Has Labour saved the British sausage?
June 23rd, 2007
Are Blair-Brown winning the spin war over the Euro summit?
If there is one symbol above all that represents “Britishness” (G. Brown please note) it is, surely, the British sausage. For after that wonderful Yes Minister programme all those years ago it’s a good metaphor for Britain’s relations with the EU.
Viewers will no doubt recall the classic episode of the programme when a distracting tactic was drawn up to “save the British sausage” as a mean of boosting the Hacker government’s popularity.
Whenever we have the aftermaths of EU summit I always think back and have a little chuckle over that classic TV programme.
For exactly the same tactic as used by Hacker has been deployed by all Tory and Labour governments since. You define a set issues that you know that you can win in the negotiations and then when you do you parade it as a great victory.
On the basis of this morning’s coverage you have to conclude that the government had done a brilliant spinning job in setting out why a constitutional referendum, unwisely promised by Tony in April 2004, won’t be necessary.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
There are some I’d prefer have munch my Scottish sausage with ….. and then again others not !!
http://www.christinehamilton.co.uk/users/www.christinehamilton.co.uk/upload/sausages_small.jpg
“distracting tactic was drawn up to “save the British sausage” as a mean of boosting the Hacker government’s popularity”
I don’t think that’s quite correct, Mike - it wasn’t actually the Hacker government at the time of the sausage crisis. IIRC Hacker was still Minister of Administrative Affairs and used the British Sausage issue to boost his own image ahead of standing for the leadership of his party.
You may also recall that, by use of dirty tricks, he ruthlessly knobbled both of his potential rivals for the position of PM and so reached 10 Downing Street without facing any kind of contest…
So absolutely no comparison with the present situation then… No, none whatsover…
Will they sell the sausage or the sizzle?
But can it save Gordon’s bacon?
Off to Ascot now….I’ll get me coat.
News that Gordon Brown is looking to appoint Lib Dem MP Ivor Chipolata to be Minister of State for Britsh Sausage Production cannot yet be confirmed :
http://plooble.typepad.com/bleef/sausage_and_chips.jpg
Mike. If your intention is to attract every right-wing whacko I think you’ve hit just the right note! I can hear seanT sharpening his crayons from here….
Roger and Nick - Don’t woory, chaps. I doubt Cameron will fall into the Hague 2001 trap of “7 days to save the Pound”-style Euro-obsessiveness. It’s not his style.
Instead, the Tories will keep punching on Brown’s sore point - we were promised a referendum, the treaty contains most of the provisions of the Constitution yet we’re now being denied a say. All this mealy-mouthed nonsense about it being an amending treaty rather than a constitutional treaty fools no one.
All of us - Europhile and Eurosceptic alike - know that the Constitution was a bold attempt to break out of the Union-by-stealth strategy that has dominated the EU for decades. Giscard and co were up front about that. Sadly, the French and Dutch votes have convinced the Euro-elite that spin and dissembling are, after all, the only way forward.
Brown (whose every control-freak instinct is against a referendum) will pay a heavy price for this when the treaty comes before the House of Commons. The really interesting question is what will the Lib Dems do. I know what West Country Tories are hoping!
Can someone please explain to me why Harriet Harman’s price of Betfair is so tight? Is someone playing games with us?
Talking about the ‘Yes Minister’ sketch yesterday following that loony Polish Prime Minister’s crackpot outburst they ran a bit of John Cleese ‘dont mention the war’ episode from Fawlty Towers on the news. Well worth another look!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MbeT7_ARm8&mode=related&search=
For most of the British press, certainly the Sun and Mail nothing short of withdrawal from the EU, is interpeted as a surrender.
Interesting, if inconclusive report on an ICM poll in today’s Guardian.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2109637,00.html
Nick made an excellent post (which he called a mini-article) on the previous thread which while I don’t agree with it in entirety, nonetheless deserves re-posting now that it’s on topic. I hope he doesn’t mind. This is it:
Speaking as a pro-European, I’m sorry that this has been seen primarily in defensive terms - can Britain stop some frightful imposition by those wicked foreigners? The Eurosceptics have been successful in pushing the debate into those terms, so that any change, however reasonable, is seen by mnay as a potential threat. That said, I don’t think the referendum demand has legs. I was talking about it yesterday to a large group of constituents (an expanded local CAT meeting to “talk to your MP”)), and the experience was a bit like here, where seanT has raised it a zillion times and most contributors have gone on talking about something else. One constituent felt really strongly and kept pressing me on it. Everyone else looked at him neutrally, not with evident disagreement but also without much interest: none expressed an oppinion either way.
In the evening, I had a debate with Roger Helmer MEP on climate change (he’s a sceptic) and we chatted a bit beforehand about the referendum issue. He said that he’d talked to 20 people who without exception either said they’d like a referendum or they didn’t care. I said I thought that most people, if asked in general if they’d like to be consulted on something controversial, said yes, but it wasn’t terribly important or vote-switching for them. He didn’t disagree, and said that was why Eurosceptic parties always did best at low-turnout Euro-elections: their supporters feel passinoately about it, others don’t.
This has interesting implications for the Tories. The leadership is pretty much bound to demand a referendum or their core supporters will kill them. But do they make a token one-day demand and then change the subject, or do they go on about it and make it a big campaign? I think we’ll find Cameron does the former, both now and when it comes up for Parliamentary approval in a few months’ time. There isn’t a sufficiently interesting issue in the changes to seize popular imagination - some vaguely controversial wording on the free market, a chap who coordinates EU foreign policy, some possible changes in EU Parliament numbers in 2013, yeah, whatever…
10. The Sun and Mail are the key. Cameron will make his demand and then stand back. If they press the case great he’ll let them get on with it and talk about his other plans, if not then he has nothing to gain by whistling into the wind. BTW Are you a Lib Dem. Apologies yesterday I am a great fan of the Devonian period, a radical era in the development of life huge slimy amphibians, possibly closely related to modern journalists…………
Mike, thanks for the thread, very funny comments as well.
Peter, I will call you just after 1.
Can anyone inform me on some details of Labour Deputy count?
When did (or will) it start? Where is it taking place? Who is present at the count?
