in principle...

one of the most dicey terms, in principle is one sure recipe for future disagreements between two parties. to me, two sides -- be it individuals, dissenting political parties, warring factions -- whosoever... will surely lend itself/themselves to future disagreements since the seed of discontent is never resloved with so-called "in principle" agreement. this is legalese, a way of garbing, a way of stalling an outright confrontation, so that parties can always say that they agree in principle on the end, but not the means of attaining a goal...
look at the Tata Motors plant at Singur in West Bengal... both the government and the Opposition say that they favour industry (the goal), but they have divergent view on the means -- the Opposition wants land to be returned two years after it was taken away from farmers; the Government wants the Opposition to accept the latest package that they have gone public on to be accepted... all this while both had "in principle" agreed to resolve the issue and both agree on the path to development, industry...
who is being held to ransom? neither those in power, nor the Opposition, nor the Tatas (since of it is not Singur, they will roll the Nano out of their other factories), but the common man who had pinned his hopes on the factory for various reasons...
but who is bothered? who is listening? none...