The early nineties are the stuff of myth to me, so I knew the Tories had issues on Europe. I don't think I'd realised how much though.
First the EU angle:
QuoteEU summit signals crunch time for Cameron amid Eurosceptic posturing
PM heads for crucial meeting in Brussels amid EU anger at UK tactics and Tory rightwing clamour for referendum
David Cameron arrives in Brussels on Thursday night for a European summit, buffeted by the conflicting pressures of a Eurosceptic cabinet rebellion over an EU referendum and increasing isolation in key capitals across Europe.
Tory MPs on the right met on Wednesday night to discuss tactics after the Eurosceptic Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Paterson, challenged Downing Street by declaring that a revision of the Lisbon treaty would have to be put to the British people in a referendum.
Paterson's call, echoed by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, runs counter to a law passed in July which says that a referendum will be held only if significant UK powers are transferred to the EU. Downing Street says that any agreement at the crucial two-day EU summit, designed to save the single currency from collapse, will not involve the transfer of UK powers.
Amid irritation with the Northern Ireland secretary in No 10, Paterson's allies in the three main groups on the Tory right – the No Turning Back Group, the 92 Group, and the Cornerstone Group – held a joint meeting where they said Cameron must achieve "clear gains" at the EU summit.
"We are on manoeuvres," one senior figure said. It became clear that Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, had approved the intervention by Paterson, a longstanding ally. In what was described as a co-ordinated move, following a call by Duncan Smith on Sunday for a referendum, Paterson told the Spectator: "If there was a major fundamental change in our relationship, emerging from the creation of a new bloc which would be effectively a new country from which we were excluded, then I think inevitably there would be huge pressure for a referendum."
The prime minister will join the EU's 26 other leaders in Brussels as they examine proposals to revise the Lisbon treaty to ensure that joint fiscal rules for the eurozone are placed on a legal footing. Cameron, who said he was prepared to veto any treaty revision if British demands were not met, has infuriated senior figures in Brussels, Paris and Berlin with what are seen as hardball tactics.
In Brussels, senior officials in the European commission and in member countries describe Cameron's tactics and aims as "obnoxious and disruptive".
But the pressure on the prime minister from party colleagues continued to mount on Thursday.
Bernard Jenkin, an executive member of the Conservative backbench 1922 committee, used a column in Thursday's Guardian, to say that Duncan Smith and Paterson would "not lack support from MPs, party members and voters" for their stance.
Jenkin said it was "impossible to imagine" the EU ratifying fiscal union without the UK agreeing to a referendum: "The irony is that a Conservative prime minister is resisting the very idea that would give him most leverage for getting a new deal with the EU," Jenkin wrote. "A referendum is in the national interest."
David Davis, Conservative backbencher and former leadership contender, also waded in, saying the EU-wide treaty change to establish eurozone fiscal union could trigger a referendum under the European Union Act, which sets out the circumstances under which a national poll could be called.
"The raw politics of this is that if there is a significant change in the balance of power in Europe, it would have deep implications for our future," Davis told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme. "That is the point at which we have to have a referendum."
He added: "This is a time of great opportunity to rewrite the future of Europe to be much more effective than it has been historically, and I think that is a very good thing and the prime minister should grasp that. There is a whole slew of things we need to take back control over. If we are going to have a two-tier Europe – which is what is pretty much on the table – we should define what it looks like."
He continued: "On the financial operations, fine, let them get on with it. But when they start talking about centralising Europe, fiscal unions, more power to the commission, more power to the union, then we have to say we want a different picture."
A senior German official warned that a Cameron campaign to exempt the City of London from EU financial market regulation could open a can of worms, encouraging other countries to table their own demands, and derailing the aim of a quick rejig of the Lisbon treaty to rewrite the euro rulebook.
The negotiations take place after Germany and France unveiled radical and divisive proposals to put the euro on a new footing. If agreed, the Franco-German pact would entrench a new era of two-speed Europe, likely to make the eurozone the centre of policy and decision-making in the EU and complicating Cameron's balancing act on Europe.