David,
You’re absolutely right. It’s interesting that people constantly miss all the good things Europe has brought. Take my business, I work for a small asset management firm. It’s been around (in various guises) since 1969, running UK, European and Global money. When it started, the products could only be offered to Brits, and we could own British shares. As time has gone by, the introduction of the European Financial Services “passport” has enabled us to sell to Continental Europeans, while actually reducing the amount of compliance work we do. We have to jump - and almost entirely thanks to the Europe Union - through far fewer hoops than we did in 1997. In the past, we’d have had to set up subsidiaries in places we wanted to trade, and submit byzantine tax returns.
Contrast this situation of reducing legal compliance needs with the US. We *cannot* sell our products to the US or US citizens. And we still need to jump through various regulatory and tax hurdles regarding dividends and the like.
In financial services (for smaller firms at least), rather than increasing the burden of regulation, Europe has massively reduced it.
Cheers, Robert
14 Andrea. Will Woodward of the “Gruntfutock” on the Deputy race :
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/deputyleader/story/0,,2109610,00.html
15. Apart from the introductory paragraph, the whole of post [11] is Nick P’s - I’ve just copied it from the previous thread.
That said, while I think there are other reasons for the relatively good performance of UKIP at Euro-elections, I agree with pretty much else everything in it - hence why I thought it was worth re-posting.
To add to your comments, it’s also worth noting which countries lifted the BSE restrictions first (and which ones still haven’t).
16. Thanks Jack. I missed Miss Wigan interviewing them!
Welcome back Andrea! You’ve been missed. Loads of talk but no facts and no-one to know how to find them!
15
Well done Robert. Nice to see that the destruction of this country as a nation state has a silver lining in that you are managing to earn a few extra quid.
I think the Sun’s disapproval is worth a thousand other papers. Hague is demanding a referendum. The activists who are traditionalists will rally round the leadership on this, Tory unity will be cemented by it. It will shoot the ukip fox in many lab-con marginals.
Big misstep by Labour for what it does to the Tory base.
Tell me, Robert - if you could have a free market in goods and services without all the gross interference in other areas of national life that being a member of the EU entails, would you prefer that?
Surely if Nick and others are not defensive on the subject they would be happy to have a referendum so they could charge into battle on the subject with all guns blazing?
The defensive thinking is all on one side of the debate - the pro-EU side believe they cannot win any fight.
18 - Andrea you asked me last night about AWS for any of the Glasgow seats that may or may not come up. It seems unlikely in central if the Herald is to be believed. Apparently Sarwar’s son is the front runner to take over.
24. Err the article I read said Sarwar’s son was awaiting sentence in court
Meanwhile …. Colin Brown of the “Indie” on Lord Steven’s giving our Gawd the brush off :
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2697976.ece
“”It has become a cliché of political commentary to quote the remark of the conspiratorial French politician Talleyrand on hearing of the death of a rival: “I wonder what he meant by that?”
That was Matthew Parris. But I thought the quote was from Metternich on news of Talleyrand’s death. Anybody know the answer to this
25 - He has more than one son!
His younger son was top of Labour’s Glasgow list. His older son was laundering money through the family firm.
Meanwhile II …. Andrew Grice in the “Indie” on a week of Lib-Labery :
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/andrew_grice/article2697821.ece
14. I think our Labour man in the know Nick P suggested that its already started a day or so ago.
Maybe I read that wrong.
Meanwhile III …. Matthew Parris in the “Times” also reviews the Paddygate affair :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article1975251.ece
It was indeed a perceptive post by Nick (as so many are!) and for those of us who work in Europe a lot the EU has been a Godsend. All this talk of ‘democracy is crap! It’s just a belief by a right wing clique that we do everything better than everyone else. And if we’ve been doing it forever it’s got to be right!
Unfortunately if more people had spent time working in Europe with other Europeans and for other European countries they would quickly realize how misconceived that idea is.
My great hope is that as a new generation grows up who have travelled more and are more open to change they will demand that the old guard clear out and allow us to fully join the club including the Euro.
31. Any views. This is on whether the Lib Dems can only take Lab seats with a Tory history eg Hallam as opposed to say Lewisham:
The point I was making is perhaps wider- The seats discussed here are iceberg seats if you like- LD now where there used pre 97 to be a hugh tory vote. But look at Streatham, Lewisham West, Birmingham Perry Barr, etc and you will see what I mean. The LDs are now the main challenger in urban seats where the Tories were the challengers. I agree the Tories will probably win in some seats like Carlisle or Tooting to make up the failure in seats like this. But where is that sectional vote that makes up for the loss of the urban middle classes?
28. What’s the majority there. Still SNP target. I’d have thought they’d have had enough of the Sarwar dynasty now, and that would help the SNP
[27] My recollection is the same as yours, Punter.
Meanwhile IV …. Graham Stewart of the “Times” on how Churchill also tried the big tent option with the Liberals after the 1951 election :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/graham_stewart/article1975258.ece
32 - It’s just a belief by a right wing clique that we do everything better than everyone else. And if we’ve been doing it forever it’s got to be right!
But there isn’t a straightforward, universal standard of “better” or “worse”. There are different solutions which are appropriate to different contexts. I don’t believe EU-sceptics want to, say, impose British ideas on France, any more than they want French ideas imposed on Britain.
Let me ask you - should we abolish the Scottish parliament because “it’s just a belief by a Scottish clique that they do everything better than everyone else?” Or do you accept that different policies might suit Scotland than suit England?
Roger says, “My great hope is that as a new generation grows up who have travelled more and are more open to change they will demand that the old guard clear out and allow us to fully join the club including the Euro.”
As a member of that ‘new generation’ who has travelled extensively in Europe, loves it and speaks French and Spanish to a reasonable standard, my great hope is that we are given a vote over the new treaty on the European Union, as promised by Tony Blair.
34. Perhaps the real cliche is journalists attributing Historical quotes to the incorrect person
BTW Yet another brilliant move by Wenger selling HEnry when he’s past his prime for top dollar. Maybe GB can make him Chancellor, this guy know when to buy and sell alright
32 - ‘All this talk of democracy is crap’. Another well argued contribution from Roger. Still at least it was an improvement on Nick’s description of the Eurosceptic argument as “can Britain stop some frightful imposition by those wicked foreigners?”.
33 - He has an 8000+ majority over the Lib Dems. It’s hard to say how the SNP will do as their Holyrood support doesn’t always translate into Westminster support. Mind you given just how bad a job the Labour opposition is doing who knows!?
