Cameron wins German support on EU talks

BertieUK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They are SHOWING leadership. Cameron has just shown mature leadership with experience.

Graham how can you say that he has shown MATURE leadership with EXPERIENCE when he has the claim to fame to be is being...

....the YOUNGEST Prime Minister for almost 200 years. It does not add up.

regards
Bob

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

Graham how can you say that he has shown MATURE leadership with EXPERIENCE when he has the claim to fame to be is being...

....the YOUNGEST Prime Minister for almost 200 years. It does not add up.

regards
Bob

perhaps it's because graham is looking at what happened in these specific negotiations and making a reasoned assessment of cameron's performance, rather than just ignoring what has happened and making an illogical statement that a 46 year old man cannot for some unstated reason show maturity or experience.

i much prefer discussing stuff with people who don't have any party political affiliation personally as they can rationally dissect individual events on their merit rather than just slagging off the everything one party does regardless of what it is and blindly cheering on the other even when it is being !!!!!!. this government has been naff but it's a bit stupid to suggest that, because david cameron is the youngest prime minister for 200 years, they have somehow screwed up the latest round of EU budget negotiations when they have advanced the position that they were told to advance by parliament.

Generali

From what I've read, it seems that Cameron was 'the voice of reason', offing a small increase. It was bigger than other countries wanted while falling some way short of what Club Med wanted.

I liked this line:

http://www.france24.com/en/20121123-uk-france-eu-budget-cameron

France’s Hollande said that was worth fighting for, adding he would be happy to walk away from the meeting if his demands were not met.
‘’No country should have a privileged position,” Hollande retorted. ‘’I come here to find a compromise, not to set an ultimatum.”

!

GeorgeHowell

BertieUK wrote: »

Lastly I must say that the country did not elect them with a majority, and Cameron sold the Liberals down the swanny and have virtually destroyed the Liberal Party.

We should have demanded another election, because how could two opposition parties fairly lead a counrty.

regards
Bob

The Liberal Democrats could have insisted on another election but they chose to go into coalition.

BertieUK

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The Liberal Democrats could have insisted on another election but they chose to go into coalition.

Yes this is so very true, but it was to be their first chance to proove to the Electorate that they could be a strong player, and was not going to let this pass them by.

Looking back it turned out not to have been the sensible thing to have done, but they did not have a Crystal Ball.

George... I always thought that a Coalition Government was only to be lawfull when a country was at war, not in peacetime because they have proved that it was not fair on the electorate and our country.

We should now pass a law forbidding this to happen ever again.

Regards
Bob

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

Yes this is so very true, but it was to be their first chance to proove to the Electorate that they could be a strong player, and was not going to let this pass them by.

Looking back it turned out not to have been the sensible thing to have done, but they did not have a Crystal Ball.

George... I always thought that a Coalition Government was only to be lawfull when a country was at war, not in peacetime because they have proved that it was not fair on the electorate and our country.

We should now pass a law forbidding this to happen ever again.

Regards
Bob

You want to ban elected politicians from forming a government? What next? Ban the Tory party because you don't like it?

BertieUK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You want to ban elected politicians from forming a government? What next? Ban the Tory party because you don't like it?

Your prospects for a brigher future are looking quite dim.

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

Your prospects for a brigher future are looking quite dim.

Why bother taking the time to post if you're not going to actually say anything?

BertieUK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Why bother taking the time to post if you're not going to actually say anything?

I can only makes comments when justified, but then what can a man who is nearly eighty reply to your comments of....

You want to ban elected politicians from forming a government? What next? Ban the Tory party because you don't like it?

I just want to see our country run by resposible people of any party that are voted in by a majority, even if it was only 35% as someone commented on Tony Blairs electorate at least they had a working majority.

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

I can only makes comments when justified, but then what can a man who is nearly eighty reply to your comments of....

You want to ban elected politicians from forming a government? What next? Ban the Tory party because you don't like it?

I just want to see our country run by resposible people of any party that are voted in by a majority, even if it was only 35% as someone commented on Tony Blairs electorate at least they had a working majority.

So what happens when the electorate do not give any party a majority? Say the electorate was wrong and ask them to reconsider their choice and vote again. Just have election after election eventually there is a parliamentary majority? That's fundamentally undemocratic if you ask me. The electorate chose to give no party a majority - hence the electorate implicity chose to be governed by coalition.


If you are nearly 80, then presumably you remember the lib/lab pact in the 70s? Were you demanding a change to the system then?