How encouraging is this MORI poll for David Davis?
June 17th, 2008
Nearly three electors in five say they would vote for him
A new Ipsos-MORI telephone poll for the Independent this morning has what seem to be contradictory conclusions over David Davis’s move last week.
On the one hand the national survey found that respondents would give him strong support if they were able to vote in the forthcoming by-election. But on the issue of whether he was right or not there’s a different conclusion.
In the poll carried out from Friday to Sunday respondents were asked how they would vote if there if they lived in Davis’s Haltemprice and Howden constituency. A total of 35% said they would support Davis against 23% who said they would not. The balance was made of “wouldn’t votes” or “don’t knows”.
So of those expressing an opinion on voting Davis was ahead by 57% to 33%.
On a second question of whether he was right to resign his seat the split was 39% in favour to 48% against - but this includes the views of those who say they wouldn’t vote.
This is a strange poll in that the main question, what would you do if you could vote in Davis’s seat, is completely hypothetical. It is also, I think, the first political poll to be published by Ipsos-MORI since their methodology review was initiated after the London Mayoral election. I am looking forward to seeing the detailed data.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
People have mixed feelings. They don’t want the Party political system to unravel with individual MPs rushing off and resigning in droves. But they like an occasional one coming out and attacking the system now and again, to keep the insiders on their toes.
People are telling Davis that he’ll get away with his ‘effrontery’ on this occasion, but they’re flagging other potential imitators to be careful. Voters could tire of such antics very quickly if they became a habit. But right now Davis has done something interesting and useful. Democracy is in need of a boost, with Brown bottling all elections and referendums, and he’s giving it one.
Brown has created a unique situation. He doesn’t trust the British people. And they in turn don’t trust him. The situation is ripe for attack.
I was going to make a long post and then I realised that Tapestry had said what I thought.
Nobody is sure of whether Davis should have done this, but now its done, they are backing him.
What I find most significant is the very large percentage who say that they would not vote at all. They are not against him - they don’t feel that strongly, probably recognising the importance of the issue.
I suspect the continuing contamination of the Conservative brand has something to do with it.
David will need to play his campaign very carefully.
3 - “I suspect the continuing contamination of the Conservative brand has something to do with it.”
In your dreams, sunshine!
3 - If the Conservative brand was still contaminated then the general opinion polls would not show the Conservatives up to 20 points ahead. I suspect that the reason there are large don’t knows/won’t votes is that it is a complex area. Both arguments have emotional pull and to be honest the genuine case for either hasn’t really been put.
O/T - the economy. Is the independence of the Bank of England effectively resulting in the Govt following the failed monetarist policies of the early eighties.
Prior to independence the Govt effectively had the choice of two unpopular means to cope with inflation - tax and interest rates. They couldn’t duck the decision and (except when dogma said otherwise - as with early eighties Thatcherism) were able to raise the one most appropriate to the situation.
We now have a situation that Independence has creates a political imbalance between the two measures. Taxes have effectively been removed from the equation and the Bank in charge of inflation. With only one tool at their equation they have real problems.
And David Davis website is live!
http://www.daviddavisforfreedom.com/
3 - How do you know how many have said that they won’t vote? It probably isn’t any different to anything Mori have found in the past (subject to changes in their methodology).
6. Tax has been ‘removed from the equation’ because of Government shortcomings (”failing to fix the roof when the sun was shining”), not because of Bank independence.
re 3. The 33% non-voting is typical of the figures coming from pollsters doing national voting intention surveys. Remember that at the last general election the proportion of non-voters was nearly 40%.
33% not voting isn’t particularly high matched against the 30% or so who didn’t in last two general elections but previously Mori had a 1 to 10 likelihood to vote rating - what are they using here to rate “will vote”/”wont vote”? Are the 67% who say they will vote the equivalent of the certain to vote category used previously or is there a more sophisticated filter?
11 meant to say against the 40% or so who didn’t vote in last two elections.
3/10. If David Davis gets a 67% turnout, I’m sure he’d be absolutely delighted. I would think the actual figure will be a little over half that.
There is probably an element of the ‘public vote distortion’ in these figures - people want to be seen to be saying the right thing. That may or may not affect the headline split - there is a genuine case to be made on both sides, although only one side is being made - but respondents are likely to feel a pressure to say that they would actually vote.
On a slightly different note, I have to take slight issue with Mike’s headline. Three voters in five haven’t said they’d vote for him: a touch over one in three have. It’s true that the poll says that three in five of those expressing an opinion agree with Davis (though even there, Mike’s figures are out - they should be 59/41), but the don’t knows may also vote, so even if ‘voters’ are defined as those who do vote, rather than those who can, that would reduce his support among voters to 48%, with 33% against and 19% don’t knows.
I suspect the figures suggest that the block supporting 42 days is broad but shallow. Those against hold theirs views much more strongly.
The Tory brand is still contaminated; but for far fewer people. 47% in the opinion polls suggests that the vast majority of people can now vote for them (this figure is no glass ceiling and we can expect Cameron to go higher).
DD’s website is rubbish; I know they’ve only had a few days, but honestly!!! Still, I have sent my cheque to support the campaign but did almost object to writing it out to a Con Assoc Fighting Fund. They ought to change that ASAP.
Naturally all political ‘brands’ carry a degree of contamination with a portion of the population but can we seriously say that the Tory brand is more contaminated than Labour? I doubt it.
15 agree with you on the website - they should get the backBoris team on the case!
Can’t see much wrong with the poll’s findings. What it appears to say is that a majority agree with DD about the ‘liberty’ question but a majority also feel it was the wrong way to go about it.
A harmless poll with common sense findings.
It was 33% “won’t vote or don’t know” not 33% “won’t vote”
A source in the Obama campaign tells me that they’re making a real stab for Georgia, with plans to invest a lot of money and talent there for a state that doesn’t look too competitive. This suggests to me (although the source didn’t say this) that Nunn could be a serious frontrunner in the VP picks.
