199 replies to this topic

[Mike]

Immediate sarcastic (and slightly harsh) reply from half of my friends: "Ha! That's the most energy one of them has ever produced!"

[Steve Sensible]

Too windy!

[David Chapman]

Yikes!

No, "Yikes!" is the response to being told that a gust of 165mph was recorded on Cairngorm Summit. No, that is not a typo: 264 kilometres per hour.

That's just the mainland, of course. On Shetland, where there's nothing to slow wind down by much, it appears they've recorded a 200mph gust.

[Mike]

I am slightly surprised to discover that Eddie Mair has apparently never heard the word 'bawbag' before: http://chirb.it/8ahIkr

[David Meadows]

If the BBC haven't heard of it, it's not a proper word

[Mike]

Nonsense ... Corrie Corfield is learning new words all the time, and she's the epitome of BBCness.

(She's also one of my favourite people to follow on Twitter)

Anyway. Cameron exercised his veto in Europe last night to place Britain firmly on the outside ring of the European Union. I don't actually have any problem with him doing that - he's a Tory, doing what a Tory does. I expected no better.

What I do have a problem with is that Clegg is apparently 100% in agreement with him. He's just completely reversed his party's policy on Europe as far as I can see, for the sake of keeping his position as faux Deputy PM in a coalition he clearly doesn't have the guts to finally say 'OK, we're being used, and we're not really doing any good here'

I hope Simon Hughes, or someone with some sense of self-respect in the Lib Dems, manages to bring the party into opposition to this.

[David Meadows]

Nonsense ... Corrie Corfield is learning new words all the time, and she's the epitome of BBCness.

Never heard of her. It sounds suspiciously like a made up name

[Mike]

Shame on you David, shame.

She's one of the Radio 4 continuity announcers and newsreaders, and regular participant in The News Quiz.

She's also one of the people behind the Slanket of Con.

[David Meadows]

Anyway. Cameron exercised his veto in Europe last night to place Britain firmly on the outside ring of the European Union. I don't actually have any problem with him doing that - he's a Tory, doing what a Tory does. I expected no better.

I don't actually know what to make of that. On the whole I'm pro-Europe, but it's such a mess at the moment that putting some distance between us and the Eurozone seems to make some sense.

The problem is, I really have no idea what the right course of action is. Despite having it explained to me over and over by pundits in the media, the whole financial mess still sounds like complete hocus pocus to me. I mean, I'm not stupid or uneducated, but I feel I have no more chance of having an informed opinion on international economics than I do on whether String Theory or Tensor Theory is a better model of the universe.

Which is basically why a referendum on Europe would produce a completely meaningless result.

[garjones]

Anyway. Cameron exercised his veto in Europe last night to place Britain firmly on the outside ring of the European Union. I don't actually have any problem with him doing that - he's a Tory, doing what a Tory does. I expected no better.

What I do have a problem with is that Clegg is apparently 100% in agreement with him. He's just completely reversed his party's policy on Europe as far as I can see, for the sake of keeping his position as faux Deputy PM in a coalition he clearly doesn't have the guts to finally say 'OK, we're being used, and we're not really doing any good here'

I hope Simon Hughes, or someone with some sense of self-respect in the Lib Dems, manages to bring the party into opposition to this.

A shocker for me in slightly defending both Cameron and Clegg but I think they were right. There's a huge imbalance in the EU that over 90% (which is a crazy number) of financial transactions in the EU run through the UK. In many ways we want to hold the bankers responsible but if they want to legislate heavily against that one country is going to take an enormous hit, the UK, while others are barely affected. Meanwhile farming subsidies are untouched which benefit the French hugely.

I also don't think there is a demand for greater EU integration from the public. The electoral pledge was no further integration without a referendum, one which would lose, if the French and Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty the there's no chance the UK would pass any public poll. Rather than go through a pointless exercise doomed to failure better to veto now and let the Eurozone handle their crisis.