I think Blair & Brown have spun well enough to escape a referendum but that is not necessarily good for Europe - there’s no resolution just scene setting for more arguments, this year next year and in 2014 when the voting comes up for change. Short term political gain but at a cost of continuing and ongoing disenchantment.
Better would to have looked again at the constitution, revised and re-written it, made it clearer and shorter, thrown out much of the detailed text and then sought again the whole-hearted support of its citizens, through referenda across Europe. Made it a proper constitution, a rule book outlining governance and benefits. Then go out and sell it.
Book Value. Most of those saying NO are a particular feature of British politics that we have had to live with since the war. They are conservative with a small ‘c’ who would still be trading in florins and groats with a fully hereditary House of lords if they’d had their choice. They want nothing to do with Johnny Foreigner because they see them as corrupt,venal and incompetent. All the arguments about democracy are just a fig leaf to cover an innate xenophobia. Charlie Kennedy was a wholehearted supporter and this modernity was why he was so popular with the young. He wasn’t scared of change.
The Scottish Parliament argument is irrelevant because those against the EU aren’t interested in questions of how we do democracy. I wish was that was the issue and we could then set about making the EU more accountable.
19. Thanks Roger
24. Max, thanks. Didn’t his son was also mentioned as a potential candidate if Jackson had been deselected in Govan (Holyrood version)?
33. Glasgow Central is a 30.4% majority over Libdems with SNP third. I think it’s quite unlikely Labour can lose it.
Roger - it must frustrate you that many of us who are young don’t share your enthusiasm for the EU. I love Europe but I’ve also been to Asia, Australia and Latin America. I feel just as much in common with the young people I met there as the ones I come across in Italy or Germany.
I honestly believe you are showing your age. Buenos Aires, Rome Melbourne, Berlin, Mumbai, New York or Paris - what’s the difference? Fetishising a particular geographical land mass when we now have a global culture is dated and a bit weird.
39.”It’s hard to say how the SNP will do as their Holyrood support doesn’t always translate into Westminster support”
Even 2007 level of Holyrood support for SNP would have probably enough to win Central. The boundaries are quite different, but looking at seats making up the Westminster Central I think Lab would have been ahead in 2007
39 & 42 I only remembered the famous Jim Sillars win. I imagine the boundary changes post devlution removed ay SNP threat at all
44. Westminster Central? Invite your opinion on the rest of 33
41 roger, you do have an odd view of your fellow countrymen don’t you? Yes the Ukippers tend to be florid middle aged men and monomaniacal in their view of Europe but most of the Noes from pollls are drawn from across UK citizens, they are sceptical and most aren’t small c conservatives.
There’s nothing “modern” or “progressive” about a fortress EU, no longer committed to free and fair competition and trade but to an internal market distorted by government subsidy and protected by tariffs, closing out the third world except as a place to dump excess agricultural produce or supply with arms.
46. I meant the Glasgow Central at Wesminster level
I agree Stich up. We should remove all border controls. I’m all for it. We should all be able to live and work where we like. At the moment though we are some way from this utopia so in the meantime I’m happy to fully integrate with the 27 countries who want to allow it. Put keep campaigning and one it might happen
32
‘All this talk of ‘democracy is crap! It’s just a belief by a right wing clique that we do everything better than everyone else. And if we’ve been doing it forever it’s got to be right’
You are obviously a staunch supporter of Scottish independence.
You might be right Ted that all those objecting are concerned about restrictive business practices and not old fashioned prejudice but if you are explain why nearly everyone in business who is DIRECTLY affected are infavour of fuller integration and those who it wont affect at all are against?
re 36, Book Value, “Let me ask you - should we abolish the Scottish parliament because “it’s just a belief by a Scottish clique that they do everything better than everyone else?” Or do you accept that different policies might suit Scotland than suit England?”
It is not just a question of whether they would suit Scotland more, it is a question of do the Scots prefere them. After all decisions in Scotland affect Scotish people.
I have to say I find Roger’s argument daft. If there is some policy that works in another EU country and we think it will work here we can always nick it. That is unless we (the Conservative party) are taking it from the “far right” social democrats of Sweeden in which case we are just being far right.
******************************************************************
*******************Blair: PMQ’s is Bollo*ks***********************
*******************************************************************
This is his take on parliament and the scrutiny of the executive and imparticularly head of government. Who made it Bollo*ks - He did!!!! If he thought it was so bad - why did he not try and change it???!!!
This is in the Times Magazine today - A direct quote of what he thought.
Hopefully Brown will make it a twice weekly affair and even more importantly try and deter arselicking Labour MP’s from showing up elected members.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/the_blair_years/article1954245.ece?token=null&offset=12
53. Wouldn’t you be happier writing on a big piece of paper in crayons Martin?
Sorry to be a bit late with this (from several threads back):
“But I think you will find the Tory proposals to scrap this costly authoritarian measure [ID cards], and replace it with 10,000 armed border police (not uniformed immigration officers, Labour’s choice) will be highly popular.”
by Test June 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
This seems a very odd proposal to me; is it Conservative Party policy? The border police might (at least in theory) be effective in keeping people out, but what about internal crime? (Unless you’re suggesting that most crime is committed by illegal immigrants) Where will they be based, since the UK has a land border only with Eire? I’ve never heard about violent affray at the ports and airports; why will the guards need to be armed? Finally, wouldn’t it be just as costly and indeed authoritarian? In the circumstances, would it be highly popular? Wouldn’t the money be better spent elsewhere?
54. No i leave that to you as it is your level of political participation.
Roger - everyone in business directly affected isn’t in favour of fuller integration; they might have been in 1997 but since the UK has done so well out of not joining the Euro, businesses are pretty much against further Euro legislation which adds costs, reduces their competitive advantages and adds additional restrictions as regards employee rights and union practices. Trade Unions, like the French, are all in favour of those and against further liberalisation or unfettered movement of goods and services.
How reliable Kevin Maguire is?
Anyway he blogged that Brown intends to abolish the party chair(wo)man position (with a place in the Cabinet) and replace it with 4 Vice-Chairs. And he’s rumoured to want to reform the National Policy Forum and abolish Contemporary Motions at the Conference (the Left in CLPs will be very disappointed as they like to table them)
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/uk/kevinmaguire/june/chairs.htm
55. It is indeed Tory party policy. The border police are there to secure the borders, not to police inside the country. They are to prevent the misery of human trafficking and the strain on the public services from illegal immigrants, as well as to prevent the entry of terrorists, stop forced marriages, etc. They will be armed to prevent terrorist and other attacks (did you not know that airport police are armed at present?). And our border is whereever we have an airport or a port, as well as a land-line.
