Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Why stay in something just to stop it from doing something, whilst paying for the "privilege"?
We weren't in it to stop it doing something, we were active (unless you were NF) partners shaping the future of Europe. It's disingenuous to suggest that the only reason we stayed in was to pay to stop federalisation, we paid into a combined project and reaped benifits from doing so.
We will find out exactly how beneficial, or not as the case maybe, that relationship was over the next few years. Seeing as Leave are determined to drag us down an uncertain and undecided path, let's hope its not an unmitigated disaster that my children will have to pay for.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I swear we had a chance a few years ago to change the voting system....... It's almost as if it was sternly rejected by the British public....
Which yet again demonstrates just how politically ignorant the 'great British public' are.
Indeed. Unless it allows us to get a great big moan about it. Then we are all ears. This '30 percent voted for the current government ' has been happening for decades. But no one brought it up until after the referendum result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Oh get off your high horse. We rejected Alternative Vote because its gak, not because we're opposed to electoral reform. The issue was with the solution offered to us.
It's still better than first past the post. People only complain about something when it doesn't go their way. We had the option to change the voting system, or at least make enough noise to bring about an idea of change. But nope, not a squeek.
I brought it up after the election, actually. I also pointed out that UKIP got 13% of the votes and 0.04% of the seats. Though I strongly disagree with UKIP, their supporters have a right to have their voice heard.
Of course the real result was Cameron was panicked into holding the referendum.
FPTP isn't fit for purpose anymore and needs to replaced. That I think we can all agree upon. PR is probably the best way to go.
@ r_squared
I wasn't suggesting that was the only reason we where there. Apologies if I gave that impression. But since the EU is dying it's best to get out now before it gets worse. Wait until the Italian economy goes under and all hell breaks lose. Other countries are going to sensibly bail from it too. We took a leap into the unknown certainly but then again going into a lifeboat from a shipping ship is always going to be risky away.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/28 08:31:02
What would you recommend then? Because FPTP obviously doesn't work for anyone anymore.
Full proportional representation to ensure that each persons vote is equal throughout the Country.
As a simplistic idea:-
Voting is now by region e.g. East Midlands, West Midlands, North East, Wales, NI etc.
The number of seats for each region is determined by the number of voters in each region (so if 5% of the population lives in Wales they get 5% of the seats) and is determined 2.5 years before each election (so yes some areas may gain or lose seats depending on population changes).
At the GE you split the number of seats in each region by proportional share of the votes (so if you get 30% of the votes in the region you get 30% of the seats with likely a bit of rounding).
If you wanted to be really bullish then the number of seats won would be proportional to the total voter population by region (so if 20% of the voter population didn't turn up then 20% of the seats aren't filled and left vacant.
(a) The advantages are that every person's vote is equal. It should remove the incentive to only concentrate on the swing areas rather than everywhere (avoiding the "the area is so blue/red it's not worth voting or not worth campaigning in")
(b) The seats in parliament actual reflect the voting populations preference.
(c) It removes the incentive for tactical voting (i.e. voting for parties to keep another out, rather than voting for the party you believe in).
(d) Unless you have extreme views there's should always be someone in government from your region you can speak to about an issue and have it listened to (for example if you currently live in a Tory area, but have an issue that is more leftcentric you are probably going to get nodded at and then ignored).
(e) Those parties with small but significant numbers of voters (few 100,000s to millions) should get some seats (e.g. Green Party etc)
(i) The disadvantage is that you no longer have a local MP and local issues become second to national issues.
(ii) Independents, unless they have wider reaching messages, are less likely to be voted in (although whether these should concentrate on local issues and elections is a different issues)
(iii) Some areas have relatively small voting populations but still have significant impacts on the total region. A good example here is NI. It's populace is small and hence would probably only get 1/2 MPs which probably doesn't fairly reflect the population because of the variety of views. You would probably have to weight these areas a bit higher to ensure that they got a reasonable number of MPs that could fairly represent the voting population (something similar as to happens with the EU smaller member states).
AV was never going to win the previous referendum election because:-
There wasn't (and still isn't, but growing) wide acknowledgement of the issues
The vote was undertaken at the same time as another election producing mixed messages and having to split resources by the smaller parties on the issue; I think it was the EU elections, which is ironic given that is PR,, but which is also notorious for bring only a small number of ultra conservative members of the voting populace
Many people in this country vote for one party only (I've always been a Labour/Tory voter etc) and the idea of voting for an alternative as well is against such principles
For many people it was confusing how it worked and that their most popular first choice in FPTP might not be the winner and could be 2nd/3rd placed in the initial count.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I've actually come to the conclusion that leaving the EU is the best thing we can do for the EU. We clearly feel differently to the other 26 members.
