AT first the two men formed a warm bond but of late a certain froideur has crept into the political kinship between Ed Miliband and Francois Hollande. When they met just over a year ago the Labour leader declared his socialist colleague would “tilt” Europe away from austerity and “create a Europe of growth and jobs”.
This ones going to be a U turn and a half. Coming your way soon how Ed always was concerned about the French leaders approach to his countries difficulties and warned him that they were catastrophic.
IainDale Would David Davis have made a better PM than David Cameron?... — We shall never know, shall we? But I think yes. ask.fm/a/3bqccgoj
We shall never know because some plonker ballsed-up his leadership campaign in 2005, of course. Who was the bloke's campaign manager? Maybe Mr Dale knows?
so what? If our EU friends don't want to address the problems, that's fine.
You appear to have forgotten all your spin when this was first announced. The entire point of Cammie not having any position on whether he wanted to stay IN or OUT of Europe was supposedly that his non-position was predicated on getting a good deal from new treaty renegotiations.
As with any negotiation, if the terms aren't favourable, we might choose to walk away.
If they do not happen then how precisely can he do that?
For that matter how can he tenably go into an election claiming he doesn't know whether he wants to stay IN or OUT when there will be no treaty negotiations to base that judgement on?
In short, it means he will have to take a position on IN or OUT before the next election lest he look like a complete incompetent. Yet again.
Cameron will give British voters an opportunity to vote on whether we should take the hint and leave.
A Cast Iron Pledge for an opportunity no doubt. I fear the Eurosceptic backbenchers in the tory party may not share your optimism that the tory leadership are bound to campaign to stay OUT when they show no sign of coming out and saying so. Nor will they.
Pork you show your ignorance every time you post that. Perhaps you should focus on the guy that offered a referendum and then sneaked through the back door at Lisbon. The traitor and Labour PM Gordon Brown.
As Cameron always said as long as the Lisbon treaty was not ratified then a referendum will be held.
You are obviously too thick to understand the term ratification.
@moses Poor old gullible tories. They never learn.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
so what? If our EU friends don't want to address the problems, that's fine.
You appear to have forgotten all your spin when this was first announced. The entire point of Cammie not having any position on whether he wanted to stay IN or OUT of Europe was that hos position was predicated on getting a good deal from new treaty renegotiations.
Cameron will give British voters an opportunity to vote on whether we should take the hint and leave.
A cast Iron Pledge for an opportunity no doubt. I fear the Eurosceptic backbenchers in the tory party may not share your optimism that the tory leadership are bound to campaign to stay OUT when they show no sign of coming out and saying so.
I've little idea what you are going on about, but the facts are very simple. The EU has advantages and disadvantages for Britain. Conservatives want to maximise the former and minimise the latter, and, having got the best possible deal, put it to the British people to see whether they are happy with it. This contrasts with Labour (who don't seem to care a toss but in practice give in to any demand from our EU friends, no matter how damaging to our interests), the LibDems (who are nice people but ideologically obsessed with the EU as self-evidently a Good Thing, irrespective of any disadvantages), and UKIP (whose position seems to be that we can somehow simply ignore the existence of a 420+ million trade block on our doorstep, and pretend it doesn't affect us and that it has no advantages for us to be members of it).
@moses Poor old gullible tories. They never learn.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
Conservatives want to maximise the former and minimise the latter, and, having got the best possible deal, put it to the British people to see whether they are happy with it.
Deal from what?
LOL
Don't you get it?
He can't say he will have a IN/OUT referendum with his position based on treaty negotiations if they do not happen.
He has to have a position. Either IN or OUT.
The notion that Cammie can tell his backbenchers it doesn't matter if there are no treaty negotiations is laughable nonsense. The tory party and leadership will have to campaign on either staying IN or OUT supposedly based on these treaty negotiations.
You seriously think they will trust Cammie if he tells them not to worry about it and in that far future they might find out what the official tory party position is on staying IN or OUT? 'Near perfect' delusion on your part.
Out of interest, does anyone know how closely related to the current benefits system Ed Balls is?
Balls had a hand in working tax credits which has added tens of billions to our debt. For how much Balls was responsible, you would need to check out the books about that era.
Out of interest, does anyone know how closely related to the current benefits system Ed Balls is?
Balls had a hand in working tax credits which has added tens of billions to our debt. For how much Balls was responsible, you would need to check out the books about that era.
And his missus set up the House reports that cost a fortune and no one wants or uses.
@RichardNabavi ..............and UKIP (whose position seems to be that we can somehow simply ignore the existence of a 420+ million trade block on our doorstep, and pretend it doesn't affect us and that it has no advantages for us to be members of it.
Au contraire RN. The EU is writ large on Ukip conscience. This party knows very well how detrimental this body is to everything democratic in our lives. How the EU is strangling every sort of business revival by it's fixation on the euro. How the unemployed in europe are now the only growth industry. Etc, Etc,. No Mr Richard, the EU is certainly far from forgotten or ignored.
So, yet again TCPoliticalBetting the alleged tory supporter rises up to defend the honour of the BNP leader Nick Griffin. Nothing new here. We can do this all day chum.
I have never written a word in support of the BNP. But you frequently support Ed Milliband by pushing his political lines and those of the Labour party.
Unlike myself, you are also on here as much as the infamous tim. Is that what my taxes are funding as a working age benefit?
Working tax credits seem to me simply a national Speenhamland system, at least as currently constructed.
No wonder inequality increases.
It seems remarkable that a system specifically designed to subsidise the payrolls of employers while limiting the incomes of the poor could have been introduced by a Labour government.
Mr. Moses, that would imply that labour are going to hare off 90 degrees to the direction they are pointing. Will that be to the left or the right? Tricky. The party is led by a man who defines himself as a socialist and largely paid for by the trade unions, who it seems are trying to work out how to do a general strike.
@RichardNabavi ..............and UKIP (whose position seems to be that we can somehow simply ignore the existence of a 420+ million trade block on our doorstep, and pretend it doesn't affect us and that it has no advantages for us to be members of it.
Au contraire RN. The EU is writ large on Ukip conscience. This party knows very well how detrimental this body is to everything democratic in our lives. How the EU is strangling every sort of business revival by it's fixation on the euro. How the unemployed in europe are now the only growth industry. Etc, Etc,. No Mr Richard, the EU is certainly far from forgotten or ignored.
All good points, and all the more reason to vote Conservative in order to give the British people a referendum on how these important matters affect Britain.
so what? If our EU friends don't want to address the problems, that's fine.