In a joint letter, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy demanded a euro rulebook aimed at establishing a "fiscal union" among the 17 eurozone countries, whose leaders would hold monthly summits during the crisis and install a permanent president of the eurogroup as well as a ministerial structure to run the body.
The British prime minister, who faced a call from the rightwinger Andrew Rosindell to show "some bulldog spirit in Brussels", told MPs that he would be seeking safeguards for the City of London.
Accusing Brussels of "continued regulatory" attacks on the City, he said: "I think there'll be an opportunity, particularly if there is a treaty at 27 [the summit meeting of all EU members], to ensure there are some safeguards – not just for the industry, but to give us greater power and control in terms of regulation here in the Commons. I think that that is in the interests of the entire country, and it is something that I will be fighting for on Friday."
But Cameron, who was challenged on Europe by successive Tory MPs, indicated his first concern was to help stabilise the eurozone. "The British national interest absolutely means we need to help resolve this crisis in the eurozone. It's freezing the British economy, just as it's freezing economies across Europe."
Downing Street declined to be drawn on what the prime minister would be tabling at the summit. Sources said Cameron would have to "calibrate" his demands because the negotiations could go one of three ways:
• A revision of the Lisbon treaty agreed by all 27 EU leaders. This is Angela Merkel's preferred route because it would guarantee that the institutions of the EU – the European commission and the European court of justice – could enforce the fiscal sanctions on the 17 eurozone members. This is also Cameron's preferred route because it would hand Britain a clear veto. The prime minister would demand safeguards for the City, which is subject to EU regulation decided by the system of qualified majority voting in which Britain has no veto. Cameron could demand an "emergency brake" which would allow Britain to stop a measure and refer it up to the European council – the meeting of the EU's 27 leaders.
• A treaty agreed among the 17 eurozone states only, in which the institutions of the EU enforce sanctions. Britain would have less leverage in such negotiations, but sources believe it would still have to be consulted, because all 27 EU members would have to agree to allow the institutions to play a role. Cameron is prepared to allow the talks to proceed on this basis if he fails to win concessions in a wider treaty negotiation.
• A treaty among the 17 eurozone members without the EU institutions. This is unacceptable to France and Germany, although Britain is highlighting this possibility to show what could happen if Cameron's demands are ignored.
I watched PMQs yesterday and I think every Tory MP asked about Europe and there was almost no cheering from the backbenches as Cameron was answering.
It all looks very organised too. Boris said there should be a referendum and said the EU looks like it's about to 'save the cancer not the patient'. Apparently 5 Tory Cabinet Ministers went to tell Cameron to toughen up last night. And the presence of IDS (now welfare minister) who has form leading the Maastricht rebels must be worrying.
I prefer to read articles with every other sentence in bold, please.
This why the Tories are unfit for government.
If the Eurozone cannot contain its crisis, the contagion will spread, and the first to be hit will be the City of London.
The Brit banks are still limping from the last crisis; they will not survive a collapse of key eurozone counterparties. The UK is on the precipice and their only hope of avoiding a bad fall is if Merkel, Sarkozy and Co pull off their magic act.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2011, 10:27:54 AM
This why the Tories are unfit for government.
If the Eurozone cannot contain its crisis, the contagion will spread, and the first to be hit will be the City of London.
The Brit banks are still limping from the last crisis; they will not survive a collapse of key eurozone counterparties. The UK is on the precipice and their only hope of avoiding a bad fall is if Merkel, Sarkozy and Co pull off their magic act.
It is not clear what the proposed changes are. If the changes are only going to affect the Eurozone countries then it seems exceedingly churlish to use this as an opportunity to squeeze concessions out of the EU. Britain should just get out of the way and let the Euro countries do what they need to do.