I notice the Times today has a very pro-Brown stance yet again - he stopped Blair giving it all away being the broad thrust.
I assume Murdoch is giving Brown The Times, while reserving judgement on whether he gives his more powerful weapon, The Sun, until he has seen what is delivered.
On a seperate matter, Matthew Parris is entirely wrong (also in The Times), in my view, to suggest it would have been a disaster for GB if Ashdown had accepted, as he is a very good man for the job.
It looks like Brown is only offering jobs to grandees, not mp’s. If Ashdown had accepted he looks generous and non-tribal.If Brown is rejected - he looks generous and non-tribal. It was a win-win scenario
It is only a problem if he keeps being rejected - Ashdown, Stevens…..
Precedent - 1964 - Wilson gave a Defence job to The Times defence correspondent Alun Chalfont ( and enobled him ) . He was a non-party man - so really a Tory.
It did not work, but it was good “gesture poltics”
The point with opposing ID cards given they are estimated to cost £80 plus each - that is a lot of money that could be focused on Policing, anti-terrorism services etc.
You have to be pretty niave to think an ID card is going to stop many crimes. I would agree that by holding a biometric database you may solve old crimes but would it deter new ones no.
I was the victim of a violent crime, which altered my life for the worse. Of course i would like the people responsible to rot in jail but they will never be caught for that offence. It is harder than you might think to collect evidence such as DNA and prove that it has some legitimate connection other than in a rape, voilent assualt or crime against the person. I do not think it will stop violent and organised PEOPLE FROM OBTAINING CLONES OF CARDS AND CARRYING THEM. (Sorry hit caps lock!)The other problem is we live in an open country - that means people move through it and around it very quickly, the data will become out of date very quickly and any changes are likely to cost the holder money!
I think these ID cards were a suggestion in the wake of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. They are not the solution to the problem.
22. Stitch Up - “if you could have a free market in goods and services without all the gross interference in other areas of national life that being a member of the EU entails, would you prefer that?”
By “interference” I suppose you mean the regulations about health and safety and employment law? The answer is No, you can’t really have a proper free market in goods and servicies without the regulations. Because in the absence of common regulations, countries use “standards” to distort trade.
The EC (as it was then) actually got rid of all trade tariffs as long ago as 1968 but just because trade tariffs are abolished doesn’t mean you have a proper free market.
The move to change the EC into what we have now actually came from one Margaret Thatcher. She circulated a paper in the early 1980’s to the other member states, proposing a number of changes and calling for political co-operation among the states (in her mind was the Falklands where only France had been a staunch ally, the others had been tepid or even hostile, and she felt a proper community should close ranks politically). But because all these things were outside the scope laid down under the Treaty of Rome, an Intergovernmental Conference was called, and what they discussed became the Single European Act (signed in 1985, but came into effect in 1993).
Here’s what she said in her book The Downing Street Years (Chapter 18, page 553):
I had one overriding positive goal. This was to create a single Common Market. The Community’s internal tarriffs on goods had been abolished by July 1968. At the same time it had become a customs union, which Britian had fully accepted in July 1977. What remained were the so-called ‘non-tariff’ barriers. These came in a great variety of more or less subtle forms. Different national standards on matters ranging from safety to health, regulations discriminating against foreign products, public procurement policies, delays and overelaborate procedures at customs posts - all these and many others served to frustrate the existence of a real Common Market…………….. The price which we would have to pay to achieve a Single Market with all its economic benefits, though, was more majority voting in the Community. There was no escape from that, because otherwise particular countries would succumb to domestic pressures and prevent the opening-up of their markets. It also required more power for the European Commission.
So there you go - straight from the horses mouth. Most pro-europeans, like myself, agree with the sentiments expressed above. Europe as it currently is, is the Tories finest achievement and future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that Tories are repudiating their own inheritance.
Most of the regulation that comes out of Brussels is to do with markets. For instance they couldn’t care less that our speed limits are in miles per hour as this has nothing to do with trade, but they do want all goods to display metric measurements alongside whatever national measurements, so that consumers can compare at a glance and not be fooled at price differences at different weights (as you would if you were trying to compare the price of something in pounds with something in kilos), and manufacturers can produce in bulk for the whole community in standard sizes according to standard regulations (which reduces their costs). Movement of labour is part of the free market too (labour is one one the key factors of production), and common minimum regulation for labour are there for the same reason we have common regulation for goods - so that “hidden” distortions are removed. Why is this so hard to understand?
And note that Brussels doesn’t “interfere” at all in matters of schooling, health-care provision and policing because none of it has to do with trade and they happily leave this to the national governments.
52 - yes, I agree: perhaps it’d be more accurate to say “suit the Scottish/English electorate’s preferences”.
41 - this is on about the same level of intellectual rigour as saying that all supporters of closer union want a USSR-style one-party state. Why do you think EU-sceptics have to be xenophobic? If someone believes that the internal affairs of Latvia are a matter for the citizens of Latvia, why does that mean they hate Latvians?
He was a non-party man - so really a Tory.
Just because someone is not a member of the Labour party does not make them a tory!!! I must remind you that under 700,000 people are members of political parties in this country!!! I think that is probably an over optimistic figure as well!
62. If somebody had commited a serious crime - I am sure they would try and get around getting on a biometric database.
ID cards - Waste of time plus money!!! Stupid ID revived as a sop to peoples insecurities.
I really think people should stop feeding Roger - clearly no-one can genuinely believe that immediately opening all borders would do anything other than cause such mass migration it would cause economic collapse.
I would like to address the idea that all countries in Europe do things equally well. This is quite clearly false. In terms of corruption, we are better than all of Europe except Scandinavia and the Netherlands - in some cases a lot better. We also have more of a sense of individual freedom than the vast majority of European countries, although the current government seems to want to change this. We have also had one of the most stable and successful economies since 1990s - mainly thanks to the left-wing party realising the correctness of what has traditionally been economics. Thus we do things here better than most countries (although not all). That’s not to say we are perfect, or that we can’t learn from individual other countries in certain areas, just that in general I would rather be ruled by a British Parliament than a European Parliament. If the rest of Europe learns the errors of their ways (which to be fair, they seem to be slowly doing) I will start to change my mind about the potential of the EU, but right now full integration isn’t in the interest of the UK.