You appear to have forgotten all your spin when this was first announced. The entire point of Cammie not having any position on whether he wanted to stay IN or OUT of Europe was supposedly that his non-position was predicated on getting a good deal from new treaty renegotiations.
As with any negotiation, if the terms aren't favourable, we might choose to walk away.
If they do not happen then how precisely can he do that?
For that matter how can he tenably go into an election claiming he doesn't know whether he wants to stay IN or OUT when there will be no treaty negotiations to base that judgement on?
In short, it means he will have to take a position on IN or OUT before the next election lest he look like a complete incompetent. Yet again.
Cameron will give British voters an opportunity to vote on whether we should take the hint and leave.
A Cast Iron Pledge for an opportunity no doubt. I fear the Eurosceptic backbenchers in the tory party may not share your optimism that the tory leadership are bound to campaign to stay OUT when they show no sign of coming out and saying so. Nor will they.
Pork
You are snuffling at the root of an oak tree thinking you have found a black perigord truffle.
You are mistaken. What you have found is a fossilised stool deposited by a member of the species sus barbaratus.
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the French and Germans have refused to negotiate a new treaty with the UK. This is not the case.
The FCO are currently undertaking a structured "review of the balance of the EU's competences". This overview of the review is published on the FCO's website:
What does ‘balance of competences’ actually mean?
It means examining the extent to which EU action affects the UK and analysing what that means for our country. It will look at how EU laws are put into place in the UK, what effect they have and where more EU activity could be to the national benefit or where less would be appropriate. This stemmed from a Coalition Commitment to examine the balance of EU competences.
How will the review work?
Substantive consultation and examination by Departments started last autumn, and reports on areas of competence will be published as the review progresses. Government departments will consult Parliament and its committees, business, civil society, EU and international organisations and stakeholders. The Devolved Administrations will also be consulted. Cabinet Office, in co-operation with the FCO, will coordinate the cross-Whitehall exercise to ensure a rigorous and consistent approach.
It is important to understand that the Review is a consultation exercise and not a negotiation process. It is not even a policy development exercise. As the FCO states clearly:
[The Review] will not be asked to produce specific policy recommendations, but will analyse the current balance of EU competences.
The FCO have invited a wide range of mainly UK organisations to contribute to the review. It has also invited the UK's "European partners and the EU institutions to contribute evidence" and has undertaken to "examine issues that are of interest across the EU, seeking to improve understanding and engagement".
France and Germany have initially indicated that they will not participate in the formal review process as they believe the review covers matters principally of interest to the UK alone.
France and Germany's position is entirely understandable and predictable. Formally contributing to the FCO review would grant an 'external' single-state initiative a legitimacy and scope which would set a dangerous precedent within the EU.
It is almost certain however that the documents produced by the FCO will be read and commented upon by the UK's EU counterparts and will influence any formal negotiations within the official structures and processes of the EU which may arise in the future.
The FCO is not is the least surprised by the response of the two countries as it was entirely in line with its expectations. Failure to extend the courtesy of inviting formal comment would however have been a worse option.
I really don't think you are made out to be a diplomat, Pork. Perhaps other PBers could be of help by suggesting alternative activities which may more closely match your undoubted skills.
and all the more reason to vote Conservative in order to give the British people a referendum on how these important matters affect Britain.
A referendum on which Cammie doesn't have the faintest idea whether he wants to stay IN or OUT and won't have any treaty negotiations to base that decision on?
Why any Kipper or Eurosceptic might not believe him is indeed a cast iron mystery.
The incompetent fops aren't even bothering to deny that there might not be a treaty to base their imaginary negotiations and position of staying IN or OUT on.
Grant added: "Even if there was a move to amend one or two articles, the UK would not gain leverage: Britain's partners could bypass a veto as they did with last year's 'fiscal compact' treaty, which was negotiated outside the framework of the EU."
Government sources said the prime minister still believed he could achieve a better deal for the UK whether or not there was a new treaty.
Any 'review' will just be an excuse for Cammie to say he wants to stay IN.
Having just seen Kent's new 17 year old police commissioner Paris Brown I feel confident that the thin blue line will remain firm and resolute for many years to come
"Worst part about being single is coming from a party/night out horny as f*** and having to sleep alone." said Paris from her new desk at Kent CID.
Clearly, a future Home Secretary. Is this 17 year old paid from the public purse ?
@RichardNabavi ..............and UKIP (whose position seems to be that we can somehow simply ignore the existence of a 420+ million trade block on our doorstep, and pretend it doesn't affect us and that it has no advantages for us to be members of it.
Au contraire RN. The EU is writ large on Ukip conscience. This party knows very well how detrimental this body is to everything democratic in our lives. How the EU is strangling every sort of business revival by it's fixation on the euro. How the unemployed in europe are now the only growth industry. Etc, Etc,. No Mr Richard, the EU is certainly far from forgotten or ignored.
All good points, and all the more reason to vote Conservative in order to give the British people a referendum on how these important matters affect Britain.
What? You think that Ukip wouldn't give the British people a referendum on Europe? They certainly would if they were voted into power. You may laugh at that sentence as an absurdity, but sooner or later they will get there. I wouldn't put my trust in Cameron one iota: put not your trust in princes, and boy is Cammo one slippery prince.
and all the more reason to vote Conservative in order to give the British people a referendum on how these important matters affect Britain.
A referendum on which Cammie doesn't have the faintest idea whether he wants to stay IN or OUT and won't have any treaty negotiations to base that decision on?
Why any Kipper or Eurosceptic might not believe him is indeed a cast iron mystery.
Given a choice between (a) a government which has made a formal commitment that it will do what you desperately want, and which has a hugely strong element within the party which also wants the same, but about which you have some doubts, and (b) a government which won't in a million years do what you want, and about which there can be no doubt, it would be rather eccentric, would it not, to vote in a way which maximises (b)?
Maybe UKIPers are that thick. Or maybe they don't actually want a referendum, but just want to moan. Or maybe they (rightly) think a referendum would probably result in a Stay In result. But whatever the reason, they can't have it both ways. Do they want a referendum or not? If they do, there is one way, and one way only, to get one, which is to vote Conservative in 2015.
Given a choice between (a) a government which has made a formal commitment that it will do what you desperately want, and which has a hugely strong element within the party which also wants the same, but about which you have some doubts, and (b) a government which won't in a million years do what you want, and about which there can be no doubt, it would be rather eccentric, would it not, to vote in a way which maximises (b)?