I have a feeling that, perforce, David Davis’s campaign is gonna turn into a referendum on Europe. Partly coz it is gonna dominate the news up to his by-election, whatever; but also because it fits, all too neatly, with the Davis the Folk Hero theme: of authoritarian elites versus the little guy.
Things are now so bad, Europewise, even the previously sensible europhiles, such as they are, seem to be losing it.
Here is the normally bearable Steve Richards in today’s Indy:
“It is now the view of pragmatically pro-European cabinet ministers in Britain, and senior Liberal Democrats, that a referendum on Europe can never be won in any country at any point in the future. I agree with them. If Ireland turns away in spite of all the obvious benefits it has enjoyed from membership of Europe, no other country will vote “yes” on any Europe-related issue…
Ireland should be removed from the EU if it continues to insist on subjecting each treaty to a referendum campaign. It makes democratic politics unworkable in Europe.”
So there you have it. Again. There will be no more referendums because they are unwinnable; but that doesn’t mean European integration will stop - just that we, the people, won’t ever be consulted on it. Ever again.
And any country that dares to get in the way will be kicked out.
I love Steve’s comment, that the pure expression of democracy in referendums makes “democratic politics unworkable”.
I think he sees the definition of democratic in the same sense as “The German Democratic Republic”.
Here’s a link for the Steve Richards piece, just to prove he really did say that shameful, unbelievable crap.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-dont-be-fooled-ndash-these-heroic-campaigns-only-make-our-democracy-even-more-fragile-848514.html
21 - I am beginning to wonder if certain Europhile cheerleaders have been forcibly lobotomized, or do they seriously believe the crap they peddle.
21. Great quote. Referendums make ‘democracy’ unworkable. Again, a pure expression of the true beliefs of the euro elite and their various hangers-on.
The purpose of the EU is to emasculate national electorates and replace democratic self-government with a bureaucratic despotism. And now EU lickspittles are openly admitting this.
SeanT Steve Richards piece is one of the most anti-democratic articles I have ever read.
Shame on him.
See that Jack straw decided on an anti-Tory thrust in his proposals on campaign funding. Key is limit of £12,000 from October through to GE per candidate with fig leaf of “limiting” unions donations to individual MPs or candidates - at £12,000 (could be missing something but if there’s a limit of £12,000 isn’t that a result anyway?).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/17/partyfunding
Its got no relation at all to Hayden proposals purely an attempt to stop the Conservatives marginal seats campaign. Expect the new Conservative Government in 2010 will almost certainly change rules on union donations now.
23. You’ve been able to hear opinions like this - and worse - for a long time, in private. They are genuinely held, repellent as they are. The amazing thing is that they are now being openly touted.
Truly jaw-dropping stuff from Steve Richards. To think it is one thing, but to put it on the page…
The Eurocrats must really be hurting.
Heh!
23. Thing is, we eurosceptics have been saying this for years - that the EU is basically and essentially undemocratic, that it is a conspiracy against the popular will, however benign it seems, and that its cheerleaders are fanatical Federalists - who only act nice when they get their way.
For years we sceptics have been dismissed as hysterical, as obsessives, as paranoid. Sometimes I even wondered myself if I was imagining it all - that the EU wasn’t that bad.
Now we eurosceptics have been proved totally right. If anything the situation is worse than we imagined. The europhiles are more ruthless and arrogant than anyone suspected. Their naked desire to crush dissent is extraordinary.
This vindication doesn’t give me any pleasure. Because these horrible people are still trying to destroy national democracy - and they might still win.
Well done Ted - good call on the semantics. I see from DD’s site that he’s using ‘British liberty’ and, though I’ve not searched it thoroughly, it looks like he’s avoiding the term, ‘civil liberties’.
“On 12 June, I resigned from Parliament to take a stand against the sustained assault on British liberty.”
28 - What puzzles me is what the hell they hope to acheive? Admitting that they are a bunch of undemocratic scoundrels is hardly going to make those of a sceptic hue jump ship and go ‘jolly good thing this Europe lark’. I am seething at this arrogance but I suppose the silver lining is at least some of them are beginning to be somewhat honest about the travesty that is the EU.
Conservative peers try to stall Lisbon treaty Bill as Ireland seeks more time
“A last-ditch attempt to stop British ratification of the Lisbon treaty was being planned in the Lords last night as EU foreign ministers vowed not to let Ireland’s “no” referendum kill it.
The Conservatives will table an unusual motion today urging that the third reading of the European Reform Treaty Bill, due tomorrow afternoon, be delayed, probably until the autumn.
They are seeking the support of Liberal Democrat, crossbench and even rebel Labour peers to back the measure, arguing that they would not be stopping ratification altogether but delaying it while Ireland and Europe decide what to do next.
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, flew back from the foreign ministers’ meeting yesterday to tell the Commons that the Government believed ratification should continue as planned.
The Lords motion is likely to be tabled today by Lord Howell of Guildford, the former Cabinet minister and chief foreign affairs spokesman. It is being put forward as a way of peers stopping short of killing the Bill by voting against the third reading, but responding to the Irish decision.
Ireland pleaded for time yesterday to work out if it could save the treaty. Ministers from the eight member nations yet to pass the treaty were urged by their colleagues to continue their ratification processes, which will pile pressure on Dublin to try a second referendum next year”
Richards’ Brechtian view appears to be devoid of irony, “Ireland should be removed from the EU if it continues to insist on subjecting each treaty to a referendum campaign. It makes democratic politics unworkable in Europe.”
Where are the checks and balances on the EU’s directives? Where is the scrutiny?
