@williamglenn - be careful, you might agree with this
I do, I do.
One thing I would add is that if you're on the leading edge of integration and a major country, you can succeed in slowing the pace, a bit like a long-distance runner going to the front of the pack and then easing off. This is basically what Germany under Merkel has done by insisting on working within the existing treaties.
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
Headline voting intention is just people giving 10/10 likelihood to vote, is that right? If so, it shows the Tories are continuing to fail to enthuse their voters.
Are you surprised, given the resident of No. 10?
No, she'll have to be replaced if the local election results are disastrous.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
No, there have been various different strategies attempted wrt trying to shape the EU - from TonynBlair's enthusiasm to John Major's non-co-operation to Gordon Brown's turning up late when the photos had already been taken. The result of every strategy Britain has tried has been further integration, because that's what the EU, France and Germany want and in the face of that opposition there's feck all we can do about it. Of course, we'd like to see a reformed EU - but we've been playing that tune for 40 years without success and it's time to accept that no-one on the continent with any clout wants to listen.
As above, we’ve led some of *the* reforms of the EU in the past.
Blair came closest to the sort of leadership I am calling for. However, he was wrong to advocate for Euro membership, and Iraq trashed his ability to be taken seriously on foreign policy.
By giving up a chunk of the rebate for nothing?
I actually don’t know the details of that. If true, he was a prize arse. But I often wonder if this is another Brexiter canard.
(See also, armchair criticism of EU trade policy, the so-called scandal around failures to approve the EU accounts, the so-called “EU army” etc etc.)
From memory he gave up a fifth of the rebate for a review into the CAP. The review didn't take place, but the rebate was cut.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
The EU is being reformed. But it is being reformed by the members of the Eurozone, to their needs, not to ours.
If Brexit were reversed, do you think we should join the Euro?
Yes. If the Establishment will not allow us to be independent, we should be a leading player in the EU, which requires membership of the Eurozone. I think we should aspire to more than being a province that jealously guards a degree of extra autonomy, in exchange for being outside the room when decisions are made.
I appreciate that Remainers think Brexit will result in the latter anyway. You don’t need to point it out.
The EU should not mean the Eurozone. The continent does not need a straitjacket, but a series of overlapping agreements, with the single market at its core.
The UK is the right nation to advance that vision.
Absolutely hilarious. Your post encapsulates the delusion that has characterised British engagement with the EEC/EU since 1973.
The objective of the organisation is to create a federal European state. It has been since 1957, and it is not going to change now. It is not up for debate; no other significant member is interested in doing so. The Eurozone already constitutes a voting majority, and France and Germany have never wavered in driving integration forward (apart from a wobble under De Gaulle).
Britain constitutes 12% of the population and 12% of the votes in certain parts of the institutions. We will never be in a position to drive the agenda; we have no permanent allies, because our approach has always been transactional. The only way to be at the heart of EU politics is to be on the leading edge of integration. Everything else is delusion.
We tried your approach for 40 years. Brexit was the result.
@williamglenn - be careful, you might agree with this
No, I do not agree.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
Headline voting intention is just people giving 10/10 likelihood to vote, is that right? If so, it shows the Tories are continuing to fail to enthuse their voters.
It's actually 9/10 or 10/10 (and also dependent on answer to Q re whether voted at previous GEs).
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
I have an even better suggestion.
Let's not bother holding a referendum - just do a you gov or a BMG or Mori poll and cancel Brexit. After all at least three quarters of the final polls said remain would win.
So much cheaper than spending a few hundred million on an actual vote of 37 million real people!
Just joking - but surely if you hold one referendum you should st least implement the result first before having another go?
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
Given the Eurozone members meet before EU confetences to decide a unified position I would suggest you are wrong on that.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
I have an even better suggestion.
Let's not bother holding a referendum - just do a you gov or a BMG or Mori poll and cancel Brexit. After all at least three quarters of the final polls said remain would win.
So much cheaper than spending a few hundred million on an actual vote of 37 million real people!
Just joking - but surely if you hold one referendum you should st least implement the result first before having another go?
Top trolling.