And for the record I am one of the “new generation” and have travelled to 10 of the 25 EU states, and this hasn’t changed my mind.
that consumers can compare at a glance and not be fooled at price differences at different weights (as you would if you were trying to compare the price of something in pounds with something in kilos)
This is a pretty weak case for a European standard. If all the goods at Tescos were marked in pounds, I could still compare them. It’s pretty unlikely I’d be popping of to Calais to look at the price of a kilo of apples. National governments might see fit to set a common standard within a country, but that’s a matter for them.
Of course, exports create a potential for confusion, but does that need regulation? If I were exporting something to Germany, I wouldn’t mark it in pounds, because no one over there would understand it, and I wouldn’t be likely to sell much. It doesn’t need regulation to make me apply common sense.
As it happens, I feel more comfortable in kilograms but I don’t see that it needs European legislation to make life easier for me.
Seeing as my name has been taken in vain several times, I’d better say something. I’ll try and keep it short but I will probably fail.
I know I’m a nutter on this subject. But nutters are sometimes right. I’ve recently been reading the history of the Levellers - regarded as total loons in their time, often imprisoned - and what did they want? Universal suffrage.
John Wheatley, I think it was, posted the argument that eurosceptics are contradictory. Because, he says, we claim the EU is undemocratic, but will not allow the means to make it democratic - an elected president, a proper EU government, etc. This is typical middlebrow drivel from Wheatley.
Besides the obvious point that it is perfectly respectable to simply not want a European superstate, the problem with Europe as a political entity is that it CANNOT be democratic. Because, of course, there is no demos, no unified people, no single public opinion to hold the executive to account. Each nation in the EU has its own media, its own language, its own concerns and obsessions. Each nation votes on national issues. This is simply a fact, however much europhiles may wish it otherwise, or try to confect “Europarties”. A public opinion and a media able to put pressure on the government through elections and campaigns and the national conversation is probably the mort crucial part of a democracy, it is what balances the power of the rulers. It is entirely lacking in the EU.
Indeed without it any government will necessarily be a labyrinthine, distant and almost unaccountable Soviet - which is what we have in Europe. This is no surprise. Europe was built by the French to serve essentially French interests and keep Germany tame. Now it has grown like topsy, and involves 27 countries, but no on can control it, and the democratic deficit just gets bigger and bigger the more power accrues to the centre. And that, I reiterate, cannot be changed by institutional tinkering because an essential prop is lacking - there is no single European people.
As it happens, I actually believe in Europe as an ideal - I’d like Europe to work. I travel around Europe widely and have a lot of friends across the continent - like many people these days. So it’s obviously great we can live in harmony - on this I agree with people like Roger and Tyson, no matter how deluded and juvenile they are on the more detailed issues.
Indeed I think the EU could work in some ways as a benign union of sovereign states, working as a coherent unit but with variable geometry. At least, it would work like this if it was allowed to grow naturally, over time, organically, without the Federasts constantly trying to betray the voters cause they can’t openly get what they want - a true superstate.
But anyway what we have here is so far from ideal it is laughable. The EU has become a cesspit of cynicism and chicanery. The latest attempt to sneak the Constitution down the chimney because the voters won’t let it in by the front door is the most outrageous, but just the latest, example of this cynicism. One day such fraudulence may come back to haunt the elite.
Re the narrow question of how this Treaty and the Referendum plays in Britain. I agree that it all depends on the papers - and also what is in the actual final text. When the first Constitution was accounced it was also sold as a British victory. It was only on closer analysis that the true ghastliness was revealed, and the pressure for a vote grew irresistible.
If the actual text is nastier than the spin - and I predict it could well be, Brown might still have to give way and grant a vote. If the papers then hammer it like last time, he will definitely have to give way.
Watever happens it’s a very very nice gift for Cameron - Just Give Us A Vote is probably the simplest and most effective of campaigning slogans in the history of politics. To oppose it seems hideously undemocratic. That’s Brown’s problem.
And that’s my take. I stand by what I said earlier, many of you will be happy to know. If this treaty goes through unvoted I’m giving up caring about politics and taking up fly-fishing and I’ll be off. Because I shan’t care any more. Why bother with a system where the politicians act with such brazen contempt for their own pledges, when they are such unashamed and cynical liars?
F*** ‘em.
In any case would ID cards not be against the Human rights convention. After all you have to consent to medical procedures and any Biometric samples by definition would require consent.
Police can only take fingerprints under the suspicion of someone being involved in a crime. Otherwise we would be all in cells under suspicion of doing something! I should imagine the same would be for swobs etc.
Given that most of the population do not break criminal laws - shorley it would be a breach of human rights to have to supply this biometric data?
61 Re Monck the other day. Why didn’t he simply have th Rump procliam him Lord Protector. Didn’t he want the job or did he feel that he would be challenged by other Generals i.e a renewal of Civil War.
Also if Lambert was such a Genius why did his army desert when he tried to confront Monck. They certainly didn’t think he was a genius
re 69 You failed…I didn’t read beyond ‘fail’!
68: My understanding - can’t recall the source I’m afraid - was that what the European legislation on weights and measures was supposed to prevent was countries _enforcing_ their own non-standard measures - which would be a non-tariff-barrier. On the face of it this isn’t unreasonable; In a single market, you want to be able to package your produce in one way, and know that it’s legal to sell it in any member state.
Accordingly, they passed regulations that said that _if_ a country had a law forcing everyone to use a particular measure, that measure had to be the standard (metric) one.
This means all the British “metric martyr” stuff was self-inflicted; If the British parliament had wanted to, they could have just deregulated the whole thing and let people trade in whatever units they wanted. But the British insisted on keeping their regulations, so they had to stop enforcing pounds and ounces and start enforcing kilograms (etc etc).
(As I say, I can’t remember how I found all this stuff out, so feel free to correct me if you know the full story.)
” stand by what I said earlier, many of you will be happy to know. If this treaty goes through unvoted I’m giving up caring about politics and taking up fly-fishing and I’ll be off.”