Where is the democracy in the way the EU formulate laws, and policy? There is something ironic, if not chilling about the way that an ‘unelected’ British Prime Minister appears to want to transfer more powers and responsibilities to a body which appears to have a rather weak commitment to democratic scrutiny or oversight. The response of EU leaders so far does little to suggest that they are serious about winning over sceptics, if anything their stance is unsettling, contemptuous and a receipe for profound damage for the whole EU project. One can only wonder if the likes of Richards, Mardell, Brown and Milliband have actually read or understood the Treaty of Lisbon.
28. This horrible euro-arrogance also weaves in, quite noticeably, with some of the anti-democratic bile poured out by the left following BoJo’s victory.
Remember how the Islingtonians reacted to that. The outrage, the affronted hauteur - the sense that the people had “got it wrong”, the quote that “democracy is a sham” - just because Londoners had dared to disobey their liberal-left rulers - and elect a Tory. Horrible horrible stuff.
The mask has slipped from the Left in recent weeks. I wonder if they really believe in democracy at all. They are certainly the nasty party now.
Gordon Brown’s futuristic eco-towns to fine residents for driving out of city limits
“Motorists living in Gordon Brown’s futuristic green communities face fines for driving their cars out of town, under radical proposals being drawn up by ministers, The Times has learnt.
Residents of the largely pedestrianised eco-towns may also be expected to park their cars at the outskirts and walk or cycle to their homes, up to ten minutes away.
These are among possible ways being discussed with ministers to meet a government target to cut car use in eco-towns by half. Detailed planning proposals will be published next month, a senior Whitehall official said.
The proposals could include a fee for a permanent car space at the edge of town, charges for driving out at peak congestion times, or penalties for taking a car out of town above a set number of agreed journeys.”
All I get from clicking on DD’s website is an advert for the server.
Getting ready for the Eurosceptic onrush, I have a lot of sympathy for the Steve Richards position although would agree that he overdoes it a bit in suggesting that the Irish are “removed”!
First, it is not inconsistent to say that referenda make democracy unworkable (or at least very difficult). That is the experience in California and can be seen in opinion polls when people say that they want more money for health, education and other goodies….and tax cuts. Political parties aren’t ideal but it forces people competing for power to put together a comprehensive set of proposals which at least has to be reasonably consistent. Referenda allow (and indeed encourage) people to vote without any careful reflection about the consequences.
Secondly, there is a serious point about Europe that it would be impossible (and probably always would have been) to get a treaty passed in every single country in a referendum. It would be like having to get a law passed in every single county of the UK only worse. Inevitably, any treaty is a compromise which will leave some people unhappy - for example, if it repatriated most powers back to nation states, some other countries would inevitably vote against it. If we are to have referenda on treaties as opposed to questions such as “join the Euro or not”, it really has to be on the basis of “Do you agree with the treaty or do you want to leave the European Union?”.
Finally, I may be alone in thinking that this is more problematic for the Tories than Labour. Unless everyone just gets fed up, in all likelihood, there will be another treaty to again rehash some of the same administration issues. By the time that this is finally negotiated, the Tories may well be in power and will have people jumping up and down demanding a referendum. Of course, they won’t want to give it because once in power, they will know full well that losing it would be a bit of disaster.
34 “some of the anti-democratic bile poured out by the left following BoJo’s victory.”
I wonder how Arabella Weir’s hunger strike is going? Look on the bright side, dear - no more “does my bum look big in this?” jibes.
(Although, come to think of it, I beleive she also threatened to throw herself under a horse at Ascot. Ladies Day would be very apropriate, Arabella….)
35 - Oh dear god, and they are not anti-car? How in the blazes would it work anyway? so you have to walk 45 minutes to your car to drive to the train station to commute to work? What about family life?
38 Apologies for the typos - post in haste, repent at leisure.
A preview facility would be a real advance, guys….
20 re Nunn for VP.
Nunn’s 69 years old. Wouldn’t that slightly take away from the contrast between the old and the new?
It really is incredible. Do these guys live so up their own back sides that they do not realise what thay are writing:
“Ireland should be removed from the EU if it continues to insist on subjecting each treaty to a referendum campaign. It makes democratic politics unworkable in Europe.”
That really has to take the biscuit!
37 - Amendments to the American Constitution have to be passed by every state, a system which has worked for over 200 years and there seems to be no demand to change it. And if laws had to be passed by every county in Britain, wouldn’t that be an incentive to law-makers to ensure what they did had public support?
Obviously, M in Tokyo is one of those people to whom everything (even a 40% poll lead) is a problem to the Tories. Isn’t it more likely that under a future Conservative administration the probable result of a Euro-referendum is more likely to be in tune with the party’s own views?
37. Reads like a spoof, but…
39 Sounds like these eco-towns are going to be for the massive numbers of unemployed they secretly expect - those who only need to travel by bicycle once a month to sign on…
Making laws behind closed doors as practised by autocrats and politiburos….
42 - Ireland’s Constitution demands a referendum on EU treaties. To change the Constitution also requires a referendum… er, I think I see the problem here…
37 - Setting up false dichotomy’s might work for you the EU and a plentitude of other scoundrels on the make. The idea that the choice is Lisbon or out is ridiculous. And frankly we were told before the Constitution was booted out that the EU would fall apart without the changes, if only, but it seems to be working ok. The cogs aren’t zinging all around the place.
Come on guys! Referendums suck! Representative democracy is our most cherished civic acheivement - let’s not fritter it away by allowing these things to take over, just because our current representatives happen to be a bunch of wimps!
Just a little reminder why people should NOT vote for David Davis on any account on any occasion. he was in it up to his neck along with Blair, Brown and Cameron:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/42443,opinion,iraq-is-the-shameful-secret-in-our-cellar
36
Works fine for me
43-I think it’s 2/3 of states within a certain timeframe.
