David Cameron 'bullish' about UK's EU renegotiations

[GreatNews2night]

Just to add this recent German article.

You decide whether EU membership is more important that NATO policy and spending.

Of course you have a point, and yes, the European members should honor the treaty and cough up their 2%, but my point is that if the EU fragments badly (the UK getting out and especially if it then improves its economy, may give ideas to other existing members) eventually this will impact on NATO as well. You see them as totally different bodies and on paper they are, but in geopolitical reality they are linked. Remember, NATO was created exactly to protect Western Europe from the threat of the USSR. I can't believe you don't see the two organizations as related to each other.

Russian's Eurasia dreams can only become bolder if the EU fragments. While you make valid points in the short run, I don't think you are considering the long-term big picture.

 

[Ben K.]

What Pete and some governments (particularly the French) would like is if we leave that we get a kicking on our way out - to reduce us to the status of Belarus which is the only European nation that does not have free trade with the EU.

Hollande is the most unpopular president in French history, so I doubt he has much credibility in the discussion.

 

[PeteEU]

The EU was primarily a trade organisation - though the "Treaty of Rome" has a built in mechanism and aim for "ever closer union" which has meant greater political, bureaucratic and financial ties.

Not entirely true. The EEC was originally based on a coal and agricultural treaty that with the Treaty of Rome was designed to become a trade organisation over time as well because the founding fathers knew very wisely that the reason that wars in Europe started were either religious or trade related.

That treaty is the cause for concern (in the UK) as we, the public were not told about the ultimate aim of a political union when our parents voted on membership.

False. Utterly false. Where in the treaty is there anything even remotely resembling "political union"? It is just another bs claim made by nationalists and isolationists. No the real reason UKIP and the Tories dont like the EU any more is because they cant control it and think there still is a British Empire. That they are backed by a bunch of media that are owned by conservatives who believe the same, only means that the only thing the average UK citizen is fed and has been fed for 20+ years is negative crap about the EEC/EU.

To tie this in with Ukraine - several former soviet bloc nations have joined the EU but they offered something in return for membership. Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia etc all joined and have become valued partners though some like Hungary and Bulgaria pose problems either through corruption or plainly fascist direction in policy.

Come on, stop cherry picking. The former east block countries were given membership to the EU because NATO demanded it. Dont even try to sugar coat this. NATO with the US in front and the UK brown-nosing, wanted to remove as much influence over eastern Europe from Russia as possible. Now they could not out right invite them into NATO because that could easily embolden the Russian nationalists (not to mention nationalists in country) and start a war, so they used the back way of getting them into the EU even though most of the countries were in no way ready for it.

As to the discussion prior to your joining, PeteEU as by his name is a huge fan

Again wrong. My name has nothing to do with the EU, but the fact that Pete was taken on these boards and I was lazy and thought adding EU would show that I was from Europe. I could have added DK I guess or ES, but doubt that people would understand that.

and hates the UK for daring to question the direction of the EU.

Again wrong. I dont like where the EU is going either on many fronts. For example, I believe they should get rid of CAP much faster, and implement banking regulation that prevents us having a new crisis again. The UK opposes the latter btw.. why is that?

That questioning is something that has gone on for decades now - firstly because of policies in the EU like the CAP that took huge contributions from some nations and gave them to others.

Again you dont understand the EU/EEC and why CAP was very much needed. The starvation during and after WW1 and 2, showed that we in Europe had to develop our own food production and maintain it. Yes quite a bit of our food came from abroad before WW1. Now days it is another matter and CAP is getting smaller and smaller. The problem is the French of course (let the French bashing begin) but it is being worked on but as long as certain countries continue to keep their own sweetheart deals then it is kinda hard to deal with.

In some regard this was good because poorer nations benefited but some rich nations like France were also large recipients of money. Pete will tell you the UK has only developed because the EU took UK money and redistributed it to poorer UK areas but what has been good is how the common pool of EU money has helped places like Latvia, Spain, Poland etc etc to develop.

Again wrong. I have only claimed that places like Wales, NI and Scotland have benefited from the EU, because they have hugely. Why? Because England has traditionally ignored those areas for investment and development, else why the hell would those areas be considered at the same level as parts of Spain, Ireland and Greece in terms of development?

What Pete and some governments (particularly the French) would like is if we leave that we get a kicking on our way out - to reduce us to the status of Belarus which is the only European nation that does not have free trade with the EU.

Again no. The UK is part of Europe, even though you dont seem to want to be. You should have access to our markets if you were outside the EU, but how is up for discussion.

I see no point in vindictive treatment but I cannot speak for people like France's Hollande or this forum's PeteEu who want a very vengeful "goodbye".

And it is not vindictive. The UK wants a divorce but wants to see the kids still. You need to negotiate this and under normal divorces the 2 parties do not continue to do as they did under the marriage while negotiating a divorce. That is why I, and the French and the Germans have said that if the UK wants out, then leave. You can then negotiate a new standing with the EU after that, but until that has been negotiated then you will be treated as any non member with no affiliation. That is the consequence of the UK leaving. What you want is to sleep with the woman you are divorcing while negotiating the divorce and also having rights to sleep with her after the divorce... it simply aint gonna happen and that Cameron is pushing this fairytale is beyond pathetic.

Ukraine doesn't offer the EU the same kind of benefits

On this we agree, however I doubt we agree fully. The reason the EU is even involved with this mess is not economically, because it is one big money pit, it is the usual cold war bull**** with NATO and the US/UK. NATO/US/UK wants to limit Russia's influence, and by getting the Ukraine into the EU with their fellow allies, will limit Russia's influence as we have seen with all the other former east block countries.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Not entirely true. The EEC was originally based on a coal and agricultural treaty

Thus a trade organisation..

The idea was to bring together the coal and steel industries of Europe, remove barriers to trade between them and govern them by an international body outside direct national control.

the founding fathers knew very wisely that the reason that wars in Europe started were either religious or trade related.

These founding fathers or do you mean any others?

