Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:22 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Staffs FC wrote:

How those extra billions would be handy right now.

Not nearly as handy as the £bns we threw at the banks

Couldn't agree more - way under regulated. Soft touch regulation in fact.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:36 pm  

Kosh wrote: Quotes from an openly Euro-sceptic website don't really constitute proof of anything much. Wikipedia (not a definitive source admittedly) says this: quality mate. The original Guardian article I quoted makes it pretty clear what the position was going in to the summit. Apologies I couldn't find a related article in Socialist Worker. In fairness to him he pointed out the facts very well, not least how the CAP was disadvantageous to poorer countries. The rhetoric is all in the article. At the end of the summit he had given back some rebate under the cover of financing a bigger budget for a bigger Europe. As you rightly say contributions went up across the board which is clearly why the CAP %age of the budget went down. No concessions were made on the CAP (or other wider budgetary issues) whatsoever so Blair basically failed to deliver what he set out to achieve. Chirac and Shroeder said the CAP was not up for negotiation until 2013. It was Merkel's first summit and she brokered the deal. As you rightly pointed out the CAP wasn't renegotiated and wont be until at least 2014. Incidentally Britain were totally isolated on the issue, and Cameron wasn't even there.

Kosh wrote: Quotes from an openly Euro-sceptic website don't really constitute proof of anything much. Wikipedia (not a definitive source admittedly) says this: quality mate. The original Guardian article I quoted makes it pretty clear what the position was going in to the summit. Apologies I couldn't find a related article in Socialist Worker. In fairness to him he pointed out the facts very well, not least how the CAP was disadvantageous to poorer countries. The rhetoric is all in the article. At the end of the summit he had given back some rebate under the cover of financing a bigger budget for a bigger Europe. As you rightly say contributions went up across the board which is clearly why the CAP %age of the budget went down. No concessions were made on the CAP (or other wider budgetary issues) whatsoever so Blair basically failed to deliver what he set out to achieve. Chirac and Shroeder said the CAP was not up for negotiation until 2013. It was Merkel's first summit and she brokered the deal. As you rightly pointed out the CAP wasn't renegotiated and wont be until at least 2014. Incidentally Britain were totally isolated on the issue, and Cameron wasn't even there.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:14 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

Staffs FC wrote:

How those extra billions would be handy right now.

Not nearly as handy as the £bns we threw at the banks

Couldn't agree more - way under regulated. Soft touch regulation in fact.

Not under regulated enough according to Gideon in opposition.

Why not just accept the fact that Cameron has been caught with his pants round his ankles and stop introducing straw men that bear no relevance to the matter in question?

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:20 pm  

Wnidyone2012 wrote:

So Gordon " Don't panic brown" is a testament to this is he?

Compared to Gideon "look to Ireland for an example of how it should be done" Osborne and David "we're all in it together" Cameron, yes. Those two would make Pavlov's dogs look statesmanlike

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:54 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Why not just accept the fact that Cameron has been caught with his pants round his ankles and stop introducing straw men that bear no relevance to the matter in question?

In your opinion.

The opinion of of the electorate is somewhat different.

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:11 pm  

Wnidyone2012 wrote:

So Gordon " Don't panic brown" is a testament to this is he?

Brown was never PM material IMO. Still a better one that Cameron when it comes to diplomacy though.

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:23 pm  

Staffs FC wrote: Kosh wrote: Quotes from an openly Euro-sceptic website don't really constitute proof of anything much. Wikipedia (not a definitive source admittedly) says this: quality mate. The original Guardian article I quoted makes it pretty clear what the position was going in to the summit. Apologies I couldn't find a related article in Socialist Worker. In fairness to him he pointed out the facts very well, not least how the CAP was disadvantageous to poorer countries. The rhetoric is all in the article. At the end of the summit he had given back some rebate under the cover of financing a bigger budget for a bigger Europe. As you rightly say contributions went up across the board which is clearly why the CAP %age of the budget went down. No concessions were made on the CAP (or other wider budgetary issues) whatsoever so Blair basically failed to deliver what he set out to achieve. Chirac and Shroeder said the CAP was not up for negotiation until 2013. It was Merkel's first summit and she brokered the deal. As you rightly pointed out the CAP wasn't renegotiated and wont be until at least 2014. Incidentally Britain were totally isolated on the issue, and Cameron wasn't even there. Really not sure why you think I'd be interested in anything from the Socialist Worker. Or is everyone who disagrees with Call Me Dave now a raving lefty in your book? Bit disappointed by that comment TBH. I read the article. Your interpretation of it doesn't agree with mine. It's also pretty clear from various sources on the web that Blair's deal did, in fact, have a material impact on the %age of the EU budget that was spent on the CAP. Not because the CAP was renegotiated, but because of the new distribution of funding. Blair's deal was also given the green light by the guy that Call Me Dave has just appointed as his ambassador to the EU. Go figure. I find it difficult to believe that you genuinely think that Cameron is as good a diplomat as Blair. The evidence so far is pretty comprehensively against it. No matter what you think about the EU - and I'm no fan of the current structure - being on the outside looking in is not in the UK's best interest.

