC is my guess as he has GWB campaigning on his behalf there.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
Clearly Trump's support in N.H. remains stable, however Rubio and Cruz are catching up. But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
Clearly Trump's support in N.H. remains stable, however Rubio and Cruz are catching up. But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
Or the ratio of GOPers to Independents who will vote.
The external border is a difficult one because the EU border is only as strong as the weakest member, which is currently poverty stricken Greece. I think in times of emergency an EU border force could be mobilised to take over from the national border force. How that could be stopped from turning into a permanent EU border force I don't know.
There is a way around this: you could have the centre "contract" or "co-opt" national assets. So, the UK and French navies to patrol the Med and return boats to point of embarkation. Etc.
Hmm, a French person in the office has informed me that the Belgian gang rape is from November last year, but there was a cover-up by police and politicians there and the victim was urged not to go public. Disgusting if he is right.
Hmm, a French person in the office has informed me that the Belgian gang rape is from November last year, but there was a cover-up by police and politicians there and the victim was urged not to go public. Disgusting if he is right.
From what I read it was that the video was only just found. Possibly there wasn't enough evidence prior.
I don't think the bickering over how many campaigns each side is going to have or not have will have the slightest effect on the referendum result. Ordinary voters couldn't care less about how many Leave campaigns there are, etc.
But this issue is not about logic is it? It's about identity. It's about who's in charge. It's about are we British or are we Europeans? It's about 'do you want to be governed buy someone you can vote out of office or not'? You seem genuinely excited that Dave has negotiated that the meaningless words 'ever close union' might possibly be removed as long as all 28 vote that way. Even if they might reverse this is in future.
Dave has achieved precisely nothing in the EU negotiations. Which is to say he has achieved 100% of his ambitions and 100% of all that was ever going to be possible. That's OK to me. What sticks in my craw is that he now pretends the nothing is in fact something. We're having trivial arguments about ephemera. To even contemplate remaining I would want: 1. UK law to be above EU law and the highest court with jurisdiction over Brits to be a UK court. 2. A 90% reduction in our EU contributions and a massive downsizing of the EU machine - including, for symbolic reasons alone, the end of the Strasbourg charade. 3. A democratically elected government of the EU (and Democracy meaning you can specifically vote out of power named individuals - no damn party lists). Kill the Commission. 4. A deeply two-speed EU with non Eurozone countries largely left to their own devices. 5. EU external borders to be enforced rigidly. 6. A truly free single market including in services. Actually. 7. etc In other words a totally unachievable and fundamental reframing of the whole EU and its structures via a monster Treaty. It will never happen.
Let's just be friends.
It's interesting that at least two of your points are ones that Federalists would support
3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.
5. How do you do that without a Federal / Union border force, funded and run by the EU itself? The proposal implies a huge transfer of power to the centre - is that what you really want?
Agree with your point about 3. It's similar with the House of Lords. It suits the Commons for the Lords to lack democratic legitimacy. It suits national governments for the Commission to lack it. But no-one admits to this, naturally.
On 5, I think it's the only possible answer to the migration crisis on the stop-it-happening side (obviously there's also the let-them-come solution). You would need a serious EU border force and it would sometimes need to do some unpleasant stuff (all shared on Twitter and YouTube). Not easy politically.
Do you not think that the EU could be run better? And if so, isn't it probable that those who'll put the case to make it better will be those who are not overly enamoured of it at the moment?
Well, nothing's perfect, I agree. But I'd rather it was in the hands of people who wish it well and want it to thrive than people who basically feel the less the better and who nourish an ill-disguised contempt for the whole thing and most of the people involved in it. To take a trivial example - a ket feature of EU decision-making is complex, lengthy meetings. Each PM in turn from Thatcher to Major to Blair to Cameron (not sure about Brown) has indicated that they think them a total pain, full of annoying and difficult people who have to be alternately browbeaten and cajoled. It's no way to build alliances and get useful results.
Interesting post by David Herdson downthread - a crack in the Cameroon facade it seems. Not really surprising given last night's poll and the appalling press the PM's pathetic deal has got.
who said this to whom?