False. Utterly false. Where in the treaty is there anything even remotely resembling "political union"? It is just another bs claim made by nationalists and isolationists. No the real reason UKIP and the Tories dont like the EU any more is because they cant control it and think there still is a British Empire. That they are backed by a bunch of media that are owned by conservatives who believe the same, only means that the only thing the average UK citizen is fed and has been fed for 20+ years is negative crap about the EEC/EU.

Call it what you like.. this page contradicts you. I’m talking about the progression the body has been headed down and acknowledged to be aiming for.

Come on, stop cherry picking. The former east block countries were given membership to the EU because NATO demanded it. Dont even try to sugar coat this. NATO with the US in front and the UK brown-nosing, wanted to remove as much influence over eastern Europe from Russia as possible. Now they could not out right invite them into NATO because that could easily embolden the Russian nationalists (not to mention nationalists in country) and start a war, so they used the back way of getting them into the EU even though most of the countries were in no way ready for it.

Sorry but there’s a clear accession process – NATO can’t demand the EU accept anyone; applicant countries join a process which existing members have the right to veto as France did with Turkey’s membership. I agree the US pushed hard for Turkey and other Eastern European nations to join however you are sounding worryingly like Demon of Light with your claim of brown nosing and toadies.

Again wrong. My name has nothing to do with the EU, but the fact that Pete was taken on these boards and I was lazy and thought adding EU would show that I was from Europe. I could have added DK I guess or ES, but doubt that people would understand that.

Lazy yes but you also attack anyone like a pitbull if they have a go at the concept of the EU. You’re part of the 50 Euro army.

Again wrong. I dont like where the EU is going either on many fronts. For example, I believe they should get rid of CAP much faster, and

implement banking regulation that prevents us having a new crisis again. The UK opposes the latter btw.. why is that?

Because the Tobin tax is a political tax which also sees the UK paying into EU funds through a back door. Also the demand that financial services industry be based in the Eurozone is a direct attack on the UK financial sector.

Again you dont understand the EU/EEC and why CAP was very much needed. The starvation during and after WW1 and 2, showed that we in Europe had to develop our own food production and maintain it. Yes quite a bit of our food came from abroad before WW1. Now days it is another matter and CAP is getting smaller and smaller. The problem is the French of course (let the French bashing begin) but it is being worked on but as long as certain countries continue to keep their own sweetheart deals then it is kinda hard to deal with.

LOL the CAP has been a problem since I was a kid, it may be considered but all that will happen is the funds go to France and similar inefficient farming processes via other routes.

Again wrong. I have only claimed that places like Wales, NI and Scotland have benefited from the EU, because they have hugely. Why? Because England has traditionally ignored those areas for investment and development

I’ve let this slip in the past but now I would like some proof please.

And it is not vindictive.

LOL

The UK wants a divorce but wants to see the kids still. You need to negotiate this and under normal divorces the 2 parties do not continue to do as they did under the marriage while negotiating a divorce. That is why I, and the French and the Germans have said that if the UK wants out, then leave. You can then negotiate a new standing with the EU after that, but until that has been negotiated then you will be treated as any non member with no affiliation. That is the consequence of the UK leaving. What you want is to sleep with the woman you are divorcing while negotiating the divorce and also having rights to sleep with her after the divorce... it simply aint gonna happen and that Cameron is pushing this fairytale is beyond pathetic.

To use the divorce analogy further – the kids from divorced families that do best emotionally tend to be the ones whose parents acted like adults and negotiated contact for mutual benefit. We are asking this if we leave however the temptation to pull EU drawbridges up and show your bottoms to us is far too tempting.

That helps nobody.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Hollande is the most unpopular president in French history, so I doubt he has much credibility in the discussion.

True, but the history of France's desire to block the UK goes back as far as De Gaulle (who we housed and supported during WW2) or even the French doing their best to stop the free trade agreement that the UK wanted to set up in the 1950s. France desired the political body that we see now and that the EU seems headed towards on its ever closer strategy. Link.

In the late 1950s, the UK advocated creating a free trade agreement in Western Europe. It aimed to counter the development of the Common Market, which Britain saw as an impediment to doing business with its six members. France, reluctant to commit to a project that threatened to dilute the political components of the Common Market, was eventually able to halt negotiations. This episode illustrates how, even before the UK joined the European Economic Community, the two countries had long held diverging view on what the European project should be. France has cherished the ideal of a political ‘Europe puissance’ (Europe power), while Britain has favored an economic ‘Europe espace’ (Europe space). This dichotomy may be hackneyed, but it still holds some truth.

Great article - worth reading through to the end.

Of course you have a point, and yes, the European members should honor the treaty and cough up their 2%, but my point is that if the EU fragments badly (the UK getting out and especially if it then improves its economy, may give ideas to other existing members) eventually this will impact on NATO as well. You see them as totally different bodies and on paper they are, but in geopolitical reality they are linked. Remember, NATO was created exactly to protect Western Europe from the threat of the USSR. I can't believe you don't see the two organizations as related to each other.

Russian's Eurasia dreams can only become bolder if the EU fragments. While you make valid points in the short run, I don't think you are considering the long-term big picture.

The EU won't fragment, that has long been a claim which I believe to be wrong. For those members where it works, it works really well. France and Germany get the European peace they have long desired, new members get the huge market and investment that membership entails. Smaller countries get to be part of a very important economic and financial group.

Russia's "Eurasia" dream will end when the subject of Vladivostok comes up. Putin has taken a huge gamble with his "compatriot doctrine" as there are now millions of Han Chinese living and working in Eastern Russia.

 

[Rainman05]

I may not be discussing things on topic but what I have to say is this.

I don't think David Cameron should fall to UKIP pressure. If the voters are to elect based on how they feel about the EU, they would sooner elect the UKIP rather than the conservatives to represent anti-EU perspective because the conservatives are the sort of a weaker... wanker brother of UKIP. So in other words, the UKIP is pulling away, in EU elections (different ball game than in the national ones) from the conservative euroskeptic bloc and not the other way around and it's wrong of david cameron to make his party seem like a clone... a weaker clone of UKIP.