However, if these changes involve a fiscal union of the entire EU, or changes to financial regulation of the entire EU, that clearly involves the UK and the Tories are in the right to say "hey wait just one minute...".
The point of the referendum demand is the blow the whole thing up - is there any doubt the same euroskeptic Tories now braying for the referendum would push for a No vote if it actually happened, regardless of the contours of the deal?
The Tory view is that even though this only really covers the EZ it represents a golden opportunity to renegotiate Britain's membership, or repatriate powers. After all, they think, that is what they've promised the electorate (and the Tory base care about Europe a lot) and the EU probably needs some British support for treaty change.
The real question is how many would rebel and demand a referendum (a month ago about one half of the Tories rebelled on Europe) and if they'd be willing to bring down the government over this.
The presence of cabinet level dissent is worrying on both counts.
Quote from: Barrister on December 08, 2011, 10:35:35 AM
It is not clear what the proposed changes are. If the changes are only going to affect the Eurozone countries then it seems exceedingly churlish to use this as an opportunity to squeeze concessions out of the EU. Britain should just get out of the way and let the Euro countries do what they need to do.
However, if these changes involve a fiscal union of the entire EU, or changes to financial regulation of the entire EU, that clearly involves the UK and the Tories are in the right to say "hey wait just one minute...".
:huh: Re-read Patterson's quote. He is explicitly asking Cameron to obstruct further EZ integration.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2011, 10:27:54 AM
This why the Tories are unfit for government.
If the Eurozone cannot contain its crisis, the contagion will spread, and the first to be hit will be the City of London.
The Brit banks are still limping from the last crisis; they will not survive a collapse of key eurozone counterparties. The UK is on the precipice and their only hope of avoiding a bad fall is if Merkel, Sarkozy and Co pull off their magic act.
This.
It beggars belief that one wing of the Tory party seems to be actively maneuvering to help bring about the collapse of the Euro.
Maybe they went short EUR/USD.
Makes me wonder what Soros is betting on about now. Too bad he took his trading behind the curtain.
At least we Germans will have a scapegoat then. :P
I don't think we need the UK in the EU. I mean it's not like it's a mecca for job seekers anymore. And I will enjoy seeing all British expats in Poland being kicked out unless they get a visa. :cool:
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2011, 02:17:04 PM
At least we Germans will have a scapegoat then. :P
[ :Joos ] And lord knows, there is nothing Germans like better ... :D [/ :Joos ]
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2011, 02:33:01 PM
I don't think we need the UK in the EU. I mean it's not like it's a mecca for job seekers anymore. And I will enjoy seeing all British expats in Poland being kicked out unless they get a visa. :cool:
Agree. The beggar-countries like Poland and Hungary really shouldn't have the British teat to suck on. I'd enjoy seeing all the Polack "professionals" cleaning toilets after the Brits pull out, followed by the Germans, French, and the non-Euro states.
The EU ate too greedily, and swallowed some turds by mistake. Time to fix that mistake. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on December 08, 2011, 02:01:36 PM
It beggars belief that one wing of the Tory party seems to be actively maneuvering to help bring about the collapse of the Euro.
Perhaps.
It also beggars belief that a currency for 350m Europeans was designed so badly that the opinions and maneuverings of the xenophobic wing of the Tory party has any relevance :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 08, 2011, 03:01:43 PMIt also beggars belief that a currency for 350m Europeans was designed so badly that the opinions and maneuverings of the xenophobic wing of the Tory party has any relevance :huh:
Well, it's not like something like that had been attempted previously.
The French had some experience with the CFA Franc :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc
Of course the CFA countries have small economies compared to France, which is probably why it has managed to work all these years.
We will now see whether the eurosceptic wing of the Tory party is as strong as some make out.
I suspect Cameron and Osborne full well realise what a failure to resolve the euro crisis by any means necessary would imply for the City of London, and they also have Lib Dem allies to call upon.
Worst comes to worst, I think there are enough reasonable MPs in the Commons across the benches to vote down as hostage-taking referendum bill.