I pity those who keep saying 'the polls are shifting, we can't have Brexit'. Polls have no constitutional standing. And they've proved pretty inaccurate recently, too. Polls are what losers who don't want to accept the reality point at....except when they don't show what people want them too.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
I have an even better suggestion.
Let's not bother holding a referendum - just do a you gov or a BMG or Mori poll and cancel Brexit. After all at least three quarters of the final polls said remain would win.
So much cheaper than spending a few hundred million on an actual vote of 37 million real people!
Just joking - but surely if you hold one referendum you should st least implement the result first before having another go?
Absolutely. The idea we should hold a referendum based on what people think might happen after we leave rather than waiting to actually see what heppens is rather strange.
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
I think this is partially why it is a mistake to write off Corbyn from a slight dip from the campaign back into parliamentary opposition. When the next election comes around we will have another election campaign, a campaign where Labour will have an army of very enthusiastic volunteers with a much stronger belief they can win.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
I think this is partially why it is a mistake to write off Corbyn from a slight dip from the campaign back into parliamentary opposition. When the next election comes around we will have another election campaign, a campaign where Labour will have an army of very enthusiastic volunteers with a much stronger belief they can win.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
You realise the bit in bold is a limitation of the next campaign, right?
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
Given the Eurozone members meet before EU confetences to decide a unified position I would suggest you are wrong on that.
So do the Visegrad countries. And there’s nothing to stop the UK meeting with anyone on matters of common interest. But of course you have to want to play the game rather than take your bat and ball away.
As it is, 27 countries are now certainly meeting without us, and our only foreign policy is deplored by every one of our allies.
If lots of voters who wanted Corbyn to lose but love their local MP or Labour in general was such a big factor it would presumably shown up somewhere in polls.
Or if there are a vast number who would come out voting Conservative to stop Corbyn surely that would show up?
Indeed the poll mentioned that I was replying to had Conservatives with a lesser intention to vote than Labour voters.
Maybe Corbyn being likely to win is a massive negative factor that has somehow completely escaped the polls and everything else?
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
Given the Eurozone members meet before EU confetences to decide a unified position I would suggest you are wrong on that.
So do the Visegrad countries. And there’s nothing to stop the UK meeting with anyone on matters of common interest. But of course you have to want to play the game rather than take your bat and ball away.
As it is, 27 countries are now certainly meeting without us, and our only foreign policy is deplored by every one of our allies.
The difference being the Eurozone countries can outvote the rest.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
I have an even better suggestion.
Let's not bother holding a referendum - just do a you gov or a BMG or Mori poll and cancel Brexit. After all at least three quarters of the final polls said remain would win.
So much cheaper than spending a few hundred million on an actual vote of 37 million real people!
Just joking - but surely if you hold one referendum you should st least implement the result first before having another go?
Top trolling.
I pity those who keep saying 'the polls are shifting, we can't have Brexit'. Polls have no constitutional standing. And they've proved pretty inaccurate recently, too. Polls are what losers who don't want to accept the reality point at....except when they don't show what people want them too.
I would also suggest we spend the £150 million saved by not holding a second referendum on the NHS!
I can the side of that red double decker bus now:
'Why spend £150 million on a second referendum. Let's fund the NHS instead!'
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
I think this is partially why it is a mistake to write off Corbyn from a slight dip from the campaign back into parliamentary opposition. When the next election comes around we will have another election campaign, a campaign where Labour will have an army of very enthusiastic volunteers with a much stronger belief they can win.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
If all UKIPers join the conservative party it could be very interrsting if their vote follows
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
Given the Eurozone members meet before EU confetences to decide a unified position I would suggest you are wrong on that.
So do the Visegrad countries. And there’s nothing to stop the UK meeting with anyone on matters of common interest. But of course you have to want to play the game rather than take your bat and ball away.
As it is, 27 countries are now certainly meeting without us, and our only foreign policy is deplored by every one of our allies.
The difference being the Eurozone countries can outvote the rest.
So what?
As I say, they do not necessarily vote as a bloc, even if they naturally seek to agree on issues pertaining to the Euro. And even that is a stretch, given the profoundly different attitudes toward Euro governance between say, Germany and Italy.
I imagine that countries that drive on the left can also outvote the rest.
