It’s 9/2 that Brown will concede a referendum
October 22nd, 2007
- Does that sound like a value bet?
With the pressure on Gord to call a referendum the EU Treaty likely to intensify this week the bookmaker, Victor Chandler, is now accepting bets on whether or not he will go back on his refusal.
The firm have priced up a referendum happening before the end of next year at 9/2. It is 1/8 that the UK ratifies the treaty without it being put to a public vote.
My guess is that even at 9/2 this is not a good bet. Gord has simply gone too far in his opposition to such a move that he would look so weak if he did give in.
- His strategy seems to be to brazen it out for a few months and seek to bore everyone to death.
The charges of him “bottling” the general election decision really hurt and he’ s not going to open himself up to such attacks again.
Comments I know that for many this is an emotional subject on which feelings can run high. But please confine your observations to whether you think Gord will do it or not and the overall political impact of the move.
People making personal attacks, which in my view go over the top, will be “sin-binned” for a period - meaning that your contributions won’t get published immediately.
After a day or so you will be allowed back on the strict understanding that further unacceptable contributions might lead to a permanent ban.
There will be less of my previous practice of “having a quiet word”.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
No chance… maybe the Lib Dems will buckle if they think there are some votes in it, but Brown is in for a penny, in for a pound (Euro?).
I think he could do it, but the most honest question should be in or out. The current status quo is no longer an option, made apparent by the fact there is no one else in Europe prepared to work with us on that basis. So it should be stay in under the new arrangements or leave the EU structure (and negociate a new trading agreement with the EU using Switzerland as a model).
You are right Mike. 9/2 are not generous odds, considering that Brown has painted himself into a corner on this issue. The trouble is for him, that he has made powerful enemies because of it, such as some in the media.
By agreeing to a referendum, he would have made a fourth term more likely. By not, he is just about conceding his majority.
Time to bet on Labour getting considerably fewer seats at the next GE, I think.
1 Read up again yesterday on Maastricht debates and though Labour and Lib Dems supported Maastricht they did use any opportunity to damage Major’s government. Wouldn’t be surprised if this occurred again in one or two divisions where Tories, nationalists, DUP, Lib Dems and Labour rebels ran Brown close.
If Labour poll ratings dropped to around 30% during the debates pressure on a referendum could become difficult to fight.
Gord will stick to his guns and will succeed in boring everyone to death. The Conservatives have made their standpoint clear and should just take what advantage they can of the trust issue. Anything more than that would be a mistake - there is no likelihood of parliamnet rejecting the constitution.
Article 35 exists as a get out clause if the people of Britain really want to use it. Most people don’t really seem bothered, including me and I’m actually interested in not being governed in secret by an unelected accountable cabal - just not interested enough it seems to find the referendum debate worth the candle.
3 Disraeli, I agree with the first part of your comment but I’m not sure about the second. How many people will remember this AND vote on the back of it in 2010? Other issues will dominate the agenda then. The referendum issue may add to the growing notion of dishonesty that is swirling around the Brown administration, but probably not much more than that.
To be honest I’m more interested in the very complicated Scottish dimension that Dizzy has pointed out…
5 that should be an unelected UNaccountable cabal - though an ‘accountable cabal’ is an interesting oxymoron
Sensible decision about posting rules IMHO.
It might have been sensible for GB to steal the LD approach to a referendum but it seems very unlikely GB’ll do it now.
Even if there are a few LD rebels on the referendum vote I very much doubt that there’ll be enough Labour rebels to endanger the Labour majority. Given the comfort factor of a relatively secure majority the number of Labour rebels may be somewhat higher than some are predicting.
As for the Lords there could indeed be trouble but I suppose GB’s strategy will be to start the process as early as possible so that it can be wrapped up by the Summer recess if possible.
We’ll have to see whether their Lordships push it all the way to forcing the use of the Parliament Act. That would delay things into 2009 since, according to a 2007 HOC Paper, there would need to be in practice a gap of 13 months and two days from Second Reading before the Reform Treaty was ratified.
Then, as he did today he will try to put pressure on the DC to answer whether a Tory Government would rip up a ratified treaty.
I would keep my money in my pocket.
9: What better reason for the Lords to block it than a Government going back on its word.
Can’t wait to see how long it is before Roger is sin-binned for making a personal attack.
He won’t go for it, he was never going to in my mind ’cause he’d probably lose, & Gordy doesn’t like losing.
I don’t think it will have any impact on a subsequent election either as people don’t just see it as an issue (normal non anoraks anyway).
Brown is putting too much political capital against a referendum to change now.
In the debate on the Treaty, the Foreign Secy is not present. Where is Milliband?
I think much will depend on the state of the polls. If Labour regain the lead, or are roughly level-pegging, over the next few months, then I think Brown can push this through the Commons without much difficulty - although the Lords may be another matter.
If, OTOH, the Conservatives have opened up a big poll lead, and attacks on Brown’s character are hitting home, then I think Labour MPs in marginal seats may start to panic, and see conceding a referndum as one way of recovering popularity.
I don’t think there is a chance he will call a referendum. Personally I think he is quite happy for Europe to be an issue as it means the Tories talk about it at the expense of other issues - crime/NHS. He’ll ride out the flak and he doesn;t like public votes anyway.
I’ve already said on my own blog that Gordon should hold a referendum on the Treaty, partly in order to answer the charge that he is afraid of facing the voters, partly to draw some of the sting out of the Tory attacks by de-coupling the referendum issue from the general election.
I thought when I posted that piece (in the week after the non-election decision) that he and his advisers might see the logic of it, but I do now think the government has too far in its opposition to be able to beat a tactical retreat on this without looking even more at the mercy of events than it already does.
I suspect Brown will stick to the “no referendum” line and force it through the Commons
The Lords may send it back by adding a referendum clause
And parliamentary ping-pong can commence
Listening to Mark Mardell on R4 over the weekend convinced me there will be no referendum in this country. The most compelling reason was that EU Ministers fear a domino effect. If one country has one, it increases the pressure on the others. Ireland’s position is accepted, and respected, but any other country which caves in will be in a difficult bargaining postion next time it wants the support of its fellow member States.
For that reason alone, I agree with Mike - 9/2 is poor value.
14 The problem could well be the opposite - government managers concentrating on pushing the Treaty through while opposition highlight hospital closures etc. The Government will seem more concerned about foreign affairs while opposition concentrates on domestics.
Like the election that wasn’t, Balls and co have been boasting about how clever they are to plan to get Cameron embroiled in Europe, again warning of their tactics - think he & Osborne are clever enough not to be (which is why Hague has been making all the running)
9 to 2, I might have had a pop at 92/1, even thats seems a waste of money.
Ralph
The Lords would have two arguments.
First, far from interfering with a manifesto commitment, it was keeping the Government ‘honest’ about one.
Second, that far from seeking to put themselves above the people they were seeking to ‘let the people speak’.
Although the Treaty cannot be amended in Parliament, as I understand it, there will be several votes in both Commons and Lords.
First there will be up and down votes on the Treaty on second and third readings in both Houses.
Second, there will probably be votes on a referendum at both Commmittee and Report stages in both Houses.
Finally, there will be an awkward vote for the Government on a guillotine motion to limit debate in the Commons. Although the Government has said that there will be a generous amount of time devoted to debate at Committee stage to be taken on the floor of the Commons, I imagine that without a timetable motion there would be determined fillibustering by Tories.
Finally, we should not underestimate the ingenuity of backbench Tories like Bill Cash to devise innumerable ways of making the Government’s life, and that of its backbenchers, as miserable as possible. There’s also the x factor of a possible attempt by Salmond to get a referendum vote in Scotland.
15. Brown’s premiership is starting to bear an eerie resemblence to Major’s.
No doubt one of Conservative lines of attack in the EU Treaty debates will be to point out that all the time being spent in the commons could have been used to address the problems of Schools’n'hospitals, if the matter had been put to a referendum as promised.
My gut reaction is that at 9/2, I’d rather be a backer than a layer, though only just.
Concerned though I am at swimming against the tide of initial comments, and opposing our estimable host, I think the price is not THAT bad.
Brown has changed his mind once on having one, then he changed his mind on having an election, there’s a precedent for him altering his decisions on pretty important topics, and if the polls continue to look bad he may calculate that the benefits of holding a very popular referendum outweigh the risks of appearing indecisive and being ticked off by his Eurochums.