That being said I don't know if I will be directly on topic with this following statement but I'll say it anyway.

I want the notion of euroskeptic to be divorced from the notion of anti-EU. So in other words, I want the word euroskeptic to mean someone who is looking at the EU as a necessary institution but has reservations as to the way things are going with it as opposed to the anti-EU who are just wanting to see things crash.
You know lately, my euroskepticism has suffered a dent in some areas. I do feel that the EU can reform itself as a political institution... it can have better dialogue with its citizens and can, if willing, cover the democratic deficit that it has, which is a huge democratic deficit. Even in representation, I posted these stats and I am reciting them from memory now.
The EU has 500 mil people represented by 770 members of parliament.
Germany has 80 mil people represented by I think about 600 members of parliament
France has 66mil people represented by almost 1000 members of parliament.
And the list goes on and on.
The ratio is disgraceful. I am all for increasing that number. I don't know what ratio I would want but I imagine a sort of 200.000 : 1 ratio is a good idea. Sure, it would drastically increase the number of members of parliament and hence, the costs of running the EU but I want representation and democracy and both of those aren't cheap.

The worst lie we tell ourselves is that democracy should be cheap... or has few costs. This may be less valid in western Europe but in Eastern Europe it is a sort of hidden mentality that most people are aware of in a subliminal way... a unconscious way that democracy and a free and open country should be cheap. Because you should have low costs about voting and elections... and if it is not innexpensive then it is corruption. But this is not true. Democracy is supposed to have costs. I want referendums on controversial topics that clearly the political class are too cowardly or too stupid to act on. I want even non-binding referendums on issues so that the people in power dont' rely on polls for making policy decisions on what we think is best. because polls are deceptive. Polls can poll in low information voters who can be tricked in asnwering one way or another if the phrasing of the question is deceptive.

When you organise a referendum on a topic, even a non-binding one as most should be, you have public debates. You have public intellectuals coming out and giving you the facts and discussing them. Polls don't.

So lets have in the EU more people in the EU parliament. Lets have the Parliament capable of drafting legislation while we're at it. Lets have the EU comissioner elected by the people, not the parliament, through popular vote. These would be the first steps to reduce the tremendous, cancerous democratic deficit that exists and this is why we need to do this... it would cut the wings from the anti-EU people. The moment people realize that the EU is more democratic and more involved in the lives of citizens than their own national governments... and that their voice is listened to, things will get better. And I think the EU will be able to reform itself wholly.

So thats why I want euroskepticism divorced from anti-EU. Because the anti-EU crowd have just a bureaucratic leg to stand on which can be cut easily. So they don't make a case. Ofc, the other leg they stand on is the xenophobic one but lets leave that out for now.

If I would be an anti-EU person I would be on valid reasons that are harder to counter like the fact that the ESM is a thing now that exists in europe. And if you look at my signature you will see the makings of an institution more concealed, more immune than the federal reserve of the USA and more dangerous than any financial institution currently working in the EU. It's a bank that can spit in the face of all EU regulations and get away with it because it is immune from audits and verification of any kind. So the fact that it exists is a big thing that makes me lose faith in the EU project and gives power to the anti-EU crowd if they were serious about looking at really criminal faults with the EU... instead of just reaching for the low hanging fruit to make a case for themselves.

 

[PeteEU]

Thus a trade organisation..

Yes but it did not cover all trade, that came later on as the institutions were built and the legislative aspects were put in place. You did not have free trade from the start, you had to work damn hard to remove barriers enshrined in national laws. That was my point.

These founding fathers or do you mean any others?

Yes of course them.

Call it what you like.. this page contradicts you. I’m talking about the progression the body has been headed down and acknowledged to be aiming for.

It does not contradict me at all. There has to be some political cooperation to achieve a common market. It is in the Treaty of Rome on page 2 for **** sake. Nothing has changed on what the EEC/EU was from day one in 1957 to this day. You knew very well what you were signing up to when you joined in 1972 and where it was going. Nothing was hidden from you what so ever.

Sorry but there’s a clear accession process – NATO can’t demand the EU accept anyone; applicant countries join a process which existing members have the right to veto as France did with Turkey’s membership. I agree the US pushed hard for Turkey and other Eastern European nations to join however you are sounding worryingly like Demon of Light with your claim of brown nosing and toadies.

Oh come on. The Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland were all fast tracked to become members of the EU. Their economies were no where near in the shape to become a member, but a political reason was put ahead of any common sense and that political reasoning came from NATO pure and simple. Dont tell me there is no indirect cooperation between the EU and NATO and hence the US...

Lazy yes but you also attack anyone like a pitbull if they have a go at the concept of the EU. You’re part of the 50 Euro army.

No I go after people when their objections to the EU are based on falsehoods and miss-representations. Big difference.

Because the Tobin tax is a political tax which also sees the UK paying into EU funds through a back door. Also the demand that financial services industry be based in the Eurozone is a direct attack on the UK financial sector.

Horse**** and you know it. There was a clear demand from the people for more regulation of the banking industry but your government prevented that because they know that without the City of London the UK would become a 3rd world country over night. Like it or not making the banking industry pay for their own mistakes is the only way to go. If we dont then we will have to bail them out constantly. It is funny that you and Farage want a referendum about the EU, but not on one about taxing the banks and bringing them in line so that you wont have to bail them out again. But /shrug chances are Barcley is next on the bail out list considering their recent news.. How is Royal Bank of Scotland going btw?

LOL the CAP has been a problem since I was a kid, it may be considered but all that will happen is the funds go to France and similar inefficient farming processes via other routes.

And so what? It still does not change the fact that the CAP was put in place to secure that Europe could feed it self. Listen if we could get rid of CAP tomorrow and not damage our food production then great.. but we cant, because we are not the only area in the world that has massive subsidies on food production. The fact that CAP has pushed up food prices higher than they are is also sucky, but I understand the reasoning and support it. In no way would I want my nation or any EU nation to be dependent on food imports from the unstable 3rd world. We have enough problems with fuel, and you want to add food to that list? Come on!

