I think most sane people think that we should be part of the EU, its just the insane bollox like having a President, joining the Euro, and the madness of trying to shoehorn us all together as " Europeans" that gets on most peoples mammaries. If they could just knock that on the head, we might get along a bit better!
Mr. Stopper, those things you mention are nuts and part of the EU. You can't say those against it are mostly insane, then list insane things which are part of the EU. It's like saying you want to break up with a girl, but still have sex with her on a regular basis. Fantastic idea, not terribly realistic.
But a united Tory party, hungry to regain power, joing with UKIP and BOO for a well-organised OUT campaign? That would be attractive: then the UK would be warm favourites to leave the EU.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Firstly you're relying on Labour actually delivering a referendum. And, even if they did, on the Stay In side, you'd still have Labour, the LibDems, the BBC, the CBI, the TUC and half of a demoralised and weakened Conservative Party. Unless you can make it a referendum on Ed Miliband, the chances of a Leave result are much the same as they would be in 2016 under Cameron. The difference is that you'd certainly get the referendum under Cameron; why on earth would Miliband want to hold a referendum if he wasn't 100% certain of winning it? Even then, it's hard to see what he gains by it.
The chance of getting out of the EU is the probability of a referendum being held (R) multiplied by the chance of you winning the referendum (W). R is close to 100% if there's a Conservative majority, close to 0% if there's a Labour government. W is not much different between the two (quite low either way IMO, but Kippers keep telling us that there's a majority in favour of leaving, so what do I know?).
This may be right, but it's worth noting that it clashes with the standard Tory line that: 1) Cameron would renegotiate something meaningful which will make the EU more attractive to British voters. 2) The Eurozone will need a treaty soon, which they'll need Britain to agree to.
If those things are right then Labour may be forced into an in/out referendum to get the treaty through since they're committed to a referendum on the treaty and they can't win one on the treaty itself unless Ed Miliband's government is deeply beloved by the populace at the time.
Disclaimer: Personally I think both those premises are obviously cobblers.
All those China-is-doomed demographers will have to think again. tim.
Too late
I think it will prove hard to turn around what has become custom and practice. And, even then, it would take a generation for a rising birthrate to have an impact on the labour market.
One of the stupider remarks you have ever made, SeanF. The Chinese HATE the one child policy (which is why the new president has hastily ditched it). They particularly hate it because 1. the rich can buy exemptions, 2. the rural poor ignore it anyway (or are excused), 3. it causes scandals like forced abortions, 4. it means people actually hide their kids from officials.
China's population is probably already underestimated, because of these factors.
There will be a baby boom in China now. Given that China's population is still rising, and was expected to peak around 1.4bn in 2020-2030, or 1.5bn in 2050 (depending on who you listen to) IF the one child policy stayed in place, then its abandonment will have a serious impact on all the demographic prognoses of Chinese decline.
Sensible commenters realise this:
"Rumblings in China's state media suggest that Beijing is considering a move to relax its deeply unpopular one-child policy, a change that could SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS in the world's second largest economy."
China is still ageing, will continue to age, just like every other major nation (including the US) but demography will not stop it surpassing the USA within a decade, nor seriously hinder it for 30 years or more. Maybe much more, now.
They will also raise the age of retirement.
Another undeniable fact is that this will raise China's (And hence the world's) 'carbon emmissions' over and above the counterfactual of the one child policy. I'm not saying it is a good or a bad thing, but it is an undeniable fact.
Mr. Stopper, those things you mention are nuts and part of the EU. You can't say those against it are mostly insane, then list insane things which are part of the EU. It's like saying you want to break up with a girl, but still have sex with her on a regular basis. Fantastic idea, not terribly realistic.
I guess I like common ground on trade, policing, even law, but just can't get my head around that we need to become part of a superstate, with President Blair at the helm, and a vast bureaucracy to implement it.
Mr. Tokyo, it's possible the EU will simply go down their typical route. Ask the referendum until they get the right answer, and pretend to change what they're voting on (eg crossing out 'Constitution' and writing 'Lisbon Treaty') in between. Or, someone else votes No, the non-change occurs and then Labour reneges (again) on a proposed referendum.
Mr. Stopper, those things you mention are nuts and part of the EU. You can't say those against it are mostly insane, then list insane things which are part of the EU. It's like saying you want to break up with a girl, but still have sex with her on a regular basis. Fantastic idea, not terribly realistic.
I guess I like common ground on trade, policing, even law, but just can't get my head around that we need to become part of a superstate, with President Blair at the helm, and a vast bureaucracy to implement it.
Indeed - why does the EU parliament need to move between 2 cities so often ? That must cost a fortune.
Mr. Stopper, I largely agree with you regarding the positive and negative columns. The problem is that the two are inseparable, and the negatives keep mounting up.