That's not really true. Although we were a 'bit awkward' there were a lot of Countries that generally saw us as having a balancing view on a lot of areas. For example a lot of our principles actually reasonably well aligned with Eastern European countries. One of their fears out of Brexit is that because the UK had such a large voice that they had a lead who they could work with in achieving a balanced EU. Their fear is that without the UK the politics will become much more north-west European (exc UK) dominated because the Eastern European countries won't have enough of a voice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/28 09:22:30
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The UK and Germany are regarded by the Scandis and some of the younger eastern Euros (Poland, Slovenia, etc) as being politically and culturally more "simpatico" than France and the mediterranean rim, and therefore combined with their population and economic weight in the Union, they are natural leaders for the loose northern European interest group.
If the Eastern European countries wanted us to stay in the EU because we're a counterbalancing voice to France and Germany, perhaps they should have been more willing to make concessions on reforms when Cameron went round Europe begging other member states to back his plans for reform so he could have something to present to the British electorate to persuade them to vote remain.
As it was, he asked for feth all and they rejected even that.
They knew that the British electorate was dissatisfied with the current state of the EU, they should have agreed to reform the aspects of the EU that we dislike instead of digging in their heels. Now its too late, and they're complaining that we called their bluff?
Not really complaining since UK is the one that shot themselves to foot making big mistake. In the final analyse while this wasn't good for EU it was even worse for UK.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: ....They knew that the British electorate was dissatisfied with the current state of the EU, they should have agreed to reform the aspects of the EU that we dislike instead of digging in their heels. ....
I see, because those stupid Europeans didn't jump to our demands, they can go feth themselves amirite?
I look forward to the nation we go forward to build with such sentiments.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: ....They knew that the British electorate was dissatisfied with the current state of the EU, they should have agreed to reform the aspects of the EU that we dislike instead of digging in their heels. ....
I see, because those stupid Europeans didn't jump to our demands, they can go feth themselves amirite?
I look forward to the nation we go forward to build with such sentiments.
As opposed to them telling Cameron to go feth himself when he went round begging them to give him something, anything that could influence the vote?
You're the one calling them stupid, not me. I'm calling them obstinate.
They should have expected this. It was a controversial popular vote that was always going to be a close thing and they knew the EU is largely unpopular in the UK, but they weren't willing to cooperate with David Cameron and offer concrete concessions that might have influenced the vote the way they wanted it to go. Now they're reaping the consequences.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/28 11:34:44
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: ....They knew that the British electorate was dissatisfied with the current state of the EU, they should have agreed to reform the aspects of the EU that we dislike instead of digging in their heels. ....
I see, because those stupid Europeans didn't jump to our demands, they can go feth themselves amirite?
I look forward to the nation we go forward to build with such sentiments.
As opposed to them telling Cameron to go feth himself when he went round begging them to give him something, anything that could influence the vote?
You're the one calling them stupid, not me. I'm calling them obstinate.
Well, that's OK then, obstinate is better than stupid.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: They should have expected this. It was a controversial popular vote that was always going to be a close thing and they knew the EU is largely unpopular in the UK, but they weren't willing to cooperate with David Cameron and offer concrete concessions that might have influenced the vote the way they wanted it to go. Now they're reaping the consequences.
Of course, it was so obvious. I remember all the discussion before the farce, I mean referendum, that clearly pointed to a Leave victory. Those obstinate foreigners only have themselves to blame for not acceding to our demands. It's obviously their fault.
And I'm sure that they'll be appropriately sorry as they reap the consequences of our actions and we skip off happily to a rosy future.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The EU ignores referendum results it doesn't like. Stupid.
They were getting told by cameron that the British people were increasingly dissatisfied with the EU and our part of it - and they chose to ignore him and he called the referendum. Stupid.
Cameron then went to the EU to ask for concessions to the arrangement where both him and the EU knew full-well that we could vote 'out' and he needed some bargaining chips to argue with.
He was still not given any concessions. Stupid.
Now, given that we had, in that last moment, seen how the EU operates is it any wonder that we voted to leave?
If the PM of a country with the financial clout of our nation cannot even get mild concessions, what makes people think that their opinion will have any effect at all?
Ever heard of the phrase "pissing in the wind"? Trying to change EU policy is the equivalent of pissing into the wind in an attemt to put out a housefire down the street.