I’ve let this slip in the past but now I would like some proof please.

Proof is everywhere. After the industrial revolution and collapse, places like Wales and Scotland were left to rot. Their incomes collapsed relative to England. The average GDP per capita in Wales is about 15k, where as in England it is almost double that. THAT is proof enough. Had it not been from investment from the EU in Wales and Scotland, then that GDP number would be lower.

To use the divorce analogy further – the kids from divorced families that do best emotionally tend to be the ones whose parents acted like adults and negotiated contact for mutual benefit. We are asking this if we leave however the temptation to pull EU drawbridges up and show your bottoms to us is far too tempting.

That helps nobody.

Europe aint the one acting like a child... that is the UK. You want out, fine then leave. Dont expect us to cry nor give you the privileges of the past. You need to earn those.

The arrogance that you actually expect to leave a club, but maintain all the privileges without sharing the burden is... beyond baffling.

 

[GreatNews2night]

The arrogance that you actually expect to leave a club, but maintain all the privileges without sharing the burden is... beyond baffling.

I'd agree with that.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Yes but it did not cover all trade, that came later on as the institutions were built and the legislative aspects were put in place. You did not have free trade from the start, you had to work damn hard to remove barriers enshrined in national laws. That was my point.

Still... a trade organisation whether it is free trade or just trade. :roll:

It does not contradict me at all. There has to be some political cooperation to achieve a common market. It is in the Treaty of Rome on page 2 for **** sake. Nothing has changed on what the EEC/EU was from day one in 1957 to this day.

Of course you need political co-operation but monetary union, a “President,” Parliament etc are not needed for a trade body or common market.

You knew very well what you were signing up to when you joined in 1972 and where it was going. Nothing was hidden from you what so ever.

We’ve been through this before, the UK politicians did not explain that to the British electorate. I remember you sneering about that too in one of your more anti-UK moments. The elections my father voted in never explained the facts to the population - as I remember, it was a simple yes / no vote.

You may suddenly remember your previous position and again blame the UK electorate for falling for that?

Oh come on. The Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland were all fast tracked to become members of the EU.

Brave claim – please back that up with a link?

No I go after people when their objections to the EU are based on falsehoods and miss-representations. Big difference.

LOL Pete…

Because the Tobin tax is a political tax which also sees the UK paying into EU funds through a back door. Also the demand that financial services industry be based in the Eurozone is a direct attack on the UK financial sector.

Horse**** and you know it. There was a clear demand from the people for more regulation of the banking industry but your government prevented that because they know that without the City of London the UK would become a 3rd world country over night.

Your short term memory is failing you again, the city accounts for 9% of UK GDP and you’re also ignoring yet again the growth of the UK economy widely reported.

Like it or not making the banking industry pay for their own mistakes is the only way to go. If we dont then we will have to bail them out constantly. It is funny that you and Farage want a referendum about the EU, but not on one about taxing the banks and bringing them in line so that you wont have to bail them out again. But /shrug chances are Barcley is next on the bail out list considering their recent news.. How is Royal Bank of Scotland going btw?

Way to shift what I said. The taxes are not about the banking industry paying their own mistakes but another way to raise UK contributions. Also the demand to move the financial industry into the Eurozone.

And so what? It still does not change the fact that the CAP was put in place to secure that Europe could feed it self. Listen if we could get rid of CAP tomorrow and not damage our food production then great.. but we cant, because we are not the only area in the world that has massive subsidies on food production. The fact that CAP has pushed up food prices higher than they are is also sucky, but I understand the reasoning and support it. In no way would I want my nation or any EU nation to be dependent on food imports from the unstable 3rd world. We have enough problems with fuel, and you want to add food to that list? Come on!

Yes come on, in what world are cheap subsidised European foods dumped on the world market good for world food production? In what world are wine or milk lakes and butter mountains produced at huge cost to the taxpayer good for Europeans?

Proof is everywhere. After the industrial revolution and collapse, places like Wales and Scotland were left to rot. Their incomes collapsed relative to England. The average GDP per capita in Wales is about 15k, where as in England it is almost double that. THAT is proof enough. Had it not been from investment from the EU in Wales and Scotland, then that GDP number would be lower.

That’s not proof until you substantiate this..

Europe aint the one acting like a child... that is the UK. You want out, fine then leave. Dont expect us to cry nor give you the privileges of the past. You need to earn those.

The arrogance that you actually expect to leave a club, but maintain all the privileges without sharing the burden is... beyond baffling.

We don’t want political union, a divorce is on the cards in those circumstances and that burden of eventual political union does not cover the cost of the trade privileges.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Proof is everywhere. After the industrial revolution and collapse, places like Wales and Scotland were left to rot. Their incomes collapsed relative to England. The average GDP per capita in Wales is about 15k, where as in England it is almost double that. THAT is proof enough. Had it not been from investment from the EU in Wales and Scotland, then that GDP number would be lower --

Just to clarify - Average GDP per capita for England includes London and the South East - take that out and you have the same GDP per capita. Scotland which you claim got investment actually generates a lot from oil revenue and is actually higher than the UK average.

All you can really claim is that London gobbles up a lot of spend / generates a huge amount for this country and this has nothing to do with Europe or your failed attempt to paint the UK as "leaving Scotland and Wales to rot."

 

[NoC_T]

I think my position (if the promised referendum comes along) would be yes to staying in if the reform does happen.

What about you other UK or European posters?

If Cameron pushes the referendum, my countrymen will almost certainly vote us out. Because they're morons, chasing imperialist phantoms of former 'glories'. Brainwashed and hopeless ignoramuses, nursing wet dreams of nationalist aggression.