Maybe UKIPers are that thick. Or maybe they don't actually want a referendum, but just want to moan. Or maybe they (rightly) think a referendum would probably result in a Stay In result. But whatever the reason, they can't have it both ways. Do they want a referendum or not? If they do, there is one way, and one way only, to get one, which is to vote Conservative in 2015.
Richard, it appears UKIP is getting under your skin.
The FCO sent a letter to the other 26 countries. Germany and France, among others, are not even bothering to reply.
It's obvious spin. Without a treaty Cammie will have no excuse but to base his decision on the EU as is and tell his backbenches what that decison will be. The BOOers will know perfectly well that Cammie wants to stay IN. So who this spin is supposed to convince is a complete mystery. Sooner or later this will all fall apart and just like after the flounce that wasn't there are going to be some very red faces on here from the PB gullibles.
If UKIP get a better result than the LDs in the county council elections, would that be likely to depress LD polling numbers further? Just the fact of being seen as the fourth party, rather than the third party.
Maybe they are, in which case by how much do you expect to beat them in the South Shields by-election?
South Shields is harmless. It's a free kick in one of the safest Labour seats in the country. The only interest is how many working-class votes UKIP will take off Labour.
The incompetent fops aren't even bothering to deny that there might not be a treaty to base their imaginary negotiations and position of staying IN or OUT on.
Grant added: "Even if there was a move to amend one or two articles, the UK would not gain leverage: Britain's partners could bypass a veto as they did with last year's 'fiscal compact' treaty, which was negotiated outside the framework of the EU."
Government sources said the prime minister still believed he could achieve a better deal for the UK whether or not there was a new treaty.
Any 'review' will just be an excuse for Cammie to say he wants to stay IN.
Stick to tipping Lansley for PM, Seth O Logue.
Pork.
You remain over focussed on the back end of a process.
If UKIP get a better result than the LDs in the county council elections, would that be likely to depress LD polling numbers further? Just the fact of being seen as the fourth party, rather than the third party.
But Richard we want a referendum on Europe NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW! Not in some misbegotten future. I really pity the true blue Tory believers; their party is dying a slow death and they cannot see it.
If UKIP get a better result than the LDs in the county council elections
Very big if. The lib dems will be far more concerned about avoiding another huge councillor loss rather than any relative preformance to another party. If UKIP manage to do extremely well then that's going to be the headline with their bandwagon continuing and it won't be the lib dems who will have the most to fear from that.
But Richard we want a referendum on Europe NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW! Not in some misbegotten future. I really pity the true blue Tory believers; their party is dying a slow death and they cannot see it.
You've just contradicted yourself.
You're not going to get a referendum now - the LibDems are in government, right? Voting UKIP, now or in 2015, won't change that fact.
But you can get one in the next parliament, if enough people vote Conservative.
Why on earth would you miss that opportunity on the off-chance that, in about thirty years' time, having wrecked the country with thirty years of Labour misrule, UKIP might get a majority?
Like Eastleigh then. Will the local elections be harmless and then the EU elections and then the GE? Your complacency is quite startling given that Cammie has tried everything to posture to the kipper vote and it has all failed.
If UKIP get a better result than the LDs in the county council elections
Very big if. The lib dems will be far more concerned about avoiding another huge councillor loss rather than any relative preformance to another party. If UKIP manage to do extremely well then that's going to be the headline with their bandwagon continuing and it won't be the lib dems who will have the most to fear from that.
Not that big an if, UKIP are polling slightly ahead of the LDs. On past form the LDs should lose ~40% of their seats, giving UKIP a target of 290-315 / 1700(?)
But have none of their ground campaign skills, which, like it or not the lib dems do have.
It's becoming less of a factor as their base dwindles but Eastleigh should tell you that it is still there.
I'm not for one second saying the lib dems are poised to have a good set of locals in May. I think they are going to be pretty painful for them. But that is not the same as UKIP automatically doing well just because the lib dems do not. It is more complex than that and you have to factor in how the tories and labour will do for UKIP to meet a target ahead of the lib dems.
If it did happen that would be dire for Clegg but if Cammie also has a bloodbath then it's not going to be Clegg who has most to worry about from a good UKIP showing.
I think your analysis is missing one small point - Cameron has lost the trust of an awful lot of people. There are lots of reasons for this, not all of which can be laid at the fact that he has to manage a coalition. So why vote Conservative? The argument that you put forward that unless we do we will let Labour in, doesn't hold much water these days. After all what will Labour do that Cameron won't? Slash defence? Abolish planning controls? Insist on central planning rather than local decision making? Run an insane energy policy? Off-shore jobs? Borrow 11bn a year and give it away to develop other countries, leaving our children and grand children to pay the money back? Massively increase the national debt? Run a stupid and damaging immigration policy? Cameron is already doing these things and more besides, but you want to us to vote for him in the hope that that he might be different if he is given another go.
Nah, sorry. Your solution is the one of despair not of hope.
But have none of their ground campaign skills, which, like it or not the lib dems do have.
It's becoming less of a factor as their base dwindles but Eastleigh should tell you that it is still there.
I'm not for one second saying the lib dems are poised to have a good set of locals in May. I think they are going to be pretty painful for them. But that is not the same as UKIP automatically doing well just because the lib dems do not. It is more complex than that and you have to factor in how the tories and labour will do for UKIP to meet a target ahead of the lib dems.
All fair.
The thing I am curious about though, assuming for now that UKIP _do_ beat the LDs in the county council elections, is will that fact alone reduce LD support?
Doing well in the westminster by-elections, and being reported as having done well, seems to have contributed to UKIP's increased support.
I'm just wondering if being clearly bested by UKIP in the county council elections, and that fact being reported, will reduce LD support.
UKIP clearly is a serious party deserving of attention. It occupies a clearly demarcated area of British politics, namely, Euro-scepticism. It is understandable taht those who are so inclined will gravitate towards them as those who wanted Scottish independence slowly gravitated towards the SNP even though many were Tories formerly.
But Richard we want a referendum on Europe NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW! Not in some misbegotten future. I really pity the true blue Tory believers; their party is dying a slow death and they cannot see it.
You've just contradicted yourself.
You're not going to get a referendum now - the LibDems are in government, right? Voting UKIP, now or in 2015, won't change that fact.
But you can get one in the next parliament, if enough people vote Conservative.
Why on earth would you miss that opportunity on the off-chance that, in about thirty years' time, having wrecked the country with thirty years of Labour misrule, UKIP might get a majority?