The wife-beater legitimises his acts to himself by reasoning that because the partner doesn't leave them they accept the abuse and it's no big deal.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
SirDonlad wrote: I call them stupid.
The EU ignores referendum results it doesn't like. Stupid.
The EU can't hold referenda, they are the preserve of national governments, so it would have a hard time ignoring them if the national government didn't ignore them first. Stupid.
When referendum have gone against the EU the subject of the referenda has been renegotiated, alterations made and then passed.
What did Dave actually ask for? If he had attempted to tackle some of the structural issues with the EU he would probably have had a lot of support from other nations. On the other hand whining about immigrants would have gone absolutely no where. I suspect that the later was more likely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/28 14:13:54
What Cameron wanted: An explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not materially disadvantaged. He also wanted safeguards that steps to further financial union cannot be imposed on non-eurozone members and the UK will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts.
What the final deal said: The language on monetary union was unchanged. On financial regulation, this line was added: "The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market."
That is just one example, but i have a life and two minotaur artillery tanks to build and paint.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
SirDonlad wrote: Just typing 'eu ignores referendum' returns over 500000 results in 0.68 of a second
I tire of humouring your willful ignorance.
500000 google results is hardly a proof of anything. As for the first link that's a former French president (not the EU) and in the end the referendum result was not ignored. As for the second I'm not going to give the express a page view but I am certain it will be the same gak. Nice bit of irony at the end there though.
Future War Cultist wrote: FPTP isn't fit for purpose anymore and needs to replaced. That I think we can all agree upon. PR is probably the best way to go..
I dont agree.
What people don't recognise is that you don't elect a party, you elect a representative. That representative may be part of a party, and usually is, but can be independent.
Only FPTP offers a local representative, all other methods batch parliamentarians. If you get rid of that system you get rid of any reasonable chance to have any Independent MPs, and you rob th people of their opportuniy to elect local politicians,
What you need to do is to reform parliamentarians not balance of parties. This occurs when the populace can agree to vote someone else rather than the same old party politics. The people need to sayno to parachuted in politican from central office and eleect their own leaders. If the public will not do this it is not the systems fault. Note that the 'system' doesn't me the politicians, who are wanting to take advantage of the system themselves. PR is just another way of saying, we want to change the balance of parties in power, not actually change the politics.
It essentially means nothing, it isn't more democratic in any way, or less for that matter, but it does cement the parliamentary elite in its current state, wheras being able to choose to support a local representative offers a way out of that.
It is not FPTP that is damaging British politics, it is the breed of person the public allows to be elected, changing the way votes are tallied changes nothing for the good, and is likely to compound divisions.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
They were getting told by cameron that the British people were increasingly dissatisfied with the EU and our part of it - and they chose to ignore him and he called the referendum. Stupid.
Cameron then went to the EU to ask for concessions to the arrangement where both him and the EU knew full-well that we could vote 'out' and he needed some bargaining chips to argue with.
He was still not given any concessions. Stupid.
Now, given that we had, in that last moment, seen how the EU operates is it any wonder that we voted to leave?
If the PM of a country with the financial clout of our nation cannot even get mild concessions, what makes people think that their opinion will have any effect at all?
Ever heard of the phrase "pissing in the wind"? Trying to change EU policy is the equivalent of pissing into the wind in an attemt to put out a housefire down the street.
Nah this isn't what happened at all. A more accurate assessment of the events were:-
UKIP were nibbling into Tory electorate making some MPs that were Eurosceptic nervous.
These MPs started getting louder and louder that the UK was better off outside the EU (note at this point Boris was pro-EU)
DC wanted to try and stave off open rebellion in the ranks and try to stop UKIPs march as more and more people listened to a demagogue.
As such DC said he'd hold a referendum after he negotiated a better deal with the EU.
DC assumed that they would likely to be still in a power share after the GE and he could blame not holding a referendum on those dirty Lib Dems.
Lib Dems got massacred and without Conservatives got a majority with 33% of the vote.
DC was stuck then with holding a referendum as the euro-sceptic MPs got even louder.
DC thought holding the election earlier would be better to stop a rebellion when he stood down.
DC went to Europe for a 5 day conference to thrash out new 'concessions' which in reality should have been done carefully over years. Unsurprisingly many people thought the concessions were weak (what do you expect from 5 days of full negotiations?) whereas in reality it was the best they could expect over a few days.