Speaking as an Englishman, I can only hope that even if secession is narrowly avoided, the EU parliament votes unanimously to expel Britain as the liability it is. Following this, in no way, shape or form should the Continent continue to do business with Britain any longer. Let it scramble for crumbs from America's table, as it clearly so fondly desires to continue doing so. From its very inclusion, Britain has shown nothing of the project's spirit, to the extent of even sucking America's **** in turning its back on its fellow Europeans to engage in the illegal war in Iraq. I say so be it. They should be expelled.

Personally, I already made the move to distance myself from my country of origin, to the extent that my future is no longer tied up with it. I wash my hands of this clown nation of xenophobic witlings. Let it rot. A tenth-rate country of tenth-rate buffoons.

 

[Demon of Light]

There is an EU parliament and an EU president but not (yet) with any power to demand or dictate policy and decisions to member countries.

False. Utterly false. Where in the treaty is there anything even remotely resembling "political union"? It is just another bs claim made by nationalists and isolationists.

Omigod, how can you both be in the EU and yet so ignorant about the nature of the sovereign state to which your leaders now pledge loyalty? The EU is a political union with the power to demand and dictate policy to its member states. It can pass laws that have immediate binding effect throughout the union and issues other laws that are literally directives to member states requiring them to implement specific legislation at the national level. Now it even has official legal personality so it can sign agreements and treaties as its own entity. Even on foreign policy the constitution requires all member states to adhere to EU decisions and not engage in independent foreign policy. The individual member states are independent countries in declaration only at this point. All are member of a federal republic called the European Union. It is just that no one is recognizing this legal reality at present.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Omigod, how can you both be in the EU and yet so ignorant about the nature of the sovereign state to which your leaders now pledge loyalty? The EU is a political union with the power to demand and dictate policy to its member states. It can pass laws that have immediate binding effect throughout the union and issues other laws that are literally directives to member states requiring them to implement specific legislation at the national level. Now it even has official legal personality so it can sign agreements and treaties as its own entity. Even on foreign policy the constitution requires all member states to adhere to EU decisions and not engage in independent foreign policy. The individual member states are independent countries in declaration only at this point. All are member of a federal republic called the European Union. It is just that no one is recognizing this legal reality at present.

Good. I see nothing wrong with this, and I think that this is what is needed. Nationalism is a cancer, and has set Europe on fire several times. Erasing these nations is the best way to go, in the long run, and the best way to counter other emerging blocs when the world becomes even tougher than it is now.

For me, if differences could be worked out, I'd love to see Canada and the United States join as well, in a large federation, "The United States of North America and Western Europe."

 

[GreatNews2night]

Omigod, how can you both be in the EU and yet so ignorant about the nature of the sovereign state to which your leaders now pledge loyalty? The EU is a political union with the power to demand and dictate policy to its member states. It can pass laws that have immediate binding effect throughout the union and issues other laws that are literally directives to member states requiring them to implement specific legislation at the national level. Now it even has official legal personality so it can sign agreements and treaties as its own entity. Even on foreign policy the constitution requires all member states to adhere to EU decisions and not engage in independent foreign policy. The individual member states are independent countries in declaration only at this point. All are member of a federal republic called the European Union. It is just that no one is recognizing this legal reality at present.

Continuing to think of my crazy North America and Western Europe Federation:

We'd include the rest of the Balkans, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland.
Turkey... yes, actually, yes, as long as they resumed their secularism, and decreased corruption and authoritarianism.

Next, we'd make of NATO and the new Federation, one and only. NATO would just be the armed forces of the Federation.

What to do about Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan?

Well, the new nation wouldn't necessarily have the same old treaties held by the US with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan (since the United States would cease to exist), and there would be no Commonwealth (since the UK would cease to exist).

Then, we'd see. Maybe we'd encourage these countries to create their own super-nation, and we'd engage in close cooperation and treaties with them (Malaysia, Singapore would be their members too; maybe Thailand after regime change; as a matter of fact, all current ASEAN nations, plus Papua-New Guinea, and all the micro-island states).

Similarly, we'd encourage nations like Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama to form their own super-nation, and would also be very cooperative with them. Eventually they'd join our Federation.

The rest of the world would reorganize too.

Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Venezuela would merge, together with the rest of Central America.

The Arab World would merge, with the exception of Syria and Iran. These would join Russia, which would absorb Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the Stans with the exception of Pakistan and Afghanistan which would probably join the Arab Bloc. Sorry, Georgia. You'd have to be gobbled by Russia too.

What to do of Israel?

I believe Israel's only hope for survival would be relocation. They just can't survive where they are. They are only standing because of a technology gap (nukes, advanced military) but once the Arab Bloc developed the same technologies, and if the new North American and European Federation did not renew any alliance with Israel, it would be doomed. I don't think the new Federation would be able to afford Israel's defense, so, they'd have to relocate - hopefully, into the new Federation.

So, South Africa and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa would join China. I'm not sure what to do of India. Maybe they'd stay independent.

OK, so, here is my new world. Let's see how many countries:

1. The United States of North America and Western Europe, plus Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama.
2. The South and Central American Federation (with the exception of the parts above that would belong to the USNAWE.
3. The Chinese-African Federation (would also take North Korea, after the fall of the current dynasty.
4. The Arab-Pakistani-Afghan Federation
5. The Federation of Southeast Asia, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand
6. The Russian-Stan Federation
7. India

OK, that's it. 7, instead of the current 196.

It would be a rather stable world.
The stability would come from the "too big to fail" concept. The dilution of nationalism would also help.
These blocs would be so huge that it would be impractical for them to engage in wars. They'd rather have to engage in trade and diplomacy. There would be no more Arab-Israeli conflict.

All right, 100 years of peace and prosperity.

Then the military would become obsolete as there would be no more wars. More mergers would occur between these big blocs. Eventually Earth would be one (by which point space colonization would have started).

I think the path to enduring peace is the progressive extinction of nations.

Too crazy, what I'm saying?

Yeah, probably. Call it Political Fiction (similar to Science Fiction). Probably impossible. But a nice dream.