While not a ukip supporter I do want us out of europe however I refuse to vote for Cameron on the grounds that
1) there are more issues than just europe 2) Cameron and his tory party are no better than labour 3) Why would I want a referendum on europe run by cameron when he wants us to stay in...I would rather have a referendum when someone in a position of power is actually putting the case for not europe
In addition I am pretty sure that should that dipstick somehow manage to gull enough people to re elect him that he will only hold a referendum if he believes the vote will be yes to staying and if not he will weasel out.
The tories are a spent force who will lead the country into the shit just as deeply as millibrand and clegg
I'm just wondering if being clearly bested by UKIP in the county council elections, and that fact being reported, will reduce LD support.
I think LD core support is more or less the exact opposite of Ukip. It's just there's been a weird phase where Ukip type voters were voting LD because they were seen as closest to the socioeconomic middle even though they were a bad fit on everything else.
I think LD core support is more or less the exact opposite of Ukip. It's just there's been a weird phase where Ukip type voters were voting LD because they were seen as closest to the socioeconomic middle even though they were a bad fit on everything else.
OK. Ignore the party names.
Is there a benefit to being perceived as the third most popular party, rather than the fourth most popular party? Does biggest-little-fish status bring in bonus votes?
Which decisions taken by Cameron do you feel are objectionable but not the consequence of coalition, out of interest?
Genuine question.
Mr. Chuck,
A tricky question to answer definitively because we don't know the details of the Quads discussions. However, we can look at what Cameron says (I am a firm believer at taking politicians at their word), so that gives us Europe (we must stay in), energy, defence (though he has done a U-turn on this so God knows what he really thinks), planning and localism, immigration and international development. On those issues I don't think Cameron would have behaved any differently if he hadn't been in coalition and I very much doubt he would if he were elected again.
However, I take Mr. Nabavi's point that were Cameron to be elected with majority in 2015 his party might force him to keep his he referendum pledge. Personally I doubt it. When a man has said he can't conceive of the UK leaving I think it unlikely that he would give us the chance to vote to do so.
I'm just wondering if being clearly bested by UKIP in the county council elections, and that fact being reported, will reduce LD support
It would be extremely painful for Clegg. No question about that. Yet I don't think being seen as doing worse than UKIP in locals will factor highest in those the lib dems are trying to get the votes of. It's more a case of piling on the pain for the lib dem base rather than being seen as being behind any party. There have been enough polls with the lib dems behind UKIP by now to show that in itself isn't enough to start a complete collapse.
Might UKIP get a boost from being seen to be ahead of the lib dems in the locals? I'd say yes. Hard to quantify but it just ensures a higher profile which is exactly what they want.
I think LD core support is more or less the exact opposite of Ukip. It's just there's been a weird phase where Ukip type voters were voting LD because they were seen as closest to the socioeconomic middle even though they were a bad fit on everything else.
OK. Ignore the party names.
Is there a benefit to being perceived as the third most popular party, rather than the fourth most popular party? Does biggest-little-fish status bring in bonus votes?
I have no evidence to support my view, but yes, I think very much so.
The LDS are tainted by government.
UKIP are an insurgent force.
The mood is anti-same-old.
There are votes going begging amongst the disaffected in all classes, from both major parties.
A consistent high vote for UKIP in Euro and local elections will change the terms of political trade, I think.
Although as long as the LDs actually win seats, it won't really matter in another hung parliament.
But the chips are in the air. That much seems clear.
Is there a benefit to being perceived as the third most popular party, rather than the fourth most popular party? Does biggest-little-fish status bring in bonus votes?
Dunno, maybe. I think it's mostly percentages though, like - 3rd party on 4%, 4th party on 2% - 3rd on 14%, 4th on 2% - 3rd on 14%, 4th on 12% etc would all have different effects.
In the 3rd case i think people will vote for the one they want.
Interesting. I'm not as sure as you about energy - I think he'd be open to blaming the risk of energy shortages on Labour's prematurely green policy if the opportunity arose.
On Europe, is it not possible that he's prepared the ground for arguing for a Brexit should he feel a sellable deal is not achievable?
I appreciate that might sound naïve, but he's certainly hedged his position with conditionality unavailable to UKIP spokesmen. Presumably he wishes people to believe he envisages the possibility of a U-turn, or 'The Speech' would never have been made.
Clearly you don't go for that though!
But you can see from his point of view that being able to claim a rational and event-related position re UK membership of the EU might be considered an advantage, in opposition to the current UKIP position of 'Leave At All Costs!".
Dunno, maybe. I think it's mostly percentages though, like - 3rd party on 4%, 4th party on 2% - 3rd on 14%, 4th on 2% - 3rd on 14%, 4th on 12% etc would all have different effects.
I have given my views on Cameron often enough. I think he is a shallow, nasty, little spiv with a great sense of entitlement and ambition but zero political principle, and little competence. Where I think he, and Clegg, have rock solid principles is in the loyalty they both have to their families, which is one of the reasons why we persist with an insane energy policy (Cui bono?).
As for Cameron's Speech on the EU, I can see what you are getting at, but I wouldn't trust him an inch.
Where I think he, and Clegg, have rock solid principles is in the loyalty they both have to their families, which is one of the reasons why we persist with an insane energy policy (Cui bono?).
That bit I don't understand, to be honest.
Re Cameron in general, I don't see the nastiness. His competence I see as more of an open question, given that it's a hard job and at least he's considerably more competent than the last incumbent.
I was surprised and intrigued to read in Chris Mullin' s diary of how he welcomed Cameron's presence at his (Chris Mullin's) Home Affairs Committee because of Cameron's general intelligence and independence of mind.
For those still struggling to grasp why the credibility of Cameron's supposed EU referendum and the trust of Cameron himself might just be an issue, consider this.
Cameron's govt. spokesman have now admitted there might not be a treaty. Yet it's not just Cameron and the tory party's own position on whether to support IN or OUT that was predicated on treaty negotiations that likely won't happen.
The entire referendum itself even happening is predicated on those treaty negotiations occurring, even down to the wording of the question.
"The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament," he said. "It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
"And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice: to stay in the EU on these new terms or come out altogether.
It's all there in Cameron's own words.
For anyone who missed that it's a get out clause and loophole every bit as huge as the one Cammie used for Lisbon.
So if the simple souls like moses and others think it's perfectly fine for Cameron to wriggle out of his Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon referendum on the grounds that it became null and void, then they and Cammie will have no trouble wriggling out of an IN/OUT EU referendum in the future on the grounds that it's null and void since there will have been no treaty, no negotiations, no new settlement and no new terms.
You would think tory Eurosceptics and backbenchers might have learned when they were being taken for a ride by now, yet it would appear not.