Certainly, the Sun/Mail/Express would fete such a volte-face without worrying too much about how it came about.
on from the last discussion about debating style. Isn’t it very simple.
Play the ball and not the man.
And Mike wouldn’t have to spend time moderating if the “regulars” kept the trolls in line with a bit of censure. If they keep offending, then just ban them. Message boards that discuss politics via personal insults are 10 a penny on the internet. This board has clearly built itself a rep for being on a higher level, it would be a shame if the trolls dragged it down.
I agree with Paul Linford that Brown has made another tactical error.
Brown’s refusal to grant a referendum should end all of the support he had sometimes enjoyed with the Sun, Mail, Times and Telegraph.
Going forward anytime the Editor’s consider having a positive Labour article or a negative Conservative one, they may well hold back as Brown has snubbed their push for a referendum.
90% of the public may not care today about Europe but in the 20 months before GE 2009, an increasingly hostile press from the big 4 , will be damage Brown’s image.
John Wheatley from previous thread
The point about a single market - any market - is that it has rules. We imposed rules on Scotland in 1707. It has accountancy rules, intellectual copyright rules, fraud rules and these rules are multiplying.
agreed, which is why those of us trained as accountants know we now use an international standard for international accounting. The EU can play as much or as small a role in that process as its members decide. Nothing in acting in unison on particular international issues requires a political and social union.
As with your comments about a lack of perfect competition (foreign exchange markets do come failry close), this sort of thing is not doing your case any good. Your comment about how markets aren’t created naturally is plain wrong - that’s also GCSE economics; you remember Say’s law? The current EU focus is basically an attempt at creating a working command economy; like all other attempts it is doomed to fail and I would rather my country didn’t go down that route. However I could live with that if it was the clearly expressed will of the electorate.
Brown is in grave danger of getting himself into a real mess and Disreali at [3] would be on the money, were it not for the real antipathy that surrounds the Conservatives and their leader too.
It is a fact, that politicans are not much liked at the best of times and quite often it is in the interests of one side to simply respond to some egregious breach of truth and decency with “but they all do it”. Not true, but tarring all with the same brush is a cheap way to remove the nuances of debate. Personally I do think that the pros-and-cons of the EU are quite subtle, and the cynicism of some on the government side and the red mist that descends on some anti Europeans makes the debate very tricky indeed.
FWIW I think that Brown will indeed just tough it out- to the fury of anti-Europeans and many pro-Europeans, like myself, alike.
21 - funnily enough, earlier this year when Brown’s last budget was a major flop and was then accompanied by personal poll ratings akin to Michael Foot - prompting the Blairites to start their “anyone but Gordon” campaign - I remember posting that Brown looked like becoming the new John Major as PM. Only less popular, more prone to cock-ups, and Scottish.
I was laughed at then by Roger and his comrades.
They’re not laughing now…
[26] Actually the UK single market does NOT have such common standards- hence the separate and often contradictory legal systems, and indeed the separate accountancy bodies.
1/8 to ratify the treaty without a public vote just encourages me to keep backing the tories at odds against to win the most seats at the next election.
17 Agreed, absolutely no chance, especially now he is guaranteed a substantial majority with Lib Dem support - but I do think it will do him and Labour significant damage in terms of public opinion and probably makes it even more likely, therefore, that there will not be a GE prior to 2010.
Peter - welcome back, pleased you missed you out on your one way trip to Beachy Head. BTW I recently acquired a copy of Value Betting by Mark Coton which you recommended - a very interesting little volume. Incredible to note how much betting has changed over just the past 10 years with the introduction of Spreadbetting as well as the Betting Exchanges and the abolition of betting tax, not to mention the huge increase in the choice of bets - it can only be a matter of time before this extends to the legendary two flies climbing up a window pane.
25. Its not so much a tactical error, as a lose/lose situation. Brown was always going want the treaty, but he knew he would either take a hit from the right wing press or lose a referendum.
My own suspicion is that those who want a referendum are, by and large, not Labour supporters so it was worth taking the hit.
The real damage would be from a U-turn. It would ruin his credibility (which we know is not the best at the moment). Best bet is to take the hit now, and lose a little short term to Sun headlines. This issue will be long gone in next years political cycle.
In the end its just one of those issues which really angers those interested in politics (whichever side of the EU debate you fall on), and many find mildly discomforting.
However, in the end it will not decide the next election, nor should it.
Oh dear, apologies for the two “in the end”s.
Poor show.
28. Perhaps GB will go the way of the Earl of Bute…
I don’t think Brown will give a referendum, but I’ve got a feeling the Lib’s are going to side with the Conservatives in the Commons, so with an alliance of Tories, Libs and some Labour rebels, the vote could end up being a close run thing for Brown.
It won’t decide the next election result, but it will make people just that bit more inclined to vote against Labour.
32, Whelan, “Best bet is to take the hit now, and lose a little short term to Sun headlines. This issue will be long gone in next years political cycle.”
If it was all over by Xmas I would lean to your view but the expectation is that this treaty will not be debated until next year. Other posters may have a more accurate insight into the parliamentary timetable.
AFAIK The next milestone is in November when the Treaty comes back to Gordon for approval and then after that it goes to Parliament for ratification.
Lots of occasions then, for the issue to pop up into the 4 newspapers.
33 Whelan - in the end, it’s not that important!
Question 1: Who (or what) said:
“The EU now has 25 members and will continue to expand.
The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence.
The Treaty sets out what the EU can do, and what it cannot.
It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs.
It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe.
We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a ‘yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe.”
Question 2: Were you stupid enough to believe this?
Question 3: Are you surprised that the author(s) are now giving you the finger?
GIN there really is no sign of that. Cable was pretty clear in the Commons today. However, if they don’t get their own amendment called the question is whether the LDs will abstain on the Tory amendment or vote against it.
I suppose they could say that they would vote for the Tory amendment because it was the only show in town but it’s quite a stretch and both Huhne and Clegg are very pro EU. I can’t see it.
36. True, but as I say its inevitable though given his political choices. The poor old Scot cant please everybody.
37. I cant see how anyone in Govt would want it to drag across a parliamentary term, but I concede it would have much more of an effect if it did.
17. Is Ireland’s commitment to refereda one of the reasons it still maintains a favourable budget deal with the EU? Clearly you have to keep the Irish public happy, or the Union is permenantly stuck.
I remain rather confused by Brown. He is a progressive and therefore you would expect more pro-EU than American. However I’m not sure what he really thinks. At least with Blair we knew he thought our destiny was at the heart of Europe. Brown can’t expect people to vote for him unless they know what his convictions are.
Why can’t we start adopting all the good things abot the European lifestyle and ignore all the nonsense laws?
I haven’t seen any evidence that criticism about not holding a referendum has affected Labour’s popularity (e.g. it’s not a priority issue for most people according to MORI), nor indeed that media attacks on Europe have ever damaged Labour’s poll ratings at any point in the past ten years. I’m willing to be proved wrong on either of those points if anyone has any polling data which shows otherwise, but it suggests Brown would have no reason whatsoever to call a referendum.
One thing which I find interesting is that it is really hard to guess what the next set of polls will say - anyone got any predictions?
42 Why can’t we start adopting all the good things abot the European lifestyle and ignore all the nonsense laws?
You mean ,for instance, like twice the number of public holidays?
13.I agree with your analysis on this Sean. I see that the Libdems are joining with Labour on the issue of not having a referendum, didn’t they also promise one in their manifesto?
IMHO the Libdems are making a mistake by not supporting a referendum, this might hurt them in some key marginals seats they are hoping to hang on to, it really opens up some clear blue water with the Conservatives being the only party to offer one. Be interesting to see if the Libdems stick to this policy if their polling figures continue to languish just above single figures.
43 There has been ample recent poll data, suggesting that approx 65% favour a referendum
43.
According to BBC Online, David Cameron said this;
“He has absolutely no democratic mandate to sign this without a referendum. If he breaks his trust with the British people they will rightly say how can we ever trust him on anything else again.”
Repeated day in and day out, this line of attack could be deverstating for Brown. Its not so much the issue of Europe, as the issue of trust and the fact that guy is refusing to consult the British position. This issue plays into the election that never was, Browns “coronation” and all the jibes of him being a control freak, Stalinist, a social misfit. etc….