I think. But the lunacy of democratic governments across the Western world over the last few years has not filled me with confidence.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2011, 02:33:01 PM
I don't think we need the UK in the EU. I mean it's not like it's a mecca for job seekers anymore. And I will enjoy seeing all British expats in Poland being kicked out unless they get a visa. :cool:
Poland's interests would indeed be well served by the one other major EU power keen on a single market that is both free and competitive.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 08, 2011, 03:01:43 PMIt also beggars belief that a currency for 350m Europeans was designed so badly that the opinions and maneuverings of the xenophobic wing of the Tory party has any relevance :huh:
This is true. I don't think they're simply xenophobes either.
I just hope that enough people recognise that though they may want to renegotiate and repatriate powers that there's a time to do that and when the Euro's teetering on the edge (may well be doomed already) it's probably best to just enable the rest of the EZ to carry on.
Although I wonder how the government would ratify the treaty in such a way as to avoid a legal challenge under their (absurd) 'referendum lock' :mellow:
QuoteWorst comes to worst, I think there are enough reasonable MPs in the Commons across the benches to vote down as hostage-taking referendum bill.
I think. But the lunacy of democratic governments across the Western world over the last few years has not filled me with confidence.
I think the sign of IDS, BJ and Davis on manoeuvres is worrying on that front. That's a potential leadership threat to Cameron and certainly to any (absurd) hopes Osborne has. I also find the language being used by the sceptics a bit worrying. I know they love rhetoric but when you've got MPs in the media publicly comparing Cameron to Chamberlain it's difficult to climb down.
The other danger is I think Labour's moving. I don't know if it's an ideological shift, cynicism or a combination of both but I think they're on their way to taking a far more Eurosceptic position.
Edit: Also this just seems far more brutal than anything I've seen before. Tories really are quite heartless. The attitude on the backbenches towards Cameron looks like what Blair went through in 2006-7. They were far more supportive even at the height of Iraq. And, as Peter Oborne says, four out of the last five Tory leaders has had their term ended in some way due to Europe. I don't know why but it drives the Tories mad.
Edit: One thought. If we ratify the treaty with Lib Dem and Labour supporting it but Cameron losing more than half of the Tories how long could the government last?
What tools does Cameron have to keep IDS and his cronies in line?
It doesn't seem like much at this point?
With regards to some sort of Tobin Tax on the financial centre of London, I don't think there is support for an EU wide implimentation of it by any of the main parties here, unless it's done on a global level. So it's pretty much not going to happen, not without the UK leaving the EU first.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2011, 02:17:04 PM
At least we Germans will have a scapegoat then. :P
Stab in the back!
Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2011, 05:37:44 PM
What tools does Cameron have to keep IDS and his cronies in line?
It doesn't seem like much at this point?
I can't think of much. His cabinet politics are made especially difficult because of the nature of coalition politics, he has to balance the Lib Dems against his own right-wing. There are two other problems that will only increase the threat for Cameron.
One is that he's cut the number of MPs from around 650 to 600 at the next election. There are 50 fewer seats available for MPs. Many constituency boundaries have been changed. Because of all this many Tory MPs are having to fight to be reselected by their constituency parties. I think there's more need to be a dry Eurosceptic for Tory MPs now because there's nothing that excites the activists like Europe.
The second problem is the nature of EU treaty negotiations and ratification. The timeline that's been suggested is that this treaty will come into force in March. That's unprecedented and, I'd suggest, rather optimistic. Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice all took 2-3 years at least, Lisbon took even longer, especially if you include the Constitution.
But even if we allow for that optimistic timetable that's several months in which the pressure will simply grow. Tory MPs will go home for the Christmas recess where they'll meet their angry activists. Then the EU process will go on there'll no doubt be issues with the Czechs, apparently the Finns aren't sold on the constitutionality of the proposals, the German Constitutional Court would look at it and the Irish (at least) will vote. All the time that's happening the question of the Tory right becomes more compelling. Why don't we get a vote?
