Cameron vs Juncker

[Borachio]

and that it's better to just junk it and form bilateral deals with other nations individually.

Just how realistic would this be, though?

If the UK leaves the EU, it wouldn't be forming bilateral deals with other nations in the EU individually, but bilateral deals with the EU. The UK couldn't possibly be negotiating on equal terms, imo. And would have to effectively accept the dictates of the EU, with no hand, at all, in its decision-making. I mean, it doesn't have much of a hand in it now, but leaving the EU would leave it none.

 

[Arwon]

I think the point about "democracy in the EU" is more that a rather large section of the EU voted for anti-EU parties, and perhaps a majority of the EU population would prefer less EU federalism.

Given the low turnout wouldn't it be more accurate to say most people don't care?

 

[Mise]

Just how realistic would this be, though?

If the UK leaves the EU, it wouldn't be forming bilateral deals with other nations in the EU individually, but bilateral deals with the EU. The UK couldn't possibly be negotiating on equal terms, imo. And would have to effectively accept the dictates of the EU, with no hand, at all, in its decision-making. I mean, it doesn't have much of a hand in it now, but leaving the EU would leave it none.

I agree, it's pretty naive to expect the UK to actually benefit from bargaining outside of the EU instead of within the EU.

Given the low turnout wouldn't it be more accurate to say most people don't care?

Put another way, the ones who care the most about Europe don't like it. Low voter turnout doesn't change anything to me. I think that selecting a president who is avowedly pro-EU and pro-federalism is not at all reflecting the will of the people at the most recent European elections.

 

[really]

I agree, it's pretty naive to expect the UK to actually benefit from bargaining outside of the EU instead of within the EU.

I was wondering earlier how I could describe a lot of the comments on the BBC article I posted - naive sums it up nicely.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In other news: The Anti-Euro folks have failed to establish an official parliamentary group of their own. Not enough MPs wanted to join.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Loser Cameron branded the Rooney of Europe"

http://news.yahoo.com/britain-nears-eu-exit-cameron-loss-papers-005119699.html

And the eu continues to be one big happy family. But the night of the multiple sibling murders is nearing all the more

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is just dumb to make such a drama out of the fact that for once the UK was not able to impose its will on the whole of the EU.
"OMG the EU hates us!"
No, just your entitlement.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The UK PM David Cameron only has eyes for the next UK election in 2015.

David Cameron has almost certainly, bought into the probably very good, advice that his best prospect of remaining Prime Minister in the UK is via three steps:

(Step 1) turn the UK election into a two party contest between the Conservatives and Labour;

(Step 2) get the great majority of the UKIP vote to return to the Conservative party; and

(Step 3) portray himself via the EU as a combative leader (like H Wilson, or M Thatcher) and not at all like the more modest (J Major or E Miliband) and therefore turn the election into a presidential like campaign between the supposedly "Patriotic" David Cameron and the "Intellectually Effete" Edward Miliband.


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

The average figures in YouGov’s daily polls so far this month are
CON 33%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 14%.

Consider in context of two party:

Con 33% + UKIP 14% = 47%
Lab 37% + LDem 8% = 45%

David Cameron is therefore picking an argument with the EU to gain votes off Nigel Farage. He has written off the (pro EU) LDem votes as going to Labour anyway. The particular argument is irrelevant. Whether he wins the argument is irrelevant. He is not concerned about any EU wide or post 2015 election consequences.

Nigel Farage understands this. Neither Nick Clegg nor Edward Miliband do.

 

[Azale]

I'm rather amused by how the anti-EU rhetoric is mainly based on (somewhat justly) how the EU isn't democratic enough and far away from the voters, but when it comes to chosing the EU President, then suddendly the most vocal eurosceptic like Cameron decide that we should ignore voters' input in election and chose another guy than the one from the main elected party...

If the institution is going to be undemocratic, might as well try to make it undemocratic to your advantage?

I've said before, the past 4 years has been such a wasted opportunity. When Cameron came to power, the EU was in an almost unprecedented situation, where the majority of European governments, including most of its major economies, were centre-right and aligned broadly with the UK Conservatives economically. It was a fantastic opportunity for Cameron to push the UK's centre-right economic philosophy and reframe the EU as a force for economic liberalisation, to complete its mission of the 4 freedoms, and to herald a new era of centre-right co-operation within Europe. Instead, he has isolated himself from the rest of the centre-right bloc and isolated the UK from Europe. It was a huge wasted opportunity for Cameron to advance his agenda, silence is anti-EU critics, diminish anti-EU sentiment across the UK and on the back of it secure a majority in 2015.