'If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.'
The external border is a difficult one because the EU border is only as strong as the weakest member, which is currently poverty stricken Greece. I think in times of emergency an EU border force could be mobilised to take over from the national border force. How that could be stopped from turning into a permanent EU border force I don't know.
There is a way around this: you could have the centre "contract" or "co-opt" national assets. So, the UK and French navies to patrol the Med and return boats to point of embarkation. Etc.
So the EU could rent the services of the RN or UKBA and deploy them to the external EU border? That's not a bad idea, it gets around the idea of having a border force or military controlled by the EU centrally.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
Curious. The Huff summary is no longer reporting the above poll but it was definitely there half an hour ago! (Doesn't seem to be on Quinnipiac's website either).
Two more that are though:
CNN/UNH/WMUR: Trump 29, Rubio 18, Cruz 13, Kasich 12, Bush 10, 4 the field (8% undecided). Note - only 209 in the sample so 5% MoE
UMass Lowell /7News: Trump 34, Rubio 15, Cruz 14, Kasich 8, Bush 8, 5 the field (6% undecided).
Seems like Rubio is probably just about holding second place but still a long way behind Trump.
The result of the by-election is pretty predictable, but there might be some scope for betting on the turnout and majority.
Any guesses on when the by-election will be?
Could Balls be interested?
Well the constituency has 25% minorities, however it's heavy on the pensioners, I think Labour will struggle to get more than 50%.
UKIP could get within 20 points, however the LD and the Tories make only 15% of the vote and the Greens had a cushy 4%. So there are votes that Labour can squeeze, but UKIP doesn't have enough of a reserve to overtake a 30% Labour lead.
The external border is a difficult one because the EU border is only as strong as the weakest member, which is currently poverty stricken Greece. I think in times of emergency an EU border force could be mobilised to take over from the national border force. How that could be stopped from turning into a permanent EU border force I don't know.
There is a way around this: you could have the centre "contract" or "co-opt" national assets. So, the UK and French navies to patrol the Med and return boats to point of embarkation. Etc.
That's an idea. It might give rise to the complaint that the EU was giving orders to our navy but, yes, I can see that.
'If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.'
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
Clearly Trump's support in N.H. remains stable, however Rubio and Cruz are catching up. But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
The polls are not useless - they tell us a lot about who'll be negatively campaigning against whom.
A leading Labour MP is calling for the classic Tom Jones song "Delilah" to be banned from Six Nations rugby matches saying that it glorifies domestic violence.
House of Commons shadow leader Chris Bryant is campaigning for the beloved Welsh rugby anthem to be banned after claiming the song is about "killing a prostitute".
'As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.'
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
It's not circular reasoning, it's facing the fact that our negotiating position was weak. Obviously this should all have been sorted out before Lisbon - when we could have got real progress without having to paint ourselves into a Brexit corner - but it wasn't.
We are the second main contributor to the EU. You play the hand you are given as well as possible. Not endlessly moan about how you wished you had a better hand that someone else a few years ago had.
And if you really have nothing to negotiate with then you are honest and say so not go round pretending that you've got the moon on a stick.
Had France been in the position the UK was in I am quite certain that she would have ended up with far more than Cameron has got. But that would have been because she was focused and determined and ruthless.
Yes, that seems to be the problem, the Tories seem to be ruthless with their own side, but with the actual opponents they seem to soft-ball. The negotiation needed laser-like focus and absolute ruthlessness, even threatening to withhold EU payments if we didn't get a deal done and threatening to leave without bothering with a referendum if they didn't take us seriously. That's what the French would do.
Our team seems to have gone in with the "we're all friends here, please give us something and we can all be nice to each other". It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
The really silly thing is that Cameron is making same mistake twice. After initial tactic resulted in a crap draft memo, he went round saying how great it was while other EU govts complained. Now Cameron is at massive disadvantage in terms of making it better. Learn from your mistakes man!!
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
Interesting to see what happens after the debate. Marco 'Flamingo Kid' Rubio struggles debating with anyone with an IQ above 100 so that might see some more churn and I would expect some bounce unwind too. Bound to hammered on immigration.