I agree with the great Keith Waterhouse (yesterday’s Mail) that Parkinson’s law will be operating, and probably already is on the time limit for holding suspects.
You’ll remember that Professor Parkinson decreed that work expands to fit the time available to do it. He was referring to the practises of the Civil Service, but our police are perfect for the role. If they have 28 days, they will shove the files aside for a couple of weeks and maybe galvanise themselves as they approach the deadline.
Six weeks! Time for a holiday and to see to one or two other deadlines.
19 - No, read it again. It is 33% won’t vote and 9% don’t know.
Do you normally get that high a figure for “won’t vote”? Mike correctly points out at 10 that non-voting is around 40% so 33% is not at all surprising. But I thought people were quite dishonest about that question usually (or at least a lot of people who fully intend to vote suddenly find some very important hair to wash on the day)? 33% seems quite a high stated abstention rate.
37. Good post, except for a couple of minor points:
1. The countries of the EU are not like counties of the UK. Yet.
2. You say the only choices when it comes to referendums are: Yes or Quit. That’s your position, yes? Interesting new slogan for the next referendum in Ireland.
3. Indeed Ireland will have to leave anyway, by yours and Steve Richard’s reckoning. Coz their constitution demands referendums, which are now no longer to be allowed. So the Irish must go.
4. The Tories will stick by their promise to offer referendums if there are Treaty changes. Not everyone is as putridly cynical as you or the Labour party.
5. The Tories won’t give away powers so a referendum won’t be required. They will try and take powers back. And if they have a referendum on that they will win.
6. No, this Europe thing is worse for Labour than the Tories, because Labour are being revealed as hateful and arrogant liars and the Tories are coming across as decent democratic patriots.
As I say, apart from that, good post.
49. In 1830 certain people were saying the same thing about the ‘perfect’ constitution that existed then, complete as it was with rotten boroughs with a handful of voters, a bizarre geographical distribution of seats, and widespread bribery and intimidation at election time.
Over time, elites subvert governmental systems for their own ends, and the same has been happening with so-called ‘representative democracy’ which increasingly means a system that ‘represents’ the interests and values of a narrow self-selecting political class, not those of the wider public.
Referenda are an essential check on this process.
49
Except that representative democracy has been so corrupted by the present incumbents that it is effectively now worthless.
You cannot emasculate our system of government in the way Labour has done over the last 10 years and then start whining when people say it no longer works.
Until such times as we return to the system as it was devised with its proper checks and balances, Labour haas no right to moan if people turn to other methods to achieve their ends.
Darling’s got to get the lavender notepaper out. Inflation has risen to 4.3% (CPI 3.3%)
Davis still not resigned I see. I wonder whether he will have by the time I’m back from Poland. Hope those who are going have a wonderful time at the pb.com barbecue this week.
55 Oops, you used the “patriot” word. You’ll wake Emily Scharnhorst-Tirpitz from her slumbers…
49 - I agree in part and have some sympathy with the Burkean view or representation. However our representatives have a duty to represent our views tempered by their judgement. Increasingly our representatives seem to wilfully vote against the view of those who sent them as a representative, that cannot possibly be right. Sometimes as last week our representatives judgment seems to be for sale.
Reading that Steve Richards article, its beyond parody.
“But what passes for heroic democratic engagement is often the opposite. If they have any choice in the matter, a referendum is a device proposed by leaders only when they are certain they can win. Conversely, it is used by voters to cast their verdict on a variety of subjects often unrelated to the single issue they are supposed to be voting on. Referendum campaigns are fuelled by hysteria whipped up in order to create an atmosphere of fear.”
Straight out of the Gordon Brown school of democracy!
Offer the public a referendum on the Constitution for political expediency, tinker round the edges and call it a Treaty to then renege on that promise. But what ever you do, don’t ask the public their opinion because they might not agree with you and that is bad for democracy, even worse they will vote for reasons completely different from those proposed by the government. I particular like the bit about them fuelling whipped up hysteria and creating fear.
Is that how we are describing debate and the airing of opposing views these days?
As Frank Fisher said in that Guardian article yesterday.
“This Westminster media bubble stifles debate, it excludes innovation, it entrenches established power and feeds partisan reporting. It is as guilty as the painfully orthodox and power-hungry politicians of corrupting and devaluing our democratic process. In failing to transmit and understand the concerns of ordinary people, it weakens any claim to sovereignty Westminster might have, and thereby strengthens any claims outside it. Simply put, it’s dull, dumb, and it’s pissing people off.”
30 Perhaps of interest that there’s no use of the term ‘civil liberty’ or ‘civil liberties’ at all on DD’s site. So a bit of ‘civil liberties’ rebranding going on there.
O/T
UK rate of inflation reported to be 3.3%.
If you believe that you’ll believe anything.
NuLabour set for new record opinion poll lows after economic shambles
Good Morning Campers.
……………………….
New Washington Post/ABC News Poll
McCain 45% .. Obama 49%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602690.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008061700079
43 Amendments to the US constitution are ratified by state legislatures but not by referenda.
56 EWR, great opportunity for debate there, but on one thing I am intransigent: “referendum” is a gerundive, and cannot have “referenda” as a plural. Referendums, please!
archroy@43: “Amendments to the American Constitution have to be passed by every state, a system which has worked for over 200 years and there seems to be no demand to change it.”
That’s not what Wikipedia says. Is it wrong?
“The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.[13]
Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
(PS. In case anyone gets confused, I should mention that I’m a different person to “M in Tokyo”, although I’m in the same place and had been planning to make the same point s/he just posted. Must be something in the water…)
How can NuLabour carry on with these damning statistics.
“Bottler” Brown’s days are well and truly numbered after theis shocker
National Statistics site has finally been updated:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=19
May: CPI up to 3.3%, RPI rises to 4.3%
63 “UK rate of inflation reported to be 3.3%.