41 Whelan, I read in a couple of papers that Ed Balls thinks it is a good idea to drag the Treaty through next year as he believes it is a vote loser for the Conservatives.
This is the very same genius who thought threatening an election would smash the Tories! Or that stealing Osborne’s budget would improve Labour’s polls.
As Private Eye would write. Ed Balls is 13 3/4 years old.
ChrisD (45 as I write), the BBC are reporting that Vince Cable, the
Acting Lib Dem leader, said, during today’s debate:
“We do believe that there should be a referendum, the public should decide on the issue of whether Britain should remain a committed member of the European Union”.
With both contenders for the leadership protesting the opposite view, isn’t someone, somewhere getting their knickers into a horribly dangerous twist?
Vince Cable
Acting Lib Dem leader
Why can’t we start adopting all the good things abot the European lifestyle and ignore all the nonsense laws? ”
In fact, we enforce the laws far more zealously than most eurocrats ever intend us to. The best example I read of recently was in the Economist where some brief EU regulation about marking cows’ ears was turned into 98 pages of “Guidance” by DEFRA.
According to BBC Online, David Cameron said this;
“He has absolutely no democratic mandate to sign this without a referendum. If he breaks his trust with the British people they will rightly say how can we ever trust him on anything else again.”
Repeated day in and day out, this line of attack could be deverstating for Brown. Its not so much the issue of Europe, as an issue of trust and the fact that this guy is refusing to consult the British people. This issue plays into the election that never was, Browns “coronation” and all the jibes of him being a control freak, Stalinist, a social misfit. etc…
The damage to Labour will come when they try to sell their Manifesto at the next election. Picture the poster - a Kleenex box, reading “Labour’s Manifesto” on the front. Several tissues appear out the top, each marked “Referendum Commitment”. Also written on the box “Not-man-enough size”.
Underneath: “Another of Gordon’s tissue of lies…”
mirthios.
The LD line is that there should be a referendum on EU membership in or out; in other words on the development of the EU since 1973 when we joined. They no longer favour a referendum on the Reform Treaty.
44 Indeed, PfP.
In fact, I have for some time followed that other excellent continental practice of having a two-hour snooze in the middle of the day.
I recommend it.
I agree that the Lib Dems are mainly against this but the position that the South West Lib Dems take may differ. We could expect the e Lib Dem MPs as 40 against a Treaty referendum, 12 in favour, 11 abstaining.
Blue Moon - so that’s clear then, they want a referendum on ALL the treaties in general, but NOT on this one in particular. Probably makes sense to them, but I confess that I am confused.
Brown will not call a referendum and IMHO the pressure to do so will decline from now on. This is because the Tory pro-referendum argument is weak and because the issue is way down most people’s list of concerns. The last polling evidence I saw said that just 3% named it as an important issue. The Tory argument is weak because
a) they cite the parliamentary soverignty as a key issue - but then concede that parliament is not soverign enough to approve the treaty - a referendum is also needed - there is a clear inconsistency here;
b) the Tories themselves agreed to much larger transfers of soverignty when they were in power, and did not submit them to referenda;
c) the Tories refuse to commit themselves to withdrawal from the treaty once it has been ratified - if they really felt that it was tanatmount to the abolition of the UK, as some of them seem to think it is, then they would commit themselves to withdrawal.
These factors make the Tory position look opportunistic rather than principled and are not likely to attract either Labour rebels or crossbench peers.
O/T. There’s been a sharp correction in the Betfair odds for the Australian GE. Labour’s Back odds now less than 1/2. Hat tip to Peter from Putney for pointing out the value on Labor over the weekend.
56 The Lib Dem position is that they can’t win on the referendum they promised but believe that have a different one which they would win can then be spun to be agreement to the Reform Treaty - it’s the Blair trick of changing the grounds of the debate (cash for peerages? Oh, let’s have an enquiry into political funding). Then they lecture on trust…
re 58 I’m hoping that Alexander Drake will be doing a guest slot on the Australian election in the next couple of days.
49.Like Labour, the Libdems have decided that rather than keep a manifesto promise on a referendum that might leave them on the losing side, they have decided to move the goalposts so far that they are now sitting on another football pitch. This kind of political gamesmanship is dishonest, and does nothing to help democracy. Why should I be left with a choice of either completely out of the EU, or be left sitting in a federal Europe with the politicians running it totally uncountable to me?
58 Thanks stjohn, did you see my post #198 from the previous thread - are we on for a score? In fairness, I expect the goal supremacy on this game to be set at around 1.6 or 1.7, but knowing you to be a decent sort of chap…
I don’t think Brown will have a referendum.
The only thing that might change his mind would be the polls but I doubt there will be significant reaction in the polls over this in the short term for him to do so.
Afternoon all
After a most pleasant weekend in rural Derbyshire with Mrs Stodge and a visit to Mrs Stodge’s Aunt, it’s a bit depressing to come back to reality if that consists of heroic sporting failure and discussing whether we should have a referendum on the EU treaty or not.
I don’t think the Treaty itself is the issue at all. The “question” is the growing disquiet/dicontent/anger at the perception and reality of “powers” being “given away” by successive British Governments to unelected EU officials in Brussels with seemingly no concomitent benefit.
If, then, you want to ask a question, what should the question be ? There’s always “Do you support staying in the EU ?” or the corollary “Do you think we should withdraw from the EU ?”. A question about a complex Treaty doesn’t do it but neither does a question speaking to perceptions either such as “Do you support the proposition that Britain has given away too many powers to the EU ?”
I believe we need some sort of public debate but whether the result of that debate is a referendum or a GE based on a clear division of view between competing parties I don’t know.
I also don’t believe there’s any point asking a question unless either answer results in a move forward otherwise nothing will be solved.
62. Peter. I hadn’t seen that. I will need to consult with my 9 year old expert on this and get back to you.
On the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, some here have mentioned James McFadden. He’s not listed on Betfair but is 40/1 with Corals and 12/1 with Ladbrokes. Scotland are 5/2 with Betfair to qualify. What do Scotland need to do and could McFadden overhaul Hamilton if they do qualify?
Three months of debate on this? If he’s trying to make politics more dull and pointless he’s doing a good job, I skim all the Europe posts as it is on here most of the time, god knows what it will be like with this timetable……
I disagree with the lib dem position on an all in/our referendum in any case, it’s playing with fire and an unnecessary risk. Much better to have a less crucial referendum and let people release their pent up frustration.
[59] No, the Lib Dem position is that rejecting the reform treaty would have the same effect as rejecting membership of the EU, and since in fact most anti-Europeans actually want this outcome, why don’t we just cut to the chase?
A number of supposedly “Euro-sceptics” actually oppose membership full stop (cf “Better Off Out” campaign) and fight their battles by proxy: “of course we only oppose this treaty…but we can still be members of some kind of more limited EU”. (I don’t think we can).
If 26 members ratify and we don’t, then it is highly likely that the UK de facto is forced to leave the EU. If we debate why we are members in the first place and what this treaty is actually for, it is a lot more open as to what the agenda of either side actually is.
Sure anti Europeans don’t like this, since it may well be that the referendum on the basis we propose would pass. However is their position - trying to limit the scope of the debate to eliminate the wider issues- any more honest? I don’t think so. In the end it reminds people that referenda are tricky things, since the answer you get may well simply depend on the question…
Still think that Brown’s “no referendum on anything” position is wrong though…
Re my 65. I’ve taken the 40/1. Couldn’t resist.
The LibDem in/out referendum idea isn’t serious politics - no sane government would contemplate it.
If such a vote were to be held it would be essential for the government machine to take seriously the possibility of an ‘out’ victory. As such, a huge amount of time, effort and expense would have to be devoted to laying provisional plans to withdraw from the EU and to ensure that these could be implemented in practice.
From the previous thread:
Re 63, Blue Moon, “Benedict Don’t provoke me into a site search!”
Consider yourself provoked, and not only that but you can look at my blog also.
On the main subject, I am sure Gordon Brown feels he won’t back down, for the reasons stated in the article, but I am not sure that he won’t. He will come under intense pressure to do so, and may even suffer in the polls. If Labour do badly at the next locals, and it looks like it can be blamed on Europe he may turn tail.