I think this blog from the Telegraph is fair on Cameron's position:
QuoteIs David Cameron a beef-eating surrender monkey?
By Robert Colvile Politics Last updated: December 8th, 2011
David Cameron is about to make the most sudden transformation since Clark Kent walked into a phone booth. At home, he is castigated as a weak leader, a beef-eating surrender monkey who is missing out on a historic opportunity to demand the repatriation of powers (or, more charitably, as a Conservative mugged by reality – a genuine Eurosceptic whose alarm at the prospect of a new Great Depression sensibly outweighs his hostility to fiscal union).
If that's the case, someone should tell the Europeans. For while the PM sets out from Britain as Cowardly Cam, he arrives as Dangerous Dave, the man threatening to pull down the whole euro-edifice around their heads. In his pre-conference remarks, Jose Manuel Barroso warned: "What I expect from all Heads of State and Government is they do not come saying what they can not do but what they will do for Europe.All the world is watching us. And what the world awaits from us is not more national problems but European solutions." In short – look out, Britain's about.
Don't believe me? Look at the front page of Die Welt today, which tells us "Britain wants out of Europe." A piece by Robin Alexander on the paper's website (English version here via Google's wonky translation software) lays things bare. What we perceived as a surrender by Dave – limiting his demands for concessions to a Tobin tax that was never going to work anyway – is in fact a stick of dynamite thrown into the eurozone, the demand for Britain to be able to create a regulation-free Hong Kong on the edge of Europe in which the irresponsible speculation that Angela Merkel blames for the 2008 crisis can flourish untamed. So shocking are Cameron's proposals, says the piece, that those in Berlin thought Cameron was having a laugh – and surely he would never have the crazed audacity to put these proposals on the table?
Whatever the outcome of tomorrow's summit, the basic problem remains, months into this seemingly endless crisis: an utterly incompatible interpretation of its causes and consequences between Britain and the Continent. We see the euro as a galactically stupid economic experiment that is wrecking many if not most of those nations who are part of it, locking them into exchange rates that mean their economies can never, ever become competitive with Germany's, still less the rest of the world. They see the euro as an irreversible expression of political and economic solidarity, under threat not from its own internal contradictions but from the dangerous speculation of the Anglo-Saxon capitalists who have already done so much to humble the West.
So, as if we needed another element of instability in this crisis, here it is. The Europeans don't and can't understand what the British want. And the British don't and can't understand what the Europeans want. And poor David Cameron is caught between them, trying to find the impossible deal that will satisfy these utterly incompatible constituencies.
And all of you laughed at me back on the old EUOT when I said the UK would've been better off joining NAFTA.
I keep forgetting you can't discuss EU politics on Languish because there are too many ignorant knee-jerk-anti-EU American tards here.
Anyway, it seems tories got what they wanted.
There will be no change of treaties. There will be a new treaty of 23 EU member states. The two speed Europe is the reality.
The stragglers outside are UK, Hungary, Sweden and Czech Republic. :lol:
Hungary is in the elite for once.........Tamas will be pleased :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 09, 2011, 02:40:01 AM
Hungary is in the elite for once.........Tamas will be pleased :cool:
This sounds like one of these weird protestant alliances from EU3. :D
There is a good old-school headline at the Guardian right now :
"Eurozone countries go it alone with new treaty that excludes Britain"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/09/eurozone-countries-treaty-exclude-britain
Poor souls, I do hope they will be alright :(
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2011, 02:27:47 AM
I keep forgetting you can't discuss EU politics on Languish because there are too many ignorant knee-jerk-anti-EU American tards here.
If I were a backwards Eastern European, I'd be defensive about the one system that brought food and electricity to my miserable existence, too.