If you believe that you’ll believe anything.”
The reason that inflation feels so much higher is that housing/food/fuel/travel costs
- the essentials of modern living - are all rising so much faster than the other components of the index that people have no money left to buy. So, yes, maybe clothes and white goods and electicals and bicycle repair kits are coming down in price - so what? Folks have already cut them out of their expenditure. That is why inflation is hurting more than the Government thinks it should. And if 80% of what you have to spend your money on is going up at 10% - 12%, of course people think the inflation number is being fiddled.
Over at CiF
Getting from ‘no’ to ‘yes’
“Europe must now work with Ireland to resolve its objections to the Lisbon Treaty”
“Ireland has said “no”, but there are 26 other EU member states in Europe whose opinion matters too. It is inconceivable that all of the others will simply say “too bad - one country has said ‘No’ to the package as it stands, so let’s forget reform and stick with the current system for ever more”.
All member states want reform. Even the ‘No’ campaigners in Ireland claimed they want to negotiate a better package. So, what is to be done? First, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it doesn’t like about the Lisbon Treaty. Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects.”
67. Another person posting from Tokyo? Or is it the same one?
Seriously though these references to the US are very telling. What the europhiles are saying to us is that the EU should be a United States of Europe, not a grouping of nation states.
So once again, they are now admitting what they have previously denied or obfuscated about. At last we are getting an open debate - let’s take it to the people and see who comes out on top, shall we?
63
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7458209.stm
Can anyone explain how the real inflation rate RPI has only gone up .1%
Does anyone beleve these stats?
72 MM just seen ur post at 69. How right you are!
The gangrenous stench of Steve Richards-style europhilia has even reached the equable climes of Thailand. This piece, by the ex Danish Foreign Minister, appeared in “The Nation” here in Bangkok, this morning.
http://tinyurl.com/6moz42
The sub-headline rather gives the game away. “Ireland should do the rest of Europe a favour and withdraw from the European Union.”
But my favourite passage appears a coupla paragraphs down:
“It is a pity the Irish - and their partners - did not learn the lesson from Ireland’s rejection of the Treaty of Nice seven years ago. Then as now, only a minority of voters bothered to vote, and a mere 54 per cent of those who did participate, then as now, voted no. A year later, a new referendum approved the Treaty, after it became clear that Ireland’s EU membership was at stake…
The unfortunate Irish tradition for referenda should have been addressed after that experience.”
Lovely. Leaving aside the barefaced lie - actually a majority of the Irish electorate turned out to vote last week - you have to admire the boldness of the final sentence.
The “unfortunate Irish tradition for referenda should have been addressed after that experience”.
Naughty, naughty Ireland, for having a constitution that enforces popular democracy! Don’t you know this is no longer allowed?
Bad, bad Ireland. This “unfortunate” tradition of yours must be “addressed”.
The “New York Times” reports from swing state Michigan on Al Gore endoring Obama before a 20,000 rally in Detroit :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17campaign.html
66. Now wonder you don’t like referenda if you don’t know it it is the more formal plural of referendum.
definition
referendum (plural referendums or FORMAL referenda) Show phonetics
noun [C] (FORMAL plebiscite)
a vote in which all the people in a country or an area are asked to give their opinion about or decide an important political or social question:
Is it more democratic to hold a referendum, rather than let the government alone decide?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=66353&dict=CALD
69.
A good post but the next move in interest rates will be up and then NuLabour will get a deserved pasting at by elections and in the opinion polls.
I dream of the day when NuLabour trail in third in a reputable opinion poll
74. Still thank goodness there is no question of Ireland being ‘bullied’ as our doughty Foreign Secretary and his courageous boss assure us.
72 RPI has rentals and house prices in it I think so the gap between the two will narrow in the current climate.
In fairness, US legislators (in Washington, let alone state legislatures) are pretty responsive to the views of their district without the need for referenda.
Local and direct democracy work very well in the US.
I can’t help but agree with SeanT at 29 - I am naturally a europhile, and wonder if in twenty generations’ time the citizens of the great European Republic will see us as porachial sorts, much as we might see certain Americans from prior to their constitution, or ratification of the XVIIth Amendment. Had there been a sudden referendum a year or so ago, I would probably have voted in favour.
I always thought that the eurosceptic lobby was too shrill, too deranged, too paranoid to be taken seriously. Not content with “not in our best interests” it was a pan-continental conspiracy by Eurocrats and the Communists to destroy Britain. They were cunning and subversive, and would act in a manner that could not be more dastardly or anti-democratic if they tried.
This madness turned out either to be accidentally accurate, or astonishingly prescient of how the Europhile campaign would act. In being duplicitous, arrogant, anti-democratic, elitist (in the bad way), and sly it has done more harm to the project than if it had dared to lose. I can no longer support European integration, and would like to see a stop on all future measures until the character of the EU is changed.
I rejoiced when I heard the Irish had rejected the Lisbon Treaty, and hope that any future attempt to pass major constitutional reform is scotched until the unelected mandarins of Brussels are forced to remember for whom they work.
77 - A general election?
OT
I think this is the sort of thing David Davis will be high;ighting….
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23495667-details/The+spy+in+your+mobile%3A+Shops+track+customers+by+tapping+into+phones/article.do
76 Sory, Fitaloon, but I disagree with your on-line dictionary. It is a simple rule of Grammar - a gerundive does not have a plural. In anglicised form, where the word has become a noun, the correct word is Referendums. Referenda sounds more “formal” (whatever that means) but it just happens to be wrong.
47 - “Ireland’s Constitution demands a referendum on EU treaties. To change the Constitution also requires a referendum… er, I think I see the problem here…”
Yet again … no, there was no constitutional requirement to put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum in Ireland. It’s simply a political convention to do so at this stage.
74 - “Then as now, only a minority of voters bothered to vote”
Turnout was 53% in the end (much higher than initial reports suggested).