 

[Rainman05]

If Cameron pushes the referendum, my countrymen will almost certainly vote us out. Because they're morons, chasing imperialist phantoms of former 'glories'. Brainwashed and hopeless ignoramuses, nursing wet dreams of nationalist aggression.

Speaking as an Englishman, I can only hope that even if secession is narrowly avoided, the EU parliament votes unanimously to expel Britain as the liability it is. Following this, in no way, shape or form should the Continent continue to do business with Britain any longer. Let it scramble for crumbs from America's table, as it clearly so fondly desires to continue doing so. From its very inclusion, Britain has shown nothing of the project's spirit, to the extent of even sucking America's **** in turning its back on its fellow Europeans to engage in the illegal war in Iraq. I say so be it. They should be expelled.

Personally, I already made the move to distance myself from my country of origin, to the extent that my future is no longer tied up with it. I wash my hands of this clown nation of xenophobic witlings. Let it rot. A tenth-rate country of tenth-rate buffoons.

You shouldn't be too harsh on your countrymen because fanaticism is seductive.

Only ofc, in England and most of Europe, religious fanaticism has traded places with national fanaticism. As in, you'll never see a major political party in Europe who is going to have a religious platform... all are secular parties. But what we do have is these political parties who still think we're living in the late 1800s and the whole 2 world wars and cold one didn't happen. "Hmm, what? XXth century.... XXth century... I know of a XIXth century and all of other before that but XXth... no, doesn't ring a bell".


But I don't think that the UK should be expelled. It's not the only country going through this reactionary movement. There's a strong one in Italy, the 5star movement. A stronger one in France. Another in the Netherlands. I think the reason why we hear more of the crazy talk from the UK and the UKIP is because English is more common while you know... the FR could do all manner of crazy and it won't hit the international press. And also, the UKIP is the loudest in the EU parliament.

 

[PeteEU]

Omigod, how can you both be in the EU and yet so ignorant about the nature of the sovereign state to which your leaders now pledge loyalty? The EU is a political union with the power to demand and dictate policy to its member states. It can pass laws that have immediate binding effect throughout the union and issues other laws that are literally directives to member states requiring them to implement specific legislation at the national level. Now it even has official legal personality so it can sign agreements and treaties as its own entity. Even on foreign policy the constitution requires all member states to adhere to EU decisions and not engage in independent foreign policy. The individual member states are independent countries in declaration only at this point. All are member of a federal republic called the European Union. It is just that no one is recognizing this legal reality at present.

LOL no it is not.

 

[PeteEU]

Of course you need political co-operation but monetary union, a “President,” Parliament etc are not needed for a trade body or common market.

So basically you are against the Treaty of Rome then? There has been a president since the start for example. And yes to make a common market more efficient then you do need a monetary union. The whole idea about a common market is to remove trade barriers and yes different currency is a trade barrier.

We’ve been through this before, the UK politicians did not explain that to the British electorate. I remember you sneering about that too in one of your more anti-UK moments. The elections my father voted in never explained the facts to the population - as I remember, it was a simple yes / no vote.

And yet you still vote for the same parties, or go to vote for xenophobic racist parties instead.. brilliant eh? I read a speech from Nigel the other day and it sounded like one Hitler could have made.. full of British nationalism, empire and blaming everyone else for the problems of Britain, while being a hypocrite. He just lost his poster child, an Asian woman, who was a member of the party and being promoted on posters. She left the party in protest over the more and more racist attitudes. On top of that Farage gets tons of taxpayer money for his office, uses little, but still gets the money. He also hired his wife... his wife is German. So much for buying only British eh? ****ing hypocrite.

Brave claim – please back that up with a link?

LOL you want links that have politicians admitting it? HAHAH dream on.

Take Romania... it applied in 1993, and in 1995 it got associated state membership and acceding country in 2004 and full member in 2007. Now that took 12 years, but considering the state of the economy and juridical system then in no way was Romania ready for membership. Same goes for Bulgaria.

Now the Baltic nations went even faster. All the joining of the EU was closely followed by NATO membership, which is often forgotten or not mentioned as much.

Your short term memory is failing you again, the city accounts for 9% of UK GDP and you’re also ignoring yet again the growth of the UK economy widely reported.

It accounts for that and you know it. 9% of the economy directly, but how about indirectly?

Way to shift what I said. The taxes are not about the banking industry paying their own mistakes but another way to raise UK contributions.

Yes that is what the Conservatives claimed... bull**** but hey! Like it or not, the banks have to be taxed and that money put in a fund which can be used to bail them out. That is the idea but of course the British based banks, who are not use to regulations are against it.

Also the demand to move the financial industry into the Eurozone.

More bull****.

Yes come on, in what world are cheap subsidised European foods dumped on the world market good for world food production? In what world are wine or milk lakes and butter mountains produced at huge cost to the taxpayer good for Europeans?

Again I state, as long as we can feed ourselves. And we dont dump it on the world market. We do give it away. Plus it must mean we are very efficient no? You cant have it both ways.

We don’t want political union

Very few want that and it aint even in the cards. Anyone claiming that it is outright lying.

a divorce is on the cards in those circumstances and that burden of eventual political union does not cover the cost of the trade privileges.

Considering you get a majority of your food from the continent and most of your exports go to the continent, then you cant say that. Problem is there have not been any real investigation into how much the EU trade is worth... it is much easier to be negative and list the costs because they are quantifiable.

 

[joG]

....
The whole idea about a common market is to remove trade barriers and yes different currency is a trade barrier.
.....

Don't be silly. Freely traded currencies are a definite advantage for trade as any economist that has had anything to do with currency hedging will know.

Don't let them fool you. That type of argument is for the street and the ignorant. Populist stuff like most of the rest of the fluff and lies the EU lobbyists love to shovel into the atmosphere.

 

[PeteEU]

Don't be silly. Freely traded currencies are a definite advantage for trade as any economist that has had anything to do with currency hedging will know.

