EU Rules Out Renegotiation
Discussion
Bluebarge said:
There is no loss of sovereignty. The Uk can pull out anytime it wants. The UK decided to join up to a club and has agreed the rules for operating as part of that club. It's the same as participation in NATO, or the WTO, or having any treaty obligations with any other country, whether under trade or defence agreements.
You can tear up the treaties any time you want, but you suffer the consequences of your lack of bad faith. The EU is just another treaty obligation, and every country has them, even pariah states such as N.Korea. No country ever has complete freedom to do what it wants, just as no person has complete freedom to do what he wants, because we all have to consider the interests of others.
There may be arguments for leaving the EU (although I can't think of any good ones) but the "sovereignty" argument is bogus. Any EU treaties will just be replaced with a whole raft of other agreements with the EU and other trading partners which will restrict the ability of the UK to do whatever it wants. It's been that way since medieval times.
When, or if, we leave the EEC we will be free then of all restrictions. We will be able to do what we want without a care. I'm sure you have got it all wrong. The other trading blocks won't worry if we don't conform to their requirements so we'll be able to undercut them. You can tear up the treaties any time you want, but you suffer the consequences of your lack of bad faith. The EU is just another treaty obligation, and every country has them, even pariah states such as N.Korea. No country ever has complete freedom to do what it wants, just as no person has complete freedom to do what he wants, because we all have to consider the interests of others.
There may be arguments for leaving the EU (although I can't think of any good ones) but the "sovereignty" argument is bogus. Any EU treaties will just be replaced with a whole raft of other agreements with the EU and other trading partners which will restrict the ability of the UK to do whatever it wants. It's been that way since medieval times.
I reckon we'll be able to ignore all the restrictions that the EU have placed on us.
I think it is a myth that countries can't do what the hell they want once out of the constraints of the EU. We'd have it made.
Yeah, honest, I really do. I've read it somewhere.
Derek Smith said:
When, or if, we leave the EEC we will be free then of all restrictions. We will be able to do what we want without a care. I'm sure you have got it all wrong. The other trading blocks won't worry if we don't conform to their requirements so we'll be able to undercut them.
I reckon we'll be able to ignore all the restrictions that the EU have placed on us.
I think it is a myth that countries can't do what the hell they want once out of the constraints of the EU. We'd have it made.
Yeah, honest, I really do. I've read it somewhere.
Quality straw man there, do you think it will burn well?I reckon we'll be able to ignore all the restrictions that the EU have placed on us.
I think it is a myth that countries can't do what the hell they want once out of the constraints of the EU. We'd have it made.
Yeah, honest, I really do. I've read it somewhere.
Einion Yrth said:
Derek Smith said:
When, or if, we leave the EEC we will be free then of all restrictions. We will be able to do what we want without a care. I'm sure you have got it all wrong. The other trading blocks won't worry if we don't conform to their requirements so we'll be able to undercut them.
I reckon we'll be able to ignore all the restrictions that the EU have placed on us.
I think it is a myth that countries can't do what the hell they want once out of the constraints of the EU. We'd have it made.
Yeah, honest, I really do. I've read it somewhere.
Quality straw man there, do you think it will burn well?I reckon we'll be able to ignore all the restrictions that the EU have placed on us.
I think it is a myth that countries can't do what the hell they want once out of the constraints of the EU. We'd have it made.
Yeah, honest, I really do. I've read it somewhere.
gruffalo said:
A referendum in 2017 has been promised.
If the EU really won't listen to one of its member states and talk about what works for that member well shame on it but we still get a referendum in 2017.
I don't understand where the supposed lies are?
Thing is the Great Salmond told the Scottish people they would have auto EU membership entry and also be allowed the Euro or to adopt not to have it also that he would tell them where to stick schengen. EtcIf the EU really won't listen to one of its member states and talk about what works for that member well shame on it but we still get a referendum in 2017.
I don't understand where the supposed lies are?
So how'd the Pro Yes scot feeling now. Cannot not believe Cameron as he's in effect saying he will deliver in just the same way Salmond said the same. It's preposterous not to do so.