Boris seeing an opportunity to be the next PM went for the anti-EU vote believing that we would still vote to stay in but that he could then be the PM to unite the Country (as he could peddle that he knew the issues of the anti-EU brigade, but the vote was to stay).
The UK voted to leave at which point DC and Boris went "Whoops that wasn't in the plan"! and "Oh by the way there is no plan for leaving"
DC throws himself on a sword because he doesn't want to sort out the mess he has created.
The anti and pro EU Tories then decide to shoot each other in the back until the only person left was the "I'll sit on the side-lines and let you lot sort yourselves out"
So we get a May as PM, bringing in an right wing government and supporter of reducing individuals rights in favour of the state and businesses (she was after all the person that wanted to allow people to sacrifice their rights for a handful of shares; and wants to allow the government to monitor everyones internet usage, never mind reducing rights under the ECHR).
In reality the whole situation was a result of Tories arrogance and trying to shut up their own party members as well as shut down UKIP. You can't blame the EU for not giving us hundreds of concessions, some which go against the core principles of the EU, when there had been no real dialogue over the whole issue before DC turned up and started demanding things.
It is not FPTP that is damaging British politics, it is the breed of person the public allows to be elected, changing the way votes are tallied changes nothing for the good, and is likely to compound divisions.
What you are proposing is at least reasonable in principle but is never going to happen. You only need to look at what has happened with the Labour party to show what happens when you let a limited populace decide which person leads the party. The same would happen with choosing MPs locally. The GE should be used for deciding who runs the Country, we already have parachuted in MPs at least though with PR you will have it proportional to what the voters actually voted for.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/28 18:44:48
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If the Eastern European countries wanted us to stay in the EU because we're a counterbalancing voice to France and Germany, perhaps they should have been more willing to make concessions on reforms when Cameron went round Europe begging other member states to back his plans for reform so he could have something to present to the British electorate to persuade them to vote remain.
As it was, he asked for feth all and they rejected even that.
They knew that the British electorate was dissatisfied with the current state of the EU, they should have agreed to reform the aspects of the EU that we dislike instead of digging in their heels. Now its too late, and they're complaining that we called their bluff?
Cry me a river.
It's more like the UK has spent years being total piss takers regarding EU matters, and Cameron continued this tradition by not bothering to muster the support of our natural allies, such as Denmark, who also are known to be dissatisfied with the state of the EU.
This was before any of the negotiations took place. Fair enough that they made (minor) alterations to the Irish, but the president of the commission saying that BEFORE any had actually taken place kind of shows something.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
This was before any of the negotiations took place. Fair enough that they made (minor) alterations to the Irish, but the president of the commission saying that BEFORE any had actually taken place kind of shows something.
So unsubstantiated comments with no official source, plus whatever bias from those Chinese whispering the message, plus bias from the paper means that I am highly doubtful as to that this was the exact tone of the conversation. It's always important to have the context of the conversation else it's easy to jump to conclusions and paper selling headlines. Nothing is ever as simple as is made out in the media, remember it is half day in depth meetings/conversations watered down to make it palatable to the masses (and with whichever spin you would like to put on it).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/28 21:45:23
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
This was before any of the negotiations took place. Fair enough that they made (minor) alterations to the Irish, but the president of the commission saying that BEFORE any had actually taken place kind of shows something.
It doesn't show much if anything really as the Irish did indeed have a second referendum in which they strongly supported the modified Lisbon treaty.
ELECTION watchdogs have thrown out an attempt to launch a new political party with the slogan “Sod Scottish Referendum”.
The Electoral Commission last week ruled the phrase was too “offensive” to appear on election leaflets and ballot papers.
The slogan was proposed by the new English Independence party, founded by Neil Humphrey from Nottingham, who also tried unsuccessfully to register it during the 2014 referendum itself.
The Commission also rejected five other offensive slogans from the party, including “Keep Calm and Vote English”, “Hang Murderers Death-Penalty” and “Just Hang’m High to Die”.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/28 23:48:53
They were getting told by cameron that the British people were increasingly dissatisfied with the EU and our part of it - and they chose to ignore him and he called the referendum. Stupid.
Cameron then went to the EU to ask for concessions to the arrangement where both him and the EU knew full-well that we could vote 'out' and he needed some bargaining chips to argue with.
He was still not given any concessions. Stupid.
Now, given that we had, in that last moment, seen how the EU operates is it any wonder that we voted to leave?
If the PM of a country with the financial clout of our nation cannot even get mild concessions, what makes people think that their opinion will have any effect at all?