Don't let them fool you. That type of argument is for the street and the ignorant. Populist stuff like most of the rest of the fluff and lies the EU lobbyists love to shovel into the atmosphere.

LOL that is utter bs. Currency is a trade barrier, because of various reasons.

First off currency can be manipulated, changing the value of goods. It happens all the time with the dollar and changes prices in countries constantly. Oil is the best example. Oil companies blame the rise in oil prices and lower dollar for pushing up prices and people are pissed but cant do much about it. Of course when they start getting investigated for manipulation, then suddenly prices start to fall just as fast as they rise... but that is another story. Point is, as long as you have the dollar as the world currency, then our prices are dictated pretty much relative to what the dollar value is.

Secondly, currency differences are used by corporations in price differentiation. This has a huge negative on consumers. A good example is Denmark, where Coca Cola used different currencies to raise prices in Denmark. Now Coca Cola blamed taxes of course, but even when you did the math without taxes, the prices in Denmark was 30+% higher than in Germany.

Now in the Eurozone, the price of most goods are very similar these days, why? Because companies cant cheat people any more.

Thirdly, currency adds costs for business working over borders. There are plenty of examples where currency have created financial problems for companies because of the massive fluctuations that there can be.

And finally, related to nr. 1, currency is used in trade wars. For the last 6 years or so, the US and UK have been devaluing their currency artificially, to boost their exports. This has in theory been a negative on everyone else who does not do the same and one of the reasons that the Euro, despite all our supposed problems, is at near record heights vs the dollar.

Currency is very much a problem when having a trade union or common market.

 

[NoC_T]

You shouldn't be too harsh on your countrymen because fanaticism is seductive.

Only ofc, in England and most of Europe, religious fanaticism has traded places with national fanaticism. As in, you'll never see a major political party in Europe who is going to have a religious platform... all are secular parties. But what we do have is these political parties who still think we're living in the late 1800s and the whole 2 world wars and cold one didn't happen. "Hmm, what? XXth century.... XXth century... I know of a XIXth century and all of other before that but XXth... no, doesn't ring a bell".


But I don't think that the UK should be expelled. It's not the only country going through this reactionary movement. There's a strong one in Italy, the 5star movement. A stronger one in France. Another in the Netherlands. I think the reason why we hear more of the crazy talk from the UK and the UKIP is because English is more common while you know... the FR could do all manner of crazy and it won't hit the international press. And also, the UKIP is the loudest in the EU parliament.

They only play on the ignorance of a nation long since addicted to its extinct Empire. Withdrawal symptoms, I suppose you could call it. It's too soon for the British to invest wholeheartedly in Europe. Especially since they've yet to have the harsh realities made plain to them. Only expulsion could achieve that, unless we're willing tolerate another hundred years of their attitude, during which time we suffer their veto hair trigger at every turn.

As the adage goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see. So boot them the **** out and watch as their shattered dream gives way to the sudden realities of economic catastrophe and awareness of their 'worth' as an American vassal state. As both its economic backbone is ripped from its body, and its sudden security crisis pits it against powers it cannot contest, we can leave Britain out in the cold to scream for a couple of decades, to serve as an abject lesson in lack of fealty. Assuming they aren't devoured by whichever power in the meantime, I'd fully expect a newfound and rapacious enthusiasm for the European project.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Omigod, how can you both be in the EU and yet so ignorant about the nature of the sovereign state to which your leaders now pledge loyalty? The EU is a political union with the power to demand and dictate policy to its member states. It can pass laws that have immediate binding effect throughout the union and issues other laws that are literally directives to member states requiring them to implement specific legislation at the national level. Now it even has official legal personality so it can sign agreements and treaties as its own entity. Even on foreign policy the constitution requires all member states to adhere to EU decisions and not engage in independent foreign policy. The individual member states are independent countries in declaration only at this point. All are member of a federal republic called the European Union. It is just that no one is recognizing this legal reality at present.

Your posts are always good for a laugh.

They only play on the ignorance of a nation long since addicted to its extinct Empire. Withdrawal symptoms, I suppose you could call it. It's too soon for the British to invest wholeheartedly in Europe. Especially since they've yet to have the harsh realities made plain to them. Only expulsion could achieve that, unless we're willing tolerate another hundred years of their attitude, during which time we suffer their veto hair trigger at every turn.

As the adage goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see. So boot them the **** out and watch as their shattered dream gives way to the sudden realities of economic catastrophe and awareness of their 'worth' as an American vassal state. As both its economic backbone is ripped from its body, and its sudden security crisis pits it against powers it cannot contest, we can leave Britain out in the cold to scream for a couple of decades, to serve as an abject lesson in lack of fealty. Assuming they aren't devoured by whichever power in the meantime, I'd fully expect a newfound and rapacious enthusiasm for the European project.

What benefits do you think there are that would entice any nation to give up several parts of their national sovereign decision-making?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

So basically you are against the Treaty of Rome then? There has been a president since the start for example. And yes to make a common market more efficient then you do need a monetary union. The whole idea about a common market is to remove trade barriers and yes different currency is a trade barrier.

Monetary union removes the ability of a sovereign government to set its own monetary policy, however you still do not need a paid for President and Parliament and all the hangers on, buildings and policies to make a simple trade area or trade body work.

We’ve been through this before, the UK politicians did not explain that to the British electorate. I remember you sneering about that too in one of your more anti-UK moments. The elections my father voted in never explained the facts to the population - as I remember, it was a simple yes / no vote.

And yet you still vote for the same parties, or go to vote for xenophobic racist parties instead.. brilliant eh? I read a speech from Nigel the other day and it sounded like one Hitler could have made.. full of Britishnationalism, empire and blaming everyone else for the problems of Britain, while being a hypocrite. He just lost his poster child, an Asian woman, who was a member of the party and being promoted on posters. She left the party in protest over the more and more racist attitudes. On top of that Farage gets tons of taxpayer money for his office, uses little, but still gets the money. He also hired his wife... his wife is German. So much for buying only British eh? ****ing hypocrite.