'it's perfectly fine for Cameron to wriggle out of his Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon referendum on the grounds that it became null and void'
Cameron clearly stated that if the Lisbon treaty hadn't yet been ratified by the time he won office he would hold a referendum,as it was already ratified there was no referendum.
Surely even for you that's not too complicated to get your head around?
Cameron clearly stated that if the Lisbon treaty hadn't yet been ratified by the time he won office he would hold a referendum,as it was already ratified there was no referendum.
Fast forward to 2019:
Cameron clearly stated that the referendum would be on the new EU treaty, as there has been no new EU treaty yet there has been no referendum.
On topic, and looking at the poster, is it supposed to indicate that the residence where it's displayed is in single occupancy? Or that one person in said residence controls all the votes?
It's all there in Cameron's own words. For anyone who missed that it's a get out clause and loophole every bit as huge as the one [he] used for Lisbon.
And what he won't say speaks even louder. He was asked directly what would happen if he couldn't get the new treaty, and he wouldn't answer the question, instead affecting to be certain that there was going to be a new treaty.
If his position was really that there would be a referendum no matter what, why wouldn't he say so? Knowing there will be a referendum anyway is supposed to be one of the things that makes other EU countries give the British what they want, so why wouldn't he make that clear unless he wanted to keep the loophole open?
I'm just wondering if being clearly bested by UKIP in the county council elections, and that fact being reported, will reduce LD support
It would be extremely painful for Clegg. No question about that. Yet I don't think being seen as doing worse than UKIP in locals will factor highest in those the lib dems are trying to get the votes of. It's more a case of piling on the pain for the lib dem base rather than being seen as being behind any party. There have been enough polls with the lib dems behind UKIP by now to show that in itself isn't enough to start a complete collapse.
Might UKIP get a boost from being seen to be ahead of the lib dems in the locals? I'd say yes. Hard to quantify but it just ensures a higher profile which is exactly what they want.
I don't think the estimated projected national vote share figure (since London etc. aren't voting, that's all we've got) will impinge much on public consciousness. The perception of momentum, up or down, will.
It's all there in Cameron's own words. For anyone who missed that it's a get out clause and loophole every bit as huge as the one [he] used for Lisbon.
And what he won't say speaks even louder. He was asked directly what would happen if he couldn't get the new treaty, and he wouldn't answer the question, instead affecting to be certain that there was going to be a new treaty.
If his position was really that there would be a referendum no matter what, why wouldn't he say so? Knowing there will be a referendum anyway is supposed to be one of the things that makes other EU countries give the British what they want, so why wouldn't he make that clear unless he wanted to keep the loophole open?
Given that he wants to stay in, it's inconceivable that he'd call a referendum when there wasn't a treaty - it would completely disrupt his second term. He wouldn't need to - even if half the Tories wanted it, there wouldn't be anywhere near a Commons majority for it. It's fools' gold and I suspect that even loyalists like John Zims and Richard N know it at heart.
Whether he can get through a whole election without clarifying it and no treaty negotiations in sight is an interesting question.
Whether he can get through a whole election without clarifying it and no treaty negotiations in sight is an interesting question.
I do wonder whether Angela Merkel (if it's still her) might throw him a bone here - it doesn't take much from her to make the idea that there's going to be a treaty plausible enough to get Cameron through his election campaign, and the Germans do sort-of seem to want one.
Obviously the real hurdle is the other 25 countries, not to mention all the actual practical difficulties of agreeing something and getting it through everybody's various legislatures without getting vetoed by the Moomin Separatist blocking minority in the Finnish Upper House or whatever, but you can't expect the British voters to know that. If Merkel says there might be a treaty, that's probably enough for him to hold the line.
However if he wins a majority in 2015 he will HAVE to give the British a vote, because 80% of his MPs would eviscerate him with Stanley knives if he didn't.
You're right that I don't understand the mindset, but are you sure about that 80%? 10%, maybe. Most Tory MPs don't actually support leaving the EU, and politicians usually only like referendums if they think they'll like the outcome. (They'll have some kind of deeply-held principle about why the people should be consulted when they think a referendum advances their cause, but if they think it doesn't they'll come up with another deeply-held principle about why they shouldn't.)
Why are they going to knife the leader who has just won a majority against all the odds, for failing to deliver a policy that they don't support? Particularly when he can make a case that there will be a treaty at some point in the future, and they might end up with a policy they do support?
I can see why some would be against bookies and (especially) payday lenders proliferating in the high street. Less sure why people would be against takeaways, to be honest.
The problem with this is that E. Miliband refers to the obvious problem of struggling high streets (the less obvious question is why the internet hasn't already destroyed such things almost completely). The answer then appears to be to cut further the number of businesses paying rents to councils, making high streets less occupied and councils poorer.
Any answer to the high street problem has to bear in mind the internet and changing shopping habits. You can't just pretend that if only the 'bad' companies were banned then all the lovely ones would appear. The high street's got to offer something the internet can't. I wonder if politicians can do much about this, as it would seem to be about business practices rather than anything else.
I live really near Leeds (half an hour on the bus, ish) but I still do almost no shopping there. It's a fiver there and back (roughly) and takes an hour. The internet offers free delivery and I can check things in between redrafting or writing posts here. It's like Darth Vader going toe-to-toe with an ewok.
This is really risky, Ed should have kept his policy under wraps until 5 minutes before the polls closed. People might criticise it or say rude things about him.
This is really risky, Ed should have kept his policy under wraps until 5 minutes before the polls closed. People might criticise it or say rude things about him.
Maybe we are going to get a policy a day between now and the election. Of course at least half of those will be u-turns on policies previously announced...
How long before Ed's latest 'contributory benefits' wheeze is ruled illegal under EU law?
Aside from whether they're a good idea, Britain already has quite a few contributory benefits, and a lot of EU countries apparently have more contributory systems than Britain does, so there's nothing obviously illegal about the principle. What are you thinking of specifically?
This is really risky, Ed should have kept his policy under wraps until 5 minutes before the polls closed. People might criticise it or say rude things about him.
Maybe we are going to get a policy a day between now and the election. Of course at least half of those will be u-turns on policies previously announced...
Well any policy would be nice, it might get PB away from my millionaire is better than your millionaire and on to some issues. While the "professionals" claim announcing policy is bad, it does sort of raise the question that if polticians can't stand up and say what they stand for, then why did they go in to politics ?
Europe is Cameron's problem because an extremely vocal group of Tory MPs put it above all other issues and are prepared to do almost anything to get their views across. With supporters in the press and the leverage of a Commons where there is NOM their power is significant, just as it was between 92 and 97. When in opposition or within a governing party which has a decent majority they are much less of a potent force.