I'm pro EU too but I don't think there is any way this would ever have passed UK legislation or public approval so the best option was to bow out.

[Mike]

Cameron's trying to have things both ways at the moment though; trying to look as if he has influence, whilst at the same time trying to look as if he is putting distance between the UK and the EU. Did you see the comments he allegedly made about insisting that any new 'inner circle' of the EU would have to be banned from using EU buildings for their meetings?

I think Cameron's motives were almost entirely short-term; as you say, he knows that any attempt to try and get any new treaty or amendment through Parliament will lead to his already creakingly protesting party - how many MPs defied the three line whip? - lurching into full blown revolt. He's trying to paper over that by selling it as being in Britain's long-term interests, and protecting the City of London but, if we do end up with a tighter inner core of the EU held together by a fiscal union, who can predict where the financial centre of Europe will end up being? London is in a precarious position either way. A strengthened Franco-German centre will almost certainly not allow relatively unregulated British-based banks to operate in Europe without consequence.

To a certain Tory mentality, this is exactly the path they want to be on; a return to Britain being in a Common Market but not a European Union. That is absolutely not the Lib Dem policy that their supporters voted them into Parliament for.

The ramifications of this summit are going to be interesting to watch unfold, both in the UK and the wider EU.

From the EU perspective, there's a definite sense of Double or Broke - they have to keep going on, because the only other option left is to watch everything fall apart.

(And should add that, like David, I'm not entirely sure I really understand all of this)

[garjones]

Cameron's trying to have things both ways at the moment though; trying to look as if he has influence, whilst at the same time trying to look as if he is putting distance between the UK and the EU.

I agree but if I was sat in his position I'm not sure I could have done anything differently. There are demands on one side pushing as far as a vote to remove the UK from the EU entirely. He knows, as we do, that would be a suicidal move. With those pressures there though he's sticking with a status quo option.

While I think it can be seen as provocative I think it's actually fairly pragmatic.

I agree the Lib Dems didn't stand on that platform (Cameron did pretty much, actually leaning a bit more anti EU than he's done in practice) but I think any stand against would prove fruitless too.

Saying that I do think there will be a lot of negatives from this decision, I'm just not sure he could politically have avoided it either way.

[Christian U]

No, "Yikes!" is the response to being told that a gust of 165mph was recorded on Cairngorm Summit. No, that is not a typo: 264 kilometres per hour.

Yikes!

Edited by Christian U, 09 December 2011 - 04:24 PM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

At this point I'm starting to have some sympathy for the more national oriented politicians who refuse to walk in line with the EU...I totally understand Cameron bowing out here, but I confess I don't really understand what he vetoed exactly....

I feel I have no more chance of having an informed opinion on international economics than I do on whether String Theory or Tensor Theory is a better model of the universe.

Ditto. It's gotten a bit too complex at this point for most people to understand it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that any crisis scenario like we've been seeing since the credit crunch were so incomprehensible at the time when the Maastricht treaty was put together, that they simply didn't take into account the possibility that the economy could crash, and that this might lead to tensions and suspicions between different EU countries, and therefore a rise in right wing populism and even xenophobia.

I think that if the euro is to be saved, there needs to be an agreement that euro countries need to keep their budget deficits in check. But the weird thing is that this regulation was already a part of the Maastricht treaty, but it was never specified what the consequences might be if any country let the budget deficit rise over the 3 % limit...and now we're in the rather bizarre situation that every single EU member except for Finland and Luxembourg has a higher budget deficit than 3 %, and yet we're all wagging out fingers towards the naughty boy du jour, liek Spain or Italy or Greece, even though we're guilty of doing exactly the same thing.

BTW I don't even know anymore what countries are and aren't in the EU and the euro...I found out a while ago that Montenegro of all places is a euro country, but it isn't a EU member. I thought the Vatican was the only country to have the euro while not being in the EU.

[Nick Thompson]

From the BBC Scotland website:



It's a bit windy out...