I do agree with him that a referendum on Lisbon was a bad idea though. The campaign was woeful.
But this is a betting website - a re-run is still available at 5/2 with Paddy Power.
67 Yes - US constitutional changes do not involve a referendum at any stage in the process. I do not believe that the US has ever held a national referendum, although of course they are sometimes used at state level.
It’s interesting, and perhaps has a bearing on the Europe debate, to speculate on how history would have developed had the American colonies become 13 independent countries in 1783 and not a federation. Today they would probably be arguing about consitutional treaties for the American Union. Meanwhile the United States of Europe would be the world’s dominant superpower…….
Edmund
I think it is just being a long way away brings some sense of perspective which can be lacking.
A couple of points:
1. Would love to have a bet with seant that the Tories will not put any successor treaty to a referendum but too many issues to make it a simple bet. Can we just remember it and agree that we can all berate seant repeatedly if I am subsequently proved right…. Nonetheless, I recognise that seeing the Irish defeat as a problem for the Tories is a minority view.
2. In relation to 43, notwithstanding that the facts were wrong, I
do see the mechanism for changing the US consitution as sub-optimal. Most people seem to think it is pretty much impossible to get an amendment to the constitution through which is less than ideal. (It should be somewhat difficult to change constitutions but not almost impossible).
72.Just topped up my oil tank. Half a tank cost me 10 quid short of what it cost me to fill the whole tank a year ago.
So I am struggling to understand how that figure was reached when you consider the price of oil effects so many aspects of the cost of living.
80. Morus - it was no accident, and if its seemed ’shrill’ that was because those of us exposed to the true nature of the EU’s movers and shakers were so profoundly alarmed by what we experienced.
These views have been around a very long time, it is just that only now are they being so openly expressed. The EU is not a noble, idealistic cause any more - if indeed it ever really was. It is a naked power grab by the political class.
The post at 85. referring to some bizarre counterfactual history in which a United States of Europe would be the world’s ‘dominant superpower’, jocular as it might seem, again reflects the true motivations of the EU elite.
Although Steve Richards makes valid points about the anti-politics mood, I don’t agree with his conclusion. Lots of countries, not just Ireland, have a well-established principle that fundamental constitional change needs a referendum - in Britain the argument has been over whether the current treaty does anything fundamental, a point on which we won’t agree. But if it did - e.g. proposed that we should join the Euro - then I think we would need a referendum, and at least eight other countries have similar rules or practices.
Note that this isn’t necessarily a good thing from the sceptic viewpoint, since it also means that their cherished project of renegotiating how Europe works and/or what membership commits us to has no chance of success, since by the same logic it would need all 26 other countries to approve such a fundamental change, and there’s always going to be at least one that says, “Nah, don’t want that”. Essentially the system means we’ve got what we’ve got now for the forseeable future, bar minor changes: both philes and phobes are going to have to learn to live with it.
The specific issue in Ireland is that their constitution requires that even the most minor change - e.g. altering the size of the Commission - needs a referendum. However, I think Steve is too pessimistic on Ireland. A number of specific Irish concerns were raised during the campaign (e.g. whether not having a permanent Irish Commissioner in the slimmed-down Commission would affect their influence). A joint statement by EU leaders that responds to those concerns, followed by a referendum asking whether, in view of that statement, Ireland agreed, would almost certainly shift the slim 53-47 majority. If it doesn’t, then the treaty really is dead, but given the Ireland-specific objections it’s worth trying to address them and see whether that changes their view or not.
87. It’s ridiculous, we shove huge amounts of tax on it in this country where as commies in China and other countries subsidise oil! We are then encouraged to cut our consumption! Fairs fair - cut the petrol subsidies over there or we cut the tax here! People say that the developed world has the whip hand on this but it does not feel like that to me!
85 Slavery would have been abolished in 1925 (the year after the end of the First World War)? Some French politicians would still be campaigning for the return of Alsace Lorraine and of Lille? Seattle would be part of Canada?
The Conservatives must make it clear that if there is any attempt to force Ireland out of the EU, a Tory government would pull us out of the project in a show of support. You cannot have an arrogant elite bullying a smaller member just because the people have made their views clear!
The only redeaming feature of the EU, is that in theory it stops European countries going to war with one another as we have for centuries. However, if you follow the Steve Richards approach and basically press with intergration without the inconveniance of consulting the electorate, I think you actually make the chance of some sort of war or uprising amongst the populace more likely, not less. People won’t stand for being constantly ignored by the arrogant elite and sooner or later, if it carries on, something will happen (recession, unemployment etc…) to cause the populace in various parts of Europe to explode.
In truth we’d be better off out of this nonsense.
84 - Re those odds on a re-run (from the Irish Times - Mr Martin is the Foreign Minister):
Mr Martin told journalists no one had pointed the finger of blame at Ireland and there was a spirit of solidarity at the EU meeting, which was held behind closed doors in Luxembourg.
He did not rule out holding a second referendum on a redrafted version of the treaty but said it was far too early to decide how to proceed.
“We have not considered any options . . . We don’t want to be left behind, we have always been strong supporters of deepening the impact of the EU on our lives,” said Mr Martin, who insisted that his EU counterparts understood the need to give the Government time and space to analyse the results.
Mr Martin held a bilateral meeting with German foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, who over the weekend had suggested that Ireland could take a break from the union.
Mr Steinmeier said yesterday he hoped for a solution this year and suggested a re-vote might be possible after adaptations to the treaty to address Irish concerns. “There are thoughts about whether the Danish model of 1992 might be a model,” he said, referring to opt-outs granted to Denmark that enabled the Danes to endorse the Maastricht Treaty after an initial referendum thumbs-down.
One potential adaptation being considered by EU officials would provide Ireland with the right to appoint a permanent commissioner.