That said the locals would have to be seriously dire in May as Labour took a real hammering in those elections last time.
Re 2, Jonathan, “I think he could do it, but the most honest question should be in or out. The current status quo is no longer an option, made apparent by the fact there is no one else in Europe prepared to work with us on that basis.”
I am not so sure this is the case. We (the Conservative Party) are beginning to build support across Europe for derailing the ever closer union train. At some point a lot of people in Europe are going to ask the obvious questions like:
Why should sport policy be centrally set?
Ditto tourism?
What are these loons playing at?
Followed by the deciding they want out of that vision.
67 Amazing that Europhiles have this unique ability to see into others minds.
I voted yes in 1975 and would do so again, though I’d prefer we had fought more to retain Commonwealth trade privileges and not agreed the CFP but on balance membership of the Common Market has been beneficial. I still support our membership of the European Community (which still has a legal personality) though there are reforms I’d like made but again the benefits outweigh the downsides
I have gravest doubts though about the European Union as I cannot see any outweighing benefit to placing Foreign, Security, Home Affairs and Justice under the institutions and practices of the the EC. The Reform Treaty significantly changes the relationship of the member states and the personality of the EC. It is a significan enough change to require a referendum and if UK rejects it we are left with an EC which runs along as well as it always did and inter-governmental co-operation.
All it means is that it is harder for a majority of members to over-ride the wishes of a minority (the option of majority co-operating themselves is allowed for). Would cause a fuss but the French and Dutch rejected it when asked so whats wrong with the Brits doing the same?
Thanks for the tougher policy, Mike. I’ll carry on for now and we’ll see how it goes.
I’ve some sympathy with the LD position on this. Very few people are actually arguing the merits of the treaty - it’s usually a proxy for deeper-seated dissatisfaction either with the EU (”it’s not what I voted for in 1975″) or the Government (”but you promised!”).
However, as all three major parties think that withdrawal would be a terrible mistake, the LD proposal is attractive only because it would be more likely to result in a ‘yes’, thereby clearing the air. The downside is that if we’re right and a ‘no’ would be a disaster, then it’s an odd question to be posing to the public: “We nearly all think this will poison you, do you want to drink it?”
The same applies to a more limited extent to a vote just on the treaty, with the added point that a “no” could well happen - the nightmarish thought of Britain making all 27 countries start all over again on what we think (rightly or wrongly) are minor structural reforms is part of what is deterring the Government from going there. Whatever it did for the EU, the damage to Britain’s credibility with its partners would be huge.
But for the same reason, it’s not credible to think that the Tories would try to have a referendum and unpick it in two years’ time if they came to power - it just won’t happen. The Telegraph has already started grumbling about that, and it’s going to inhibit the Tories from going full blast on the issue for the next three months - if it really was the End of Britain as a Nation, Sun style, then of course they’d need to reverse it. But it isn’t, so they won’t.
Incidentally, have the Tories said whether they’d recommend a no vote if there was a referendum?
73 If they are minor structural reforms (ie things that would just minimally affect everyone) why 27 governments spent 6 years, re-drafted the rejected constitution and re-submitted the proposals. Minor structural reforms don’t warrant such effort do they?
73. Mr Palmer. Your stance is honourable if - and only if - you specifically repudiated the promise that “We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a ‘yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe.” in your personal election manifesto. Did you?
73
Well done Nick, your boycott of this site has finally brought Mike to his knees.
73.”The same applies to a more limited extent to a vote just on the treaty, with the added point that a “no” could well happen - the nightmarish thought of Britain making all 27 countries start all over again on what we think (rightly or wrongly) are minor structural reforms is part of what is deterring the Government from going there. Whatever it did for the EU, the damage to Britain’s credibility with its partners would be huge.”
Nick, just remind me what happened when countries like France voted no in the referendum given to them by their government on this issue?
73. To answer your question yes they have said they would recommend a no vote on numerous occasions.
Back to the debate.
I hadn’t considered this issue from the Scottish perspective. At least it is not the same old arguments on which I think most on here have decided there position.
William Rees Mogg in the Times.
http://tinyurl.com/3yg9h3
Could the Scots scupper Browns Plans and leave him with no choice but to have a referendum?
65 stjohn - McFadden? In a word nope. He’s Scottish, do you really see 50 million English out of a total population of 60 million voting for a Scot? The only remote possibility IMO is Hatton, but when did a boxer last win, the legendary Mohammed Ali apart?
75 Surely it’s crystal clear after all that DC has said that the Tories would recommend a no vote in a referendum.
On Sports Personality of the year I very much doubt that McFadden will get it. It’s quite hard for a team player to get it unless he/she is really well known. He isn’t. Most women don’t much like football either.
Never neglect the older female vote which surely gave it to Sara Phillips last year. It was the royal family vote although I don’t want to underestimate her achievement.
Personally I was gobsmacked that Darren Clarke didn’t get it last year. His wife had died tragically of breast cancer and he performed heroically at the Ryder Cup which Europe won in Ireland. There literally wasan’t a dry eye at the K Club when he won his final match. However, there was a late breaking Sunday tabloid story that he was seeing another woman. Too soon apparently sniffed a good few women and he lost very unfairly IMHO.
I’d be very surprised if Lewis Hamilton didn’t get it this year faute de mieux. He’s young, obviously very talented from an ethnic minority and is probably nice to his mum. And we british are always kind to those who screw up and just miss out.
79 but when did a boxer last win, the legendary Mohammed Ali apart?
With apologies to our ‘Enery of course!
79
Henry Cooper
79 Lennox Lewis won it I recall.
Hatton would deserve it if he beats Mayweather, but that fight is on 8 December, and the BBC thing is 9 December - probably too late to affect the voting.
As a lifelong Evertonian I would be stunned if McFadden won it, having seen his efforts in royal blue over the past four seasons.
Who needs UKIP anyway?
Is the EU a special club where France and the Netherlands can derail supposedly vital treaties but the UK cannot without being ejected?
UKIP and other fruitier sects believe that the EU is a sinister club devoted to harming Britain. I find it odd self-proclaimed friends of the EU agree with them.
79/80. Peter and Blue Moon. Ah well the money is now down. 12.50 with Corals at 40/1. I might make a monkey out of both of you and also make a monkey out of Joe Coral!
84. Jon, perhaps we should expel the other 26? Gordon could be President of Europe and Blair could be Qu… Stop it!!
stjohn best of luck!
83 Paul - I believe you’re right about that well-known Brit, Lennox Lewis. Grief, next someone will be climing that Joe Bugner won it also!
86 Perhaps the real threat of Tony Blair becoming President of the EU would make Brown hold a referendum, in the hope it would be lost and Tony would be jobless?
85 stjude - you’re usually spot on in spotting value in rank outsiders, but not on this occasion I fear!
88. Didn’t the sartorial boxer with the lisp win it? And also someone with a name like John Conti?
**** Thank You And Farewell From Jack W ****
It is with great sadness that I have to advise Mike Smithson and the site that I shall for profound personal reasons be permanently leaving the site.
It has been an immense pleasure to be part of the wonderful political institution that has become PB and I shall greatly miss the many site friends and even the protagonists that have made the journey with me and made it for the most part an absolute joy.
I created Jack W in order to challenge my own political views and this he has achieved, indeed even more so than I could have possibly imagined. In doing so I hope those who have followed his development on PB do not feel cheated. This was never my intention as I never believed Jack would develop as he has. But mortality has crept up on us both and I intend we now bow out with dignity.
As to who is Jack W …… well, a little mystery is a good thing !!
My grateful thanks go to our very special founder, Mike Smithson and his team, for having created this dynamic resource and the tremendous efforts they all put into it to ensure that it has established itself as the premier political site in the UK. World domination will surely follow.
So in the words of our lamented last Prime Minister “That’s it”.
Thank you all so very very much.
73. On the contrary Nick, my sources, and they are pretty good ones, are that the Tories will offer a referendum on withdrawal if Parliament ratified the treaty.
You can take that as you wish but I pointed to Brogan’s piece in an earlier thread; that’s on the record now, and Brogan says much the same thing, with the addition that Cameron would ask for a mandate to loosen ties with the EU.
William Hague has been hinting heavily at that in interviews today “integration has gone too far and there has to be a way back from it”.
