Another #ConDem #DemConLibLab #Brexitblunder #Brexgate #Scotindgate

Out of interest, what did he bungle? It has been obvious since the winning European Parliament group said they wanted Junker that he would get the post. Cameron had the choice of either pretending that he was happy about it, or reinforcing the point that the UK cannot be content with business as usual.

And what is the result? EU nations and officials across the board are talking of trying to accommodate Britain. The need for a two speed Europe is being spoken of as a necessity rather than pie in the sky madness. Frankly I feel he's playing a difficult hand extremely well.

Bungle! Great word.
#Brexitbungle
#Bunglegate
#Bungleblundergate
#ConDemBungleBlunder

@jamie - Brexit is in common usage now.

@Octavious - I think the 'bungle' if there is one is a failure to build a consensus. Note that none of the leaders actually seem to be endorsing Junker, but voted for him (against Cameron) anyway. If you can't get people to vote with you when they agree with you, how can you get them to accommodate you when they may not agree with your vision? The other leaders may talk about listening to Cameron's position, but listening and acting are two completely different things. When it comes down to it, the other leaders don't seem to share the UK's reservations about the EU and may start to think it would run smoother without the UK (but they then have to live without our substantial contributions).

I think we have had this discussion before, but I don't see how members of a club would be willing to change the rules on their club to accommodate one member who may leave.

@octavious - there is a difference in two speed Europe, which has been accepted for some time, Euro, Shangen, etc and disagreements about where you want to go. Europe want, and some will say need, ever closer union and some members disagree with how to get there. The UK seems fundamentally opposed to that concept.

#Shangengate

@ Octavious: For me, Cameron's bungle was that he huffed and puffed and demanded a vote that he could be fairly certain he would lose. Why make a huge fuss to secure a vote, when the outcome of the vote will almost certainly go against you? He achieved little and looks foolish, in my eyes.

Even countries close to the UK, like Poland, have excoriated the PM for his handling of this. He had people sympathetic to his purported cause, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, and initially Germany, and they all voted against him. His only 'ally' is the disreputable Viktor Orban. This was pure political theater for the domestic audience. Cameron was not being serious. This now provides him cover for going on an even more Euroskeptic track. He has no influence in Europe whatsoever now. To think that after this fiasco he is going to be renegotiate Britain's treaty obligations is laughable. The only people who think he did well are people from England who hate Europe anyway and who are perfectly content with the UK having as much influence in the world as San Marino.

@ Putin

What are you on about? No one voted against Cameron. The people who agree with him about the change required in Europe still do. Those who don't are becoming ever more aware that change is required in order to prevent parts of the EU splintering off. Before most of the EU simply didn't believe it a possibility. Being on the losing side of a vote in Europe doesn't excite the domestic audience in the least.

" The people who agree with him about the change required in Europe still do."

Really? You're holding out hope that the vague and formless "British concerns needs to be addressed" promise amounts to anything substantial? Nobody except Merkel and maybe the Swedish conservatives have cared about keeping the UK in the EU and have considered it inevitable anyway, which is why nobody fell for the ultimatum and in fact, circled the wagons in defense of a candidate they didn't even like.

"Being on the losing side of a vote in Europe doesn't excite the domestic audience in the least."

Of course not. Which is why I what I said. The only people who are in denial about this fiasco are British tories and their Ukipper friends.

@octavious - "No one voted against Cameron." That has to go down along side Putin's 'no one is annexing anyone' comment.

Cameron called for a vote and lost it 26-2. I'd say that was 26 world leaders voting against him.

No Maniac, they didn't vote against Cameron, they just voted in favour of the candidate Cameron was most opposed to. It's different, can't you see?

Not even Cameron thinks he succeeded. Maybe he should hire Octavious to be his spin doctor.

It was 26 people voting in favour of Junker. Did the 26 go to the vote thinking "I want to vote for the "fuck Cameron" option? No. They voted for the "choose the chap the largest group wants" option. They are very different things, and the distinction isn't subtle or hard to grasp.

Seriously, chaps, party politics aside, it was obvious from day one that stopping Junker was about as likely as Russia taking 4 new SCs in the first year. If he had achieved it it would have been awesome, but it was never the real objective. Stop joking around, this is blatantly obvious, yes?

Camerons diplomacy skills are second to none, but none means non-existent. He is an upper-class twit who wants to 'hug-a-hoodie', he wouldn't understand a diplomatic stance if it slapped him in the face.
He is a legend in his own lunch-time, a complete prat, it is embarrassing that in 2014 the British people still put arseholes like this up for election .... chinless wonders !!

"Stop joking around, this is blatantly obvious, yes? "

Yes the plan was to completely alienate the handful of people who still take Britain seriously in order to appease the UKIPers back home. Cameron was not serious, I agree.

I don't see how this would either appease UKIP voters or alienate anyone