Europe

[Furunculus]

...and anti-healthy Transatlantic relations.
The Conservatives can pretend to their electorate that their unfortunate change of policy is really cool, what with taking a though stance against an EU that seeks to undermine Britain's sovereignity.
But now not only Britain's European partners, but the Americans too, are starting to worry that the Tories will weaken British influence. Weaken it in Europe, and in Washington.

You have two recurring themes, Furunculus, of where you want to take Britain: less EU, and more pro-American. It would seem that the two are increasingly at odds, owing to the unfortunate change of course of the Tories.
That is what this is about. About American unease over the Tories and this new alliance of the weird, the bizarre, and the British Conservatives. Washington, in order to maintain the special relationship with the UK, would prefer the Tories to be mature towards Europe. The Conservatives are not the UKIP, they have no business with these parties and sentiments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...es-us-pressure
That's what Washington is thinking. Pretty close to my position: strenghten Britain, strenghten the EU, cherish the Special Relationship between the UK and the US, and strengthen Transatlantic ties.

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.

So you're telling me that america wants us in the heart of federal europe. Is that because:
a) They want a partner in the 21st century
b) They want that partner to be as anglophile as possible
Tell me something i don't know!

No, what i'm telling you is that a Britain of shrinking importance is feeling increasingly like it must choose a side rather tha straddle the divide, i disagree, but if a side must be chosen then i would prefer we chose the anglosphere rather than europe.
This does not mean that i refuse to recognise that the US wishes to leverage the UK for US strategic benefit by anglo-cising a potential partner for the future (read: federal EU), but why does that matter? i don't feel jilted or betrayed, politics is about interests, and i seek to ally Britain to power blocs that are:
a) powerful
b) as closely aligned with our own interests as possible
So the fact that we don't wish to infiltrate and subvert the EU is something Washington will have to live with.

No, it is called representative democracy, they are representing the wish of the electorate in holding a platform that opposes further federal integration.

It's hardly likely you'd get legions of hardcore Tories defecting to UKIP in a General Election. Cameron has the political capital to just ignore the Eurosceptic wing of his party;

it's not an issue we, the electorate, care about. Having the capital doesn't mean you have the balls though

lol, what parallel universe do you live in?
the expenses scandal was an event that broke the stranglehold of the 2.5 party system, voter contempt (if it persists) for a political class that doesn't represent their interests could see a general election where no party can form a majority government without a coalition of minor parties.

roflmao, not an issue voters are interested in, dissatisfaction at the lack of the promised referendum is about the one issue that every voter agrees with.

"4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society."
That just shouts that the whole of the group is going to be caught having a gay orgy at their next meeting.

"10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."
Does that mean a muppet like Kaminski will have to stop ranting about everyone who just happens to not be Polish?

thanks for the useless non-contribution, no really.

well lets see, it might mean something like not having france making public statements about how poland missed a historic opportunity to shut up, or something similar.

I thought populism was more generally defined as "mob rule",

when politicians are elected on issues which resonate with the plebians, usually with disastrous results.

in the context of British parliament it is the byword for politicians who do what the voter wants rather than pursue there own agenda, created by the same people who are stunned when people vote en-masse for the BNP and UKIP because of trifling issues such as immigration and the EU.

good job we have all those technocrats who are willing to lead a dull electorate down the correct path in life, eh?