On topic Mike’s right, there’s no chance Gordon can chicken out again (probably - the man’s utter political ineptitude leads me not to rule anything out completely)
Mike is that post really by Jack W?
If it was all an act, Jack, you’re a pretty good writer.
I hope all is well in your family and wish you the best for the future.
Badgers are the first item on the news, so the referendum, ‘thing’ given the priority it deserves.
The obvious way to keep the referendum foremost as an election issue, (two years or so away) is for Cameron to promise a retrospective referendum as urged by this mornings Telegraph.
Jack - You are a mega star and will be sadly missed, not only by the hundreds who post on here, but by the thousands who have read your posts over the years.
Our sincere thanks and very best wishes go with.
92. God bless and keep you Jack W.
Adieu
92. Go with God, Jack. Best wishes for the future. You WILL be missed.
Re 92, jack W “So in the words of our lamented last Prime Minister “That’s it”.”
bet it isn’t
92 Jack W - can take or leave other peoples threats to abandon Pb.com (Sorry Nick, Tyson et al) but yours will be a grevious loss. Hope it isn’t because of the recent bad manners but would prefer that to be the reason rather than something more serious. It’s been a joy jousting, reading and laughing with you - especially the apposite pictures posted at times - and I hope, that like Tyson, you find that it’s impossible to stay away and are able to re-join. Best wishes.
95. g-o-m. Provided always that the issue is kept to one of political integrity and keeping promises made in an election manifesto, you have hit the nail on the head.
It will still be an election issue in one, two, five or ten years time.
Where the Tories need to be very, very careful is NOT to pre-judge the result and NOT, please NOT, argue about that result before the date of any referendum is announced.
Mike Smithson’s judgement is correct – Brown will stick to his guns on this one. Many commentators seem to have forgetten that he is especially credible as a pro-European for once because of his previous pragmatic opposition to going into the Euro.
The argument in favour of a treaty, which we’ll hear endlessly from Brown, Milliband and labour’s front bench (indeed, until we are bored by it) is that the treaty is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It’s a necessary bit of housekeeping to make 27 countries work together effectively, so that the EU can act effectively on climate change, overseas trade, third world assistance, action on Israel/Palestine, energy supply, international fraud, international terrorism, people-trafficking and so on. Rather than diminishing British influence it will increase it. Other EU members were desperate to keep the UK on board, hence their quiet acceptance of all the red lines, opt-in and opt-outs - and more the point, all the silly accompanying anti-European rhetoric.
Although there are obvious dangers for the Government, they are greater for the Conservatives. Hague is already trying to row back on any commitment to renegotiate the treaty because he knows that most voters are turned off by the issue and as Cam originally said, the Tories need to stop “banging on about Europe”. History is repeating itself and the super-bore Bill Cash has now put down a (hugely verbose) EDM. You can see an agonised exchange on the matter on ConHom at http://tinyurl.com/2f4avj
61. The difference between Labour and the Lib Dems over the manifesto ‘promise’ is that Labour won the election and are so obliged to keep to their manifesto, but the Lib Dems lost and so are perfectly entitled to review their position on anything contained in it.
My personal preference, if there has to be a referendum (yawn!) at all is that it should have 3 questions to settle things once-and-for-all.
1) UK to remain in the EU?
2) UK to sign the Reform Treaty?
3) UK to join the Euro?
Each party could then fight its own case:
UKIP: No, No, No
Tories: Yes, No, No
Labour: Yes, Yes, No
Lib Dems: Yes, Yes, Yes.
Not sure what the SNP’s current policy is -
could be: Yes, No, Yes - with the slogan “It’s Scotland’s Haddock!”
Benedict To be honest I can’t be bothered to carry out my threat but I’ll take your word for it! Even you admit to a serious wobble.
Actually the people who said ‘no way, inconceivable he’ll never do it’ were wrong. There was a way, it was conceivable and it was damn near conceived. As Mike rightly said in that thread I quoted everything was primed, £1 million was spent and a decision to go in principle was taken.
We came much, much closer to a GE than most posters were forecasting earlier in the year.
92 Farewell, Jack. It’s been an enormous pleasure reading your contributions. Your wit and wisdom enhanced the Site immeasurably.
Good luck with whatever comes next.
92. I feel very sad.
Re 105, Blue Moon, “Benedict To be honest I can’t be bothered to carry out my threat but I’ll take your word for it! Even you admit to a serious wobble.”
I admitted to a wobble, not sure if I articulated it though.
“Actually the people who said ‘no way, inconceivable he’ll never do it’ were wrong.”
No, I always new there would be a conference bounce and always new Brown was a bottler, end of. So in that sense no matter how close it got, it was never actually going to get there.
92. Sorry there will be no more Jack W. It’s been a pleasure. Hope you find time to shoot one last Lib Dem canvasser from the castle walls.
BTW, Re jack W, farewell my friend, for the moment. I wish you well whilst you are away!
104
An excellent idea. Though I’m at least one No LD.
Best wishes Jack I” certainly miss you.
Test
Re Tory policy on a referendum there seem to me to be three possibilities:
First, drop the pledge after UK Parliamentary ratification
Second drop the pledge if all 27 MSs have ratified ie if ratification has been completed
Keep the pledge after completion of EU wide ratification.
I can assure you that no decision has been taken to favour the third option but I doubt that the first option will be chosen. It’s option 2 or 3.
The latter would be an explosive course to take IMHO. Implementation of the Treaty could have started post January 2009. It’s hard to see how a Tory Government could insist on unravelling it again later in the year.
92 - But Jack, we shall all be utterly bereft without your incomparable and indomitable ARSE, as will be my future campaigns
But my very best wishes to you.
92 - Jack W very sorry to see you go. Best wishes for the future!
92. I have had so many “laugh out loud” moments from your contributions Jack W. I will miss the Additional Soames Weighting.
Best wishes to you and Lady JackW
Jack W
I hope very much that you are able to return after all. Thank you for your many wise and witty contributions to this site. May God go with you.
Jack W,
I fervently hope that I’m reading too much between the lines, but your post has raised significant alarm in me - “mortality creeping up” and “both [you and your online persona] bowing out with dignity.
It would be a highly insolent and personal question to ask you to confirm/deny my fears, so I do not expect or request any such thing, but if so, know that you will be remembered with great fondness and appreciation by a great many people. You have enriched this site and will be greatly missed.
92. All the best for the future, Jack. You’ll be missed.
92.Best wishes JackW, you will be sorely missed here. I hope that like an other legendary and decidedly elderly and unreconstructed Jacobite, you will delight us all by returning to carry on fighting the good cause.
If it is now Brown’s plan to bore the electorate over the EU constitution and for some strange reason believe he can split the conservative party then I think all the Tories need to do is keep repeating Brown has betrayed Britain and lied to the British people. we may not win the vote in parliament but we will remind everybody of these facts up until the next election which gutless Gordon will lose and rightly so.
Fare thee well Jack, now I know that some on here *do* know who you are so maybe, at some time in the future, all will be revealed.
112. Again, that is not my information; mine is that number 3 is the favoured option although there are some in strong positions not wanting to be that explicit, yet there are others in, shall we say, even stronger positions who are determined to be so; and they have the will of the parliamentary party and the wider membership in the country behind them on the matter, as well as the general public whenever polled, so I think the Clarkeite wing of the party will pretty much have to accept it.
I mean Blue Moon setting aside your own beliefs, don’t you think the Brogan idea is a winner in electoral terms?
“If elected a Conservative government will withdraw Britain from the Reform treaty and will seek a more flexible way of working with our European partners, including taking back some powers from the European Commission.”
There’s a lot of votes right there.
92 Goodbye JackW - Now who on Earth am I going to vote for in next year’s PB competition !!
Sorry your going Jack w, all the best.
If it isn’t practical politics to withdraw from the EU, (ie have an in/out referendum) then why are so many Tory MP’s members of Better Off Out?
On the Boulton and Co blog, there is and interesting little nugget of information disclosed by Jacqui Smith to the Home Affairs committee today. I agree wholeheartedly with the final comment made by Jonathan Levy in his article.
“Given that no other liberal democracy affords their police such considerable power, and that in the 6 years since 9/11 there’s not been the need for going beyond 28 days pre-charge detention, there appears to be very little case for it at all!”
Ave et Vale, Jack.