Something very British about that. "We use wind for power....NO, NOT THAT MUCH!"

On a serious note though, that's why we need a balanced renewable energy plan rather than putting all our eggs in one basket.

Edited by Nick Thompson, 09 December 2011 - 05:41 PM.

[Mike]

The winds were freakishly strong though. As has been pointed out, if winds of that strength mean we need to reconsider the viability of wind turbines, we also need to look at other broad concepts like 'roofs', 'walls', 'houses' and 'bridges', all of which failed to withstand the hurricane strength winds somewhere in the country. As you say, as part of a balanced energy solution they still have potential to play a significant role.

From my (limited, but growing slightly) understanding of the Eurozone politics and economics, what I would criticise Cameron for is getting himself into the binary position that he did. Faced with the final choice that he had, perhaps there wasn't a better option - but I'm unconvinced that that final choice was always going to be the ultimate decision point. If he'd been prepared to make smaller, more palatable compromises earlier, could he have avoided this scenario?

In the short term, he's protected the City of London, but I think the chances of the City being able to retain its current financial position in the medium to long term is not that much better for having chose to step away from the EU than it would have been if we'd found a way to compromise at an earlier stage.

Sarkozy has an election to face next year. Does this make him stronger in the eyes of the French electorate?

(4 out of 5 of the UN Security Council Permanent Members have elections/leadership changes next year - I wonder what the odds are on it being 5/5 before the year's end?)

[garjones]

It's a difficult one because I think Cameron is wrong, I think looking at that compromise would be better for the UK, but it is the platfrom he stood on and I don't think the Eurosceptics in his party would ever have allowed him to make that move anyway.

[Nick Thompson]

The winds were freakishly strong though. As has been pointed out, if winds of that strength mean we need to reconsider the viability of wind turbines, we also need to look at other broad concepts like 'roofs', 'walls', 'houses' and 'bridges', all of which failed to withstand the hurricane strength winds somewhere in the country. As you say, as part of a balanced energy solution they still have potential to play a significant role.

Oh, I'm not saying that wind turbines are bad as such, just that they need to use it as well as other sources. Sometimes it feels like people will go "Yeah, wind is best so it's wind all the way!", I just feel that is flawed.

[Ben the Obiwomble]

Except where do you place the wind turbines without lots of objections from various parties from those who want renewable energy but no generators near them to the views brigade? There are other alternatives too that pay better once established but establishing them has infrastructure costs, so combined heat and power that's generated locally, is easier to control and cheaper BUT you have to get those networks established. Germany? They did this in their usual manner, looked to the long-term benefit and paid the short-term, here? We of course want the long-term without paying the costs! It's what our politicians have taught us to expect so why shouldn't it be possible? It's just like the idea that you can continually shrink the tax rate and money obtained from it but deliver services better than ever. The problem is the very idea of raising taxes is now deemed political suicide.

My own solution? A freed up public sector that is allowed to be savvy in how it procures things, it makes damn sure the private sector delivers what was asked for, on time and with no add-on costs. Those areas that can be centralised for swifter and cheaper procurement are done so, excellent deals are negotiated and the gravy train that is consultancy in the public sector ends immediately. Of course, this will not happen because our present model of politics relies upon an outdated image of the state as being the epitome of inefficiency and because acknowledging that the public sector is working well and freeing it up to be even better would scare the crap out of those parts of the private sector that use that outdated public sector stereotype as a fig leaf for all their sins.

Frankly, the truth is that where the public and private sectors are concerned there are 3 key truths:
1. Some things the public can only do and do far better than the private sector
2. Vice versa of 2 for the private sector.
3. Areas where the two can collaborate and engage to deliver better.
The ingrained notion that because the public sector has grown then that means the private sector must have shrunk, as if there was only so much finite space for the two contend over, is bollocks. There is a very large degree of mutual dependence between the two that isn't helped by a pointless and macho adversarial perception. I've an economist colleague who, when he's convinced the market is the best option, will argue for that but only when it's the right option for a particular project or strategy. This outlook actually puts him on the far left in effect, I mean he's wanting to do evidence-based and logical policy-making - what a heretic!