Mr. Stopper, those things you mention are nuts and part of the EU. You can't say those against it are mostly insane, then list insane things which are part of the EU. It's like saying you want to break up with a girl, but still have sex with her on a regular basis. Fantastic idea, not terribly realistic.
I guess I like common ground on trade, policing, even law, but just can't get my head around that we need to become part of a superstate, with President Blair at the helm, and a vast bureaucracy to implement it.
The superstate is the point. The economic stuff was just spin to get the superstate.
Another undeniable fact is that this will raise China's (And hence the world's) 'carbon emmissions' over and above the counterfactual of the one child policy. I'm not saying it is a good or a bad thing, but it is an undeniable fact.
The variation between peak China population under the two scenarios will be what? 10% or so? The choice of technology deployed as their economy matures will make a far bigger difference when you consider the difference in per capita emissions for developed countries such as the US [17.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide] or the UK [8.5], a difference of more than a factor of two.
Mr. Stopper, those things you mention are nuts and part of the EU. You can't say those against it are mostly insane, then list insane things which are part of the EU. It's like saying you want to break up with a girl, but still have sex with her on a regular basis. Fantastic idea, not terribly realistic.
I guess I like common ground on trade, policing, even law, but just can't get my head around that we need to become part of a superstate, with President Blair at the helm, and a vast bureaucracy to implement it.
Indeed - why does the EU parliament need to move between 2 cities so often ? That must cost a fortune.
Bad idea Henry. Some things are too important to play politics with.
Well said Roger! Breathtakingly cynical piece from Henry - all about what's in Labour's interest, nothing about what's in the national interest!
In any case, how could the electorate trust Ed to stick to his promise?
Only "Cast Iron" promises are kept aren't they Carlotta?
If Len McCluskey can't trust Ed - who can?
I thought Mr Hodges re trust was a very valid point and goes a long way to explain what appeared to be some very peculiar stances by Tom Watson and Len McCluskey. I have little time for either but if this is true, I'll be a bit sorry for them.
Mr. Tokyo, it's possible the EU will simply go down their typical route. Ask the referendum until they get the right answer, and pretend to change what they're voting on (eg crossing out 'Constitution' and writing 'Lisbon Treaty') in between. Or, someone else votes No, the non-change occurs and then Labour reneges (again) on a proposed referendum.
Until the Eurozone economies get better I don't think they have a ghost of a chance of passing a treaty of all 28. Sceptics get upset about them losing a referendum in a small country, making a tweak to mollify that country and asking again, but without that the decision-making process is just impossible, like giving every county in the UK a veto.
I'm not even sure the EU will ever manage to pass another treaty, especially to do more than ratify the de-facto status quo. The US has a much less unwieldy process than the EU, but most of their (enormous) constitutional change in the last century has been through institutional mission creep. The actual formal constitutional amendments have mostly been about peripheral things.
UKIP are not 'frit' of a referendum. Dyed-in-the-wool tories who keep repeating this line miss the key point. It is simple: we are much more likely to win an out referendum under a labour govt than under a tory one.
The shrewdies within UKIP realise that we are odds-against winning an OUT referendum against PM Cameron, who would be the self-selected leader of the IN campaign. We think it would be almost entirely based on scaremongering.
Nobody believes that Cameron is the man to lead us out of the EU---not even Richard Nabavi.
Privately, I think that Cameron must loathe the idea of a referendum, which, win or lose, sees half his party lined up alongside UKIP.
Why would they be automatically lined up with UKIP ? One of the points kippers keep ignoring is how they piss off a lot of ordinary righties with stupid antics. UKIP's problem might be nobody wants to share a platform with them.
Comments
Private: 40/31/7/8
Public: 16/55/7/4
Labour is lining up scapegoats for the Falkirk scandal
Falkirk refuses to go away....
.......“They didn’t see it coming” one Labour MP told me this morning. “They thought the whole thing had gone away.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100246077/labour-is-lining-up-scapegoats-for-the-falkirk-scandal/
1) Cameron would renegotiate something meaningful which will make the EU more attractive to British voters.
2) The Eurozone will need a treaty soon, which they'll need Britain to agree to.
If those things are right then Labour may be forced into an in/out referendum to get the treaty through since they're committed to a referendum on the treaty and they can't win one on the treaty itself unless Ed Miliband's government is deeply beloved by the populace at the time.
Disclaimer: Personally I think both those premises are obviously cobblers.
What were to happen if say next month, The Greens ended up third, and either the Lib Dems or UKIP were fifth?
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Dr-John-Doddy-Nottingham-GP-s-day/story-20065368-detail/story.html
I'm not even sure the EU will ever manage to pass another treaty, especially to do more than ratify the de-facto status quo. The US has a much less unwieldy process than the EU, but most of their (enormous) constitutional change in the last century has been through institutional mission creep. The actual formal constitutional amendments have mostly been about peripheral things.