What a great man. I think I'll miss him if Labour wins.

 

[Akka]

If the institution is going to be undemocratic, might as well try to make it undemocratic to your advantage?

Or just plain old typical hypocrisy.

 

[Winner]

I think that selecting a president who is avowedly pro-EU and pro-federalism is not at all reflecting the will of the people at the most recent European elections.

Is he, really? And by what standards?

a) pretty much anybody who wants to be in the EC is pro-EU. It's kind of a job pre-requisite; you can't be expected to draft legislation and watch over the enforcement of EU treaties and regulations if you hate the whole goddamn thing.

b) Juncker is far from being a federalist. Or rather, he's a realist-federalist not different from many others who have dedicated themselves to EU politics. This means that "yes, federation is our ideal goal, but we don't think we're going to achieve it in our lifetime. So we do little steps instead."

Afaik Juncker should be far more palatable for the British than Schulz or any other major faction leaders in the EP. Getting somebody who's imposed against the will of the EP is against the treaties and the EP would respond by simply not approving such a person.

Conclusion - picking a fight over Juncker is an exceptionally idiotic move. The right strategy, used by Britain in times semi-competent people were running its government, was to first make a huge fuss to increase leverage and then seemingly compromise in exchange for influential posts in the European Commission. Of course this works far better if you either have a veto power, or you have enough allies to block a deal. Cameron failed to secure any allies of importance in the EU, which is a colossal diplomatic screw-up.

EDIT: well, others have said it far better:

Former European commissioner and Labour cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said: "As ever on Europe, it's not that Cameron is necessarily wrong on the issues, but he has no workable strategy to achieve his ends.

"When he made his about-turn on a UK referendum he thought that he could close down disagreement within his party and force other member states to give in to Britain's point of view. Instead, the chasm inside the Tory party is as wide as ever and others in Europe are refusing to have a pistol put to their heads."

He added: "Britain's approach needs completely rethinking. Cameron is unable to do this because he is a prisoner of his party but while this remains the case, Britain's national interest in Europe will continue to suffer. It is a crying shame that at a time when so many in the EU share a strong reform agenda, the current British government is shooting itself in the foot and disqualifying itself from leading this agenda."

 

[Tahuti]

If the institution is going to be undemocratic, might as well try to make it undemocratic to your advantage?

I think the EU is way too democratic for its own good, given that EU institutions are maintained by elected governments. Essentially, it is just a forum where all the EU governments merge together.

 

[Borachio]

What's this I hear?

Mr Juncker denied he had a drink problem, just as he has shot down allegations that he is trying to have the rules changed so he can smoke at Brussels meetings.

Rumours about his drinking have been circulating for years.

He was accused of being drunk and abusive at a meeting with intelligence chief Marco Mille in 2007. A document leaked to the Luxembourg news magazine Paperjam gave an account of what allegedly happened.

"Towards evening we arrived at his office. It smelled of stale tobacco and an alarming scent of alcohol was in the air. Half staggering, he stepped out from behind his cluttered desk.

"Juncker was dead drunk, ordered himself two espresso and asked us to take a seat at the table. Without introductory words he began to insult Mille". Mr Juncker has denied these claims.

http://www.channel4.com/news/jean-claude-juncker-what-you-should-know

 

[Winner]

He's a heavy smoker, that I have read. The rest, well... If it's not a pattern, I don't care much (I am Czech, we're used to politicians being drunk; sometimes it's preferable to them being sober).

 

[Quackers]

So the next EU President is an alcoholic?
Should be fun.

 

[Borachio]

Farage is "the bloke down the pub". They should get on well.

 

[Azale]

I think the EU is way too democratic for its own good, given that EU institutions are maintained by elected governments. Essentially, it is just a forum where all the EU governments merge together.

Not the important ones You would like it, just think of Merkel as a Queen

It's not just a forum though, if by that you mean a place for euro leaders to idly chat about eurovision or going on strike or whatever it is europeans talk about. The central institutions of the EU have quite a bit of power.

 

[IIHAAETTEAAHII]

So the next EU President is an alcoholic?
Should be fun.

i'm extremely glad you're not into journalism or historiography.

 

[Kyriakos]

The cards are finally right. Along with Baroso, Shultz, that other Belgian creepy guy, and now Juncker, we have gathered all the joker-figures in the top eu positions.

 

[Arakhor]

So the next EU President is an alcoholic?
Should be fun.

Farage is "the bloke down the pub". They should get on well.

Touché!