Staffs FC wrote: Kosh wrote: Quotes from an openly Euro-sceptic website don't really constitute proof of anything much. Wikipedia (not a definitive source admittedly) says this: quality mate. The original Guardian article I quoted makes it pretty clear what the position was going in to the summit. Apologies I couldn't find a related article in Socialist Worker. In fairness to him he pointed out the facts very well, not least how the CAP was disadvantageous to poorer countries. The rhetoric is all in the article. At the end of the summit he had given back some rebate under the cover of financing a bigger budget for a bigger Europe. As you rightly say contributions went up across the board which is clearly why the CAP %age of the budget went down. No concessions were made on the CAP (or other wider budgetary issues) whatsoever so Blair basically failed to deliver what he set out to achieve. Chirac and Shroeder said the CAP was not up for negotiation until 2013. It was Merkel's first summit and she brokered the deal. As you rightly pointed out the CAP wasn't renegotiated and wont be until at least 2014. Incidentally Britain were totally isolated on the issue, and Cameron wasn't even there. Really not sure why you think I'd be interested in anything from the Socialist Worker. Or is everyone who disagrees with Call Me Dave now a raving lefty in your book? Bit disappointed by that comment TBH. I read the article. Your interpretation of it doesn't agree with mine. It's also pretty clear from various sources on the web that Blair's deal did, in fact, have a material impact on the %age of the EU budget that was spent on the CAP. Not because the CAP was renegotiated, but because of the new distribution of funding. Blair's deal was also given the green light by the guy that Call Me Dave has just appointed as his ambassador to the EU. Go figure. I find it difficult to believe that you genuinely think that Cameron is as good a diplomat as Blair. The evidence so far is pretty comprehensively against it. No matter what you think about the EU - and I'm no fan of the current structure - being on the outside looking in is not in the UK's best interest.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:28 pm  

Ajw71 wrote: Cameron shoots ahead in the polls. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16175503 Milliband is doing a limp, ineffective job in opposition. as the article states: the last few weeks have seen Osborne deliver grim economic news, a public sector strike, a controversial EU veto, and now worsening unemployment figures...and yet its the Tory's that get the boost in the polls. I bet their will be a big re-think on strategy for Labour, as their current 'tactics' just aren't working.

Ajw71 wrote: Cameron shoots ahead in the polls. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16175503 Milliband is doing a limp, ineffective job in opposition. as the article states: the last few weeks have seen Osborne deliver grim economic news, a public sector strike, a controversial EU veto, and now worsening unemployment figures...and yet its the Tory's that get the boost in the polls. I bet their will be a big re-think on strategy for Labour, as their current 'tactics' just aren't working.

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:10 pm  

UllFC wrote: Ajw71 wrote: Cameron shoots ahead in the polls. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16175503 Milliband is doing a limp, ineffective job in opposition. as the article states: the last few weeks have seen Osborne deliver grim economic news, a public sector strike, a controversial EU veto, and now worsening unemployment figures...and yet its the Tory's that get the boost in the polls. I bet their will be a big re-think on strategy for Labour, as their current 'tactics' just aren't working. I guess it balances things out when the worst PM for an age is countered by the worst opposition leader in a similar period. Definitely looks like Labour chose the wrong brother.

UllFC wrote: Ajw71 wrote: Cameron shoots ahead in the polls. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16175503 Milliband is doing a limp, ineffective job in opposition. as the article states: the last few weeks have seen Osborne deliver grim economic news, a public sector strike, a controversial EU veto, and now worsening unemployment figures...and yet its the Tory's that get the boost in the polls. I bet their will be a big re-think on strategy for Labour, as their current 'tactics' just aren't working. I guess it balances things out when the worst PM for an age is countered by the worst opposition leader in a similar period. Definitely looks like Labour chose the wrong brother.

Re: What now for the UK? : Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:05 am  

Kosh wrote:

Definitely looks like Labour chose the wrong brother.

Labour shouldn't have even been thinking about those two, they should have been putting all their efforts into persuading Alan Johnson his future lay as leader.