Apparently it's a protocol, not a treaty. From what I can tell they still need the permission of the 27 to use EU institutions. And apparently the Irish still need to have a referendum :lol:
It'll be interesting to see what's in the protocol, but the Tories are now comparing Cameron to Maggie and saying that at long last we're behaving like the French.
Edit: I also think this is the first step on our eventual withdrawal :mellow:
I saw a quote from a French diplomat who said the British 'behaved like a man who goes to a wife-swapping party without his wife' :lol:
The Irish will probably have several referenda, I doubt the first one will provide the "right" answer.
The Tories are wallowing in full blown nineties nostalgia.
In August the radical libertarian MP Douglas Carswell defected to UKIP. He then resigned his seat triggering a by-election (so his constituents have their say - and it looks like this could be a new little accretion to the constitution as it's a pretty difficult to resist precedent) which he's widely expected to win handsomely.
Then the government held a vote on bombing ISIS in Iraq which they won handily. Lots of people joked about UKIP moaning that the timing of the vote on Friday was designed to ruin their conference. This would be laughable if several Tory strategists hadn't briefed that the best thing about having the vote on Friday was that it'd 'fuck UKIP's conference'. A Tory minister resigned on principle because he opposed the bombing.
Today the UKIP conference wound up with Farage announcing a second Tory MP (more old school Thatcherite than Carswell and more motivated by Europe) Mark Reckless had defected. Reckless then came on stage to give a speech and will probably resign his seat for another, closer by-election.
Then a couple of hours later another minister resigned after being caught in a sting sending cock pictures to Mirror journalists who posed as random women. No doubt we'll soon get an awkward photo of him and his wife supporting each other.
They're fighting over Europe, there's principled resignations and there's the odd sleazy Minister having to step down too.
No doubt Labour's charismatic reformist leader will be able to take advantage of this.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02817%2Fed-miliband_2817803b.jpg&hash=8f6d5ddab972445cd797aa66d8359a6bb2aa54fa)
Oh. :bleeding: :weep: :ph34r:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 09, 2011, 04:09:23 AM
There is a good old-school headline at the Guardian right now :
"Eurozone countries go it alone with new treaty that excludes Britain"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/09/eurozone-countries-treaty-exclude-britain
Poor souls, I do hope they will be alright :(
Fog in Channel, Continent cut off?
It is really bizzare to watch video footage from the 70s and 80s where the Tories were pro and labour anti Europe :lol:
I've read there's a third Tory mp ready to defect at a strategic time (post Tory conference iirc)
Goddamnit stop with the fucking thread resurrection. I lost 10 minutes before I realised this is fucking 3 years old. Why can't you fucking start a new thread?
Why can't you click the "New" button like a civilized human being?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 04:53:13 PM
Why can't you click the "New" button like a civilized human being?
:lol:
If I had a thread from 1990 about Tory wars I'd be resurrecting that every time they go proper mental about Europe.
Is it time for the eurosceptics to: put up or shut up?
(10 internet pounds to whoever gets the reference.)
I am glad we don't have any threads from the early 90s. All my angst over George Bush losing to Bill Clinton would be painful to relive.
Quote from: Warspite on September 27, 2014, 05:51:06 PM
Is it time for the eurosceptics to: put up or shut up?
The bastards never do.
Modern technology is sometimes Brilliant, love the fact that such a self-important man has been brought low because he choose to send a photo of his todger to a young eligible women. :cool:
The picture of Miliband is worse than the cock pics.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2011, 02:17:04 PM
At least we Germans will have a scapegoat then. :P
One might even call it a stab in the back. :hmm:
EDIT: Beaten by myself! :face:
You have got to be kidding me Tim.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2014, 01:44:10 AM
You have got to be kidding me Tim.
I'm not the only one who didn't notice it wasn't a new thread. :blush:
At least Tim is consistent and predictable when it comes to puns. :P
Quote from: Warspite on September 27, 2014, 05:51:06 PM
Is it time for the eurosceptics to: put up or shut up?