The existence of majorities we are not a part of, is sadly a reality in any association. Unless you can demonstrate it is actually detrimental to us - *and* that any negative effects outweigh the positive ones, then yours is simply a policy of applied paranoia.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
I think this is partially why it is a mistake to write off Corbyn from a slight dip from the campaign back into parliamentary opposition. When the next election comes around we will have another election campaign, a campaign where Labour will have an army of very enthusiastic volunteers with a much stronger belief they can win.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
If all UKIPers join the conservative party it could be very interrsting if their vote follows
Somewhat presumptive of Banks to assume he can bring all kipper members, let alone voters, into the Tory Party. I believe this was the same presumption which gave May her 100 seat majority.
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
I think this is partially why it is a mistake to write off Corbyn from a slight dip from the campaign back into parliamentary opposition. When the next election comes around we will have another election campaign, a campaign where Labour will have an army of very enthusiastic volunteers with a much stronger belief they can win.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
If all UKIPers join the conservative party it could be very interrsting if their vote follows
Somewhat presumptive of Banks to assume he can bring all kipper members, let alone voters, into the Tory Party. I believe this was the same presumption which gave May her 100 seat majority.
Strange times - even Sanchez lining up against Yeovil in his United debut tonight
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
The issue is that we only have fair weather friends. The Scandinavian countries will only support us to a point, it's not unconditional. They don't like being seen as a roadblock to integration so will, in the end, go with the consensus.
The problem is that our agenda and our goals are not shared by other European politicians. We want to water down the EU and shift it towards being a trading bloc and an organisation hat administers the trading bloc. Much of the European political establishment is fully in board with the federal super state, so will inch their countries towards that goal. Look at how Schulz has used an election where pro-EU parties scored their worst ever result to push more EU integration.
I said it before, we were either better off out or better off going all in. Our halfway house suited nobody and left us in a weak position. Gordon Brown gave away far too much with the Lisbon Treaty and essentially it is why we are leaving.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
The issue is that we only have fair weather friends. The Scandinavian countries will only support us to a point, it's not unconditional. They don't like being seen as a roadblock to integration so will, in the end, go with the consensus.
The problem is that our agenda and our goals are not shared by other European politicians. We want to water down the EU and shift it towards being a trading bloc and an organisation hat administers the trading bloc. Much of the European political establishment is fully in board with the federal super state, so will inch their countries towards that goal. Look at how Schulz has used an election where pro-EU parties scored their worst ever result to push more EU integration.
I said it before, we were either better off out or better off going all in. Our halfway house suited nobody and left us in a weak position. Gordon Brown gave away far too much with the Lisbon Treaty and essentially it is why we are leaving.
We’ll just have to disagree. I really don’t buy this idea of “Britain, alone”.
I think it’s a narrative shaped originally by old school Tory Eurosceptics, and propagated by the populist press for decades.
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
I think this is partially why it is a mistake to write off Corbyn from a slight dip from the campaign back into parliamentary opposition. When the next election comes around we will have another election campaign, a campaign where Labour will have an army of very enthusiastic volunteers with a much stronger belief they can win.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
If all UKIPers join the conservative party it could be very interrsting if their vote follows
What UKIP vote? 1.8% at GE2017
It was the almost universal assumption that the UKIP vote would almost all go blue which was why so many got GE17 wrong.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
You must understand that Richard often uses the royal we.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
The issue is that we only have fair weather friends. The Scandinavian countries will only support us to a point, it's not unconditional. They don't like being seen as a roadblock to integration so will, in the end, go with the consensus.
The problem is that our agenda and our goals are not shared by other European politicians. We want to water down the EU and shift it towards being a trading bloc and an organisation hat administers the trading bloc. Much of the European political establishment is fully in board with the federal super state, so will inch their countries towards that goal. Look at how Schulz has used an election where pro-EU parties scored their worst ever result to push more EU integration.
I said it before, we were either better off out or better off going all in. Our halfway house suited nobody and left us in a weak position. Gordon Brown gave away far too much with the Lisbon Treaty and essentially it is why we are leaving.
We’ll just have to disagree. I really don’t buy this idea of “Britain, alone”.
