colhint

yup it does

Any ideas on these options the PM had, Drat? Still dying to read about them.

I suppose the most obvious option was to agree to go along with what was proposed as long as it was framed in such a way as not to affect the UK.

That would mean that if other EU nations wish to damage themselves in the way they seem bent on doing, we could advise them against it but not stand in their way.

That would protect our interests, but also maintain the good will and support of the other nations, which we now seem to have largely lost.

As it is, we have ended up with the other countries deciding to go ahead anyway, but being extremely pissed off with us and having to go about things in probably a more convoluted way.

Apart from the damage of the specific incident, there is some longer-term reputational damage. Tabling some unrelated demands at 2am having failed to give the normal notice of them or seek support and views beforehand gives an unmistakable impression of trying to bounce everyone else in a crude and confrontational manner. It strongly suggests an absence of good faith. This will reinforce unhelpful impressions and mistrust of the UK, and make it correspondingly harder to get support for other measures in future.

On the positive side, it seems likely that Cameron's shocking lack of skill and sensitivity in his approach will mean that other countries will now be more determined to impose tighter regulation on the City, to teach him a lesson. That will be a very positive outcome, though the exact opposite of what he intended.

is that bit true Peter?

I dont think he hates the EU. I think he sees it as a trading area we should be linked to, but on our terms. First and formost the UK government is accountable to UK citizens,Surely . Just because he believes there are flaws in the way the EU is run. It doesnt mean he thinks everything in europe is bad.

Anyway, I still don't know if you would have signed the agreement

just wondering Drat01, would you have signed the treaty? Not trying to score points here, just asking what you would have done

I would not have taken the actions that Cameron did and play the cards that mean there was no negotiation and left us outside of the key decisions in this and other events. There was a lot more that could have and should have been done or at least discussed in order that the responsibilities of a PM of the UK, not the the leader of the Tory party should have done

EDIT: Link - the stance from Chris Huhne is a very interesting one here

Would you have signed the treaty? If not why not? Would you have negotiated in a different way? Do you think we are now weaker in this and other matters being outside many of the negotiations?

I dont think I would have signed for the following reasons. As I understood there are financial implications for the UK. I dont think any of us know exactly what was on the table, bits keep coming out as to how much it affects us, but I havent seen the full facts. Now I know we are part of the EU and have to contribute, however if the terms of our contribution were not acceptable I dont think we should make a long term commitment. Of course, should we change our minds we could go back and sign, you cant change your mind once you have signed. Secondly I'm not sure how much more could have been done. I believe they were still discussing it at 5 in the morning. The summit was over in a few hours and were trying to broker a deal right to the end. How much room was left for manoever at that point is anybodys guess.

I didn't quite understand your reply. Would you have signed or not. I think you said you would have taken different actions to Cameron, fair enough, but was that to have things either put in or taken out of the document, which would enable you to sign it

just wondering Drat01, would you have signed the treaty? Not trying to score points here, just asking what you would have done

two posts in a row you brought up the BNP to suggest some form of Tory alliance , not sure why when we know that their core support comes from disillusioned labour supporters and even the last labour leader was borrowing slogans like "British jobs for British workers" off them

another post from Tony where he is making things up.

The BNP, UKIP and many in the Tory party share a lot of views on Europe. I know thhat you read the UKIP and Tory party websites, I suggest you look at the views of the BNP also. Its very interesting that this is certainly a common view that they share. You may find it embarrassing for the Tory party but hey ho as they say

he is right though isn't he on P231 you did make consecutive posts suggesting an alliance between the Tories and BNP.

And the BNP have won seats such as Burnley Sandwell Dudley, Stoke and Dagenham, nearly all Labour strongholds. Which would suggest that more labour voters than Tory vote BNP.

And British jobs for British workers is on the BNP website, I abhor the BNP but went onto the website to check this out

Just wondering if they do make it hard for us. How will they do that. After all we are a net importer from mainland europe aren't we?

Do they just stop buying from us or selling for that matter. Can't imagine Mercedes, BMW, Citroen, VW, Peugot, Fiat, Total Oil, Anheuser-Busch, Banco Santander, eon, Siemens and so on will be to happy if they cant trade with the second largest economy in europe.

I would have thought that if Europe (or any country therein) wanted to make it difficult for the UK then it would be in terms of their imports from us and not their exports to us.

This isn't to say that they will though I'd have thought some serious protectionist 'warring' was long overdue considering the states of economies. Perhaps Cameron has kicked it off in terms of the financial industry?

I'm sure that any country apart from Germany needs to trade with us. I can imagine the conversation between Cameron and Sarkosy.

Right then Dave we are going to put a levy on all your exports to us.

No probs Nick, as long as you dont mind us not buying anymore cars from you, or wine etc. Oh and by the way, we have just made it easier for people to switch energy companies, which could be interesting as we have just put a surcharge on Eon.By the way can you pass on to Angie, we wont be needing them 10,000 cars after all. Nice talking to you

Just wondering if they do make it hard for us. How will they do that. After all we are a net importer from mainland europe aren't we?

Do they just stop buying from us or selling for that matter. Can't imagine Mercedes, BMW, Citroen, VW, Peugot, Fiat, Total Oil, Anheuser-Busch, Banco Santander, eon, Siemens and so on will be to happy if they cant trade with the second largest economy in europe.

do you mean Viscount stansgate

that was a year ago, I thought it had just happened reading the post

to be fair in third party supply chain business the employees hold a lot of the cards. The nature of the business is that a major retailer will engage a company to do the warehousing and distribution. One strike will not kill the contract there and then, but it is unlikely to be renewed. I have been to the brink far too many times and had to back down on issues where I was absolutely right for fear of losing a big contract.