Somebody who isn’t anonymous should take him up on this on the wagers page. Nick p could get the cats a lot of food.
Why is Brown taking over as leader of the Labour party tommorow but waiting till wed. to go?
Why is Brown taking over as leader of the Labour party tommorow but waiting till wed. to go?
Why is Brown taking over as leader of the Labour party tommorow but waiting till wed. for blair to go?
72. You didn’t get to the bit where I mentioned your bladder problem?
12: The Sun’s coverage today is muted - it’s their third editorial, and they mutter that yeah, OK, red lines secured, but a lot given away all the same, shabby deal. The news item itself is buried deep in the paper.
Will the new treaty allow non-UK EU citizens the right to vote in national elections? Will we be be able vote in another member state’s national elections as well as local and European elections. The continentals I have spoken to are more interested in voting in national elections - this could explain their low participation rates.
Peter the punter’s tips of the day.
No account bets, only small numbers as the going is soft and not many horses have form on soft ground
2.30 No 3, Feared in Flight (win only as odds are short)
3.05 No 3, Akarem Each way
Please note there are only 7 runners so E?W only pays on first and second, NOT third.
3.45 No7 Borderless Scot
No8 Bygone Days,
Both Each Way.
4.25 Balthazar’s Gift E?W
5.35 Golden Quest (Possibly each way, possibly not.)
Please note no big bets as the racing will be unpredictable.
69
Seant what would we actually be voting on?
I always thought referendums are only any good for straight forward fundemental principles.
Such as do you want Independence from England Yes or No?
As no normal punter is going to read the full treaty, so in practice, it would become should we leave the EU YES OR NO?.
Therefore if it is not a fundemental principle, parliamentary scrutiny must do its job to represent the people, thats what we pay and elect them to do.
The EU question is only about the integrity of parliament. Until the politicians actually tell the public the truth about the EU and/or reflect public opinion on the subject the slump in parliaments reputation will continue.
The country want out of this shocking project but the politicians wont allow it. The only obvious conclusion is that the politicians will eventually lose the mandate to impose unpopular rubbish on our country.
A referendum on the treaty is a waste of time.
67. ‘I really think people should stop feeding Roger ‘
Yes, unless they are feeding him hemlock. We are now really seeing the downside of this cretin having been feted as ‘an institution’ by Peter the Punter and others - they have simply encouraged him to fill up every new thread with a mixture of moronic drivel and insults.
“If this treaty goes through unvoted I’m giving up caring about politics and taking up fly-fishing and I’ll be off.”
Yeah, right, we so believe you, seanT.
80: not that I’ve heard, francis - pretty sure someone would have mentioned it. I think you’re right that they would be more interested in that, but it’s never been seriously suggested to my knowledge.
79. I wouldn’t call it muted. Not front page full hobnailed boots on but they give it a go. Don’t forget much if the deal would have been done post time of writing. I wouldn’t crow just yet. Let’s see how they treat it on Monday and in the week to come as they chew over the details
85. I know you are used to people who habitually tell lies, Nick, you’re a Labour politician.
But I mean this. Politics in this country has become a charade of democracy. And I’m not just talking about EU - though the fact that so many of our laws are made there, in a foreign capital, by unelected functionaries, is of course a major part of the national apathy.
No, the whole thing is now too depressing and predictable to worry about. All three parties are now practically identical. They argue over nothing, they just spin and dissemble. When they get into power its worse - whatever the public thinks, the government just lies and does what it wants, as with Iraq. And when a pledge becomes awkward - like the EU referendum - they simply and brazenly break the promise, like shameless children.
Iraq is big here. The fact that not a single minister has resigned in disgrace over the deaths of half a million people in Iraq shames us all: it shames us as a nation, it shames all our ruling class, it shames the Tories, it shames you, it shames me. Most of all it shames New Labour and your party’s elite. Half a million people died in Iraq, and they ar still dying. The war was a lie and a disaster. Blair should be in prison, not swanning off to Rome to become a Catholic.
And you guys wonder why us lot can’t be bothered to vote any more?
Anyway enough. I really am gonna quit this as I said, if Brown forces through the Treaty! I’m sure the relief will be mildly widespread.
But before I go, some advice to politicians from a humble voter: stop lying to us, stop cheating, stop spinning, stop grafting, stop it. Just stop it, all of you.
68. Book Value: “This is a pretty weak case for a European standard. If all the goods at Tescos were marked in pounds, I could still compare them. It’s pretty unlikely I’d be popping of to Calais to look at the price of a kilo of apples”
But suppose Muller Rice decided to export their product to the UK and it was in grams, and a consumer was trying to compare the price of Muller in grams with another brand that was in ounces?
In the world you are describing, all goods are produced locally for the local market. In the real world, the goods come from all over the place. The standardisation rules only say that you display the metric alongside your local measurements. The most important bit is that you must display a price per 100g (most choose to display nutrition per 100g as well). Therefore if one good is in half pounds, and the other is in half kilos, the consumer can still compare by glancing at the data displayed on both per 100g. It prevents sharp practice where retailers use different weights to confuse and thus cheat their customers.
Do you realise the cost-savings this has brought to the manufacturer, which have been passed onto the consumer as a result? Instead of Heinz having to manufacture different weights for each country, they simply manufacture a standard tin in bulk for the entire continent, stick labels on for the local market and ship it across.
Recently we had our local chinese takeaway selling Coke labelled in Polish - they’d discovered an arbitrage, where the same product with the same standard was being sold for less in Poland than the Coke distributer was offering in Britain, so they simply imported it. But it was the “same product, at the same weight, made to the same standard” because of the EU regulations. The arbitrage wouldn’t have been so easy to spot if the product was made to different weights and most importantly to different standards - different standards would have enabled someone to sue them saying that they were selling stuff in the UK that didn’t comply with UK law eg they used water in the manufacture of the Coke that didn’t comply with UK regs (and indeed this was what used to happen before the Single European Act came into force). Having standard regs across the continent eliminates this. The discovery of the price arbitrage will force down the price of Coke offered by distributers here. This is markets working at their best. Long live the single market!
86. What will happen to the rights of British Commonwealth citizens? Will they become foreigners in the EU, would they lose their right to vote in elections? I’m sure that an elected EU President and Prime Minister suggests we change from British to European and in theory equal to every other EU citizen? What about Westminster’s role? Redundant? Accountability? I see many legal challanges ahead.