I think it’s a narrative shaped originally by old school Tory Eurosceptics, and propagated by the populist press for decades.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
The issue is that we only have fair weather friends. The Scandinavian countries will only support us to a point, it's not unconditional. They don't like being seen as a roadblock to integration so will, in the end, go with the consensus.
The problem is that our agenda and our goals are not shared by other European politicians. We want to water down the EU and shift it towards being a trading bloc and an organisation hat administers the trading bloc. Much of the European political establishment is fully in board with the federal super state, so will inch their countries towards that goal. Look at how Schulz has used an election where pro-EU parties scored their worst ever result to push more EU integration.
I said it before, we were either better off out or better off going all in. Our halfway house suited nobody and left us in a weak position. Gordon Brown gave away far too much with the Lisbon Treaty and essentially it is why we are leaving.
We’ll just have to disagree. I really don’t buy this idea of “Britain, alone”.
I think it’s a narrative shaped originally by old school Tory Eurosceptics, and propagated by the populist press for decades.
There seems to have been a much more grown up debate tonight and that is to be welcomed. Lets hope it continues with plenty of fierce arguments but unnecessary language consigned to the past
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
Given that both the Single Market and expansion were core strategies of the EEC even before we joined I think claiming we had any control over either is again delusional.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
You must understand that Richard often uses the royal we.
Actually never. It is you who seems to think you have some secret insight into the minds of the British people.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
Pointing out the bleedin' obvious, the Single Market act was in '87, Maastricht in '92. The enlargement process was interesting; in my view, a tactical necessity, strategically probably a mistake (and not just for us, the EU as well).
As others have said, the UK has always had a transactional, economic-led approach to the EEC and its successor manifestations. That's not a good fit for an organisation that would like to be a federal state. The new system of QMV, even with the Ioannina compromise, makes it harder for the UK to resist the EZ countries.
I was a reluctant leaver, but I think the UK's fate was sealed once Lisbon came into effect. I fully appreciate the sincerity and strength of feeling of those who feel I'm mistaken, but I doubt many of us will change our positions.
The issue is that we only have fair weather friends. The Scandinavian countries will only support us to a point, it's not unconditional. They don't like being seen as a roadblock to integration so will, in the end, go with the consensus.
The problem is that our agenda and our goals are not shared by other European politicians. We want to water down the EU and shift it towards being a trading bloc and an organisation hat administers the trading bloc. Much of the European political establishment is fully in board with the federal super state, so will inch their countries towards that goal. Look at how Schulz has used an election where pro-EU parties scored their worst ever result to push more EU integration.
I said it before, we were either better off out or better off going all in. Our halfway house suited nobody and left us in a weak position. Gordon Brown gave away far too much with the Lisbon Treaty and essentially it is why we are leaving.
We’ll just have to disagree. I really don’t buy this idea of “Britain, alone”.
I think it’s a narrative shaped originally by old school Tory Eurosceptics, and propagated by the populist press for decades.
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
Given that both the Single Market and expansion were core strategies of the EEC even before we joined I think claiming we had any control over either is again delusional.
You must think this country has a peculiarly useless diplomatic capability. Indeed, such a hopeless country could hardly fend for itself *outside* the EU!
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Corbyn and young people and not about Brexit, Brexit, Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit.................................................
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
That’s a very reasonable view. But did you ever consider that perhaps it was our transactional approach that led us astray?
You must think this country has a peculiarly useless diplomatic capability. Indeed, such a hopeless country could hardly fend for itself *outside* the EU!
Nope. I just point out that the objectives of the UK are generally (although not always) at odds with those of the EU and as such we are prone both to be outvoted and to see the EU develop in ways we do not agree with. Both are demonstrable facts looking at the history of our membership and do not in any way reflect on our ability to operate outside the EU.
It doesn't mater how good you are at the game if it is fixed in the first place.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
That's true of everything. We can't know everything about the future. But we will know a lot more about border controls, free trade in services, free movement, financial contributions, fisheries, CAP, security, rights of citizens, ECJ etc etc. And voters will be much more informed about the issues.
But the difference is that we will have no control over the way in which the EU develops and you are saying we should just accept that. All the things you mention can and will change - often in ways we will fundamentally disagree with.
That's why it's better that we stay in the EU so we do have some control and are not just a rule taker. That's why I'll be voting Remain in the Referendum on the Terms held in early 2019.