Ever heard of the phrase "pissing in the wind"? Trying to change EU policy is the equivalent of pissing into the wind in an attemt to put out a housefire down the street.
Nah this isn't what happened at all. A more accurate assessment of the events were:-
UKIP were nibbling into Tory electorate making some MPs that were Eurosceptic nervous.
These MPs started getting louder and louder that the UK was better off outside the EU (note at this point Boris was pro-EU)
DC wanted to try and stave off open rebellion in the ranks and try to stop UKIPs march as more and more people listened to a demagogue.
As such DC said he'd hold a referendum after he negotiated a better deal with the EU.
DC assumed that they would likely to be still in a power share after the GE and he could blame not holding a referendum on those dirty Lib Dems.
Lib Dems got massacred and without Conservatives got a majority with 33% of the vote.
DC was stuck then with holding a referendum as the euro-sceptic MPs got even louder.
DC thought holding the election earlier would be better to stop a rebellion when he stood down.
DC went to Europe for a 5 day conference to thrash out new 'concessions' which in reality should have been done carefully over years. Unsurprisingly many people thought the concessions were weak (what do you expect from 5 days of full negotiations?) whereas in reality it was the best they could expect over a few days.
Boris seeing an opportunity to be the next PM went for the anti-EU vote believing that we would still vote to stay in but that he could then be the PM to unite the Country (as he could peddle that he knew the issues of the anti-EU brigade, but the vote was to stay).
The UK voted to leave at which point DC and Boris went "Whoops that wasn't in the plan"! and "Oh by the way there is no plan for leaving"
DC throws himself on a sword because he doesn't want to sort out the mess he has created.
The anti and pro EU Tories then decide to shoot each other in the back until the only person left was the "I'll sit on the side-lines and let you lot sort yourselves out"
So we get a May as PM, bringing in an right wing government and supporter of reducing individuals rights in favour of the state and businesses (she was after all the person that wanted to allow people to sacrifice their rights for a handful of shares; and wants to allow the government to monitor everyones internet usage, never mind reducing rights under the ECHR).
In reality the whole situation was a result of Tories arrogance and trying to shut up their own party members as well as shut down UKIP. You can't blame the EU for not giving us hundreds of concessions, some which go against the core principles of the EU, when there had been no real dialogue over the whole issue before DC turned up and started demanding things.
It is not FPTP that is damaging British politics, it is the breed of person the public allows to be elected, changing the way votes are tallied changes nothing for the good, and is likely to compound divisions.
What you are proposing is at least reasonable in principle but is never going to happen. You only need to look at what has happened with the Labour party to show what happens when you let a limited populace decide which person leads the party. The same would happen with choosing MPs locally. The GE should be used for deciding who runs the Country, we already have parachuted in MPs at least though with PR you will have it proportional to what the voters actually voted for.
Cameron, who warned of "wafer thin" British support for the EU, told EU leaders: "[Jean-Claude Juncker] is the ultimate Brussels insider who has been at the table for the last two decades of decisions. If you want change is that the type of person you want for the future?"...
...The prime minister suggested the appointment of Juncker would undermine his attempts to persuade voters that he can reform the EU.
Prior to the lunch, the official said of Cameron: "[On] the debate in Britain about Britain's role and its place in the EU, he will remind people [that] of the plan he has for dealing [with that], there is wafer-thin support – the strategy he set out in [his January 2013] Bloomberg speech, remind them it is working and there is a clear and steady increase in the numbers saying they want the UK to stay in the EU from the speech to the recent polls."
Mr Cameron insisted that he does not want Britain to quit the 27-nation bloc and would "fight with all my heart and soul" for a yes vote when the time comes.
But he conceded that public mistrust of the EU is growing and democratic consent is now "wafer thin" because its role has snowballed since the last referendum in the 1970s.
"I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world. I am not a British isolationist but I do want a better deal for Britain," he said.
The Prime Minister rejected the idea of an immediate referendum, insisting it was the wrong time for such a "momentous decision" when the EU is still reeling from the eurozone crisis.
Instead, he outlined plans for a new treaty to reshape the EU, resolve the eurozone crisis, increase the group's flexibility, accountability and competitiveness and allow the return of powers from Brussels.
I dunno mate, from what i'm seeing Cameron was almost being a decent moderate politician looking out for our interests when fully hidden from the media.