Another thing to remember Iowa, being a caucus, is a lot easier to game for the GOP machine so I wouldn't expect non Trump candidates to outperform (Trump didn't underperform, he got a record number of votes for a Republican candidate) so much again. Trump achieved something big in Iowa and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio’s benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing by Trump.
Faisal Islam Also Schulz tells @skynews "nothing is irreversible" when I ask if the EU deal is, as the PM has argued "legally binding and irreversible"
Given he's EU president, he's dumping all over our draft deal.
Regarding a "Vow" style intervention, is this possible in the EU referendum and, if so, what form might it take?
In the Indy ref it was enough to get Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to agree. In the EU ref it would, in theory, be necessary to get all the 27 heads of government to agree. Not going to happen over a weekend.
Might a Vow take the form of a mere pledge from Merkel, Hollande and Juncker? Not sure that would have any impact.
Also, what simple,.eye-catching stuff could be put into a Vow, which the rest of the EU would possibly agree to. I mean, some technocratic tinkering wouldn't work. It would have to be something big and simple.
I don't see that a Vow can be cooked up this time.
That would be M Juncker who said something about having to lie when required? Or have I got that wrong?
I get confused: does the EU have three Presidents?
- Tusk - Juncker - Schultz
- Tusk: EU - Juncker: Commission - Schultz: Parliament
I don't think the bickering over how many campaigns each side is going to have or not have will have the slightest effect on the referendum result. Ordinary voters couldn't care less about how many Leave campaigns there are, etc.
The Leave campaigns would be more affective if they stopped fighting over egos and got on with the business of why they were formed in the first place. – It takes one vote to effect the outcome of a referendum and the bickering will put ‘ordinary’ people off imho.
The external border is a difficult one because the EU border is only as strong as the weakest member, which is currently poverty stricken Greece. I think in times of emergency an EU border force could be mobilised to take over from the national border force. How that could be stopped from turning into a permanent EU border force I don't know.
There is a way around this: you could have the centre "contract" or "co-opt" national assets. So, the UK and French navies to patrol the Med and return boats to point of embarkation. Etc.
That's an idea. It might give rise to the complaint that the EU was giving orders to our navy but, yes, I can see that.
Well as long as they compensated the national government in question and just set out a remit rather than specific orders it would probably not be seen that way.
When you reach that ridiculous point, on an internet forum, with some old twit you've never even met, it is time to seek argumentation elsewhere. I shall do that.
Very wise. You obviously find logical thinking distressing.
But this issue is not about logic is it? It's about identity. It's about who's in charge. It's about are we British or are we Europeans? It's about 'do you want to be governed buy someone you can vote out of office or not'? You seem genuinely excited that Dave has negotiated that the meaningless words 'ever close union' might possibly be removed as long as all 28 vote that way. Even if they might reverse this is in future.
Dave has achieved precisely nothing in the EU negotiations. Which is to say he has achieved 100% of his ambitions and 100% of all that was ever going to be possible. That's OK to me. What sticks in my craw is that he now pretends the nothing is in fact something. We're having trivial arguments about ephemera. To even contemplate remaining I would want: 1. UK law to be above EU law and the highest court with jurisdiction over Brits to be a UK court. 2. A 90% reduction in our EU contributions and a massive downsizing of the EU machine - including, for symbolic reasons alone, the end of the Strasbourg charade. 3. A democratically elected government of the EU (and Democracy meaning you can specifically vote out of power named individuals - no damn party lists). Kill the Commission. 4. A deeply two-speed EU with non Eurozone countries largely left to their own devices. 5. EU external borders to be enforced rigidly. 6. A truly free single market including in services. Actually. 7. etc In other words a totally unachievable and fundamental reframing of the whole EU and its structures via a monster Treaty. It will never happen.
Let's just be friends.
Call me Dave never wanted to leave the EU, hence his non-negotiation on four irrelevant points. However some, and that includes Mr Nabavi, think that this is the height of diplomacy. Some muvvers do 'ave 'em!