You’re deflecting. The point was British politicians did not make it plain what we were entering into. Besides, are xenophobic parties and politicians the sole preserve of the UK?

LOL you want links that have politicians admitting it? HAHAH dream on.

It’s traditional and good manners before making up a ridiculous claim o back it up. You’ve been making wild accusations which I caught you out on regarding Thatcher and the European Courts in another thread remember?

Links please or I’ll take it you made a fake claim about failure to invest in Wales and Scotland.

Take Romania... it applied in 1993, and in 1995 it got associated state membership and acceding country in 2004 and full member in 2007. Now that took 12 years, but considering the state of the economy and juridical system then in no way was Romania ready for membership. Same goes for Bulgaria.

EU Enlargement, Oli Rehn. Europa publications.

In the case of two countries, Bulgaria and Romania, the Accession Treaty provided for further safety nets to address potential accession related difficulties in the economy, functioning of the internal market and justice and home affairs.
How are enlargements prepared?
In 1993, the EU defined precise accession criteria (known as the Copenhagen Criteria). In order to join the EU, a country must be a stable democracy with the rule of law, able to respect human and minority rights, and have a competitive market economy, as well as the ability to fully implement EU law.
The 2004/07 enlargement was the best prepared in the history of the EU. As early as 1991, the EU signed the first “Europe Agreements” with Hungary and Poland, followed by other Central and Eastern European countries setting out early conditions for EU integration. Thanks to these agreements, for example, a free trade area was established by 2001 for 85 % of bilateral trade. This helped to avoid any trade shock in May 2004.

Are you claiming the Copenhagen criteria were fast tracked or sponsored for the Americans?

Now the Baltic nations went even faster. All the joining of the EU was closely followed by NATO membership, which is often forgotten or not mentioned as much.

NATO membership for the Baltics was important and very few would disagree – however all should meet the minimum 2% of GDP under NATO rules and only USA, France and UK meet that.

It accounts for that and you know it. 9% of the economy directly, but how about indirectly?

That figure covers that, it’s from Parliamentary records.

Way to shift what I said. The taxes are not about the banking industry paying their own mistakes but another way to raise UK contributions.

Yes that is what the Conservatives claimed... bull**** but hey! Like it or not, the banks have to be taxed and that money put in a fund which can be used to bail them out. That is the idea but of course the Britishbased banks, who are not use to regulations are against it.

Banking transactions are taxed already. Why do you think countries which have tried this all say it won’t work? Notably Sweden, mind you if we can limit the impact to those who ask for it we should see major European banks relocate headquarters to London once it starts to take effect.

You don’t want a financial industry, we will take your entrepreneurs. Apparently quite a few bright young French have been moving to the UK already.

Again I state, as long as we can feed ourselves. And we dont dump it on the world market. We do give it away. Plus it must mean we are very efficient no? You cant have it both ways.

It’s not about efficiency when famers are paid to overproduce, it’s not efficiency when heavily subsidised agricultural products are dumped cheaply on 3rd world markets and kill off local production. It’s a poor use of taxpayer money.
You are completely wrong about dumping, here’s just one report by Oxfam who you can’t claim to be rightwingconservativeukipthatcher etc etc etc

Very few want that and it aint even in the cards. Anyone claiming that it is outright lying.

How? Treaty of Rome established a Parliament, President etc that position has gradually acquired some levels of power. Monetary Union grabs decisionmaking power and we also end up with EU central banks which are supranational. The Eurozone crisis has ended with demands for more centralisation, robin hood taxes. It’s a slow gradual process which has not ended and I would state is just at the start.

Considering you get a majority of your food from the continent

Yeah, just think if we were outside you could dump cheap subsidised food on us..

and most of your exports go to the continent, then you cant say that.

That would continue whether we were inside or outside.

Problem is there have not been any real investigation into how much the EU trade is worth... it is much easier to be negative and list the costs because they are quantifiable.

I’m talking about the cost which is the gradual erosion of sovereignty some of you have accepted such as the Euro, Central banks which will simply become more and more powerful.

 

[NoC_T]

What benefits do you think there are that would entice any nation to give up several parts of their national sovereign decision-making?

You mean beyond membership of an entity poised on the very cusp of becoming history's foremost economic and military superpower?

Understand that where extant Parliamentary validity conflicts with EU statute, it's already stillborn. As the treaties amply dictate, EU legislation is sovereign. This is one of the very fundamentals of European Law. But whatever. I'm fully aware that you'll not participate. That's fine. As I've made abundantly clear, Britain should be unceremoniously jettisoned from the Union. Enjoy hoisting aloft the Union Jack and chanting 'God Save the Queen!'. Let me know how that goes for you, immediately following your expulsion.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You mean beyond membership of an entity poised on the very cusp of becoming history's foremost economic

Switzerland, Norway and other countries are doing fine - they are aligned with the EU and get the benefits. Why shouldn't the UK get a similar deal?

and military superpower?

Oh dear.... where did you get that from?

Understand that where extant Parliamentary validity conflicts with EU statute, it's already stillborn. As the treaties amply dictate, EU legislation is sovereign. This is one of the very fundamentals of European Law. But whatever. I'm fully aware that you'll not participate. That's fine. As I've made abundantly clear, Britain should be unceremoniously jettisoned from the Union. Enjoy hoisting aloft the Union Jack and chanting 'God Save the Queen!'. Let me know how that goes for you, immediately following your expulsion.

You still haven't provided any benefits? Being hostile to your country of birth is your prerogative but an idea of the benefits we are giving up would be good to read.

 

[NoC_T]

Switzerland, Norway and other countries are doing fine - they are aligned with the EU and get the benefits. Why shouldn't the UK get a similar deal?

Oh dear.... where did you get that from?

You still haven't provided any benefits? Being hostile to your country of birth is your prerogative but an idea of the benefits we are giving up would be good to read.

Dude. The Empire's gone.

It's gone, alright. Forever. You can't bring it back.