And i really dislike the guy; feth, any politician has an uphill struggle trying to be officially seen with me let alone win my respect (and cameron most certainly hasn't won it) but i'd like to think that i can give credit where it's due; i'm seeing him warning them about public opinion and asking for a bone to throw us to keep us sweet - the response being dismissive.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
I dunno mate, from what i'm seeing Cameron was almost being a decent moderate politician looking out for the Tory party interests when fully hidden from the media.
And i really dislike the guy; feth, any politician has an uphill struggle trying to be officially seen with me let alone win my respect (and cameron most certainly hasn't won it) but i'd like to think that i can give credit where it's due; i'm seeing him warning them about public opinion and asking for a bone to throw us to keep us sweet - the response being dismissive.
Changed that sentence for you
In reality it wasn't a stellar performance by DC and given the strength of the vote against his idea then he should have known he was barking up the wrong tree. It's the same issue as negotiating the changes to the EU; he's tried to swan in over one conference and tried to negotiate a massive shift in view over a few days and it simply was never going to work because you need time to negotiate and change perceptions. You simply can't do it over a few dinners (basically the bull**** charm he pulled over the public's eyes isn't going to work with hardened negotiators in the EU). The issue was he told the eurosceptics of his party that he would be able to change things without any coherent plan and when he fails miserably, not only does he look a bit daft in his own party but he also tries to blame his failure to convince anyone of his idea on the EU by spitting out his dummy and going on a public tirade to try and rescue some face for the Tory party just as they were approaching a GE. In some ways it was a self fulfilling prophecy if you tell the UK papers this is bad news then people are going to accept it even if he is just trying not to look like a complete tool.
In reality for the vast majority of the public they wouldn't have cared who was President of the EU unless it was Sponge Bob Square pants, Peppa Pig, or Boaty McBoat Face because the same accusations would have been applied to whoever got in unless they were British or Chapter 'British' approved. I'm fairly certain that most people voting to Leave the EU would not have put "because for a few years we have Juncker as President" as a reason for leaving.
In fact these sorts of things remind me how worried I am about Brexit. The UK Government seems to think they can negotiate things in ludicrously short timeframes and that is only going to end badly for the UK
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 10:14:41
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I dunno mate, from what i'm seeing Cameron was almost being a decent moderate politician looking out for the Tory party interests when fully hidden from the media.
And i really dislike the guy; feth, any politician has an uphill struggle trying to be officially seen with me let alone win my respect (and cameron most certainly hasn't won it) but i'd like to think that i can give credit where it's due; i'm seeing him warning them about public opinion and asking for a bone to throw us to keep us sweet - the response being dismissive.
Changed that sentence for you
In reality it wasn't a stellar performance by DC and given the strength of the vote against his idea then he should have known he was barking up the wrong tree. It's the same issue as negotiating the changes to the EU; he's tried to swan in over one conference and tried to negotiate a massive shift in view over a few days and it simply was never going to work because you need time to negotiate and change perceptions. You simply can't do it over a few dinners (basically the bull**** charm he pulled over the public's eyes isn't going to work with hardened negotiators in the EU). The issue was he told the eurosceptics of his party that he would be able to change things without any coherent plan and when he fails miserably, not only does he look a bit daft in his own party but he also tries to blame his failure to convince anyone of his idea on the EU by spitting out his dummy and going on a public tirade to try and rescue some face for the Tory party just as they were approaching a GE. In some ways it was a self fulfilling prophecy if you tell the UK papers this is bad news then people are going to accept it even if he is just trying not to look like a complete tool.
In reality for the vast majority of the public they wouldn't have cared who was President of the EU unless it was Sponge Bob Square pants, Peppa Pig, or Boaty McBoat Face because the same accusations would have been applied to whoever got in unless they were British or Chapter 'British' approved. I'm fairly certain that most people voting to Leave the EU would not have put "because for a few years we have Juncker as President" as a reason for leaving.
In fact these sorts of things remind me how worried I am about Brexit. The UK Government seems to think they can negotiate things in ludicrously short timeframes and that is only going to end badly for the UK
You're overlooking a few key facts about DC and the deal he tried to get from the EU.
Firstly, he announced ahead of the visit that he would be voting Yes regardless of what deal he was offered, thus shooting himself in the foot before the negotiations even begun
And then he said he wanted it wrapped up in a few days, thus allowing the the EU the option of simply waiting it out
There's incompetence, and then there's DC. I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times - the 'deal' was a sham from start to finish.
The only good thing I can say about Cameron is that he's not Gordon Brown.
And as for the EU during this 'negotiation,' alarm bells should have been ringing at the prospect of BREXIT, but they either were incompetent, didn't care, or thought we were bluffing.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