We'd have absolutely no control.in the EU. It is an illusion and one that has been proved false ever since we joined. Anyone thinking otherwise is genuinely deluded.
So then why is there a single market? And who led the enlargement process?
Luxembourg?
That’s a very reasonable view. But did you ever consider that perhaps it was our transactional approach that led us astray?
Oh yes, sorry, I wasn't clear. Again, like others, I feel we should be either fully out or fully in.
Europe has had a toxic effect on our domestic politics, to the point where we're essentially playing possum in Europe. It's my belief that the Eurozone should integrate further, and pressure applied to accession countries to honour their treaty obligations to join the Euro.
I'd have been happy for us to be in Verhofstadt's two speed Europe, or an associate member. Sadly, they're not on offer.
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
That Full fact interpretation is rubbish as well you should know.
What it actually says is as long as we have agreed with a proposal we have won. Every time we have disagreed with a proposal we have lost.
Basically the EU is fine with us having a vote as long as we vote the way they want us to.
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Corbyn and young people and not about Brexit, Brexit, Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit.................................................
All things are Brexit.
Brexit Brexit Brexit.
But Corbyn's got nothing to worry about with young people so long as the Tories are not appealing to them, or appealing to them unsuccessfully.
Oh yes, sorry, I wasn't clear. Again, like others, I feel we should be either fully out or fully in.
Europe has had a toxic effect on our domestic politics, to the point where we're essentially playing possum in Europe. It's my belief that the Eurozone should integrate further, and pressure applied to accession countries to honour their treaty obligations to join the Euro.
I'd have been happy for us to be in Verhofstadt's two speed Europe, or an associate member. Sadly, they're not on offer.
*
Not anymore. But two speed (rather multi-speed) is indeed what we should have dedicated our European policy to.
There’s still time!
And with that, I’ll stop monopolising the board and sit down to a late Burns night supper with Mrs Walker. Night all.
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
That Full fact interpretation is rubbish as well you should know.
What it actually says is as long as we have agreed with a proposal we have won. Every time we have disagreed with a proposal we have lost.
Basically the EU is fine with us having a vote as long as we vote the way they want us to.
Ok one more.
You are making two errors. First, you are talking about the EU as “the other” whereas in fact the UK has been a full participant of the EU. So the sentence “the EU is fine...” doesn’t really reflect the truth.
Second, by definition when we lose a vote we have disagreed. If we didn’t disagree, we’d have won! 95% is surely not too shabby given the scale and complexity of intra-European negotiations.
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
That Full fact interpretation is rubbish as well you should know.
What it actually says is as long as we have agreed with a proposal we have won. Every time we have disagreed with a proposal we have lost.
Basically the EU is fine with us having a vote as long as we vote the way they want us to.
Ok one more.
You are making two errors. First, you are talking about the EU as “the other” whereas in fact the UK has been a full participant of the EU. So the sentence “the EU is fine...” doesn’t really reflect the truth.
Second, by definition when we lose a vote we have disagreed. If we didn’t disagree, we’d have won! 95% is surely not too shabby given the scale and complexity of intra-European negotiations.
Thanks and good night.
Not so. You misunderstand. It would of course be possible to disagree with a proposal and win a vote against it. The point is we never have. We have opposed proposals 72 times and have lost 72 times.
Like I said. The EU is happy for us to have a vote bit only of we use it to support them. If we do not support them then we lose. That is the reality of your supposed British control.
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
That Full fact interpretation is rubbish as well you should know.
What it actually says is as long as we have agreed with a proposal we have won. Every time we have disagreed with a proposal we have lost.
Basically the EU is fine with us having a vote as long as we vote the way they want us to.
Ok one more.
You are making two errors. First, you are talking about the EU as “the other” whereas in fact the UK has been a full participant of the EU. So the sentence “the EU is fine...” doesn’t really reflect the truth.
Second, by definition when we lose a vote we have disagreed. If we didn’t disagree, we’d have won! 95% is surely not too shabby given the scale and complexity of intra-European negotiations.
Thanks and good night.
Not so. You misunderstand. It would of course be possible to disagree with a proposal and win a vote against it. The point is we never have. We have opposed proposals 72 times and have lost 72 times.