86 - I think that in a rigid fixed documented constitution then the fact that you have a constitutional or supreme court that interprets and contextualises means that the actual changing of the constitution can be made difficult. It is certainly preferable to the UK example where constitutional principles can have a for sale sign put up in front of them as we saw last week.
89 - “The specific issue in Ireland is that their constitution requires that even the most minor change - e.g. altering the size of the Commission - needs a referendum.”
No it doesnt!!!!!!
89. I think that a lot of the anti-politician mood is due to the longevity of the government. Assuming Labour get booted out at the next election (But you stay as MP in Broxtowe
due to your *secret weapon* ), the political system will get a philip and the anti-politician mood may abate for a while as it did when Tony Blair swept to power.
89, is it Labour party policy that a Yes vote is binding forever and ever amen but a No vote is an obstacle to be overcome?
The people have spoken. Time for a rethink, not to ride roughshod over their wishes, which would be illegal in any case.
The comparison between British and American politics is too depressing to contemplate. Their system has many flaws, but it is, at heart, truly democratic - a black man with a Muslim middle name now nears supreme power - what better sign could you have of a healthy, functioning, expressive democracy?
Meanwhile we, the mother country of western democracy, are trying to hand over power to an UNelected bureaucracy based in a foreign capital, a bureaucracy which, moreover, openly expresses its contempt for the popular will - and seeks to bully and eject member states who dare to exercise it.
And they are aided and abetted by our own government, which solemnly promised a referendum on this transfer of power, and then blatantly reneged on that promise.
Our liberty-loving forefathers would be truly ashamed of us.
85 - I don’t think 13 countries with broadly the same political systems, all based on the English system, all sharing the same social and economic backgrounds, and all (in the political sphere, anyway) speaking the same language are in anyway comparable with the situation in Europe, then or now!
re 72 It’s the % that an index has increased over the last year; not the current rate of increase extrapolated to a year. See
http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/statistics/rpitable.htm
Methodological details on ONS site.
average overall increase of 4.3% is very believable to me. Energy and food obviously up by more but other bills by about that. And some things less or even falling - e.g. clothes, white goods, communications. And housing costs probably up less, too.
Bear in mind the rates for households does vary a lot around this 4.3 (or 3.3) average.
83 - I think Fitaloon is using ‘the New Latin’, Augustus - after all, the Church has the ‘Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide’ - surely we accept that it is ‘propaganda’ not ‘propagandums’ (from the gerundive form of ‘propagare’)?
I just think referendums is a very ugly word, and that referenda is much more pleasing to the ear…!
That said, I would not argue Latin with an educated man who bears the name of Rome’s greatest Emperor!
88 - And you were right, EWR, so I apologise for not realising as much sooner. I am still a Europhile at heart, but every vestage of the current European Union needs to be turned upside down, and a more flexible model introduced, otherwise I think serious discussion of leaving will become inevitable.
OK, On Topic, the results of MORI are exactly what I was expecting. People are genuinely divided and unsure on 42 days and David Davis has a chance of winning people over to his cause during his campaign, but what people like is the fact that Davis has taken a stand. They may not agree with him on 42 days, but they rather like the fact that after all these sleazy and slef-serving MP’s, here in a top politician actually putting his principles before his carrer.
Why do the public like it? I think the public are in the mood for insurection. people are fed up with bullying, hectoring and all round dictating that the arrogant elite of mainstream politicians have forced on them these last few years. We are herded around like cattle. We pay shocking rates of tax. We are bullied and spied upon. Our views and opinions of routinely ignored. Everything is difficult and the governing class sem to view us with contempt and despise us. Even have the hitherto problem free service of rubbish collection has been reduced to a fiasco, with fortnightly collections leaving rotting food in stinking, maggot infested dustbins for two weeks. The government has pushed and pushed and pushed and people have reached their limit. By making his stand, David Davis is tapping into this mood of rebellion. People have had enough and ultimately this will transfer itself into probable wipe out for Labour. That is when the boil will be lanced and the loathing for the political class will reach its peak, but in the meantime, people like David Davis and maybe fuel strikers, will earn the respect and support of more and more people.
83. “A number of English words come directly from Latin gerundives; for example, addendum comes from the gerundive of addere, to add; referendum comes from the gerundive of referre, to bring back;”
Note the words “come directly” whilst the Latin referre is gerundive, the English referendun is not gerundive as English does not have gerundives.
Every dictionary I have consulted gives the plural as referenda or referendums
Q.E.D. (now that is gerundive!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive
93. No Taioseach is gonna want to rerun the referendum unless he absolutely has to. There is a serious risk the Irish will be outraged and say Feck Off - No means No.
Who can say? And if that happens the government falls, I’d have thought.
So the Irish will hold out as long as possible. And it therefore all depends on whether everyone else ratifies - there are 8 countries still to complete. I’d say the Swedes are only mildly doubtful, Poland likely to ratify, Britain almost certainly (for shame).
But the Czechs are a very different matter. Their constitutional court might even rule the Treaty inadmissable (it decides in September, and ratification is on old until then). If the Czechs say No, then Ireland is off the hook, there will be no revote, and Lisbon falls.
Whatever happens, the appalling behaviour of the EU elite in the past week has done incalculable damage to the image of the EU (which was so poor in the first place). The europhiles have turned the electoral setback of the Irish No into a very severe moral defeat for their cause.
Steve Richards article wasn’t the only one to take this type of line - Will Hutton in the Observer had this to say:
…But referendums work best for the demagogue, the dissimulator and scaremonger, as Hitler and Mussolini, lovers of referendums, proved.
He also wrote:
Crucially, the treaty contains a clause that states that do not agree to its provisions are required to leave the European Union. The existing treaty can certainly be made more obviously Ireland-friendly within its existing provisions, but beyond that, the EU will have to get tough and invoke the clause.
which I found strange since the Treaty doesn’t pass into force until ratified by all states.