(10 internet pounds to whoever gets the reference.)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F11%2Fjohn-major1.jpg&hash=dac906723e86d9834a79b4b73e2e9aea6b29ba73)
I miss John Major as PM. Cameron is such a non-leader :(
Whereas Major...? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2014, 12:14:40 PM
Whereas Major...? :blink:
Weak compared to Maggie, but from my perspective he was a pretty decent leader.
How much did they give him?
Quote from: derspiess on September 29, 2014, 12:39:44 PM
Weak compared to Maggie, but from my perspective he was a pretty decent leader.
Yeah. Not how he's seen over here.
His reputation's improved, people give him credit for helping set up the economic growth in the New Labour era and he's now distant enough to be an avuncular presence saying things on Radio 4 that are generally supportive of the government and Cameron.
But he was a pretty torrid Prime Minister. Always hamstrung by having a small majority, so he was permanently at the mercy of the extreme 'bastards' who'd never forgive him for signing Maastricht or regicide. He had to repeatedly beg them not to accidentally throw him out of office and ultimately challenged them to 'put up or shut up' by actually having a leadership contest. They put up, lost, but didn't shut up.
Tony Blair's attacks on him kind of summed him up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpZhugomNJE
Incidentally fierce rumours of another defection soon.
Wait regicide?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rjgeib.com%2Fthoughts%2Ffrench%2Frobes.jpg&hash=962a43dfb8ba859c640e53d469aa03fef322d33b)
:w00t:
Of course the monarch still lives so you have to explain this one to me. Was this a symbolic killing of a metaphorical monarch?
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:37:41 PM
Of course the monarch still lives so you have to explain this one to me. Was this a symbolic killing of a metaphorical monarch?
Tory regicide when they crazedly cheer the Leader right until the moment they stab them in the back :lol:
It's like German history in reverse.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:37:41 PM
Wait regicide?
Axing Thatcher, in case Sheilbh's post wasn't clear enough.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:41:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:37:41 PM
Wait regicide?
Axing Thatcher, in case Sheilbh's post wasn't clear enough.
Of course she didn't help matters. Her and Ted Heath are probably the worst examples of how a former leader should behave. Ted Heath sulked for thirty years, looking away whenever she was in the room, and she repeatedly commented on what she'd be doing in John Major's place.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2014, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:41:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:37:41 PM
Wait regicide?
Axing Thatcher, in case Sheilbh's post wasn't clear enough.
Of course she didn't help matters. Her and Ted Heath are probably the worst examples of how a former leader should behave. Ted Heath sulked for thirty years, looking away whenever she was in the room, and she repeatedly commented on what she'd be doing in John Major's place.
I see your examples, and raise you Joe Clark. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2014, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:41:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:37:41 PM
Wait regicide?
Axing Thatcher, in case Sheilbh's post wasn't clear enough.
Of course she didn't help matters. Her and Ted Heath are probably the worst examples of how a former leader should behave. Ted Heath sulked for thirty years, looking away whenever she was in the room, and she repeatedly commented on what she'd be doing in John Major's place.
I see your examples, and raise you Joe Clark. <_<
What did Joe do wrong? I mean, other than not liking the new Conservative Party that cannibalized the Progressive Conservative Party which he'd served his whole career?
What about Gerhard Schröder becoming Putin's stooge?
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2014, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:41:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:37:41 PM
Wait regicide?
Axing Thatcher, in case Sheilbh's post wasn't clear enough.
Of course she didn't help matters. Her and Ted Heath are probably the worst examples of how a former leader should behave. Ted Heath sulked for thirty years, looking away whenever she was in the room, and she repeatedly commented on what she'd be doing in John Major's place.
I see your examples, and raise you Joe Clark. <_<
What did Joe do wrong? I mean, other than not liking the new Conservative Party that cannibalized the Progressive Conservative Party which he'd served his whole career?