80. francis “Will the new treaty allow non-UK EU citizens the right to vote in national elections?”
No. This is forbidden by the Treaty of Rome. The government of each member state is that state’s representative to the Council of Ministers, hence only citizens of that state can vote for the national government, so that you are only voting once for your representative to the Council. This is important as the Council fo Ministers is the decision-making body of the EU. Otherwise you’d get massive multiple voting - eg given that a large chunk of Poland is in Britian, Germany, Ireland and elsewhere, they’d have a disproportionate influence on the Council if they were allowed to vote for the govt of states they weren’t a citizen of, as well as in the Polish elections.
Local elections are different - they deal with only local issues, so EU citizens are allowed to vote in local elections wherever they are. European parliament elections also allow EU citizens to vote in the region they happen to live in, given that the parliament is so large and it’s influence so small.
91. If this is the case then we should ban the Irish from voting in UK national general elections under this treaty? If we are to continue allowing citizens from the Irish Republic the right to vote in UK national elections then we should also allow non-UK EU citizens the same right? I’m sure federalists would prefer to change the Treaty of Rome to allow fellow EU citizens national voting rights.
90. It would be interesting to know what the voters in 1975 would have done if they’d been told what they were actually voting for.
“Well, we say it’s a Common Market now, but in thirty years time it will be called the European Union. It will have its own flag and an anthem. It will have an unelected government. Its civil service will be legally immune from prosecution. There will be a European President. 80% of our laws will be made in Brussels. There will be common foreign and security policy, with a foreign minister, or high representative. This minister will have his own EU diplomatic service. There will be EU embassies around the world. There will be plans for a European army. European law will have primacy over our law. A European supreme court, sitting in Luxembourg will decide on disputes between us and Europe. Europe will decide who comes into our country with Europe wide migration laws. Brussels will decide almost everything, from what symbols go on our pint glasses to how loud we can have our iPods to what we can do with asylum seekers. Oh yes, and if you ever decide you don’t want this and you vote against it in a referendum, Europe will simply ignore your vote and do what it wants anyway. That is what the Common Market will be in 30 years time. Now make your choice.”
92. Removing Irish voting rights, which are a bizarre historical anomaly anyway, would also have the useful side effect of reducing the Labour vote.
SeanT. I broke the habit of a lifetime and read your blog. For your own sake I hope this treaty goes through and you stop writing about politics because when you write about something interesting-or perhaps which you’re interested in-you’re an interesting read. I particularly liked the story on Bastas and the linguistic differences in the US. I had an ad to shoot in Chicago for a ‘Bissel’ vacuum cleaner and my first line at the PPM almost got me the sack….”Cut to girl hoovering round a goldfish bowl…”!!
84. JMK. I don’t think I’ve seen your use this name before but obviously a follower of the site so I’ll try to do better!
92. “I’m sure federalists would prefer to change the Treaty of Rome to allow fellow EU citizens national voting rights.”
Only in your fevered imagination, francis. Euro-sceptics are always “sure” that “federalists” want this and that. Think for a moment. In a proper federation you never have multiple voting - think of the federation that is the United States - they too forbid voting twice for the representatives in the Senate or voting twice for the President. Not that a federation is on offer in the EU at all. The president of the Council will simply be the Chairman - it will mean that individual countries don’t have the massive hassle of chairing summits with all the time and expense involved. The decisions though will be taken by vote of the members of the Council, as usual.
93. seanT. There will be revolutions simple as that. Its check mate - we’ve lost, we’re beaten. Permanent EU socialism from 2009. I’ve given up now.
Johnson is drifting on B/f. But not to the extent that someone with info knows he may not win. Seems pretty secure market at the moment. Shame there’s not a bit more liquidity
96. I thought they already had checks in place to stop multiple voting in European elections - surely a national election will now be classed a local election. EU citizens living in the UK would prefer the right to vote in our General Elections than local and European - does this not tell us something?
JMK. Are you Scottish?
97. I agree, we lost. Game, set and match to the Federasts. I think Brown will oppose a referendum and I think he will - just - win the day. This will be at some serious expense to his election chances (I imagine UKIP and the Tories will sweep the board in the 2009 euro elections), but it may not be enough to lever Labour out of power in the next G/E.
Anyway, the main point is we’ve lost. I’m surprised thatI’m surprised. I think in my heart of hearts I never thought politicians could be as venal, mendacious and cynical as they have proven themselves to be in this latest eurobattle. They have simply- some of them quite openly - ignored the referendum results, circumvented them, and brought back the constituton willynilly. As Merkel said last night “we have preserved the substance of the Constitution” - but this time there wo’t be any silly votes.
They’re quite open about it. They didn’t like what the people said so the people can go jump.
There’s not much you can do when politicians are this devious and immoral. They have the power and we don’t.
It’s surreal that people can be this rotten and still consider themselves respectable human beings. But they have won. And there it is.
69 SeanT - not me guv.
That sounds like somebody did a serious articulation of the case. All I say is that the EU has been the major driver or economic prosperity over the last 20 years or more. I also see a lot of benefit in an EU wide strategy for Defence and Foreign policy.
Much of the nationality stuff coming from the EU refusniks passes me by. I have no appreciable say in any elected body except the local District Council. If Parliament loses it to Brussels or vice versa, the impact on me is negligable. On the other hand the impact on carreer politicians is enormous
Did I read you are in Bangkok SeanT - another environment bashing publisher freebee eh
Anyway SeanT as they never said in the film “The Commitments” - “I’m from Witney, I’m middlebrow, and I’m proud”
96: I’d have thought there were plenty of federalists who thought that EU citizens should be able to vote in the country they live in - instead of, not as well as, the country they’re a national of.
Bear in mind that some EU countries already disfranchise their nationals when they’ve lived in a different country for more than a certain length of time; 15 years in Britain’s case, IIRC. The anomalous thing is that the don’t do the opposite, and allow non-British citizens (EU or not) to vote once they’ve lived in Britain for the same amount of time.