Like I said. The EU is happy for us to have a vote bit only of we use it to support them. If we do not support them then we lose. That is the reality of your supposed British control.
Or it could mean that the Commission withdraws proposals when it's not going to pass, it's not like the House of Commons when a superior whipping action can inflict a surprise defeat on a Government motion. Are you contending that the UK have never been able to block a Commission proposal?
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Corbyn and young people and not about Brexit, Brexit, Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit.................................................
All things are Brexit.
Brexit Brexit Brexit.
But Corbyn's got nothing to worry about with young people so long as the Tories are not appealing to them, or appealing to them unsuccessfully.
"Being John Brexit":
Waiter: Brexit? John Malkovich: BREXIT! Waiter: Brexit.
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
That Full fact interpretation is rubbish as well you should know.
What it actually says is as long as we have agreed with a proposal we have won. Every time we have disagreed with a proposal we have lost.
Basically the EU is fine with us having a vote as long as we vote the way they want us to.
Ok one more.
You are making two errors. First, you are talking about the EU as “the other” whereas in fact the UK has been a full participant of the EU. So the sentence “the EU is fine...” doesn’t really reflect the truth.
Second, by definition when we lose a vote we have disagreed. If we didn’t disagree, we’d have won! 95% is surely not too shabby given the scale and complexity of intra-European negotiations.
Thanks and good night.
Not so. You misunderstand. It would of course be possible to disagree with a proposal and win a vote against it. The point is we never have. We have opposed proposals 72 times and have lost 72 times.
Like I said. The EU is happy for us to have a vote bit only of we use it to support them. If we do not support them then we lose. That is the reality of your supposed British control.
Or it could mean that the Commission withdraws proposals when it's not going to pass, it's not like the House of Commons when a superior whipping action can inflict a surprise defeat on a Government motion. Are you contending that the UK have never been able to block a Commission proposal?
As far as the votes have gone yes. We have never successfully blocked a proposal in the Council of Ministers. As to whether the Commission has withdrawn proposals we can only speculate but neither you nor I know that.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to EU proposals on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ to legislative proposals 2,466 times since 1999. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%. Just pointing out how many times the UK government ‘lost’ is hence a misleading picture of what has happened.
Moreover, even saying the UK “lost” on these 56 occasions is misleading. First, EU legislation passes through several ‘readings’ in the Council and the European Parliament, so the fact that the UK voted ‘No’ in one of the readings does not mean that the legislation was not subsequently amended enough for the UK to support it.
Second, the records from the Council only relate to votes on legislative proposals that eventually became law. So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, as these are not mentioned in the official figures.
Third, what does “the UK” mean? The UK is represented in the EU both by ministers in the EU Council and British Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). It is relatively common for a UK government minister to vote ‘no’ to a measure that many British MEPs support. In fact, on several occasions a minister has voted ‘No’ to a measure supported by a majority of British MEPs, including those from the minister’s own party. Who represents “the UK” on such occasions? The minister, or the MEPs? In addition, when a UK minister is outvoted on an issue of EU social or environment standards, the UK government in Westminster may have been opposed, whereas the administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast may have wanted the EU legislation. Again, we may therefore want to consider to whom it is we refer to, when we say that ‘the UK’ has been outvoted.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to EU proposals on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ to legislative proposals 2,466 times since 1999. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
That doesn't appear to automatically follow. Or are you saying that everything we voted no to was passed and everything we voted for was also passed? That seems to me a bold assumption without further data, as the implication would be that every EU proposal is always passed, and I would be surprised if that is the case.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to EU proposals on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ to legislative proposals 2,466 times since 1999. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%. Just pointing out how many times the UK government ‘lost’ is hence a misleading picture of what has happened.
Moreover, even saying the UK “lost” on these 56 occasions is misleading. First, EU legislation passes through several ‘readings’ in the Council and the European Parliament, so the fact that the UK voted ‘No’ in one of the readings does not mean that the legislation was not subsequently amended enough for the UK to support it.
Second, the records from the Council only relate to votes on legislative proposals that eventually became law. So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, as these are not mentioned in the official figures.
