Is Ed trying to get protest voted into Downing Street?

You don’t want to be worrying your pretty little head over that, Hugh. Instead you should direct your activism toward stemming the flood of former Tory voters to UKIP.

Is that the argument that the professional politicians should largely ignore the electorate?  Did you not notice that lots of people are really very upset with the EU, not just in this country but in Spain, Germany, and Greece (and many others as well).  and yet it has not, to date, made any difference, even when the people vote against EU treaties, they are told to vote again.

An odd choice of example for the very bad aspects, choosing some niche little copyright act.  I’d choose to illustrate those bad aspects by reference to the massive democratic deficit explicit in every level of the EU, possibly slightly more important than the modern re-recording of some dusty jazz 78 rpm record.  Or if that is not to your fancy, the unreformed agricultural policy, or the misery forced on many millions of people by the absurdity of the Euro project, with a single currency but 17 countries all having separate financial policies.

 Jaime: Sometimes, thank God, professional politicians do ignore the electorate – if they were to acquiesce in every fancy of the public, we would no doubt bring back hanging and flogging which so many people think would be the answer to our problems.

On the copyright act: you have got it exactly the wrong way round: at the moment the copyright of sound recording expires after 50 years (i.e. to the end of 1961), long after the demise of the “dusty 78 RPM record”. If the EU plan is obeyed this extends to 90 years and, as of 2013 when this act is due to start, that means that only recordings made before 1922 would be exempt, therefore the only jazz recordings in the public domin would be the dusty old 78 recordings of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band – even the classic Louis Armstrong Hot Fives and Sevens would have to wait until 2016 before they could be legally reissued.

The companies who own the rights to the recordings made prior to 1961 are often defunct, or else the copyright now subsists with some major corporation  who have no knowledge of, or interest in, their back catalogue, and who often acquired the rights to a small catalogue (for example Argo and Tempo now officialy owned by Universal as part of the catalogues acquired from Decca), and, certainly in the case of Tempo, the original masters were destroyed years ago. They have been reissued by a small company (more than one if memory serves) who were prepared to track down and dub copies of pristine LPs. Universal would not be interested in doing this, since it would cost more in time and money than any profit they would make – they wouldn’t shift enough “units” as the trade jargon has it.

In many cases the musicians involved in the recordings of the 50s and early 60s are now deceased, they have no airs and successors, so there is nobody to pay royalties to. In some instances if a relative can be found an agreement is worked out with them (as a recent Vocalion reissue of Harold McNair (1931-1971) attests An RCA recording of 1968 has been reissued with the knowledge consent and cooperation of his sole beneficary). In some cases if a musician remains alive reissues are made by new companies with their full coinsent and cooperation (e.g. a 1977 recording by Tommy Whittle (1926 – ) made for a private label is now reissued by a tiny company called “Acrobat” who have good distribution arrangements, unlike the original company who recorded the work.

I mentioned this nonsense of the EU precisely because it is within my sphere of expertise (such as it is) so I can speak with authority on it. Unlike one or two LL posters I tend, wherever possible, only to write on matters where I have some personal interest or knowledge. it is otiose to pretend to be an expert in areas you have never ventured in and pretend to speak with authority (and I don’t mean you, Jaime.)

 ”But no-one actually has an alternative to continued EU membership at present.”

Apart from those countries who aren’t in the EU, so basically the entire world minus 27 members.

Agreed. Not sure what it would achieve. 

I think it would achieve a lot, but if you are of the view that our continued membership of the EU is a good thing, I can see how you would be fearful of a referendum.

To be entirely (I hope) fair to you, I think that the UK’s membership of NATO is a good thing, so I see no value in having a referendum upon it.  And indeed, would prefer there not to be such a referendum, for fear of it going “the wrong way” from my point of view, and certainly would make any argument against such a referendum.

But I also acknowledge that many others think it is a bad thing, or wasteful, or some other reason they are against it, and would welcome such a referendum.  

Conceptually, they are the same arguments, and the only thing that may differentiate between them is the strength of public support for either leaving the EU or leaving NATO.

So, as a point of principle, if “enough” people want such a referendum (particularly with a perception of having been “cheated” before by political conniving and the “weasel words” about what is a treaty and what a constitution), at what point do you personally say “OK, it is better to have a referendum than to continue to ignore what the public wants, and indeed offer party political positions that are universally in favour, thus offering no effective voice at all”.

Alan is often fierce on the expenses cheating MPs (and probably rightly), but other people have other passions.  For some, it is the EU.

{EDIT: To be clear, my personal position is against the EU as a political construct, not against the old trading bloc arrangement of the EC, which I think is still a candidate reversionary position for all of Europe after the future political failure of the EU, and which preserves the best while not trying to achieve the impossible}

Annual UK contributions to NATO: c£200 million;
Annual contribution to the EU: £10 billion.

Not too hard to distinguish why a referendum might be justified on one and not the other.