Here’s an idea on Europe. This tedious EU question is envenoming British politics, and has done so for decades. Now it’s poisoned debate on pb.com.
We need to do something.
So… how about… a referendum? Silly idea, I know. Farcically democratic. Fancy trusting the people on such a serious issue? But hear me out.
All three parties promised a referendum on the European Constitution. Now we have signed that Constitution under a different guise, so… maybe we should have a referendum?
I know! It’s ludicrous. I don’t where I get my absurd ideas from. What am I like? But, the thing is, I reckon it might just work. All three parties promised a referendum so we could… actually have a referendum! Imagine! Actually fulfilling a promise to the people! Unheard of.
What’s more, if we have a referendum on the EU Constitution, if we actually give people a say, and let the voters vent some steam, and get all the arguments out in the open, and weigh one argument against another, we might actually find that the issues are clarified and we can make a decision as a people. And then we can move on.
I am aware how silly this sounds. Actually giving people the vote. As if!
But it might just be worth a go.
Test
I’m just being practical. It’s one thing for France to say no during the ratification process. Fair enough that’s it’s right. It’s quite another to say yes via the UK Parliament and then try to disavow your vote afterwards after everyone else has ratified.
What happens if the new President of the Council, the Commission and the High representative have been chosen by Member States? Are we to demand their resignations? They won’t be forthcoming.
I think you’d find us under heavy pressure to explain the practicality of the policy. We would be accused by Labour of a crypto withdrawal position. The europhile ‘big beasts’ might feel obliged to speak out.
I’m not sure it would be clever politics at all but then different opinions are what this site is all about!
Re 92. Au revoir Jack W and thanks for all the fun - being a “time lord” perhaps at some you could do a “Doctor Who” and return in a different guise!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/10/22/nscot122.xml
First we get two classes of MP’s at Westminster,followed by a two tier University system which blatantly discriminates against English students,now with certain cancer saving drugs only available in Scotland together with to-day’s news we now have an NHS apartheid system in the UK.
Brown won’t need to offer a referendum. If it comes to the worst, he can have a coalition with the Lib Dems.
Cameron might have emerged triumphant from conference but all he demonstrated was that he is going back to a core vote strategy. The voters will see this and he won’t get above 35-36% of the vote. A serious Conservative programme would say:
1) Abolition of the House of Lords to be replaced by a fully elected 2nd chamber.
2) An end to the ’special relationship’ with America. Okay, like clause IV, this is a symbloic shift, but it would show the Tories had changed and understood how Britain and America had moved further apart.
3) Plan for a serious consultation on the future of the Monarchy. If the public wish to keep it, so be it, but the opportunity for regular referenda should be kept open - like in Australia.
4) Since civil partnerships have the same legal status as marriage, then the term marriage should be used to describe them. I can’t think of any reason (bar cowardice) why David Cameron would oppose this.
5) A commitment to end the Goverment’s Academy School’s programme, in which very rich people with special interests (such as evangelical christians) can set school syllabuses.
Goodbye JackW its been fun,all the best.
Brown won’t need to offer a referendum. If it comes to the worst, he can have a coalition with the Lib Dems.
Cameron might have emerged triumphant from conference but all he demonstrated was that he is going back to a core vote strategy. The voters will see this and he won’t get above 35-36% of the vote. A serious Conservative programme would say:
1) Abolition of the House of Lords to be replaced by a fully elected 2nd chamber.
2) An end to the ’special relationship’ with America. Okay, like clause IV, this is a symbloic shift, but it would show the Tories had changed and understood how Britain and America had moved further apart.
3) Plan for a serious consultation on the future of the Monarchy. If the public wish to keep it, so be it, but the opportunity for regular referenda should be kept open - like in Australia.
4) Since civil partnerships have the same legal status as marriage, then the term marriage should be used to describe them. I can’t think of any reason (bar cowardice) why David Cameron would oppose this.
5) A commitment to end the Goverment’s Academy School’s programme, in which very rich people with special interests (such as evangelical christians) can set school syllabuses. This is nothing short of a national disgrace!
6) Abandoning of the Government’s Sure Start programme. How many Labour MP’s would be happy to send their kids there?
7) Compulsory sex education to be brought into Primary schools. This would face much opposition, but if Cameron could win the argument, (I see no reason why not) he would look strong.
That’s all I can think of for the moment. What Cameron hasn’t grasped is that he really needs to shake up the system out of it’s complacency. Right now he just seems to be drifting without conviction.
92 - A very sad day for Pb.com Goodbye and God bless.
133. But why stop there? To be truly strong, Cameron could add a pledge to “tax the rich until the pips squeak”. He could pledge to unlaterally disarm the UK. He could lower the age of consent to twelve….
Re 131, Frank Booth,, Did you assist in writing Michael Foot’s award winning manifesto of 1983? Only there seem to be written from common view points.
Really sorry to read Jack W’s post that he is leaving the site for good , I have enjoyed his posts from when I first started posting on here over 2 years ago now . Jack , if you want to invest in Jacobite medals please feel free to contact me .
Debate on this thread happily a bit more civilised than on recent threads . I hope it remains so and Nick P can feel happy continuing to post .
92. Goodbye Jack. Been a hell of a ride. You’ll be missed.
Is there an opinion poll out tonight?
Blur Moon, I just don’t know where you get the idea from that Parliament can bind its successor.
We can abrogate any treaty we like, and the partners to those treaties cannot stop us from doing so. Of course treaties aren’t forever.
You just have to accept, I think, that the vast, the colossal majority of the UK do not regard the EU the way you do. They want to loosen the ties, whilst retaining many of the benefits.
And that’s perfectly practical, for the age-old reason that the EU needs our money, so can’t in fact either kick us out or deny us semi-detatched status.
Giscard d’Estaing, a noted European, first suggested what Cameron will offer to the electorate.
Sadly a fully elected House of Lords will be a supine lapdog of the Parties Frank.
blur = blue - a typo not an insult!
133-Some interesting points, but none that really interest the great majority of people. More apt perhaps for University or Sixth Form debating rooms.
Suggesting rolling referenda on the monarchy while not mentioning referenda on Europe…
Civil partnerships (read gay marriage)-some claim no one is interested in Europe, even less are interested in gay rights.
Primary school sex education-is this for real? or just a LibDem fringe event
etc, etc
Sure, the “commentariat” and their fellow travellers will cheer, the rest of us will be like Homer Simpson and say “what the hell was that!!”.
135. I’m afraid Test, that those would be bad ideas. s much as I worry about inequality, extremely high tax rates on teh rich would lead to a brain drain like the 70’s. Despite the disaster of Iraq, we still need to keep our Armed Forces aswell. A more cautious commander-in-chief would be most welcome (I suspect we now have this). As for the age of consent, i have serious trouble with your suggestion. i do not apporove of a relationship between a 12 year old girl and a 40 year old man, or indeed the equivalent between a boy and a woman. You might want to chage the law (as in Countries like New Zealand I believe) to say that there must not be more than 2 years between the partners if they are under 16. Something like that. As it is, I don’t think the age of consent needs changing, or that it would make any difference.
Frank - I was of course joking, satirising your list of in my view abominable policies such as the utterly immoral one of compulsory sex ed for pre-pubescent, innocent children.
No Tory leader would touch these with a bargepole (and no Labour leader either I bet)
140 John - you seem curiously averse to people being elected to anything !!
144. They have compulsory sex education in the Netherlands for very young children. Teenagers there alson appear to be far more sensible when it comes to the sex issue. I can’t help but feel that these things are related. I’m not saying I have all the answers, it’s just a thoughtful observation.
But think about my ‘abominable’ policies. The Monarchy will only survive with popular support, anyway. The Tories have nothing to lose in offereing a referendum. A fully elected 2nd chamber will happen sooner or later (peers are a fatally damaged brand) so I say it would be best for the Tories to get in there first. Calling civil partnerships ‘marriage’ would please some people and shouldn’t harm anyone - or not any voters the Tories are trying to woo.
If you are a fan of Sure Start and Academies then I question your sanity. Education money should be spent on teacher and their training - not endless brand new buildings.
146-Actually have no truck with the monarchy, so no complaint there. But why not have referenda on issues I presume you dont’ support:
-death penalty
-Europe
-immigration
-”green taxes”
-gay weddings
-foreign aid…
92 Jack W leaving? No more juvenile acronyms that make up a naughty word? Sad indeed.
As to who is Jack W …… well, who cares?