Third, what does “the UK” mean? The UK is represented in the EU both by ministers in the EU Council and British Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). It is relatively common for a UK government minister to vote ‘no’ to a measure that many British MEPs support. In fact, on several occasions a minister has voted ‘No’ to a measure supported by a majority of British MEPs, including those from the minister’s own party. Who represents “the UK” on such occasions? The minister, or the MEPs? In addition, when a UK minister is outvoted on an issue of EU social or environment standards, the UK government in Westminster may have been opposed, whereas the administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast may have wanted the EU legislation. Again, we may therefore want to consider to whom it is we refer to, when we say that ‘the UK’ has been outvoted.
All you are doing is repeating what was on the Full Fact site and I have already pointed out the error in thinking there.
The bottom line is we opposed the EU 72 times and we lost 72 times. We have never won a vote against EU proposals.
Comments
One thing I would add is that if you're on the leading edge of integration and a major country, you can succeed in slowing the pace, a bit like a long-distance runner going to the front of the pack and then easing off. This is basically what Germany under Merkel has done by insisting on working within the existing treaties.
It is true that our approach has been to a great deal transactional, but that is our error - not the EU’s per se.
We may be only 12% but we have (had?) allies. The Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Irish, the Poles, and perhaps others. And in respect to how the EU functions and relates to its neighbours, probably the support of the EEA nations too.
Notably, these countries tend also to be net payers.
I dont believe that the existence of a Euro majority is a deal breaker, either. Those countries have not necessarily voted as a bloc, and there are many forms of European collaboration for which a nation’s position does not depend on whether or not you have the Euro.
Finally, for an organisation that is alleged to desire a federal European state, they are taking a very long one about it if they started in 1957.
Let's not bother holding a referendum - just do a you gov or a BMG or Mori poll and cancel Brexit. After all at least three quarters of the final polls said remain would win.
So much cheaper than spending a few hundred million on an actual vote of 37 million real people!
Just joking - but surely if you hold one referendum you should st least implement the result first before having another go?
Top trolling.
I pity those who keep saying 'the polls are shifting, we can't have Brexit'. Polls have no constitutional standing. And they've proved pretty inaccurate recently, too. Polls are what losers who don't want to accept the reality point at....except when they don't show what people want them too.
I would also ask what the best PM ratings were prior to the election and how they translated into votes, are the current numbers saying Corbyn best PM among 18-24 higher or lower than before the election?
"A few Tory MPs would have to be lined up and defenestrated, to stiffen the resolve of the others."
As it is, 27 countries are now certainly meeting without us, and our only foreign policy is deplored by every one of our allies.
Or if there are a vast number who would come out voting Conservative to stop Corbyn surely that would show up?
Indeed the poll mentioned that I was replying to had Conservatives with a lesser intention to vote than Labour voters.
Maybe Corbyn being likely to win is a massive negative factor that has somehow completely escaped the polls and everything else?
I can the side of that red double decker bus now:
'Why spend £150 million on a second referendum. Let's fund the NHS instead!'
As I say, they do not necessarily vote as a bloc, even if they naturally seek to agree on issues pertaining to the Euro. And even that is a stretch, given the profoundly different attitudes toward Euro governance between say, Germany and Italy.
I imagine that countries that drive on the left can also outvote the rest.
The existence of majorities we are not a part of, is sadly a reality in any association. Unless you can demonstrate it is actually detrimental to us - *and* that any negative effects outweigh the positive ones, then yours is simply a policy of applied paranoia.
Luxembourg?
The problem is that our agenda and our goals are not shared by other European politicians. We want to water down the EU and shift it towards being a trading bloc and an organisation hat administers the trading bloc. Much of the European political establishment is fully in board with the federal super state, so will inch their countries towards that goal. Look at how Schulz has used an election where pro-EU parties scored their worst ever result to push more EU integration.
I said it before, we were either better off out or better off going all in. Our halfway house suited nobody and left us in a weak position. Gordon Brown gave away far too much with the Lisbon Treaty and essentially it is why we are leaving.
I really don’t buy this idea of “Britain, alone”.
I think it’s a narrative shaped originally by old school Tory Eurosceptics, and propagated by the populist press for decades.
It was the almost universal assumption that the UKIP vote would almost all go blue which was why so many got GE17 wrong.