"Cannibalized"? :rolleyes:
The two parties voted and agreed to merge. Plus, it's not like the PC Party was anything more than a shadow of it's former self - enough supporters and donors to keep going, but nowhere near enough to be any threat of winning an election.
Clarke went out of his way to oppose the merger, then once the merger went ahead went out of his way to oppose the newly merged party.
And of course see how weell that worked out for him. Instead of being a vaunted "elder statesman" to the Conservative Party, he's now a nobody in Ottawa.
At least he turned that inner city High School around.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2014, 02:48:10 PM
What about Gerhard Schröder becoming Putin's stooge?
I mean for their parties. He's like Tony Blair shilling about the human rights record of any autocrat in difficulty. But generally he doesn't cause difficulties for Miliband and didn't really for Brown.
They should do one of two things - either return to politics and quietly and decently support your successor (see Alec Douglas-Home who went on to be Foreign Secretary for Ted Heath) or comfortably retire, maybe to the House of Lords, write the odd memoir and do useful work in something that interests you, like John Major and cricket.
Brown's breaking the mould of course by leaving office, only to return to save the country and dictate a new constitutional settlement to us :mellow: :o
The most loyal former party boss in Germany is Wolfgang Schäuble. He was basically thrown under the bus by Angela Merkel, but has arguably been her most important minister since she took office.
The most disloyal former party boss in Germany is Oskar Lafontaine, who was the leader of the Social Democrats in the late 90s, then didn't become chancellor because Schröder was in a better position. He then quit the SPD and defected to the Left Party and is one of the reasons why that party is still doing quite well, hurting his old party for more than a decade now.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2014, 03:07:43 PM
The most loyal former party boss in Germany is Wolfgang Schäuble. He was basically thrown under the bus by Angela Merkel, but has arguably been her most important minister since she took office.
Which is kind of too bad, as he is the second coming of Heinrich Bruening.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 02:52:16 PM
"Cannibalized"? :rolleyes:
The two parties voted and agreed to merge. Plus, it's not like the PC Party was anything more than a shadow of it's former self - enough supporters and donors to keep going, but nowhere near enough to be any threat of winning an election.
Clarke went out of his way to oppose the merger, then once the merger went ahead went out of his way to oppose the newly merged party.
And of course see how weell that worked out for him. Instead of being a vaunted "elder statesman" to the Conservative Party, he's now a nobody in Ottawa.
Yeah, he stuck to his principles. He opposed the merger, and he continued to oppose the merger. It does not make him a bad ex-PM that he, a Red Tory, disagreed with his party merging with a populist party intent on shedding the Red Tory part of the party.
Quote from: Jacob on September 30, 2014, 04:19:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 02:52:16 PM
"Cannibalized"? :rolleyes:
The two parties voted and agreed to merge. Plus, it's not like the PC Party was anything more than a shadow of it's former self - enough supporters and donors to keep going, but nowhere near enough to be any threat of winning an election.
Clarke went out of his way to oppose the merger, then once the merger went ahead went out of his way to oppose the newly merged party.
And of course see how weell that worked out for him. Instead of being a vaunted "elder statesman" to the Conservative Party, he's now a nobody in Ottawa.
Yeah, he stuck to his principles. He opposed the merger, and he continued to oppose the merger. It does not make him a bad ex-PM that he, a Red Tory, disagreed with his party merging with a populist party intent on shedding the Red Tory part of the party.
The question was in discussing the "worst example of how a former leader should behave". Joe had his time as leader - twice in fact. He almost certainly should never have taken over the leadership a second time, but in any event once he resigned that second time he should let the party and it's new leader plot their own course. As an "elder statesman" his role should have been to give private guidance, write letters and give speeches on important but generally non-partisan topics.
What he shouldn't have done is exactly what he did - continue to speak out vocally about ongoing policy and party issues.
You didn't see Mulroney or even Kim Campbell attempt to play party politics the way Clark did. Hell even Chretien, despite the obvious animosity he held for Paul Martin, knew to keep his mouth shut.