Most distribution is done third party, and there's an awful lot of warehouses out there.

Sorry, was there an example there or an employer saying that a strike by his workforce might be detrimental to a contract he is after (with the 'I was absolutely right thrown in for good measure)?

p.s. I doubt anyone in the world has ever been 'absolutely right' on anything.

Sorry you're right, I didn't make it as clear as I would have hoped. The guys on the shoplfloor new we couldn't afford a strike and would play up to this on many occasions, threatening a strike.

One particular occasion was in the build up to christmas. I said I couldn't afford any holidays in december prior to the natural christmas break. It was our busiest time (We didn't shut down at all apart from Christmas, so they could have hols any other time of the year. I sat down with the Union in the previous February and they all accepted this was fair. It was pointed out to me a week later that 3 guys had already booked a day off in december, so I agreed to honour them. Come early december 2 chaps tried to book a day off. I said no. Straight in with their union rep 10 mins later saying I was victimising them as I had allowed 3 guys days off already. 30 mins walk out before I got them back to work

Collectively almost always, individually depends on the business and the individual but sometimes.

That's an opinion that I find utterly remarkable and distinctly at odds with my experience.

I would be interested in any examples of this imbalance that you'd like to put forward (I don't doubt there are many examples of people having the eye over their employer on occasions but I'd be incredibly dubious as to whether these would add up to a situation of 'almost always' even collectively).

to be fair in third party supply chain business the employees hold a lot of the cards. The nature of the business is that a major retailer will engage a company to do the warehousing and distribution. One strike will not kill the contract there and then, but it is unlikely to be renewed. I have been to the brink far too many times and had to back down on issues where I was absolutely right for fear of losing a big contract.

Most distribution is done third party, and there's an awful lot of warehouses out there.

I have a pal in the US who has a great outlook on politicians. He knows they work 24-7, its just that it means 24 hours a week for 7 months a year. He knows an honest politician is someone who, once they have been bought, stays bought

me too

I am getting well pissed off with the constant mantra of: "Well private sector pensions are worse, we pay for your big pensions with our taxes", etc.

OK, why doesn't everybody flock to be a nurse or a teacher instead of a financial analyst or a lawyer, then? The fact is that that argument is a total red herring.

I started my I.T. career in the private (insurance) sector. My pension plan wasn't as good as the one I have now as a university employee, true. But I did get very nice profit sharing bonuses that I don't get now - swings and roundabouts.

We all pay taxes for the services that public sector workers provide, not especially the pensions (which are arguably the only "perk" of the job). We don't "think we're worth more than others", but we do think we're worth what the employers (the government) agreed we are worth.

Stop trying to compare apples with oranges and stick to the matter in hand - the government are trying to claw back money that the bankers pissed up the wall by taking it off those who had nothing to do with the mess we are in. Once a Tory, always a Tory. They look after their mates. Well, given the very limited means to do so, so do we.

Just a point here there are roughly 1m more people working in the public sector now than in 1997. And presumably as the mantra of the day was

vote for labour and save our NHS or my top priorities are education education education, i guess most of those 1m people worked in NHS or education. So I suggest that more people have flocked to be a nurse or a teacher in the uk than any other profession, business or sector since the american goldrush in the 1850's

A long time ago we had to work 3 rotaing shifts, week each 6-2 2-10 10-6 However every 6 weeks you would cop the worst one finishing saturday morning at 6 am Then back in sunday morning for the 6-2 shift. It was a killer however being young free and single then, me and my mate solved it. We would stay up until 11 am then straight to the pub until 3 drinking plenty. Home and then to bed (not the same bed) no need for an alarm always woke up between 4:30 and 5:00, no hangover and bright as a button

I had a 2 minute interview on mexican TV. cant speak mexican mind you. I was travelling back from SA to cheshire at the time of Diana's death. My connecting flight was to be delayed for about 6 hours or something so I went into London to get the train. Had a stop and look at all the flowers, and some TV crew came and asked me how I felt and how the nation felt. So a population of 113m had my thoughts to reflect the whole nation. Told em I hadn't felt this bad since Mcgrath left the villa. Didn't call him God, they're a religeous buch them mexicans

Also I think its appaling that in nearly 40 years they have ever been able to succesfully convict anyone.

i find it hard to believe that the british government dont know who did it. they probably do but for some reason or another see it best not to arrest those responsible.

I think you are probably right there Connell

Also I think its appaling that in nearly 40 years they have ever been able to succesfully convict anyone.

I remember that, apparantly they got it from playing cards

marvelous man he will be sadly missed

the damn lightbulb has gone cant see the keyboard properly, no spare bulb

Well are you suggesting the Low Pay Commision advise a rate which would make anuone who earbs it poor? But I do agree there are too many assumptions and grouping of people.

so if thats the case, they souldn't be classed as poor (unless of course they live up to their name and set the rate as what they deem as poor)

regrading the minimum wage. I don't know for sure but I would have thought the Government at the time, not having a go at Labour here, would have

done some research to set the rate which would have kept those earning it out of the poor bracket. Its not as if they would have just picked a number at random.