Kas [79] I think RPI has cost of mortgages rather than house prices in it. So as house prices fall this is more than offset by interest rate increases. RPI is going up faster than CPI because mortgage lenders are increasing the premium they charge borrowers over BoE base rate
101 Not according to the Romans. They thought Trajan best Augustus merely lucky. Hence after 117AD all future Emperors were greeted with the prayer that they be more fortunate than Augustus, better than Trajan.
106, you’re mistaken about EU law.
Real law has to be voted on, passed, accepted and enforced.
EU law it seems is simply the collective word of the unelected bureaucrats.
Simply staggering that people are bleating about people voting being anti-democratic.
105 - “No Taioseach is gonna want to rerun the referendum unless he absolutely has to. There is a serious risk the Irish will be outraged and say Feck Off - No means No.”
Sigh. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. But I do seem to remember something about a re-run referendum before. What was that now? Oh yeah, Nice 2.
Also you are wrong to isolate the Taoiseach on this. It is the Oireachtas that passes the bill to put a referendum to the people. It is difficult to blame the Taoiseach and government alone for that when it is well known that all parties (except Sinn Féin) voted for it and indeed the main opposition were probably leading the clamour for it (Fine Gael being the most pro-Europe of all the parties).
Just because you would be outraged at a re-run and just because it really wouldnt suit your political outlook doesnt mean it wont happen. It wouldnt actually be breaking with past convention - not re-running it until we said yes would be breaking convention! Hence 5/2 is good value right now - certainly much, much better than the 1/4 on no re-run.
107 You may be right. I heard some bod explaing it on radio 4 this morning, i could well have misheard the bloke.
107 - Yes, but Kas is right to say that the gap between RPI and CPI is narrowing and likely to narrow further. House price falls (and falls in BOE interest rates over the last year despite the fact these largely aren’t passed on) has seen to that.
100 - Absolutely, the whole “who can believe the figures” thing is nonsense. It is right that some people are very hard hit by fuel and food bills but inflation is an average and it is always the case that it moves at different rates for different people.
108- Trajan was clearly better.
I think the public quite like a politician with some principles, seeing it’s so rare these days to see a leading politician actually stand up for something even in the face of public opposition.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
108 - Octavian (Augustus) would have got nowhere without the finest military tactician and general all rounder Agrippa.
110. You’re a twerp.
Are you seriously suggesting Cowan would prefer to have another perilous, potentially humiliating vote - or would he prefer to see Lisbon abandoned, and everyone move on and forget about it?
Which do you think he wants? The former, yeah, right. He just looked so happy after the last vote. He loves risking his career.
I’m making no comment all on the internals of Irish politics, and I don’t care who supports what - I’m merely stating the obvious truth: that the Irish political establishment would prefer ALMOST anything to a revote.
However they may have to revote, such is the determination of the euroelite to ignore or override Irish popular will.
For that reason I agree with you on the odds, if nothing else. 1/4 on no rerun is ungenerous. I’d say a revote is still unlikely - because of the reasonable chances of Lisbon being derailed elsewhere. e.g. Prague.
I’d say the chances of no rerun is about 2/3.
105. Isn’t the Treaty up before the German Courts because it may/does breach their constitutional rules? Not the right of the government to approve a treaty, but the actual *content* of the Treaty?
Last I heard Merckel had signed it but couldn’t complete the ratification by submitting ratification to Brussels until the courts rule. And if they say no, will the euroweenies suggest side-lining Germany?
Re: changes to the US Constitution. There’s one enormous difference (I think - tell me if I’m wrong) the US voters have an option of a re-call election. Any politician who doesn’t listen to the public can find himself out of a job. It would tend to concentrate the mind.
117 - I don’t think it is up before the Courts because the German President has already said that he will not sign it now that the Irish have rejected it, as to do so would breach German law.
(75 - “Endoring”. Jack, this is so so so you. Neither one, nor quite the other, but perhaps the best of each
)
Smeaton is definitely not running against David Davis as he is off to the US. Perhaps he prefers the Land of the Free.
115 Indeed what a fool Agrippa was for not reaching for power himself. Trajan of course was his own General and a superb one at that.
113 I know Trajan had Spanish links but didn’t he have connection to Arles? My memory is hazy.
I wonder what the hero Smeaton thinks about, as of next year, being one of the first in the UK to have to carry a government ID card?
http://tinyurl.com/6cugtf
Governor of Bank of England letter to Chancellor Darling.
To summarise - We are doomed, all doomed.
106 The eurofanatics have as much contempt for the rule of law as they have for democracy.
121 - Yes but there is a lot to be said for being and wielding the power behind the throne.
118. Aaah. So we couldn’t have 26 - 1 anyway - German law would forbid it. No wonder their knickers are in a twist.
120. Good for him! I hope he enjoys his trip. He has earned it.
83
Just looking this up and agenda is the plural of agendum which is itself a gerundive.
So the statement that a gerundive does not have a plural appears to be incorrect.
126. addendum …. with the current Treaty, that is.
121 He probably thought he didn’t have the political skills to do the top job successfully. And his humble birth would have made him unacceptable to the Senate.
116 - Sigh. It’s Cowen. And sigh - to disagree with you is not to be a twerp, imbecile, liar or traitor. It’s not at all clear that the government and opposition want to avoid a re-run at all costs. Indeed if there was something obvious that they could get an assurance, opt-out or renegotiation on it would almost certainly be in train already. Believe me.
I’ve no idea how likely the Czech’s or Swedes are to derail the whole thing beforehand (I suppose I’m over-optimistically, from a betting point of view, discounting the chances) but a re-run is the only consistent option I’m hearing discussed at home to solve Ireland’s situation. Granted it’s early days yet.