I’d have thought most thinking democrats - all but the most frothing-at-the-mouth-nationalists - would agree that everyone should be able to vote somewhere; Personally I’d have thought that the place where we choose to live, work and pay taxes would make more sense than the place that by a historical accident we happened to be a national of, but maybe that’s just me…
98. And Harman is shortening.
101 seanT. I suggest you join the English Democrats - we are different to both the Tories and UKIP as we take a different approach, visit http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk
102. Sorry dude! Apologies if it wasn’t you. The argument about democracy is middlebrow, though.
And I don’t buy yr absurd thesis on the EU being the main driver of prosperity. Duh? This is the most otiose piffle. Thatcherism, globalisation, new cheap goods from places like China, etc etc - basically capitalism - has been the engine of global prosperity. As always.
The EU has helped in some ways - freeing up markets - and hindered in others - too much red tape. But capitalism and Thatcherite reforms have been way more important. Even a propellor-headed Europhile like Snowflake would admit that.
But I don’t wanna pick a fight! I weary of this. And yes I’m in Bangkok but it’s just a way station - in a few days I’m off to Yunnan, China, to drink “baby rat wine” and “three penis vodka”. No joke. Serious journalism at last.
105. Thanks mate, but no thanks. Likesay I shall be retiring from politics soon.
103. As a democratic nationalist I would welcome the right of non-UK EU citizens be given the right to vote in our national elections, at least they can integrate even if their politics differs.
107. YAWN…please change the record.
Posting again on the same obscure and tangential topic, just to annoy YAWN:
Francis, out of interest, why specify EU citizens? If you’re going to let foreigners vote when they’ve lived in your nation long enough (that would be England in your case?) - which I think you should - why not include everyone?
Just one more question for Francis, not trying to be difficult or anything, I promise:
Purely hypothetically, if there was somebody from another EU country who’d lived in and worked in London for the last couple of decades (although they may still have a house in their native country and do some work there, go back for weekends, etc) would they be allowed to be Prime Minister of England?
95 & 100 - I wonder who you’re accusing of posting under another name this time? Perhaps you should name names instead of trying to smear people?
109,110 some it probs won’t let me post
109. I have no problems with citizens from other countries having the right to vote as long as we can vote in their country. A French or German national would probably make a better Prime Minister for England than a dour Scot will.
97 & 101 - I must admit to feeling rather similar. I knew we’d be stitched up by the untruthful Euro-élite because it’s what they do. I knew Labour’s promise of a referendum would be a lie, because that is what they do. I knew the whole ghastly thing would rumble unstoppably onwards powered by the fantasties of little people in big offices.
I just thought I’d feel angry about it, and I don’t, I feel defeated. Well down, snowflake, Roger & chums, you’ve won - in a particularly and predictably horrible fashion, granted - but rather like the football team that wins a league title by diving for a penalty on the final day of the season, I doubt you care too much about the shabby way it’s been done.
As this is a betting site I’ll end my gloomy missive on a gambling note. Would anyone like to organise a sweepstake on when the EU’s accounts will next be signed off? I’m in my 20s, so I give myself a reasonable chance of still being alive to learn of the outcome.
110. Its the ‘Auld Enemy Politics’ from other parts of the British Isles I want to see the back of. The Germans have moved on, so too have the French and Italians so give them full voting rights in England.
114. Now that the Left have won the EU war, can you please grant us an English Parliament as the runner up prize? Us defeated Eurosceptics deserve something in return.
nick Palmer You must be reading a different edition of the Sun to me. mine says:
By the way have you talked to more of your fellow MPs yet and discovered their annoyance at Paddygate?
While you were opining on here that you had met none of them showing the slightest concern they were actually lining up to do just that to camera.
The Sun may hedge bets by Monday..by suggesting a referendum….nothing like a call to let the people decide.
What confuses me, on a pure human level, is why national leaders want to give up their control over own administrations. Seems strange in some ways. The point of getting into power is to use it, not give it up.
114. Quite so, quite so. We are governed by scumbags, we all know that by now, but their scumbagness still has the power to shock, sometimes.
The technique is so brazen: Let’s have some referendums, but if we don’t like the answers we’ll just ignore them and push through the same treaty because the people are idiots and will believe our lies. And that’s it. That’s the technique, and, what’s worse, it works.
At least Giscard had the honesty to admit this latest maneuver is ‘deceit’ - Blair is claiming it is some kind of triumph for democracy and transparency. Unbelievable. I hope he gets herpes.
I believe - no, I hope - that one day the lies, trickery, cynicism of Blair, Brown and the rest of this shabby crew will come back to bite them on the a$$. If there is a God, it will be so.
Either way, as the Roman said, they have made a desert and called it victory. And so the reputation of politics and politicians falls ever further…. A tragedy for us all.
118 The problem is they are international socialists and the EU is the perfect socialist superstate they want. Socialism comes first, everything else second.
The BBC reports:
“It’s much worse than the usual European stitch-up,” says writer on European affairs Kirsty Hughes, a firm believer in European integration.
“It’s essentially the same as the constitution, but many leaders are trying to sell it as something different, in order to avoid a vote. It’s a collective lie.”
Which one of those five pictured above is John Prescott’s? or David Blunkett’s ? - the one he was so busy lubricating when he might have been addressing the issue of the prison numbers from his era at the Home Ofice which ended up on poor John Reid’s doorstep?
Max. You misunderstand! My question about whether he was a Scot had nothing to do with an attempted identification but it was his use of the word Hemlock. There was a story in Scotland about a surgeon who nearly died from taking hemlock and which recieved a lot of publicity up their. He’s vaguely a relative so I was interested!
About the ‘new’ poster JMK; I’m hardly likely to be insulted by someone who is too shy to use their normal username for the purpose of insulting! They should take a leaf out of SeanT’s book and lose their inhibitions!!
121. That is an extraordinary quote. Kirsty Hughes is one of the most pro-integrationist voices in the EU debate. If even she thinks it is a putrid stitch-up, a con, then we can be assured it is.
In fact I think her words are worth repeating:
It’s much worse than the usual European stitch-up,” says writer on European affairs Kirsty Hughes, a firm believer in European integration.
“It’s essentially the same as the constitution, but many leaders are trying to sell it as something different, in order to avoid a vote. It’s a collective lie.”
A collective lie. A COLLECTIVE LIE. This isn’t some eurosceptic nutter like me, this is an ardent pro-European.
My disgust is so strong it wearies even me. I’m off for a Singha beer. In fact I think I might f***ing emigrate. Britain is sold out, our principles have been whored away, our freedoms derided - and for what?
Cheers, Tone.