Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The key EURef: Whether Cameron can secure a deal that’s sal
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The key EURef: Whether Cameron can secure a deal that’s saleable
When Cameron gave his Bloomberg speech three years ago, kicking off his whole renegotiation policy, he set out a vision of the European Union he believed was fit for the twenty-first century, built on five principles:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"This really is a complete irrelevance to the major things going on in Europe at the moment, and, by the way, it must be doing him a lot of damage in his credibility with other leaders; while they're wrestling with something which is monstrous, huge, we are talking about the end of the European Union, he is coming up with this tiny point about paying benefits to EU citizens"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06zcmdh/this-week-28012016 (35 mins in)
The EU hierarchy want Britain to stay in the EU. So they have every interest in securing something that will help to achieve that. I expect the gruel will be slightly less thin than being bruited at present.
The last few weeks have shown that Osborne is not in the same class as Cameron as a politican.
He'll have something totally unexpected that may not even have been one of his 'demands' perhaps.
Good day all.
The EU hierarchy faces a similar problem of wanting to leave the minimum possible on the table without breaking the thing. Not the easiest judgement call.
there are far far bigger issues at stake on this our first chance to have a say about the EU since 1975 - in other words the first chance most of us have ever had.
The EU's stated aim is to move to ever closer union. The question is are we in or out of that? It and all the associated issues are huge.
It's NOT dole for Poles Mr Cameron!
This transparently stage managed brinkmanship makes me more likely to vote to leave. Taking us for fools
According to official figures for 2008 there were 22,000 rapes in Egypt
In the same year in the UK there were 87,000 which is the yearly average
But the low-information voters who won Cam the GE may find this just the tonic
Don't know how he'd actually manage it mind you.
If she thinks there are fewer rapes in Egypt than the UK... well, it's to be expected from someone as stupid and anti-patriotic as her.
His handling of the Google affair is yet another big misstep. Wait til his budget.....
The danger for Remain is low turnout, as Leave supporters seem more motivated. That, I'm afraid, where Fear comes in. Expect 48 hours of "What a wonderful deal" followed by N months of Grim Warnings. We Europhiles aren't going to enjoy it any more than the sceptics.
You've worked out the upside for the EU from this referendum, and the reason why they are not spitting venom at the Prime Minister.
Being determined to believe something does not make it true
The months of grim warnings will be accompanied by months of grim immigration related stories in the press. And the IN case will be exposed for what it is. A giant lie.
Very few women in the UK fail to report rape because they fear their families will blame them - or even kill them - if they find out what has occurred.
"Rape is also a problem within many families. This is especially so in more traditional parts of Egypt, Rania said, where “honour killings” may take place to redeem the family of the rape victim. In some areas of southern Egypt, the perpetrator is often a family member, perhaps an uncle, and blame is often shifted to the victim, she said. "
http://www.irinnews.org/report/76827/egypt-are-attitudes-to-rape-beginning-to-change
I think Britain leaving the European Union would be quite high up their list of priorities.
We contribute about £15bn gross, and £7.5bn net. So our departure will "cost" £7.5bn that the EU will need to make up.
But.
Norway pays £800m, and Switzerland somewhat more than that to have access to common market. Realistically, on a per person basis, we would expect to pay a similar amount. So, say £3.5bn. That means that the EU will have a £4bn hole. Which is quite a lot, but compared to (say) the size of Greece's debts, it's a rounding error.
It will be interesting to watch IN scare people into staying when we are getting stories like this on a daily basis.
Roger said:
» show previous quotes
I was in Egypt in about 2005 and the big topic of conversation was whether or not a sentence of death on five teenagers who had raped two girls was fair. It was explaned to me that rape was so rare and the death penalty was so infrequently used that it was considered a serious issue.
The idea that Egyptians who I know to be a hugely cultured people with years of civilization behind them should have a greater proclivity to rape than the alcohol fuelled English is just ignorant prejudice.
-------------
You forget the Female Reporter attacked in the square when reporting the Arab Spring? I'm afraid it is not as rare as you try to make out but if you stay in posh places then you won't have been aware of it except on a 50 inch plasma in your 5* hotel suite of course.
Meanwhile you accused a poster on last thread DavidL of showing his prejudice by using the word " black" yet here you are 5 minutes later using the word " English" as in alcohol fuelled English not British or similar collective term. We know you hate this country but your utter hypocrisy shows yet again.
DavidL
"The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep."
It looks like you're allowing your own prejudices to show. No one has suggested he invited his friends back because she was black. Really suprised that one of the sites best posters could believes such a ludicrous story let alone find someone 'odious' on the strength of it.
--------
What like a dead pig story you mean........ Hypocrite.
Why? Because in Canada a failure to adhere, post divorce, to a child's access/custody arrangement counts as a kidnapping.
And he was still married at the time.
Assumption: The referendum will be before the end of 2017.
Assumption: He will announce the date with 4 months. (He said the campaign needs to be longer than 3 months if I remember correctly.)
Assumption: The referendum campaign won't cross over Christmas. Christmas is rarely a time for politics and I don't see any reason Cameron would try to conflict with that.
Assumption: The referendum campaign won't cross over either German or French elections - they are too politically sensitive for concessions.