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
Clearly Trump's support in N.H. remains stable, however Rubio and Cruz are catching up. But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
The polls are not useless - they tell us a lot about who'll be negatively campaigning against whom.
It will be a 3 way fight, and we don't need crummy poll to tell us that. The Iowa results made it a certainty that Cruz, Rubio and Trump will attack each other and be attacked from everyone else.
3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.
I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.
MTimT down thread says that we had to make EU believe there was credible threat of us leaving. That was impossible when HMG refused to draw up contingency plans for it.
A leading Labour MP is calling for the classic Tom Jones song "Delilah" to be banned from Six Nations rugby matches saying that it glorifies domestic violence.
House of Commons shadow leader Chris Bryant is campaigning for the beloved Welsh rugby anthem to be banned after claiming the song is about "killing a prostitute".
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
Clearly Trump's support in N.H. remains stable, however Rubio and Cruz are catching up. But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
The polls are not useless - they tell us a lot about who'll be negatively campaigning against whom.
It will be a 3 way fight, and we don't need crummy poll to tell us that. The Iowa results made it a certainty that Cruz, Rubio and Trump will attack each other and be attacked from everyone else.
Chris Christie will surely be looking to chuck some fireworks straight at Rubio, as his campaign is going down in flames anyway. He hates his guts.
3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.
I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
Clearly Trump's support in N.H. remains stable, however Rubio and Cruz are catching up. But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
The polls are not useless - they tell us a lot about who'll be negatively campaigning against whom.
The NH debate is tonight, according to RealClearPolitics.
MTimT down thread says that we had to make EU believe there was credible threat of us leaving. That was impossible when HMG refused to draw up contingency plans for it.
A leading Labour MP is calling for the classic Tom Jones song "Delilah" to be banned from Six Nations rugby matches saying that it glorifies domestic violence.
House of Commons shadow leader Chris Bryant is campaigning for the beloved Welsh rugby anthem to be banned after claiming the song is about "killing a prostitute".
Do you not think that the EU could be run better? And if so, isn't it probable that those who'll put the case to make it better will be those who are not overly enamoured of it at the moment?
Well, nothing's perfect, I agree. But I'd rather it was in the hands of people who wish it well and want it to thrive than people who basically feel the less the better and who nourish an ill-disguised contempt for the whole thing and most of the people involved in it. To take a trivial example - a ket feature of EU decision-making is complex, lengthy meetings. Each PM in turn from Thatcher to Major to Blair to Cameron (not sure about Brown) has indicated that they think them a total pain, full of annoying and difficult people who have to be alternately browbeaten and cajoled. It's no way to build alliances and get useful results.
But the impression that comes across is that they're more interested in protecting the image of the thing than delivering results out of it.
There's more than an echo of Labour's image of how the Tories will dismantle the NHS about it all. The people whose hands it is in are those who don't want to admit its problems, never mind resolve them, and heap opprobrium upon those who do. Yet there are times when the emperor doesn't have any clothes on, and a lot more when he's in just his pants.
To take your example, do these European leaders not get equally irritated? Is there not a good case for doing something about it (starting on time, for example)?
The EU is running the risk that Labour moderates and establishment Republicans have run and lost and - at a general election scale - the Greek politicians and, who knows, perhaps the French and others will also run and lose: their credibility as trustworthy custodians of the public good. Unless the attitude changes, there will be a revolution one way or the other. Cameron has tried to point this out but from what you're saying, it seems that the EU elite not only haven't listened but view it as a virtue to not listen.
I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.
Hopefully, that is what we are groping towards, albeit fitfully. That is why Cameron was right to say we won't impede Eurozone integration. We actively want them firstly to make the Eurozone work, and secondly to concentrate their ever-closer union stuff there.
Two new NH polls... NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 30, Rubio 17, Cruz 15, Kasich 10, Bush 9, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Carson 4 ARG (Tracking) Trump 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 12, Kasich 14, Bush 8, Christie 6, Fiorina 2, Carson 2
Each would deliver 12,3,3,2 delegates
One more, which I don't think has been reported, from Quinnipiac (2/2 - 4/2):
Trump 31 Cruz 22 Rubio 19 Carson 6 The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
Curious. The Huff summary is no longer reporting the above poll but it was definitely there half an hour ago! (Doesn't seem to be on Quinnipiac's website either).