I am one of those sad people who have looked at the Treaty, to say I have read it all would be untrue. Whilst not against a referendum, I fear that the Sun would make it an in or out question and I fear it would be very hard to explain to a probably bored public the intricacies of the treaty.
Not sure how the camapaigns went in France and the Netherlands on the Constitution. Was the vote on the details of the Constitution or just a representation of public perception at a moment in time. Were the press almost universally opposed as would happen here?
Will GB call one - I doubt it. Backing down twice in quick succssion would be difficult.
Test
Into the sin bin with you. No excuses!
You haven’t answered my points, I’m afraid. Still I realise we’re not going to convince each other. We would have 26 countries united in their anger at us for what they would see as a gross breach of faith. We wouldn’t have a single friend to support us.
You can’t force 26 other countries to change the whole basis of the EU just for our benefit. Your strategy basically leads to the exit door( which is a perfectly practical policy).This is what I suspect quite a few Tory MPs want. It would be a far more euro sceptic policy than we have ever had since we joined( far more so than in 2001 or 2005.)
The Party would be split. The europhiles, small in number but well connected in the media, would speak out. I think it would blow up in our faces and actually cost us the Election.
At least let’s wait and see where we are after the Parliamentary process here is finished. Better far than to commit ourselves now to a policy without knowing where things will be when the GE comes.
I’ll leave you the last word. Ladies last!
My view is that Brown is unlikely to call a referendum without calling an election at the same time (indeed calling a referdum could be one of the justification for calling an election in 2008 rather than 2009). It makes no little sense to have a referendum at 9/2 while having a 2008 election at roughly 9/1.
Blue Moon,
It really doesn’t matter what the other countries think. If Britain wants a semi-detached status she can have it - without pulling out. That after all is what happened with the currency.
Do you think D’Estaing would have suggested it if he thought it unworkable?
The EU needs us and will simply have to work around the wishes of the people. As you know, a huge majority of the electorate would prefer a more flexible relationship with the EU to further integration.
It’s really a very simple matter to insist on it, much as Thatch did with the rebate.
If you are going to have referenda on ‘green taxes’ (which we have already) you might aswell have them on everything. Foreign aid makes up only a tiny portion of national expenditure. Gay wedding would again for me be too small an issue to call a referendum.
I don’t rule them out on Europe - but you have to see things in the context of the Tory Party. Most voters have heard quite enough from the Tories about Europe, whatever their own views. As for the death penalty, you may have a point. I would be opposed to reintroducing it, but if people want it back, there’s not much I could do.
However holding referenda on issues that suit YOU, is something all politicians do.
Oh and the party wouldn’t split - to stop the lazy Beeb “Tory splits” story, Cameron could simply poll the membership, as with Built to Last. We both know what the result of that would be, and the few phile MPs would be shown to be at odds with 98% of Conservative members (a lowball estimate).
92. With thanks and best wishes, Jack W
I will miss your wit and wisdom immensely
153-However holding referenda on issues that suit YOU, is something all politicians do.
As is only calling referenda you think you can win!
If you are going to have referenda on ‘green taxes’ (which we have already): really? When were they? I never got a chance.
Foreign aid makes up only a tiny portion of national expenditure. - but 3x more than IHT that was “unaffordable”
There is however a way to make referenda binding, as happens in Italy (and possibly Switzerland) with minimum voter turn out. (As opposed to the 1979 Devolution Vote where 40% of eligible voters had to vote YES.) This way issues that do not excite people (gay marriage, Europe allegedly, etc) get shunted off.
If he is forced to call a referendum it will be a sign of weakness, because he has no particular need to. Who in their right mind considers it good political sense to appease the hysterics that get on here
If one is called it will rapidly become “In” or “out”. This will put the Tories as much on the spot as Labour, not least because if it comes to the core question, the British know which way its bed is buttered and will vote to stay in - in that boring pragmatic way of theirs
“because he has no particular need to. Who in their right mind considers it good political sense to appease the hysterics that get on here”
Er, so why pledge a referendum in the 2005 manifesto?
Hey people, have you seen the betfair ‘next prime minister’ market? Someone wants to back Nick Clegg at 150 to 1! I don’t have enough in my account to snap the couple of pounds they’re offering.
Some Lib Dems have no sense of perspective whatsoever. Unless of course it’s one of the Clegg camp trying to push their man.
The three Lib Dems on the list are being offered to back at 44 and 65 to 1 which isn’t much longer than realistic possibilities.
Is it completely inconceivable for a government to say - we’ll hold a referendum on X issue, we think you should vote yes, but we don’t expect you will, but it’s up to you so we’d better let you decide. Would that protect that government at all from the blow it would take to its authority?
154. you’re delusional
Many thanks for your great contribution to pb.com Jack W.
I enjoyed reading your posts immensely.
Best Wishes.
Nobody has pointed out what greedy ars*holes the bookies are. Offering 1/8 and 9/2? What sort of over-round does that represent?
VC should be ashamed of themselves. How’s that going to encourage betting?
Very sorry to lose you, JackW, and intrigued to learn that the persona you’ve created here actually differed from your own views. You’ve left us all with a mystery to ponder. If you ever get the chance to return, we’ll all be pleased.
On the political impact (as opposed to (un)desirability) of calling a referendum, I think at this point that it would be seen as weakness rather than open-mindedness.
test and blue moon know the Conservative Party a lot more than I do; it’ll be intriguing to see if they really promise to unscramble the egg in 2009/10. In favour of test’s view is that, for all his centrism in other fields, DC has sounded consistently eurosceptical. (On the other hand, he’s still not actually withdrawn from the EPP, has he?)
Re 164, Nick Palmer, “(On the other hand, he’s still not actually withdrawn from the EPP, has he?)”
We are leaving it at the next Euro elections as there was a commitment at the last one to stay in the grouping and some of our MEP’s are/were kicking up a fuss.
After the election I am assured that there won’t be any Conservative MEP’s kicking up a fuss on this issue.
Benedict As I understand it no MEP will be on the list of candidates unless they agree to leaving the EPP.
21. Brown’s premiership is starting to bear an eerie resemblence to Major’s.
Really? I think that’s a bit premature: Major won a General Election within 18 months of becoming PM and got 7.3% more of the vote than Labour. So, Brown will have to do that by December 2008. Most unlikely in my opinion.
48 turn to p94
163 David Nobody has pointed out what greedy ars*holes the bookies are. Offering 1/8 and 9/2? What sort of over-round does that represent?
The overround is only 7%. Not egregious imho.
O/T This should keep Punter happy, Iain Dale “has recorded another three Election Battleground programmes today, all of which are alredy on the 18 Doughty Street archive.”
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/10/three-more-election-battleground.html
92- Jack W- I have always been intrigued by your identity- old Tory, paternalistic, liberal- close to John Biffen, and to many other movers and shakers in British politics in bygone times. You like a flutter, a drink, a joke- but I think you must be one of the genuinely decent people I have never met.
I am really very sorry and saddened to seeing you bow out here. I know that you have some health troubles, and I wish you all the very best for your future.
Take care Jack W and farewell.
“…a referendum happening before the end of next year at 9/2″
If the bet were that Brown would concede, before the end of next year, that a referendum was necessary for ratification, then that might be value. However, I would have thought that, if he were forced to agree to a referendum, he would want to delay it as long as possible, so that it would occur after a spring 2009 election.
He wouldn’t want to go into an election after receiving a kicking in a referendum. I don’t see why he would have to timetable the referendum before the end of next year. By waiting he achieves two things:
1 - The treaty is agreed by everyone else, including the French and Dutch who rejected the Constitution.
2 - The treaty is rejected elsewhere, allowing the question of a referendum to be put off even longer.
Put like that the chance of a referendum being held next year has to be close to zero.
164- Nick Palmer- you once posted here that your local constituents were more interested in opposing the badger culling than the European issue- taking your post bag as evidence.
So speaking as someone who is a zillion times more interested in the plight of our badgers and their prospective mass murder on the hands of some flimsy evidence (as opposed to the owe so dreary European issue)- please take the comments of your constituents seriously.
ITN news at 10.30 led on claims that No. 10 obstructed the cash-for-honours inquiry…..