How long before Ed's latest 'contributory benefits' wheeze is ruled illegal under EU law?
Aside from whether they're a good idea, Britain already has quite a few contributory benefits, and a lot of EU countries apparently have more contributory systems than Britain does, so there's nothing obviously illegal about the principle. What are you thinking of specifically?
It would only be illegal under European law if it discriminated against other EU citizens - hence the government's problems with specifically curbing benefits for EU immigrants.
I live even closer to my high street in slough, less than 5 minutes to walk there and I actually went there on Friday for the first time in 3 years but only because I needed a new shirt in a hurry and didn't have time to get one by delivery.
Brilliant news for the SNP @afneil: Latest Glasgow Herald poll shows support for independence down 3 points to 30%
Oh dear, all these SNP posters on this website are busy posting 24/7 in favour of Labour policies and Labour political lines, meanwhile overlooking the fact that in their back yard the referendum debate is being lost. Irony?
Brilliant news for the SNP @afneil: Latest Glasgow Herald poll shows support for independence down 3 points to 30%
Oh dear, all these SNP posters on this website are busy posting 24/7 in favour of Labour policies and Labour political lines, meanwhile overlooking the fact that in their back yard the referendum debate is being lost. Irony?
Independence is a secondary issue to spewing bile at English Tories, especially Southern ones. Quite why is anyone's guess.
"PCS leader Mark Serwotka said the strikes were "part of an ongoing campaign of industrial action and protests to cause disruption for the government at key times and put pressure on ministers who are refusing to even talk to us.
"Civil and public servants are working harder than ever to provide the services we all rely on but instead of rewarding them, the government is imposing cuts to their pay, raiding their pensions and trying to rip up their basic working conditions."
On Sunday, it emerged the PCS was in talks with other unions about holding a general strike over spending cuts."
In the last few years, nigh on all contact with the HMRC has become online (except that you cannot send them emails - they insist on letters which never get answered.) So they are as dysfunctional as ever and I speak from a business viewpoint as well as a personal one.
I thought raiding of pensions was something that was a GB specialism - did not notice the Unions complaining then!
Good news for Ed. His BFF Francois Hollande is showing the way in Europe with his policies for growth
France is slashing its growth forecast to 0.1 per cent this year in a move likely to signal a further round of cuts and fuelling concern of fresh turmoil at the heart of the eurozone.
Pierre Moscovici, the Finance Minister, took a red pen yesterday to his previous official estimate of a 0.8 per cent rise in GDP.
It is a bit surprising, with the rest of Europe doing so well
The European Union faced a new crisis last night as Portugal’s Prime Minister warned citizens to prepare for yet more sacrifices if the country was to avoid a second bailout.
Comments
For that matter how can he tenably go into an election claiming he doesn't know whether he wants to stay IN or OUT when there will be no treaty negotiations to base that judgement on?
In short, it means he will have to take a position on IN or OUT before the next election lest he look like a complete incompetent. Yet again.
A Cast Iron Pledge for an opportunity no doubt. I fear the Eurosceptic backbenchers in the tory party may not share your optimism that the tory leadership are bound to campaign to stay OUT when they show no sign of coming out and saying so. Nor will they.
Pork you show your ignorance every time you post that. Perhaps you should focus on the guy that offered a referendum and then sneaked through the back door at Lisbon. The traitor and Labour PM Gordon Brown.
As Cameron always said as long as the Lisbon treaty was not ratified then a referendum will be held.
You are obviously too thick to understand the term ratification.
If Labour really want to get a U-turn into the public consciousness, a human sacrifice just might do the trick.
You are not alone. Antifrank said all that needed to be said yesterday.
You are thick ... M'kay.
LOL
Don't you get it?
He can't say he will have a IN/OUT referendum with his position based on treaty negotiations if they do not happen.
He has to have a position. Either IN or OUT.
The notion that Cammie can tell his backbenchers it doesn't matter if there are no treaty negotiations is laughable nonsense. The tory party and leadership will have to campaign on either staying IN or OUT supposedly based on these treaty negotiations.
You seriously think they will trust Cammie if he tells them not to worry about it and in that far future they might find out what the official tory party position is on staying IN or OUT?
'Near perfect' delusion on your part.
We can do this all day chum.
What right pair of Balls they are....
..............and UKIP (whose position seems to be that we can somehow simply ignore the existence of a 420+ million trade block on our doorstep, and pretend it doesn't affect us and that it has no advantages for us to be members of it.
Au contraire RN. The EU is writ large on Ukip conscience. This party knows very well how detrimental this body is to everything democratic in our lives. How the EU is strangling every sort of business revival by it's fixation on the euro. How the unemployed in europe are now the only growth industry. Etc, Etc,. No Mr Richard, the EU is certainly far from forgotten or ignored.
Unlike myself, you are also on here as much as the infamous tim. Is that what my taxes are funding as a working age benefit?
Thanks.
Working tax credits seem to me simply a national Speenhamland system, at least as currently constructed.
No wonder inequality increases.
It seems remarkable that a system specifically designed to subsidise the payrolls of employers while limiting the incomes of the poor could have been introduced by a Labour government.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece#tab-4
Mr. Moses, that would imply that labour are going to hare off 90 degrees to the direction they are pointing. Will that be to the left or the right? Tricky. The party is led by a man who defines himself as a socialist and largely paid for by the trade unions, who it seems are trying to work out how to do a general strike.
Not something Mr Dale would want to boast about given how badly that campaign went.
You are snuffling at the root of an oak tree thinking you have found a black perigord truffle.
You are mistaken. What you have found is a fossilised stool deposited by a member of the species sus barbaratus.
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the French and Germans have refused to negotiate a new treaty with the UK. This is not the case.
The FCO are currently undertaking a structured "review of the balance of the EU's competences". This overview of the review is published on the FCO's website:
What does ‘balance of competences’ actually mean?
It means examining the extent to which EU action affects the UK and analysing what that means for our country. It will look at how EU laws are put into place in the UK, what effect they have and where more EU activity could be to the national benefit or where less would be appropriate. This stemmed from a Coalition Commitment to examine the balance of EU competences.
How will the review work?
Substantive consultation and examination by Departments started last autumn, and reports on areas of competence will be published as the review progresses. Government departments will consult Parliament and its committees, business, civil society, EU and international organisations and stakeholders. The Devolved Administrations will also be consulted. Cabinet Office, in co-operation with the FCO, will coordinate the cross-Whitehall exercise to ensure a rigorous and consistent approach.