[Mike]

Fractures widening:

Nick Clegg and senior Liberal Democrats have turned dramatically on David Cameron over Europe, accusing the prime minister of endangering the interests of the British economy.
Just 24 hours after appearing to back Cameron, sources close to Clegg made clear that the deputy prime minister believed the PM had been guilty of serious negotiating failures that risked damaging the national interest, British jobs and economic growth.
Clegg's fury puts the coalition under the most severe strain since its formation 19 months ago, with Europe now seen by some MPs as a potential "deal breaker".
One source said Clegg "couldn't believe it" when he was woken at 4am in his flat in Sheffield to be told that talks on how to save the euro at the Brussels summit had "spectacularly unravelled".
Accusing Cameron of failing to play the diplomatic game effectively, the source added: "He could not believe that Cameron hadn't tried to play for more time. A menu of choices wasn't deployed as a negotiating tool but instead was presented as a take it or leave it ultimatum. That is not how he [Clegg] would have played Britain's hand."
The source said Clegg feared Britain would now be the "lonely man of Europe", with less influence, not more, for the City of London, less influence with the US and less foreign investment. "It leaves us isolated in Europe and that is not in the national interest."
The stinging rebukes reflect Clegg's recognition that he can no longer take the hits for the coalition and defend policies with which he disagrees. Instead, he has criticised Cameron in a way that will raise questions about the government's ability to last its five-year term.

Running scenarios through my head, I'm not sure what the best case scenario even is any more.

Carry on as we are, with a Tory Government hellbent on introducing far wider and deeper changes to the infrastructure of British politics and society than they proclaimed even in their manifesto let alone the coalition agreement, propped up by an increasingly weak looking Liberal Democratic party that is in danger of becoming a parody of itself? How long before Clegg faces a challenge from within his own party from those claiming to represent the true values of his party?

Have Clegg force an election now? What would we end up with? The best-case scenario would probably be a Labour majority, but Ed Miliband is a weak Leader of the Opposition and I have no reason to expect him to be a stronger potential Prime Minister. Do enough of the country feel strongly anti-Europe enough to return Cameron with a majority? - in which case, gods help the NHS. Or would we end up with a farcical comedy where Parliament was hung and the Lib Dems climbed into bed with Labour instead of the Tories, the coalition we all thought was the most likely one we'd end up with after the 2010 election? I can't see how Clegg could continue in good conscience as Lib Dem leader in that case, though you could argue it'd serve as some continuity of Government I suppose.

I suppose Cameron could soldier on with a minority Government, as Major did in the wake of his own European crisis, but I think it'd be inherently unstable, particularly given the other Bills his Government is trying to get through.

Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband combined have been massive disappointments as far as I'm concerned. Before the 2010 election I really believed Clegg might represent a genuinely different way of doing things, and was sadly mistaken. Miliband the Younger, for a brief shining moment, looked as if he might be what his party needed more than his calm, measured elder brother who was perhaps too tainted by association with the previous Labour Government - but in retrospect, it's more than clear that the wrong brother won that contest.

If David Miliband were leader of the Labour party, and had proven his mettle as Opposition Leader over the last year, I'd feel a lot more confident about a snap election.

In Scotland, support for the SNP has risen to over 50%, partway through an electoral cycle following on from an election that itself saw them gain an absolutely unprecedented and unpredicted majority. I've been saying around these parts for a long while that there was always a chance Cameron might be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as it is currently constituted; I think those odds are shortening. If Salmond can come out with a coherent Scottish response to the current European problem, and state what his Government's approach to Scotland in Europe would be and have it make sense, there is a real chance for him to parlay the upcoming referendum into something genuinely historic.