On the (BBC) radio this morning they had a discussion/phone in on the latest migrant tragedy - the upshot is that apparently it is our duty as Europeans to meet our obligations by providing safe transport to essentially relocate most of the population of the Middle East/Africa to Europe. I'm not exaggerating, this is what the people in charge believe, and most of the loony people that could be bothered to phone in. One bloke actually said there could be no limit, as it wasn't fair to reject the millionth and first if you had taken a million.
If we don't get out of Europe, God help us all.
If we don't get out of Europe, God help us all.
TKF said:
Do you normally show your cards before sitting at a poker table?
He doesn't have any cards. The treaties are not up for renegotiation. Dave is just trying to get himself elected. He is probably hoping for a coalition so he can blame someone else for the lack of an in/out referendum that he does not want to give us.grumbledoak said:
TKF said:
Do you normally show your cards before sitting at a poker table?
He doesn't have any cards. The treaties are not up for renegotiation. Dave is just trying to get himself elected. He is probably hoping for a coalition so he can blame someone else for the lack of an in/out referendum that he does not want to give us.The other thing clearly is too many member states have the similar local issues as such again similar problem throughout not working becomes a powerful card
What's odd is that quite a number of people don't think that the settled will of the UK matters. It's our choice if we are in or out following understanding the pros and cons of each. It is not for a politician to tell us the electorate what we can and cannot vote on.
Also IF the UK feels that strongly to stay in the EU then the question will be put to bed for good.
To not permit the voting public the chance to have their say on issues which are impacting them directly whereas those in areas which don't see the bad side of over migration without increased schools houses hospitals roads trains or that long term born and bread UK who are on housing waiting lists shockingly get leapfrogged by an EU immigrant looking to take a job (or as some do take the benefits only).
Where I grew up it never had the impact of this even today it's utterly irrelevant to the area as such they cannot understand it. Where I live now the population of the town has nearly doubled within 15 years yet no more schools same roads same hospitals utter gridlock massive house price inflation and green belt so no chance to build on it. Sadly (and yes it's a tiny %) some are very violent criminals who murdered a teenage girl after tortiring her all night long (gang of men cigar burns all over her and stabs and cut would all over her).
I'm a Tory voter but the infrastructure simply cannot keep up with the population increase. And given all parties excl SNP are proposing cutting spending it's simply not going to change.
I wonder how the renegotiations are going - they started back in June according to Dave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33281019
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33281019
AJS- said:
More nonsense. The treaties were never up for renegotiation and Cameron's proposed "reforms" never required it.
I believe it's just Cameron trying to look tough to try and fool the fundamentally disinterested into thinking he is standing up for Britain.
You do understand that he really doesn't want UK to stay in don't you. I believe it's just Cameron trying to look tough to try and fool the fundamentally disinterested into thinking he is standing up for Britain.
Welshbeef said:
Well as the UK can veto EU policies we most certainly DO have cards.
The other thing clearly is too many member states have the similar local issues as such again similar problem throughout not working becomes a powerful card
What's odd is that quite a number of people don't think that the settled will of the UK matters. It's our choice if we are in or out following understanding the pros and cons of each. It is not for a politician to tell us the electorate what we can and cannot vote on.
Also IF the UK feels that strongly to stay in the EU then the question will be put to bed for good.
To not permit the voting public the chance to have their say on issues which are impacting them directly whereas those in areas which don't see the bad side of over migration without increased schools houses hospitals roads trains or that long term born and bread UK who are on housing waiting lists shockingly get leapfrogged by an EU immigrant looking to take a job (or as some do take the benefits only).
Where I grew up it never had the impact of this even today it's utterly irrelevant to the area as such they cannot understand it. Where I live now the population of the town has nearly doubled within 15 years yet no more schools same roads same hospitals utter gridlock massive house price inflation and green belt so no chance to build on it. Sadly (and yes it's a tiny %) some are very violent criminals who murdered a teenage girl after tortiring her all night long (gang of men cigar burns all over her and stabs and cut would all over her).
I'm a Tory voter but the infrastructure simply cannot keep up with the population increase. And given all parties excl SNP are proposing cutting spending it's simply not going to change.