It is important to understand that the Review is a consultation exercise and not a negotiation process. It is not even a policy development exercise. As the FCO states clearly:
[The Review] will not be asked to produce specific policy recommendations, but will analyse the current balance of EU competences.
The FCO have invited a wide range of mainly UK organisations to contribute to the review. It has also invited the UK's "European partners and the EU institutions to contribute evidence" and has undertaken to "examine issues that are of interest across the EU, seeking to improve understanding and engagement".
France and Germany have initially indicated that they will not participate in the formal review process as they believe the review covers matters principally of interest to the UK alone.
France and Germany's position is entirely understandable and predictable. Formally contributing to the FCO review would grant an 'external' single-state initiative a legitimacy and scope which would set a dangerous precedent within the EU.
It is almost certain however that the documents produced by the FCO will be read and commented upon by the UK's EU counterparts and will influence any formal negotiations within the official structures and processes of the EU which may arise in the future.
The FCO is not is the least surprised by the response of the two countries as it was entirely in line with its expectations. Failure to extend the courtesy of inviting formal comment would however have been a worse option.
I really don't think you are made out to be a diplomat, Pork. Perhaps other PBers could be of help by suggesting alternative activities which may more closely match your undoubted skills.
Why any Kipper or Eurosceptic might not believe him is indeed a cast iron mystery.
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/business/latest-news/drivers-support-campaign-to-scrap-tunnel-tolls-1-5505163
The incompetent fops aren't even bothering to deny that there might not be a treaty to base their imaginary negotiations and position of staying IN or OUT on. Any 'review' will just be an excuse for Cammie to say he wants to stay IN.
Stick to tipping Lansley for PM, Seth O Logue.
Clearly, a future Home Secretary. Is this 17 year old paid from the public purse ?
The FCO sent a letter to the other 26 countries. Germany and France, among others, are not even bothering to reply.
Looks like Vanilla is now indeed on BST. Thanks, Mike!
Maybe UKIPers are that thick. Or maybe they don't actually want a referendum, but just want to moan. Or maybe they (rightly) think a referendum would probably result in a Stay In result. But whatever the reason, they can't have it both ways. Do they want a referendum or not? If they do, there is one way, and one way only, to get one, which is to vote Conservative in 2015.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
Stick to tipping Lansley for PM, Seth O Logue.
Pork.
You remain over focussed on the back end of a process.
This is a fundamental error.
Not in some misbegotten future. I really pity the true blue Tory believers; their party is dying a slow death and they cannot see it.
You're not going to get a referendum now - the LibDems are in government, right? Voting UKIP, now or in 2015, won't change that fact.
But you can get one in the next parliament, if enough people vote Conservative.
Why on earth would you miss that opportunity on the off-chance that, in about thirty years' time, having wrecked the country with thirty years of Labour misrule, UKIP might get a majority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013
It's becoming less of a factor as their base dwindles but Eastleigh should tell you that it is still there.
I'm not for one second saying the lib dems are poised to have a good set of locals in May. I think they are going to be pretty painful for them. But that is not the same as UKIP automatically doing well just because the lib dems do not. It is more complex than that and you have to factor in how the tories and labour will do for UKIP to meet a target ahead of the lib dems.
If it did happen that would be dire for Clegg but if Cammie also has a bloodbath then it's not going to be Clegg who has most to worry about from a good UKIP showing.
I think your analysis is missing one small point - Cameron has lost the trust of an awful lot of people. There are lots of reasons for this, not all of which can be laid at the fact that he has to manage a coalition. So why vote Conservative? The argument that you put forward that unless we do we will let Labour in, doesn't hold much water these days. After all what will Labour do that Cameron won't? Slash defence? Abolish planning controls? Insist on central planning rather than local decision making? Run an insane energy policy? Off-shore jobs? Borrow 11bn a year and give it away to develop other countries, leaving our children and grand children to pay the money back? Massively increase the national debt? Run a stupid and damaging immigration policy? Cameron is already doing these things and more besides, but you want to us to vote for him in the hope that that he might be different if he is given another go.
Nah, sorry. Your solution is the one of despair not of hope.
I reckon that would go down a treat.
Which decisions taken by Cameron do you feel are objectionable but not the consequence of coalition, out of interest?
Genuine question.
The thing I am curious about though, assuming for now that UKIP _do_ beat the LDs in the county council elections, is will that fact alone reduce LD support?
Doing well in the westminster by-elections, and being reported as having done well, seems to have contributed to UKIP's increased support.
I'm just wondering if being clearly bested by UKIP in the county council elections, and that fact being reported, will reduce LD support.
And you get the gongs too, in ascending order of sycophancy:
CMG = Call Me God
KCMG = Kindly Call Me God
GCMG = God Calls Me God
Will get you restaurant reservations that no money can buy, Surbiton.
1) there are more issues than just europe
2) Cameron and his tory party are no better than labour
3) Why would I want a referendum on europe run by cameron when he wants us to stay in...I would rather have a referendum when someone in a position of power is actually putting the case for not europe
In addition I am pretty sure that should that dipstick somehow manage to gull enough people to re elect him that he will only hold a referendum if he believes the vote will be yes to staying and if not he will weasel out.
The tories are a spent force who will lead the country into the shit just as deeply as millibrand and clegg
Is there a benefit to being perceived as the third most popular party, rather than the fourth most popular party? Does biggest-little-fish status bring in bonus votes?
A tricky question to answer definitively because we don't know the details of the Quads discussions. However, we can look at what Cameron says (I am a firm believer at taking politicians at their word), so that gives us Europe (we must stay in), energy, defence (though he has done a U-turn on this so God knows what he really thinks), planning and localism, immigration and international development. On those issues I don't think Cameron would have behaved any differently if he hadn't been in coalition and I very much doubt he would if he were elected again.
However, I take Mr. Nabavi's point that were Cameron to be elected with majority in 2015 his party might force him to keep his he referendum pledge. Personally I doubt it. When a man has said he can't conceive of the UK leaving I think it unlikely that he would give us the chance to vote to do so.
Might UKIP get a boost from being seen to be ahead of the lib dems in the locals? I'd say yes. Hard to quantify but it just ensures a higher profile which is exactly what they want.
The LDS are tainted by government.
UKIP are an insurgent force.
The mood is anti-same-old.
There are votes going begging amongst the disaffected in all classes, from both major parties.
A consistent high vote for UKIP in Euro and local elections will change the terms of political trade, I think.
Although as long as the LDs actually win seats, it won't really matter in another hung parliament.
But the chips are in the air. That much seems clear.
