David Cameron sets out EU reform goals

El_Torro

Apologies if this is already being discussed but I can't find anything and think it's worthy of its own thread.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34770875

So Cameron has now told us what he's going to fight for in his long promised move to reform our position with the EU. For convenience these are his four points from the article:

Protection of the single market for Britain and other non-euro countries

Boosting competitiveness by setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of red tape

Exempting Britain from "ever-closer union" and bolstering national parliaments

Restricting EU migrants' access to in-work benefits such as tax credits

I'm not anti EU at all but even I think that his proposals are pretty wishy washy. Where is the proposal to allow the UK to have control over internal EU immigration? He probably knows he wouldn't get anywhere fighting for that so isn't going to bother.


So even if Cameron "succeeds" in these 4 aims will that appease the people (e.g. UKIP) who want to leave the EU? My first thought is that no, it won't.

Moby

The devil will be in the detail as they say. !

wymondham

as advised by a UKIP email:

"In his speech to EU leaders there was no promise to regain the supremacy of Parliament, nothing on ending the free movement of people and no attempt to reduce Britain's massive contribution to the EU budget."

I personally think he's watered the 'demands' down so much as he has to get them accepted meaning he can be pro Europe again (which he has always been).

This does not go anywhere near enough and I'll still vote out in 2017...

mayonnaise

El_Torro wrote: »

So even if Cameron "succeeds" in these 4 aims will that appease the people (e.g. UKIP) who want to leave the EU? My first thought is that no, it won't.

No, of course it won't. Kippers, rabid Euro-phobes and the anti immigrant crowd can never be appeased.

CLAPTON

people who take the view that the high price of housing in london and the SE is related to the demand caused by the increasing popluation, will not see these measures making home ownership more affordable.

BobQ

As someone who voted Yes in 1975 the scenario is all too familiar.

A PM elected without a strong mandate, with a divided party, divided cabinet and having gained power in part because of the promise of a referendum after a period of renegotiation. A vague set of negotiating goals, ones cabable of being interpreted as having been attained to some degree. Mainstream centre politicians of left and right having the common goal of supporting a Yes vote, while the extremes were opposed.A public with very little knowledge of the facts and so fairly malleable

Wilson's demands were

+ Major changes in the COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, so that it ceases to be a threat to world trade in food products,

+ New and fairer methods of financing the COMMUNITY BUDGET. relation to what is paid and what is received by other member countries.

+ Rejection of ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION.

+ Retention by PARLIAMENT of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies.

+ Safeguards for the Commonwealth nations .

+ No harmonisation of VALUE ADDED TAX which would require us to tax necessities.

These are similar to Cameron's in the way they are formed. As with Wilson, I think we will see a lot of posturing, claims that we are negotiating a successful deal and then a recommendation to vote Yes based on a similar stance to Wilson's, which as I recall was along the lines: This is what we have managed to achieve (impressive eh?), now it is your choice (as we promised), we did not get everything ( that is what negotiations are about), but on balance we should vote yes (even if half my cabinet are saying the opposite). Meanwhile Merkel will be briefing that she has conceded nothing of importance but it is a good deal for Europe.

Graham_Devon

I'm not surprised to see a lack of anything to do with free movement of people. We've heard a lot running up to the negotiations about the possibilities of quota's etc, so it's absence speaks loudly in my opinion.

As for the rest - well, my point on this would be....what's the point in remaining in the EU if one of our demands is to sit outside of the EU when it comes to ever closer integration?

I just don't see the point in being in a union when one of your demands is to remain outside of the future of the union. In my mind, you either buy into it, or you don't. A half way house can't really work for us, or the EU itself.

It's also such a vague demand that it could well mean nothing. If the EU wants to go down a path that fundamentally changes policies or trade, how are we going to sit outside of that and not damage ourselves? We'll have the worst of both worlds in these scenarios - a path we don't want to go down and no way of protecting ourselves from any damage from being on the "outside". We could easily find ourselves severely disadvantaged when it comes to fisheries etc and we aren't part of the "closer union" and have no way of designing our own policy as were still part of the EU.

In my mind, you either need to be in it, or out of it. Not hamshackled by watching from the sidelines but still having to operate under EU law.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not surprised to see a lack of anything to do with free movement of people. We've heard a lot running up to the negotiations about the possibilities of quota's etc, so it's absence speaks loudly in my opinion.

As for the rest - well, my point on this would be....what's the point in remaining in the EU if one of our demands is to sit outside of the EU when it comes to ever closer integration?

I just don't see the point in being in a union when one of your demands is to remain outside of the future of the union. In my mind, you either buy into it, or you don't. A half way house can't really work for us, or the EU itself.

It's also such a vague demand that it could well mean nothing. If the EU wants to go down a path that fundamentally changes policies or trade, how are we going to sit outside of that and not damage ourselves? We'll have the worst of both worlds in these scenarios - a path we don't want to go down and no way of protecting ourselves from any damage from being on the "outside". We could easily find ourselves severely disadvantaged when it comes to fisheries etc and we aren't part of the "closer union" and have no way of designing our own policy as were still part of the EU.

In my mind, you either need to be in it, or out of it. Not hamshackled by watching from the sidelines but still having to operate under EU law.

presumably, therefore, you favour joining the Euro?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably, therefore, you favour joining the Euro?

Erm....no.

The EU and the Euro are two separate things.

Let's not start with your pointless never ending questioning shall we?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm....no.

The EU and the Euro are two separate things.

Let's not start with your pointless never ending questioning shall we?

many would see that closer integration includes 'closer integration'


and that would mean things like fiscal and monetary policies as well as social and legal systems




but lets not be picky

Sapphire

For me and a lot of people, the key issue is having control of our borders, especially when it comes to those coming in from outside the EU, without being subjected to threats from the likes of Merkel and Juncker that we (or any other nation in the EU for that matter) have to do something we categorically do not want to do, 'or else'. I guess it boils down to national sovereignty for me.

I feel that British taxpayers should not pay for things like benefit tourism, pay benefits for the children of foreign nationals who have been born in Britain expressly so that they can receive such benefits, and so on. This especially given the very poor state of the NHS and our need to take care of our own population while trying to pay down the deficit…

And I still don't know why we would be better off remaining in the EU. It's a very good thing for the poorer nations of Europe, because they get a lot of money from a few richer nations for building roads and things like that, as well as being able to obtain work and/or benefits outside their countries, but personally I see little or no advantage for the UK.

So I'm still OUT.