As others have said, the UK has always had a transactional, economic-led approach to the EEC and its successor manifestations. That's not a good fit for an organisation that would like to be a federal state. The new system of QMV, even with the Ioannina compromise, makes it harder for the UK to resist the EZ countries.
I was a reluctant leaver, but I think the UK's fate was sealed once Lisbon came into effect. I fully appreciate the sincerity and strength of feeling of those who feel I'm mistaken, but I doubt many of us will change our positions.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
In the Council, we’ve voted with the winning side 95% of the time. A further 3%, we’ve abstained.
True - in the Parliament, we’re on the losing side over 12% of the time. That’s the “worst”. But second worst? Germany.
Sadly, being in a club does not guarantee you will win every argument. I suspect our record on the Security Council and in the UN is no better, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate leaving those?
It doesn't mater how good you are at the game if it is fixed in the first place.
Europe has had a toxic effect on our domestic politics, to the point where we're essentially playing possum in Europe. It's my belief that the Eurozone should integrate further, and pressure applied to accession countries to honour their treaty obligations to join the Euro.
I'd have been happy for us to be in Verhofstadt's two speed Europe, or an associate member. Sadly, they're not on offer.
(He was arrested on FO orders, not masquerading on their orders!)
What it actually says is as long as we have agreed with a proposal we have won. Every time we have disagreed with a proposal we have lost.
Basically the EU is fine with us having a vote as long as we vote the way they want us to.
Brexit Brexit Brexit.
But Corbyn's got nothing to worry about with young people so long as the Tories are not appealing to them, or appealing to them unsuccessfully.
Tie
Lab+3
Lab+1
Lab+1
Tie
Lab+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2018
Oh yes, sorry, I wasn't clear. Again, like others, I feel we should be either fully out or fully in.
Europe has had a toxic effect on our domestic politics, to the point where we're essentially playing possum in Europe. It's my belief that the Eurozone should integrate further, and pressure applied to accession countries to honour their treaty obligations to join the Euro.
I'd have been happy for us to be in Verhofstadt's two speed Europe, or an associate member. Sadly, they're not on offer.
*
Not anymore. But two speed (rather multi-speed) is indeed what we should have dedicated our European policy to.
There’s still time!
And with that, I’ll stop monopolising the board and sit down to a late Burns night supper with Mrs Walker. Night all.
You are making two errors.
First, you are talking about the EU as “the other” whereas in fact the UK has been a full participant of the EU. So the sentence “the EU is fine...” doesn’t really reflect the truth.
Second, by definition when we lose a vote we have disagreed. If we didn’t disagree, we’d have won! 95% is surely not too shabby given the scale and complexity of intra-European negotiations.
Thanks and good night.
Like I said. The EU is happy for us to have a vote bit only of we use it to support them. If we do not support them then we lose. That is the reality of your supposed British control.
Waiter: Brexit?
John Malkovich: BREXIT!
Waiter: Brexit.
Moreover, even saying the UK “lost” on these 56 occasions is misleading. First, EU legislation passes through several ‘readings’ in the Council and the European Parliament, so the fact that the UK voted ‘No’ in one of the readings does not mean that the legislation was not subsequently amended enough for the UK to support it.
Second, the records from the Council only relate to votes on legislative proposals that eventually became law. So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, as these are not mentioned in the official figures.
Third, what does “the UK” mean? The UK is represented in the EU both by ministers in the EU Council and British Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). It is relatively common for a UK government minister to vote ‘no’ to a measure that many British MEPs support. In fact, on several occasions a minister has voted ‘No’ to a measure supported by a majority of British MEPs, including those from the minister’s own party. Who represents “the UK” on such occasions? The minister, or the MEPs? In addition, when a UK minister is outvoted on an issue of EU social or environment standards, the UK government in Westminster may have been opposed, whereas the administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast may have wanted the EU legislation. Again, we may therefore want to consider to whom it is we refer to, when we say that ‘the UK’ has been outvoted.
Now this. Coincidence or not?
The bottom line is we opposed the EU 72 times and we lost 72 times. We have never won a vote against EU proposals.
Some very strange idea of control.
What a loathsome friendship that is.