Announcement Date - Vote Date - Detail
Feb16 - Jun16
Mar16 - Jul16
Apr16 - Aug16
May16 - Sep16
Jun16 - Oct16
Jul16 - Nov16 - Too dark low turnout
Aug16 - Dec16 - Too dark low turnout
Sep16 - Jan17 - Too cold
Oct16 - Feb17 - ruins Christmas
Nov16 - Mar17 - ruins Christmas
Dec16 - Apr17 - French Presidential Election
Jan17 - May17 - French Presidential Election
Feb17 - Jun17 - too close to elections
Mar17 - Jul17 - too close to elections
Apr17 - Aug17 - ~German Federal Election
May17 - Sep17 - too close to elections
Jun17 - Oct17 - to close to elections
Jul17 - Nov17 - Too dark low turnout
Aug17 - Dec 17 - Too dark low turnout
The next opportunity for a deal is February if things are running smoothly. My calculations give him at most 5 more months to get what he wants before he backs leave.
If you assume the deal will only be finalized at an EU council meeting then he has only February, March and June.
The issues Cameron is talking about is more than 4 years before benefits payments (as Portillo claims) BTW, they are the list as per Mr Hersons article. The extension of the single !market for instance would be quite important for us (finance), not the contraction of it.
Reform cannot be instant and would need treaty changes. Likewise the area of 'protection' from the Eurozone. It's hard to see apart from the benefits changes what can be delivered instantly.
I imagine whatever result will be decried by those who have set their minds against the EU.
The reality is will leaving the EU (with all the confusion entailed) and joining some associate organisation be any different from and staying in an EU where we have a negotiated different relationship with the Eurogroup members. And were would leaving help us gain a free market in financial services?
In this respect all sides have missold underslold oversold their positions. The EU and eurozone will continue to exist for us to deal with no matter what and much of what is required by the single market will 'remain' whether we leave or not.
Now I feel like a Grauno journo!
Roger of course is the stupid and anti-patriotic (which is more than unpatriotic) one around here!
Based on my view of what has happened so far, I expect the EU to make it impossible to recommend "Remain",
And I write as someone who is more pro Remain than Leave..
The EU appears to be so diverse in its views on everything, that finding a common viewpoint on any difficult subject is impossible without diluting what is agreed to virtually meaningless.
I expect to vote Leave if the current shambles continues.. and it is a shambles on the EU side- bigger than the Leave campaign . But the Leave campaign with all its faults does not actively encourage me to vote Remain while the EU which apparently wants us to Remain is doing its best to persuade me to leave.
The EU make Jeremy Corbyn appear decisive and persuasive..
Cameron is going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat from somewhere, if he tries to dress up almost nothing as some amazing deal he's in danger of a leadership challenge from his backbenchers.
Who did you think she was talking about?
This is a good point that I have thought about myself.
The other countries pay to benefit from trade with the single market, but our purchase of goods/services from the EU already provides a substantial benefit to them.
There's no need for us to make an additional contribution.
No ? Maybe you aren't that patriotic, either.
Prevention is better than a cure you might say
It was her "my city is dying" line that got me. It's not. It's really not.
"My prediction is that whatever Cameron comes back with will actually have very little impact one way or the other. There will be no metaphorical waving of pieces of paper and the campaign will be won and lost on almost exactly the same issues that it would have been had there been no negotiation at all, and by which politicians are advocating which position.
And on that score, it comes down to whether the EU can mismanage the migrant crisis so badly that it overcomes the multiple failings of the multiple Leave campaigns."
I agree with all of this.
No they don't, but that doesn't undermine my point.
They know Cameron will recommend Remain come hell or high water, he's probably told them so, and the EU probably think the substance of the deal doesn't really matter in that as long as he can broadly map it to what was originally sought Cameron will be ok, as he's trusted.
I expect some elaborate smoke and mirrors (a bit like Osborne's "halved the bill" nonsense) an announcement from Michael Gove on human rights, and perhaps one or two baby rabbits - like a 20 year freeze on free migration for new EU member states, or some such.
... and all reversible by the next Labour government.
And so it will go on.
The 'Big Society' for example.
How about everyone else?
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Still holding out hope that the PM can get a deal, but as David said in the header most of what has been talked about previously doesn't even seem to be on the table any more, so increasingly pessimistic.
But Mrs Merkel's creation of the migrant crisis has meant that Eurozone leaders have other priorities. This isn't about them 'disrespecting us', or anything like that, it's simply they have much more pressing issues. If you are the government of - say - France or Italy: is your priority stopping and dealing with the migrant flow, or is it working out an equitable deal for the UK?
The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK.
Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
http://tinyurl.com/zp7g595
It's also worth remembering that the EU runs a trade surplus with pretty much everyone. We are by no means unique.
It was also a fair-weather policy, devised before the recession.
The major problem Cameron had was that those it would have relied on to work, such as charities and churches, had been so far taken over by the Labour-supporting left that they threw the whole idea back in his face as just being an excuse for heartless public spending cuts.
The actual issues involved are slightly technical and the voters don't really understand them. So what's going to happen is that something's going to be agreed, David Cameron's going to say it's a triumph, the skeptics are going to say it's a pile of pants, the media are going to report one side or the other according to their affiliations, the broadcast media will report both arguments, the establishment is going with Cameron, some ambitious high-ranking right-wing Tory is going with pants, and the voters are going to come away either unsure or thinking what they already thought to begin with.
This is going to be what happens pretty much regardless of what the actual deal is.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.