Two more that are though:
CNN/UNH/WMUR: Trump 29, Rubio 18, Cruz 13, Kasich 12, Bush 10, 4 the field (8% undecided). Note - only 209 in the sample so 5% MoE
UMass Lowell /7News: Trump 34, Rubio 15, Cruz 14, Kasich 8, Bush 8, 5 the field (6% undecided).
Seems like Rubio is probably just about holding second place but still a long way behind Trump.
Here you go, this is a national poll not a N.H. one:
A leading Labour MP is calling for the classic Tom Jones song "Delilah" to be banned from Six Nations rugby matches saying that it glorifies domestic violence.
House of Commons shadow leader Chris Bryant is campaigning for the beloved Welsh rugby anthem to be banned after claiming the song is about "killing a prostitute".
Comments
Jihadica was an excellent blog that reported the philosophical/theological underpinnings (with their many internal disputes) and the public propaganda (not always aligned with the internal reasoning) of IS, al-Qaeda and various other jihadist groups. But the site seems to be 404ing me now.
The whole point of a Supreme Court - whether it us the ECJ, the ECHR or the new UK supreme court is that they are supposed to be neutral and interested only on the strictest interpretation of the law. The ECJ doesn't even pretend to be that and follows a very clear pro integrationist policy. I am not sure there is anyway you can.protect against that
Apparently I may suffer bad headaches for up to two months. I'm not looking forward to that ...
It's so easy to take your body for granted when it's working well. You only appreciate it when it's not.
As for your alternative UK strategy, my diplomat father taught me one extremely good thing: never threaten what you aren't prepared to carry out. Since the alternatives - as we will see if we do get a Leave vote - are not palatable, Cameron very sensibly didn't do so. He would probably have got his bluff called if he had.
I agree that someone else, who genuinely thought that Brexit might be a good idea, could have followed your alternative, provided that he or she was confident of getting a Leave result in the referendum. I don't think that it would have been any more successful, however.
In any case, it seems that this spike in the polls was already priced in.
Be interesting to see whether any tightening in the phone polls has more effect to move the market.
Someone just took Rubio down to 1.52
"I was very interested (and, if I'm honest, surprised) to read of the very different offending rates for Syrians versus other migrant groups:
"The Syrian refugees intentionally welcomed by Merkel have so far proven overwhelmingly law abiding. According to a Jan. 8 police report from North Rhine-Westphalia, the western German state that includes Cologne, only 0.5 percent of Syrian migrants in the city were caught committing crimes within a year.
By contrast, among migrants from North Africa, as many as 40 percent were caught committing crimes within a year, the report says.
Virtually none of the North Africans arriving in Germany have proven to be genuine refugees: last year Germany granted some form of protection to just 0.19 percent of Tunisian migrants, 3.74 percent of Moroccans and 1.6 percent of Algerians."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-challenges-in-idUSKCN0V6173 "
Of course people will have different reactions in different places. But I was responding to Roger's rather lofty dismissal of English people reacting in horror to a foreign language.
I take your last point: I do wish UK governments had spent the last 40 years building alliances in Europe or trying to. Still, when we are such a significant contributor we are, I think, entitled to express a view on and indeed buy new furniture.......
Apart from being one of the dodgiest looking characters on the planet, he has hidden from justice for years. Odious little twerp, why on earth feed his monstrous ego by paying him any attention at all?
But of course the BBC isn't full of lefties, oh no.
I was stricken with quite severe sciatica last year and for several months couldn't sit down without a lot of pain. It was unutterably tedious but it did get better in the end.
The way I see it, there will come a day when something goes wrong and it doesn't get better. Until that point one has to be phlegmatic.
your old man was a diplomat?
The apple doesn;t fall far from the tree!!
To address SeanTs two anti-UK deal groups:
- those who believe we'll never leave. You have to change that perception.