- 3rd party on 4%, 4th party on 2%
- 3rd on 14%, 4th on 2%
- 3rd on 14%, 4th on 12%
etc would all have different effects.
In the 3rd case i think people will vote for the one they want.
Toulon have a player named Johnny Wilkinson. Is it THE Wilkinson?
'Hopefully Grant Shapps and Michael Green will be leading the attack.'
I assume that Chuka Harrison and Chuka Umunna who describe people as trash will be kept well away, South Shields is obviously beneath them.
Thanks.
Interesting. I'm not as sure as you about energy - I think he'd be open to blaming the risk of energy shortages on Labour's prematurely green policy if the opportunity arose.
On Europe, is it not possible that he's prepared the ground for arguing for a Brexit should he feel a sellable deal is not achievable?
I appreciate that might sound naïve, but he's certainly hedged his position with conditionality unavailable to UKIP spokesmen. Presumably he wishes people to believe he envisages the possibility of a U-turn, or 'The Speech' would never have been made.
Clearly you don't go for that though!
But you can see from his point of view that being able to claim a rational and event-related position re UK membership of the EU might be considered an advantage, in opposition to the current UKIP position of 'Leave At All Costs!".
Apart from that, I see exactly what you mean.
Mr. Chuck,
I have given my views on Cameron often enough. I think he is a shallow, nasty, little spiv with a great sense of entitlement and ambition but zero political principle, and little competence. Where I think he, and Clegg, have rock solid principles is in the loyalty they both have to their families, which is one of the reasons why we persist with an insane energy policy (Cui bono?).
As for Cameron's Speech on the EU, I can see what you are getting at, but I wouldn't trust him an inch.
Re Cameron in general, I don't see the nastiness. His competence I see as more of an open question, given that it's a hard job and at least he's considerably more competent than the last incumbent.
I was surprised and intrigued to read in Chris Mullin' s diary of how he welcomed Cameron's presence at his (Chris Mullin's) Home Affairs Committee because of Cameron's general intelligence and independence of mind.
Therein may lie the problem!
Cameron's govt. spokesman have now admitted there might not be a treaty. Yet it's not just Cameron and the tory party's own position on whether to support IN or OUT that was predicated on treaty negotiations that likely won't happen.
The entire referendum itself even happening is predicated on those treaty negotiations occurring, even down to the wording of the question. It's all there in Cameron's own words.
For anyone who missed that it's a get out clause and loophole every bit as huge as the one Cammie used for Lisbon.
So if the simple souls like moses and others think it's perfectly fine for Cameron to wriggle out of his Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon referendum on the grounds that it became null and void, then they and Cammie will have no trouble wriggling out of an IN/OUT EU referendum in the future on the grounds that it's null and void since there will have been no treaty, no negotiations, no new settlement and no new terms.
You would think tory Eurosceptics and backbenchers might have learned when they were being taken for a ride by now, yet it would appear not.
'it's perfectly fine for Cameron to wriggle out of his Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon referendum on the grounds that it became null and void'
Cameron clearly stated that if the Lisbon treaty hadn't yet been ratified by the time he won office he would hold a referendum,as it was already ratified there was no referendum.
Surely even for you that's not too complicated to get your head around?
With no treaty there will be no new settlement negotiations and no referendum based on them.
Surely even for you that's not too complicated to get your head around?
If his position was really that there would be a referendum no matter what, why wouldn't he say so? Knowing there will be a referendum anyway is supposed to be one of the things that makes other EU countries give the British what they want, so why wouldn't he make that clear unless he wanted to keep the loophole open?
Whether he can get through a whole election without clarifying it and no treaty negotiations in sight is an interesting question.
Obviously the real hurdle is the other 25 countries, not to mention all the actual practical difficulties of agreeing something and getting it through everybody's various legislatures without getting vetoed by the Moomin Separatist blocking minority in the Finnish Upper House or whatever, but you can't expect the British voters to know that. If Merkel says there might be a treaty, that's probably enough for him to hold the line.
"Europe will become Miliband's problem, which will be interesting."
How long before Ed's latest 'contributory benefits' wheeze is ruled illegal under EU law?
Why are they going to knife the leader who has just won a majority against all the odds, for failing to deliver a policy that they don't support? Particularly when he can make a case that there will be a treaty at some point in the future, and they might end up with a policy they do support?
Labour has more policies! No, really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9977363/Let-town-halls-block-bookmakers-takeaways-and-payday-loan-shops-from-ruining-our-high-streets-Ed-Miliband-says.html
I can see why some would be against bookies and (especially) payday lenders proliferating in the high street. Less sure why people would be against takeaways, to be honest.
The problem with this is that E. Miliband refers to the obvious problem of struggling high streets (the less obvious question is why the internet hasn't already destroyed such things almost completely). The answer then appears to be to cut further the number of businesses paying rents to councils, making high streets less occupied and councils poorer.
Any answer to the high street problem has to bear in mind the internet and changing shopping habits. You can't just pretend that if only the 'bad' companies were banned then all the lovely ones would appear. The high street's got to offer something the internet can't. I wonder if politicians can do much about this, as it would seem to be about business practices rather than anything else.
I live really near Leeds (half an hour on the bus, ish) but I still do almost no shopping there. It's a fiver there and back (roughly) and takes an hour. The internet offers free delivery and I can check things in between redrafting or writing posts here. It's like Darth Vader going toe-to-toe with an ewok.
@afneil: Latest Glasgow Herald poll shows support for independence down 3 points to 30%, support for Union down 1 to 51% and don't knows up 4 to 19%
This is really risky, Ed should have kept his policy under wraps until 5 minutes before the polls closed. People might criticise it or say rude things about him.
I live even closer to my high street in slough, less than 5 minutes to walk there and I actually went there on Friday for the first time in 3 years but only because I needed a new shirt in a hurry and didn't have time to get one by delivery.
"PCS leader Mark Serwotka said the strikes were "part of an ongoing campaign of industrial action and protests to cause disruption for the government at key times and put pressure on ministers who are refusing to even talk to us.
"Civil and public servants are working harder than ever to provide the services we all rely on but instead of rewarding them, the government is imposing cuts to their pay, raiding their pensions and trying to rip up their basic working conditions."
On Sunday, it emerged the PCS was in talks with other unions about holding a general strike over spending cuts."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22057721
In the last few years, nigh on all contact with the HMRC has become online (except that you cannot send them emails - they insist on letters which never get answered.) So they are as dysfunctional as ever and I speak from a business viewpoint as well as a personal one.
I thought raiding of pensions was something that was a GB specialism - did not notice the Unions complaining then!