Thankfully, a most respectful evening’s postings on PB.com as so it should be - we are saying goodbye to a friend.
174. talk about flogging a dead horse. I’d have thought that the police and the media would have shown some humility after the hysteria about cash for honours was proven to be rubbish.
101- Ted- I hope so too (i.e to see Jack W’s return)- pbCOM, is too addictive, readable, informative, and just downright entertaining to put down. I have sometimes tried periodically in vain to be be a lurker- but there is always the irresistible temptation to throw in a comment.
I hope that Mike Smithson keeps us all informed on Jack W’s progress- there are many of here who really want to know.
171. Tyson. I have been reflecting on Jack W’s post at 92. It implies much if not all of his character is an invention. There is a veiled apology for this. Jack W’s decency always shone through but as to the detail of his character, who knows?
I always doubted the Harpenden bit but accepted the Scottishness and the family references to a wife and son. The connections to high office appear genuine and the pieces of betting advice were always very solid.
The enigma will hopefully remain so for a while yet. At least until Jack’s 105th birthday, next January.
It is hard to understand the euroscepticism of the Tory Party and many newspapers when we cannot get our own country (England) in order. There are many bleats about the loss of sovereignty to Europe, but it looks pretty thin when we English have not got our own parliament, where our laws are made by people not of our own nationality and and where we continue to subsidise the national population in another part of a very unsatisfactory union.
Let us sort out our own mess before banging on about Europe. At least us English get some benefit from Europe which we don’t get from Scotland.
176 - It wasn’t shown to be rubbish, just that the evidence wasn’t made available and/or disallowed, I said at the time that this was not over and that more was to be emerge, I’d prefer it not to be the case but this is a boil on the political face that needs to be lanced sometime.
The next three ELECTION BATTLEGROUND programmes with Robert Waller are now on 18 Doughty Street’s archive.
Scotland
http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=bd5beddc9f9fb58bb1fe480dcaffbc62
North London
http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=0145a2f52dbfc6403d4615e6e27ff0af
South London
http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=ec847a2a976dc9a09b91fb7d78e8700b
For the full archive of these programmes go to http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/10/three-more-election-battleground.html
Tomorrow could be interesting though. How does Yates justify all that time he spent on the case (even allowing for the time he took off to watch the cricket in Australia in the autumn of 2006) ith nothing to show. He will be there for 90 minutes so it is not an easy stonewall
That said he will probably be helped by some poor brainless stage grabbing by mp’s
Brown won’t change his mind, but the Liberal Democrats might be persuaded. They have also done a U turn, and their position is absurd - a referendum on staying in the EU. Ask a stupid question and you might get a stupid answer: a referendum on the EU would require the government to make contingent plans for pulling out, and voters may vote out just to annoy the politicians, or as a route to the referendum they really want.
A compromise possibly acceptable to the LDs and other pro EU, pro democracy MPs could be a referendum with a hurdle of a 50% turnout for it to be binding on the government. With the support of LDs and some Labour rebels, the vote in parliament could be won, and this would be a disastrous and humiliating defeat for the government. Surely the Conservatives will be tempted to negotiate with others to achieve such an outcome? What do they have to lose? If the LDs still say no, they are exposed as illiberal, if yes Labour is in trouble.
171. Oh and sadly I don’t doubt the health issues at all.
178 stjohn - Oddly, Harpenden is the one bit of Jack’s identity I have always bought into - I mean who would dream up a location such as this, very pleasant though it is.
92 - Farewell, Jack. May your days be filled with Jacobite by-election gains.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23417635-details/Honours+probe+man+is+‘gagged’/article.do
And evidence for the case that tomorrow cannot be the end of it.
92 Jack W. I’ll miss your comments. Good Bye.
182
If I were anyone who fell under the spotlight I would be very worried about Yates’ evidence tomorrow. Whilst the CPS may have decided there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution (and personally I think that was a political decision) Yates will be in a forum where he can say exactly what he thinks - indeed where he will be expected to say many of the things he was previously prevented from saying by procedure and his position in the force.
As such it could turn out to be extremely painful for some senior Labour figures if Yates decides now is the time to reveal all.
It should be the people of this country alone who decide if we adopt the treaty or not after a period of informed debate on the pros and cons.
You’ve got Margaret Beckett saying things like, ‘ We are not a country governed by referendum’ and all this rubbish about red lines and hand brakes.
A referendum is being denied by Labour and the Lib Dems because they are afraid they will lose.
Sure, the Tories will campaign for a no vote, but would accept a yes if that’s what the people of this country decided. Labour, under any circumstances, won’t accept a no vote.
Anyone who thinks this episode will not haunt Brown (and the new Lib Dem leader) in forthcoming campaigns should reconsider. The site shows have angry people can get over this issue.
This is now about trust and broken promises NOT whether the EU Treaty is good or bad for the country.
188 - But he can’t say what he thinks, that’s the problem. Any evidence which would incriminate anyone cleared is disallowed.
173: Tyson - yes, I’m very concerned about it.
Back up Jack W…just hold the hell on.
What type of explanation is that for your exit?
Permanently?
178&184.I haven’t a clue who JackW is, I quite like imaging him as a 104 year old Jacobite character chasing Libdem canvassers off his drive. But funnily enough I have always had a similar view to stjohn, in fact, I have sometimes wondered if he was somehow involved in Mrs Thatcher’s government.
Good luck Jack.
Enjoyed your comments and insights on both politics and betting. I hope you can return one day in another guise.
92 - Jack - as a lurker, I’d like to add my best wishes. It has always been interesting and fun to read what you had to say. All the very best.
Re 166, Blue Moon, “Benedict As I understand it no MEP will be on the list of candidates unless they agree to leaving the EPP.”
That’s kinda what I meant
193. ChrisD. That is very much implied in some of the posts that we have all read here. I hope he and Mike don’t mind us now speculating on his,(her?), identity? If so please say so and I will desist.
The clues for me are in the humour, erudition, political and gambling interest, known celebrity to a lesser or greater degree and, most usefully in narrowing the field, his ARSE. Not many people in the public eye with the above characteristics would be expected to enjoy such pleasure from a rude-ish schoolboy acronym.
JackW
Bye Jack. The funniest warmest and most entertaining poster I have read on here. Also one of the few with genuine inside knowledge.
A cryptic end but what else should we have expected? You say the persona of ‘JackW’ was invented. I somehow doubt it. You’ve chosen a good time to go. When you started posting there were just a few unpleasant posters-now there are too many.
Well farewell then JackW - if that’s what it is.
Always guaranteed to raise a smile.
Best wishes to you and your ARSE - and may it forever be Breaking Wind with added SOAMES weighting.
Thanks Jack W - we will cherish the wit, wisdom and memories.
A few random thoughts:
(b) Who is/was Jack W? Some of the more regular people here have often referred to him as being someone famous and/or 104 years old. How much truth is there in that? Does anybody actually know who he is, or are people just guessing?
(e) Someone mentioned betting on Lewis Hamilton: There is a bit of friendly rivalry and/or speculation about who (Lewis Hamilton or Amir Khan) might become a world champion (A) first (B) youngest. [Their birthdates are 7.1.85 and 8.12.86, by the way]
(j) I have noticed several times over the last few months or weeks that I am often one of the last people to write a message in a thread, before the next thread appears. This is, I presume, the result of a devious and sinister conspiracy by the other posters who are conspiring to prevent people from reading my messages, and who deliberately time their messages to appear before mine.
(n) You are all, of course, regular visitors to my extremely brilliant website, so I don’t need to bother telling you that I have quoted seanT on it. So, in case you are one of the horrid traitors who support the EU and who don’t like seanT’s rantings, so there nur; and I don’t care if anyone criticises me for calling traitors traitors.
(w) I have labelled the list with letters instead of numbers, so that people don’t think I’m responding to numbered messages.
(%) I didn’t use a,b,c,d,e,f because that would have been a boring bourgeois capitulation.
Jack W — good luck and good health.
201. It is a conspiracy mate…has to be.
201.(j). Can we have a new thread please?
197.I agree wholeheartedly with that stjohn, in fact as a family history anorak it was JackW’s Scottish history contributions which I enjoyed the most. Remember, I had to call on him to help me out with one of my children’s homework, and he came up trumps.