- those who want us to leave. It is easy to hold that view and its budgetary implications for the EU if you don't believe it is a real possibility. Again, make them believe it is not only a possibility but will happen if a satisfactory deal is not reached. Then many in this camp will have to revisit their views based on the real threat to the integrity of the EU budget.
All of a sudden, getting the 28 focused on the need for a deal is not so impossible.
How could this have been achieved? A cabinet strategy meeting before demands were even aired, agreeing that unless the package were acceptable, the government would as a block recommend and campaign for leave.
PS And in the event of having to leave, this strategy would have set up a credible position and reputation for the divorce negotiations. Now they know Cameron is as wet as they come, so even if he loses the referendum, they can screw him in the divorce negotiations.
About a decade ago I had about five months of feeling "well" (not "great", just "normal") after years of feeling various shades of lousy, and it felt absolutely extraordinary. Not quite like I was invincible, but that I could physically do anything I might reasonably want to do and my body would be up to it - which at the time I appreciated massively. (Naturally I was promptly taken ill again and had to nab six months off work, but at the time it was good.)
Hope you're fighting fit as soon as can be expected. The thing that annoys me most about periods of ill-health, and it wouldn't surprise me if you're the same, is the sense of confinement and the inability to just pootle off for a good few hours of walk in the fresh air (or more pressingly. the inability to nip out for five minutes to do the shopping). It feels very limiting, and the ability to escape "virtually" through our electronic windows to the world lacks something quintessential, which becomes increasingly obvious the longer you're reduced to the the e-ether.
Ok so there was no point in threatening to leave as that would be worse than staying in with no improvement in terms. Therefore we didn't make that threat, and unsurprisingly we have got no improvement in terms. Great.
If you carry on with this kind of circular reasoning for too long you will end up in Australia.
Dave has achieved precisely nothing in the EU negotiations. Which is to say he has achieved 100% of his ambitions and 100% of all that was ever going to be possible. That's OK to me. What sticks in my craw is that he now pretends the nothing is in fact something. We're having trivial arguments about ephemera. To even contemplate remaining I would want:
1. UK law to be above EU law and the highest court with jurisdiction over Brits to be a UK court.
2. A 90% reduction in our EU contributions and a massive downsizing of the EU machine - including, for symbolic reasons alone, the end of the Strasbourg charade.
3. A democratically elected government of the EU (and Democracy meaning you can specifically vote out of power named individuals - no damn party lists). Kill the Commission.
4. A deeply two-speed EU with non Eurozone countries largely left to their own devices.
5. EU external borders to be enforced rigidly.
6. A truly free single market including in services. Actually.
7. etc
In other words a totally unachievable and fundamental reframing of the whole EU and its structures via a monster Treaty. It will never happen.
Let's just be friends.
The second link doesn't work for me either on my broadband or on my phone internet so I have the horrible suspicion the site has died. If you can see it, that's good news.
When a company or organisation is such a huge buyer it puts them in a position of power. £11bn in contributions and a £120bn trade deficit makes us the single biggest purchaser of EU goods. A coordinated threat of walking away from a crap deal and recommending leave would have concentrated minds within the EU. They can't afford to lose our contributions or our purchasing power from the group. The compromise would have been made for us where other countries might not be able to do it, our economic power gives us the leverage necessary to get a good deal, but what good is power if you aren't willing to use it.
Trump 31
Cruz 22
Rubio 19
Carson 6
The rest 3 or below.
(The 10% Don't Knows are included so the above figures are out of 90%)
Trump clearly hit after Iowa but still ahead.
But now apparently we should have known all along nothing would be achieved.
What changed in the meantime, I wonder?
It's the equivalent of shrugging and building a 3rd runway at Heathrow because its crap but less of a hassle and Boris Island sounds difficult.
You play the hand you are given as well as possible. Not endlessly moan about how you wished you had a better hand that someone else a few years ago had.
And if you really have nothing to negotiate with then you are honest and say so not go round pretending that you've got the moon on a stick.
Had France been in the position the UK was in I am quite certain that she would have ended up with far more than Cameron has got. But that would have been because she was focused and determined and ruthless.
The result of the by-election is pretty predictable, but there might be some scope for betting on the turnout and majority.
Any guesses on when the by-election will be?
On these two polls, the other clear news is that Kasich has bled his NH support to Rubio. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can expect at least Christie and Kasich to drop out of the race soon after NH. Bush will probably wait until after SC.
At the very minimum, Cameron should have sought to win agreement for his five principles, which ought to be in the interests of all members. The problem with benefit reform is that many countries (including some which ought to be natural allies on reform in principle), will find their populations taking a hit and so will object.
But why couldn't he have gone further and published and circulated a draft treaty that would have embedded the principles into EU law? Which would have formally recognised the flexible nature of the Union and its Ins and Outs, making provision and protection for all?
Our team seems to have gone in with the "we're all friends here, please give us something and we can all be nice to each other". It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
The lack of aggression, considering we are footing the bill for much of this shooting match, is utterly astonishing.
3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.
5. How do you do that without a Federal / Union border force, funded and run by the EU itself? The proposal implies a huge transfer of power to the centre - is that what you really want?
But there is a debate 4 days before voting and a snowstorm on voting day, so clearly all those polls are useless right now.
No one knows how the debate will go, and no one knows who will go and vote in a snowstorm.
This is cold February. Wait til we get to warm May.
On 5, I think it's the only possible answer to the migration crisis on the stop-it-happening side (obviously there's also the let-them-come solution). You would need a serious EU border force and it would sometimes need to do some unpleasant stuff (all shared on Twitter and YouTube). Not easy politically.
who said this to whom?
'If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.'
Two more that are though:
CNN/UNH/WMUR: Trump 29, Rubio 18, Cruz 13, Kasich 12, Bush 10, 4 the field (8% undecided). Note - only 209 in the sample so 5% MoE
UMass Lowell /7News: Trump 34, Rubio 15, Cruz 14, Kasich 8, Bush 8, 5 the field (6% undecided).
Seems like Rubio is probably just about holding second place but still a long way behind Trump.
UKIP could get within 20 points, however the LD and the Tories make only 15% of the vote and the Greens had a cushy 4%.
So there are votes that Labour can squeeze, but UKIP doesn't have enough of a reserve to overtake a 30% Labour lead.
dishwater is the analogy you're looking for
House of Commons shadow leader Chris Bryant is campaigning for the beloved Welsh rugby anthem to be banned after claiming the song is about "killing a prostitute".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12142298/Why-Why-Why-ban-Delilah-Welsh-MP-calls-for-fans-to-stop-singing-rugby-anthem.html
Another thing to remember Iowa, being a caucus, is a lot easier to game for the GOP machine so I wouldn't expect non Trump candidates to outperform (Trump didn't underperform, he got a record number of votes for a Republican candidate) so much again. Trump achieved something big in Iowa and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio’s benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing by Trump.
- Juncker: Commission
- Schultz: Parliament
In 1987, Thatcher's last election, the Tories got 24% of the vote in Scotland. Scottish Labour are today polling at 19%. #SP16
The Iowa results made it a certainty that Cruz, Rubio and Trump will attack each other and be attacked from everyone else.
I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.
There's more than an echo of Labour's image of how the Tories will dismantle the NHS about it all. The people whose hands it is in are those who don't want to admit its problems, never mind resolve them, and heap opprobrium upon those who do. Yet there are times when the emperor doesn't have any clothes on, and a lot more when he's in just his pants.
To take your example, do these European leaders not get equally irritated? Is there not a good case for doing something about it (starting on time, for example)?
The EU is running the risk that Labour moderates and establishment Republicans have run and lost and - at a general election scale - the Greek politicians and, who knows, perhaps the French and others will also run and lose: their credibility as trustworthy custodians of the public good. Unless the attitude changes, there will be a revolution one way or the other. Cameron has tried to point this out but from what you're saying, it seems that the EU elite not only haven't listened but view it as a virtue to not listen.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321
The full results are :
Trump 31+3
Cruz 22 -2
Rubio 19 +7
Carson 6 -4
Bush 3 -1
Kasich 3 +2
Christie 3 -3
Fiorina 2 0