Is this Reading you're referring to by any chance?The other thing clearly is too many member states have the similar local issues as such again similar problem throughout not working becomes a powerful card
What's odd is that quite a number of people don't think that the settled will of the UK matters. It's our choice if we are in or out following understanding the pros and cons of each. It is not for a politician to tell us the electorate what we can and cannot vote on.
Also IF the UK feels that strongly to stay in the EU then the question will be put to bed for good.
To not permit the voting public the chance to have their say on issues which are impacting them directly whereas those in areas which don't see the bad side of over migration without increased schools houses hospitals roads trains or that long term born and bread UK who are on housing waiting lists shockingly get leapfrogged by an EU immigrant looking to take a job (or as some do take the benefits only).
Where I grew up it never had the impact of this even today it's utterly irrelevant to the area as such they cannot understand it. Where I live now the population of the town has nearly doubled within 15 years yet no more schools same roads same hospitals utter gridlock massive house price inflation and green belt so no chance to build on it. Sadly (and yes it's a tiny %) some are very violent criminals who murdered a teenage girl after tortiring her all night long (gang of men cigar burns all over her and stabs and cut would all over her).
I'm a Tory voter but the infrastructure simply cannot keep up with the population increase. And given all parties excl SNP are proposing cutting spending it's simply not going to change.
I lived there in the late 90s. Congestion was bad back then, mostly due to lack of bridges over the Thames (I recall 4 road bridges in 10 miles or so).
The fast rail link to London has helped push house prices up - which will have been manna from heaven for long established residents of the town.
Not quite sure how a local traffic problem and one isolated case of a nut job gang (hardly exclusive to the Thames Valley) has any bearing on EU negotiations.
As mentioned up thread, the Uk will have to enter trade agreements of some description. Obligations around refuges is not driven by the EU: If it were, why are Canada and South American countries taking them?
If Cameron gets even a token reform, he will be lucky.
And whilst I'm here: Slight correction needed to GrimNasty's assertion we're taking 'most' of the refugees from the middle east. A quick browse on any of the Syria/refugee/migrant threads will reveal only a small proportion head to the EU, and an even smaller proportion to the Uk. But still too many? Maybe, but it's not 'most: that's just a lazy sound bite.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Obligations around refuges is not driven by the EU: If it were, why are Canada and South American countries taking them?
And whilst I'm here: Slight correction needed to GrimNasty's assertion we're taking 'most' of the refugees from the middle east. A quick browse on any of the Syria/refugee/migrant threads will reveal only a small proportion head to the EU, and an even smaller proportion to the Uk. But still too many? Maybe, but it's not 'most: that's just a lazy sound bite.
It's daft replying to posts from so long ago, the situation today has moved on massively, it's even worse if you don't bother to read it properly - I was reporting what the radio discussion contributors said - that it was our duty to take them if they come, I didn't assert anything.And whilst I'm here: Slight correction needed to GrimNasty's assertion we're taking 'most' of the refugees from the middle east. A quick browse on any of the Syria/refugee/migrant threads will reveal only a small proportion head to the EU, and an even smaller proportion to the Uk. But still too many? Maybe, but it's not 'most: that's just a lazy sound bite.
As for your point about Canada and SA, that makes no sense. If other countries want to take refugees, that is their own sovereign democratic right - as it is to take none. EU policy/diktats clearly attempt to influence/bully us (and if the EU leaders had their way would force us) to take as many refugees as possible undemocratically.
"As commissioner for migration, Dimitris Avramopoulos, 62, is at the helm of the EU’s response to the migrant crisis currently sweeping across the continent. The Commission’s view is that migrants should be welcomed and relocated across the member states according to a quota system. The European Union’s (EU) migration chief has called on the leaders of Member States to forget about the political cost of accepting refugees. He has said they should take a leaf out of the Commission’s book and not worry about re-election." [Because they are undemocratically appointed for a fixed term.]
Ian Geary said:
If Cameron gets even a token reform, he will be lucky.
This by the looks of things.This was an opportunity to change the EU to a core seeking ever closer union and a periphery in for the free trade and paying their membership dues for the privilege.
The EU leaders seem to have little interest in this however.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff