I'm not overly fussed by immigration, although I'm realistic enough to understand how it impacts on public services. I do find it peculiar that people can arrive here and be given money they aren't entitled to at home. I have zero interest in religion or "culture", whatever it is.
What I strongly object to is the number of politicians we have imposing their will on us. Especially in the case of the EU when we can't do anything to boot them out.
What's needed is a global Yellow Pages where people selling things can contact people who might want to buy them. Politicians can fuck off out of the way, none of them have the slightest knowledge of how trade works. People buy things they want or need, they don't need idiots with stupid titles telling them what those things are.
In almost all of continental Europe if you haven't contributed to the welfare state then you are not simply entitled to payments. The problem we have is that we don't demand contribution first. If we fixed that it would affect our native born citizens more than migrants but would be a very good thing IMO.
It's interesting that almost none of the migrants have headed to Switzerland, where Schengen is still in full force, and which has zero unemployment and is by far the richest country in Europe.
Maybe one day the media might ask all these campaigners why they aren't lobbying the French government to do something. The way they go on, you would think they were in the middle of the nowhere in a war torn country, not a stones throw away from a major housing estate, sport facilities, shops etc.
Also the Guardian wing of the media bashed the hell out of "benefits street" as poverty porn, but don't seem to have an issue calling this place the "Jungle" (which I don't know, seems kinda of racist, especially if we are judging it by Rhodes Must Fall, can't call Harvard academics "Master" standards etc) and spending weeks on end shoving cameras in people faces.
Ah but you are forgetting that the campaigners are part of the "I want" generation. So since those in the camp want to go to Britain then it automatically follows that they are our problem, you see. They want. That's all that matters. The law, other people's wants or needs are all irrelevant to the very great "wants" of those in the camp.
"I want must get" seems to be the mantra.
Has anyone told the mgrants that literally trying to ram and smash your way through frontiers, as here
re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!
Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.
It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.
I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.
What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?
I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.
But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.
£55m? You'd leave the EU for that?
Give benefits of any sort.
The collaterals on this are enormous as well. Housing, school places, healthcare, transport pressures etc.
I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000.
On the basis of what I see I think there needs to be a salary minimum for entry, something that will generate an amount of direct and indirect taxation that will exceed the cost of residence or at least break-even.
One rate for single individuals, another for those bringing family.
Requires buearacracy and doesn't work for skilled professionals (in IT for example) doing contract work.
An annual fee keeps the overhead to a minimum and achieves the same goal.
I'm not overly fussed by immigration, although I'm realistic enough to understand how it impacts on public services. I do find it peculiar that people can arrive here and be given money they aren't entitled to at home. I have zero interest in religion or "culture", whatever it is.
What I strongly object to is the number of politicians we have imposing their will on us. Especially in the case of the EU when we can't do anything to boot them out.
What's needed is a global Yellow Pages where people selling things can contact people who might want to buy them. Politicians can fuck off out of the way, none of them have the slightest knowledge of how trade works. People buy things they want or need, they don't need idiots with stupid titles telling them what those things are.
In almost all of continental Europe if you haven't contributed to the welfare state then you are not simply entitled to payments. The problem we have is that we don't demand contribution first. If we fixed that it would affect our native born citizens more than migrants but would be a very good thing IMO.
There are ways in which it could be done, however we have to remember our benefits system is so unbelievably complex and even the slightest change can have just incredible consequences on "edge" cases, which of course the government then shit their load over.
The whole reason we get these stories of somebody on £50k a year on benefits, is because (especially under Brown) they would see somewhere where their poverty measure was failing and pump money into, and some people basically tick all the boxes, rather than just one of many boxes.
Requires buearacracy and doesn't work for skilled professionals (in IT for example) doing contract work.
An annual fee keeps the overhead to a minimum and achieves the same goal.
The cost of someone bringing a partner and two children with them who then takes up residence in London on a 16 hour week is more likely to be in the £20k-£30k a year range, and that's before the cost of services.
It's interesting that almost none of the migrants have headed to Switzerland, where Schengen is still in full force, and which has zero unemployment and is by far the richest country in Europe.
Must be the British cuisine that attracts them all.
I'm not overly fussed by immigration, although I'm realistic enough to understand how it impacts on public services. I do find it peculiar that people can arrive here and be given money they aren't entitled to at home. I have zero interest in religion or "culture", whatever it is.
What I strongly object to is the number of politicians we have imposing their will on us. Especially in the case of the EU when we can't do anything to boot them out.
What's needed is a global Yellow Pages where people selling things can contact people who might want to buy them. Politicians can fuck off out of the way, none of them have the slightest knowledge of how trade works. People buy things they want or need, they don't need idiots with stupid titles telling them what those things are.
In almost all of continental Europe if you haven't contributed to the welfare state then you are not simply entitled to payments. The problem we have is that we don't demand contribution first. If we fixed that it would affect our native born citizens more than migrants but would be a very good thing IMO.
There are ways in which it could be done, however we have to remember our benefits system is so unbelievably complex and even the slightest change can have just incredibe consequences on "edge" cases, which of course the government then shit their load over.
Or more particularly the media and lefty do-gooders do.
You could start by not having a free travel area with a group of countries which don't have any meaningful borders and are attracting several million illegal migrants per year some of which are known to be terrorists, and a significant number are claimed (by both terrorists and security sources) to be terrorists.
Good point.
That's why we don't have a free travel area with such a group.
Correct Some people really are idiots aren't they.
And you are plain wrong. We are not in Schengen so not subject to free movement from non EU citizens. We get plenty of legal immigration from outside the EU. Students from all over, not least China. Workers from China USA Australia India Saudi Pakistan. Hard luck for showing yourself up as stupid.
I'm not overly fussed by immigration, although I'm realistic enough to understand how it impacts on public services. I do find it peculiar that people can arrive here and be given money they aren't entitled to at home. I have zero interest in religion or "culture", whatever it is.
What I strongly object to is the number of politicians we have imposing their will on us. Especially in the case of the EU when we can't do anything to boot them out.
What's needed is a global Yellow Pages where people selling things can contact people who might want to buy them. Politicians can fuck off out of the way, none of them have the slightest knowledge of how trade works. People buy things they want or need, they don't need idiots with stupid titles telling them what those things are.
In almost all of continental Europe if you haven't contributed to the welfare state then you are not simply entitled to payments. The problem we have is that we don't demand contribution first. If we fixed that it would affect our native born citizens more than migrants but would be a very good thing IMO.
There are ways in which it could be done, however we have to remember our benefits system is so unbelievably complex and even the slightest change can have just incredible consequences on "edge" cases, which of course the government then shit their load over.
The whole reason we get these stories of somebody on £50k a year on benefits, is because (especially under Brown) they would see somewhere where their poverty measure was failing and pump money into, and some people basically tick all the boxes, rather than just one of many boxes.
Also because people are economically rational. Increase taxes and there's less incentives to work. Pay more for more children and there's an incentive to have more children. Take away benefits at such a rate that working appears to be pointless then people will work on maximising their benefits rather than their income.
Maybe one day the media might ask all these campaigners why they aren't lobbying the French government to do something. The way they go on, you would think they were in the middle of the nowhere in a war torn country, not a stones throw away from a major housing estate, sport facilities, shops etc.
Also the Guardian wing of the media bashed the hell out of "benefits street" as poverty porn, but don't seem to have an issue calling this place the "Jungle" (which I don't know, seems kinda of racist, especially if we are judging it by Rhodes Must Fall, can't call Harvard academics "Master" standards etc) and spending weeks on end shoving cameras in people faces.
Ah but you are forgetting that the campaigners are part of the "I want" generation. So since those in the camp want to go to Britain then it automatically follows that they are our problem, you see. They want. That's all that matters. The law, other people's wants or needs are all irrelevant to the very great "wants" of those in the camp.
"I want must get" seems to be the mantra.
Has anyone told the mgrants that literally trying to ram and smash your way through frontiers, as here
... is not necessarily the best way to persuade your host countries to accept you?
It gets evermore difficult to see what differentiates these people from an invading army.
How many people at Calais are, in effect, expecting a menu of wealthy countries to be unfurled in front of them, for them to choose where to claim asylum?
The mayor of Zeebrugge said last week that the growing numbers camped there has all been offered support in going through the process of claiming asylum and basically none has gone through with the process.
If that is the case then, harsh as it sounds, they need to be deported to their home countries or remain in the camp and not allowed out until they have found an alternative country that will take them in.
Not a palatable course.
Personally I have long thought that all the asylum and refugee conventions need to be torn up and we start again. Countries decide how many people annually are allowed in and how they will assess who will be let in. And we have to accept that no matter how appalling various countries round the world are Europe cannot be a safe haven for all the people in Asia, Africa and the Middle East who want or are able to get here.
It's interesting that almost none of the migrants have headed to Switzerland, where Schengen is still in full force, and which has zero unemployment and is by far the richest country in Europe.
Must be the British cuisine that attracts them all.
Swiss have rights to have guns at home? Innocent Face.
I noticed on the previous thread and at the start if this one Topping is claiming that Cameron obtained an opt out from the Single Rulebook.
He did not obtain any such opt out. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong.
Everyone on here do far has been quoting the final text from the European Council which is of course what Cameron wants you to do. Unfortunately that final text is only 1 of 7 documents that were agreed at the time of the negotiation and which make up the final deal overall.
The deal itself consists if the 7 documents or annexes and it is Annex 2 which makes clear that the Single Rulebook applies to all EU countries whether inside or outside the Eurozone. Cameron did not obtain an exemption from this.
The link to the full deal including the annexes can be found here:
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
"The French government says the removal of up to 1,000 migrants intent on reaching Britain is a “humanitarian operation” and that they are being offered accommodation in containers recently installed nearby or in migrant centres elsewhere in the country.
But many migrants, most of whom have fled war, poverty or persecution in the Middle East or Africa, are reluctant to move because to be allowed access to the containers they have to be fingerprinted."
* until he is overruled in a Brussels/Strasbourg courtroom..
Requires buearacracy and doesn't work for skilled professionals (in IT for example) doing contract work.
An annual fee keeps the overhead to a minimum and achieves the same goal.
The cost of someone bringing a partner and two children with them who then takes up residence in London on a 16 hour week is more likely to be in the £20k-£30k a year range, and that's before the cost of services.
Yes, but they'd be paying 4 x £2,000 to be here. No-one who wasn't earning £30k pre-tax (at the very least) would want an annual £8,000 bill.
He did not obtain any such opt out. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong. /
Eh?
What are you going on about?
I might be needing to apologise. I thought you were one of those like Topping claiming Cameron obtained exemption for the UK from the Single Rulebook. I not then I do apologise.
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
Heartless as this going to sound, there have to be consequences to actions.
I might be needing to apologise. I thought you were one of those like Topping claiming Cameron obtained exemption for the UK from the Single Rulebook. I not then I do apologise.
No, I didn't claim that. Apology accepted, of course!
I might be needing to apologise. I thought you were one of those like Topping claiming Cameron obtained exemption for the UK from the Single Rulebook. I not then I do apologise.
No, I didn't claim that. Apology accepted, of course!
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
You have to understand that, for many Leavers, anyone like Boris who decides, on balance, to vote Leave is a patriot and principled, and anyone who decides, on balance, to vote Remain - such as Phillip Hammond or William Hague - is an unprincipled lying scoundrel who is selling out.
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
Heartless as this going to sound, there have to be consequences to actions.
Have you seen a premier league footballer hanging about outside your local school ?
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
Heartless as this going to sound, there have to be consequences to actions.
Ok, your 20 year old with learning difficulties then.
Or the domestic violence victim (stay at home mum) who leaves her abuser husband.
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
Heartless as this going to sound, there have to be consequences to actions.
The consequence to the state is the main one here, having loads of children living in poverty ends up costing the taxpayer a lot more money than the benefits you want to cut here.
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
Heartless as this going to sound, there have to be consequences to actions.
It's not heartless at all. It's what growing up is about, no?
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
You have to understand that, for many Leavers, anyone like Boris who decides, on balance, to vote Leave is a patriot and principled, and anyone who decides, on balance, to vote Remain - such as Phillip Hammond or William Hague - is an unprincipled lying scoundrel who is selling out.
I think that's unfair. Whilst people are glad to have Boris, I don;t think there are too many illusions as to his possible motives.
I actually really dislike the idea we are being bullied by any side. We're being given a hard sell, calling it bullying is making ourselves victims.
We're being told: "Vote Remain, or else.."
It's the sort of hard sell where the salesman turns up on your doorstep, and holds a revolver to your head as you 'decide'.
It really is not. More like the salesman stands there making increasingly extreme statements about the dangers that are just round the corner, he promises, while you can still clam the door in his face.
People trying to convince us of things, even making dire warnings about choosing other options, is not bullying. If it's true various politicians had careers threatened and the like, that could be called bullying. The PM on the news saying, incorrectly, he has won a good deal and the other side are fools, is not like having a gun held to our heads.
There have been clear and specific threats against Brexit ministers by the government. Gove has been promised the sack, post referendum. In today's Guardian, Cameroon-europhile d'Ancona says there must be a "purge" after REMAIN wins.
A "purge"?? Calling that bullying is probably an understatement.
I still don't agree.
The voters are not being bullied, they are being urged very strongly (and some would say with false claims). Some politicians may well be being bullied (although I still don't see what's outrageous about a politician sacking people who undermine their positions - even if it might not be a good idea), and a case can be made about the public being misled (although I'm not bothering to claim one side will be better than the other - for each inaccuracy on one side, they'll be hysteria on the other), but the voters are not being bullied, and it is not much concern of mine how the Tories treat each other, except in that I hope they pick a decent leader once they are done.
Good news! The Adventures of Sir Edric (Volume One) is due out on 31 March. As regular PBers will know, it's a fantasy-comedy including the two novellas Sir Edric's Temple (previously self-published) and Sir Edric's Treasure.
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
And we can be outvoted on those rules by the Eurozone countries. It is now explicit in the agreement.
He did not obtain any such opt out. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong. /
Eh?
What are you going on about?
I might be needing to apologise. I thought you were one of those like Topping claiming Cameron obtained exemption for the UK from the Single Rulebook. I not then I do apologise.
Bonjour.
I will take a look at the annexes you linked to but to set out my position:
We have an opt out from SSM and SRM. These are the supervisory (by the ECB) and bail-in fund elements, respectively, of the single rule book. CRD-IV/BRRD concerns regulatory capital requirements and are the implementation mechanism of Basel III which we (and the rest of the civilised planet) are signed up to also.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
He did not obtain any such opt out. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong. /
Eh?
What are you going on about?
I might be needing to apologise. I thought you were one of those like Topping claiming Cameron obtained exemption for the UK from the Single Rulebook. I not then I do apologise.
Bonjour.
I will take a look at the annexes you linked to but to set out my position:
We have an opt out from SSM and SRM. These are the supervisory (by the ECB) and bail-in fund elements, respectively, of the single rule book. CRD-IV/BRRD concerns regulatory capital requirements and are the implementation mechanism of Basel III which we (and the rest of the civilised planet) are signed up to also.
What opt out haven't we got?
We do not have an opt out from any further changes to the Single Rulebook. We gave the right to object and the rest of the EU have the right to ignore us and just carry on.
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
Assuming that you are right that there should be a single set of rules for countries which are in the Eurozone and those outside it, what matters is how those rules are arrived at. Those rules can be enacted by QMV so that those countries which are outside the Eurozone will be subject to rules enacted by the Eurozone alone.
It is the euro problem writ large. What works for one country, Germany, does not work for others, Greece. Ditto re the single market rules for the financial sector. There is a real risk that rules which work for Eurozone countries will not be suitable for those outside. Our seat at the table cannot stop them being applied to us.
The deal does nothing to mitigate this issue in any substantive sense.
Inside we get a say but can be ignored. Outside we get no say and can be ignored.
What might have worked would be a double majority i.e. a majority of both those in and those outside the Eurozone. But that was not obtained and it is not even clear whether it was demanded.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Put like that, it's surprising any of us ever thought Boris would vote Remain - no matter the inducement, the fact is going with Leave provides him a great chance to become leader sooner or later no matter the outcome. A no brainer for him, really.
You could start by not having a free travel area with a group of countries which don't have any meaningful borders and are attracting several million illegal migrants per year some of which are known to be terrorists, and a significant number are claimed (by both terrorists and security sources) to be terrorists.
Good point.
That's why we don't have a free travel area with such a group.
Correct Some people really are idiots aren't they.
And you are plain wrong. We are not in Schengen so not subject to free movement from non EU citizens. We get plenty of legal immigration from outside the EU. Students from all over, not least China. Workers from China USA Australia India Saudi Pakistan. Hard luck for showing yourself up as stupid.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
WRT Boris, I don't think many people will feel let down, as a result of his supporting Leave. Regardless of his motives, he hasn't built his career on the back of being pro-EU. And, no one is going to feel let down by pro-EU Conservative MPs supporting continued membership of the EU.
But, there's a handful of MPs, who give the impression that they were happy to say one thing when it suited them, and then to do another thing now.
And we can be outvoted on those rules by the Eurozone countries. It is now explicit in the agreement.
That already was the case, since QMV applied.
But, as I said, we have explicit acknowledgement that they can't discriminate against us, even in private meetings outside the EU structures.
Is it ideal? No, of course not. We no longer have a veto. Blame Gordon Brown for that.
But it is better than the position before the deal.
There are plenty of ways in which rules can disadvantage the UK without falling foul of the no discrimination rule. You really are placing far too much hope on this.
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
And we can be outvoted on those rules by the Eurozone countries. It is now explicit in the agreement.
But the Eurozone is not a monolithic bloc anymore than Glasgow and Surrey are identical. Plus we have a review procedure that any sceptical PM could invoke and take as a casus belli if they refused to give ground to us. So realpolitik could make that very meaningful.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
Osborne is in trouble, too. .
I think the budget is going to be very messy this year - only 140 or so out of 650 MPs backing GO - could be very uncomfortable - "Omnishables 2" ?
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
A grim choice - they're both awful prospects.
However, I could live with Johnson winning just to wipe the smirk off the loathsome Osborne's face. He truly is the heir to Brown.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people. The right will hate him for it, of course. Dave looks like being unpopular whatever, but if Boris succeeds him and leads the Brexit negotiations he will be loathed too for his "betrayal". But then it would be the same whoever is PM at the time. Tory Leave is going to be very different to UKIP Leave. And UKIP, thankfully, will be nowhere near the negotiating table.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
WRT Boris, I don't think many people will feel let down, as a result of his supporting Leave. Regardless of his motives, he hasn't built his career on the back of being pro-EU. And, no one is going to feel let down by pro-EU Conservative MPs supporting continued membership of the EU.
But, there's a handful of MPs, who give the impression that they were happy to say one thing when it suited them, and then to do another thing now.
Charlie Elphicke is one of them, not that anybody is surprised.
Most MPs are sales reps working for the party,. like the bloke selling Duracell batteries they learn the script, parrot it in public and hope for promotion. Few of them have principles.
@Cyclefree - I agree, it is unsatisfactory. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out what a disaster it was that Brown threw away our veto over this matter of paramount importance to us.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
Whilst that may be true, Its a bit rich for either side to start throwing stones over careerism.
I wonder, for example, how many europhile conservative associations are shocked the MPs who professed his love of all things EU is voting out. Precisely zero, I would think.
Politicians are politicians, that's the nature of the beast. Accusing one side of careerism in this case is the ultimate pot/kettle exercise.
@Cyclefree - I agree, it is unsatisfactory. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out what a disaster it was that Brown threw away our veto over this matter of paramount importance to us.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
If we had no hope of getting proper protection for our very important financial industry, then why bother? Just be honest about it.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Put like that, it's surprising any of us ever thought Boris would vote Remain - no matter the inducement, the fact is going with Leave provides him a great chance to become leader sooner or later no matter the outcome. A no brainer for him, really.
I did point out fairly early on that supporting LEAVE was just about his only way of becoming leader - but a very good way, for all that.
On the other hand I reckoned he'd bottle it. The social pressure in his circles, to be REMAIN, is quite intense. I am impressed that his principles/ambitions have overcome his herd instinct.
This time. If this came up whole he was PM then he'd be Remain. So it won't come up as it'll be very easy for him to dismiss this as already dealt with. He's not BOO.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Cameron's benefit brake will be challenged under the right to have a family life.
Maybe.
Currently if you marry someone from outside the EU, you need to earn more than £18,600 or have around £65,000 in savings before you can get them a visa, more if they have children. So far the ECJ has not ruled against us, which leaves people pissing around with things like the Surinder Singh Route.
I personally know of people that have living outside the EU for several years, and married a local citizen while they were there, but because foreign earnings are not taken into account, have been unable to take their husband/wife back to the UK, and instead have to go back alone and start earning for six month or so, it's idiotic. Worse there are people who can afford to take their husband/wife, but not their kids as well, and have to either leave their whole family behind, or take their wife and leave their kids with relatives until they can afford them, which is a disgrace.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people. The right will hate him for it, of course. Dave looks like being unpopular whatever, but if Boris succeeds him and leads the Brexit negotiations he will be loathed too for his "betrayal". But then it would be the same whoever is PM at the time. Tory Leave is going to be very different to UKIP Leave. And UKIP, thankfully, will be nowhere near the negotiating table.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
And we can be outvoted on those rules by the Eurozone countries. It is now explicit in the agreement.
But the Eurozone is not a monolithic bloc anymore than Glasgow and Surrey are identical. Plus we have a review procedure that any sceptical PM could invoke and take as a casus belli if they refused to give ground to us. So realpolitik could make that very meaningful.
3 thoughts:-
1. The desire to preserve the euro is very strong so the countries in the Eurozone will do whatever it takes to save it, no matter now diverse and different their countries are.
2. As they integrate further, it is much more likely than not that they will vote as a bloc. That is to an extent already happening now.
3. The review procedure as a casus belli can only in reality be used in extremis rather than all the time and only if you had the sort of British leadership that was determined to get its way and willing to be as difficult as possible. In reality, I doubt that this will happen. The pressure will be not to make technical matters into great issues and so the review procedure will likely be as useful as a hill of a beans in a sandstorm. There will be no one casus belli but a drip drip of constant rule changes which collectively could have quite a deleterious effect on the UK's competitiveness as a financial centre.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people. The right will hate him for it, of course. Dave looks like being unpopular whatever, but if Boris succeeds him and leads the Brexit negotiations he will be loathed too for his "betrayal". But then it would be the same whoever is PM at the time. Tory Leave is going to be very different to UKIP Leave. And UKIP, thankfully, will be nowhere near the negotiating table.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
@Cyclefree - I agree, it is unsatisfactory. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out what a disaster it was that Brown threw away our veto over this matter of paramount importance to us.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
If we had no hope of getting proper protection for our very important financial industry, then why bother? Just be honest about it.
The fig leaf is an insult.
I think realpolitik means this is more than just a fig leaf. While it is technically true that the rest of the EU can just outvote us after a review it would be embarrassing and manna from heaven for Leave. So that puts real pressure that would not exist otherwise to make a change to keep us on board.
He did not obtain any such opt out. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong. /
Eh?
What are you going on about?
I might be needing to apologise. I thought you were one of those like Topping claiming Cameron obtained exemption for the UK from the Single Rulebook. I not then I do apologise.
Bonjour.
I will take a look at the annexes you linked to but to set out my position:
We have an opt out from SSM and SRM. These are the supervisory (by the ECB) and bail-in fund elements, respectively, of the single rule book. CRD-IV/BRRD concerns regulatory capital requirements and are the implementation mechanism of Basel III which we (and the rest of the civilised planet) are signed up to also.
What opt out haven't we got?
We do not have an opt out from any further changes to the Single Rulebook. We gave the right to object and the rest of the EU have the right to ignore us and just carry on.
We have opted out of ECB supervision and joint bail-in fund contribution. All else there is is CRD-IV.
That is the single rule book.
What else do you think they are going to do in which area??
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
And we can be outvoted on those rules by the Eurozone countries. It is now explicit in the agreement.
But the Eurozone is not a monolithic bloc anymore than Glasgow and Surrey are identical. Plus we have a review procedure that any sceptical PM could invoke and take as a casus belli if they refused to give ground to us. So realpolitik could make that very meaningful.
But if they start resolving their differences to form a joint position they will be. This has already happened with Greek bailout.
Also, the fact they share a currency makes them share interests. For example, if Eurozone wobbles mean they need to force new standards on Eurozone banks to maintain marker confidence, they will then decide whether non-Euro nations should also have to abide by those. Having agreed them for themselves they will not want UK undercutting them.
Serious question then. If you believe we are subject to the Single Rulebook how can you believe that Cameron obtained any protection for the City?
Because of the clauses confirming the principle that non-Eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
And we can be outvoted on those rules by the Eurozone countries. It is now explicit in the agreement.
But the Eurozone is not a monolithic bloc anymore than Glasgow and Surrey are identical. Plus we have a review procedure that any sceptical PM could invoke and take as a casus belli if they refused to give ground to us. So realpolitik could make that very meaningful.
No it really won't. The review process is completely meaningless except in trying to make a bit of political capital at home. Richard N. Loves coming on elhere and moaning about how it us all Gordon Brown's fault. In a few years we will have plliticians telling us they would live to try to stop something but they can't and it us all David Cameron's fault because of that deal he signed back in 2016.
That is its purpose. It is entirely for domestic consumption both now and in the future.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
Osborne is in trouble, too. .
I think the budget is going to be very messy this year - only 140 or so out of 650 MPs backing GO - could be very uncomfortable - "Omnishables 2" ?
Backing down over tax credits has killed him, should have used the better growth figures to give himself room to manoeuvre.
You could start by not having a free travel area with a group of countries which don't have any meaningful borders and are attracting several million illegal migrants per year some of which are known to be terrorists, and a significant number are claimed (by both terrorists and security sources) to be terrorists.
Good point.
That's why we don't have a free travel area with such a group.
Correct Some people really are idiots aren't they.
And you are plain wrong. We are not in Schengen so not subject to free movement from non EU citizens. We get plenty of legal immigration from outside the EU. Students from all over, not least China. Workers from China USA Australia India Saudi Pakistan. Hard luck for showing yourself up as stupid.
Ok Flightbot, if you say so. *shrug*
Talking about stupid,this from flightbot from previous thread,get your pointing fingers ready and laugh.
Flightbot posted -
If Leave win that will not be the end of the arguments - we will then start on where we leave to plus endless arguments about endless other treaties and laws. And if Leave win the arguments and demands on how we treat immigrants and blacks and muslims will only just begin.
Decline in the requirement for paper hasn’t helped. Although I understand that SeanT is doing his best to help there by encouraging book-reading. Nokia getting stuffed by Apple’s another reason. Have to say that the brick-like Nokia Communicator was an excellent, if bulky pocket computer. Had a much more finger-friendly keyboard than anything about today.
In terms of leadership electiom, Tory Leave supporters would be stupid to vote for Boris just because he backed Leave. What matters is how they will deal with EU in future. They should only vote for someone who guarantees a further referendum if/when the Eurozone federalises.
@Cyclefree - I agree, it is unsatisfactory. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out what a disaster it was that Brown threw away our veto over this matter of paramount importance to us.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
If we had no hope of getting proper protection for our very important financial industry, then why bother? Just be honest about it.
The fig leaf is an insult.
I think realpolitik means this is more than just a fig leaf. While it is technically true that the rest of the EU can just outvote us after a review it would be embarrassing and manna from heaven for Leave. So that puts real pressure that would not exist otherwise to make a change to keep us on board.
What the F are you talking about? By the time this stuff happens we will (presumably) have voted REMAIN. The eurozone countries will know that our chances of having another referendum for the next five-ten years are zero. And we might vote REMAIN again anyway, as the British government is so weak it will bully its voters into STAY.
They will be under no pressure at all. They will do what they want to us. Slowly.
The Eurozone countries and other EU leaders might well think that but it doesn't mean it will be true. The rise of anti-EU parties and the decline in established parties across the continent mean that the matter isn't entirely in their hands. For us, the electorate in Britain has the option of UKIP while between elections, the MPs and membership of the Conservative Party both have a substantial say.
'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '
Excellent idea.
What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?
The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?
It is also the right thing to do, irrespective of whether we're in the EU.
I mean, your 16 year old single mother is going to be pretty f***** without any benefits though.
Heartless as this going to sound, there have to be consequences to actions.
What if contraception failed? What if her husband left her? What if she was raped?
@Cyclefree - I agree, it is unsatisfactory. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out what a disaster it was that Brown threw away our veto over this matter of paramount importance to us.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
I disagree with you that getting a double majority was not doable. I don't think that Cameron tried hard enough. Or for long enough. Making sure that there was a proper balance of power between those in and out of the Eurozone was the key reform that was needed, not just for financial services but more generally given the way the EU is going. That would have been real reform.
He should never have given up the UK's ability to veto further integration without getting something (this) substantive in return. He should have made clear from the start that Brown's abandonment of the veto was a disaster and that he expected it or something equivalent back and he should have kept on and on and on at it, in every forum large or small, in public and in private, until he got something that really worked for Britain. It's what the French or the Germans would have done had they been in our shoes.
Maybe this would not have worked. Who knows? But not even asking and giving yourself a ludicrously short time to achieve it is pretty feeble. How long did it take Thatcher to get her rebate? Six years. And she was prepared to be unpopular at every EU summit until eventually she got something worthwhile.
Ruthlessness and focus and determination: Cameron has them when needed. Usually aimed at the opposition here. I don't get the impression that he has used those skills within the EU. I could be wrong, of course. I can only go by the results.
Decline in the requirement for paper hasn’t helped. Although I understand that SeanT is doing his best to help there by encouraging book-reading. Nokia getting stuffed by Apple’s another reason. Have to say that the brick-like Nokia Communicator was an excellent, if bulky pocket computer. Had a much more finger-friendly keyboard than anything about today.
Nokia didn't get stuffed by Apple. Nokia was beaten by Apple because it got stuffed by its tie-up with Microsoft. No-one wanted Windows phones.
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
@Cyclefree - I agree, it is unsatisfactory. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out what a disaster it was that Brown threw away our veto over this matter of paramount importance to us.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
If we had no hope of getting proper protection for our very important financial industry, then why bother? Just be honest about it.
The fig leaf is an insult.
I think realpolitik means this is more than just a fig leaf. While it is technically true that the rest of the EU can just outvote us after a review it would be embarrassing and manna from heaven for Leave. So that puts real pressure that would not exist otherwise to make a change to keep us on board.
What the F are you talking about? By the time this stuff happens we will (presumably) have voted REMAIN. The eurozone countries will know that our chances of having another referendum for the next five-ten years are zero. And we might vote REMAIN again anyway, as the British government is so weak it will bully its voters into STAY.
They will be under no pressure at all. They will do what they want to us. Slowly.
Totally disagreed. Quebec independence went from 40% to 49% with the Quebecois government backing Yes both times. This referendum is happening with a government backing Remain while next time it could be backing Leave.
You I believe have said the next Tory leader and so by definition next PM will be a sceptic. Given Labour's issues that means we could very reasonably have a sceptical PM until 2025 giving a 9 year window for a new referendum.
If the EU rips up our deal and makes it worthless said PM will have every right to turn to the country and say "we tried to make this work but it isn't working so I need to recommend we leave". With the PM backing Leave how do you think the country would vote?
Decline in the requirement for paper hasn’t helped. Although I understand that SeanT is doing his best to help there by encouraging book-reading. Nokia getting stuffed by Apple’s another reason. Have to say that the brick-like Nokia Communicator was an excellent, if bulky pocket computer. Had a much more finger-friendly keyboard than anything about today.
Nokia didn't get stuffed by Apple. It was beaten by Apple because it got stuffed by its tie-up with Microsoft. No-one wanted Windows phones.
The tie-up was in 2011. They were stuffed before then and betting on Windows was a last-ditch gamble that didn't pay off.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people. The right will hate him for it, of course. Dave looks like being unpopular whatever, but if Boris succeeds him and leads the Brexit negotiations he will be loathed too for his "betrayal". But then it would be the same whoever is PM at the time. Tory Leave is going to be very different to UKIP Leave. And UKIP, thankfully, will be nowhere near the negotiating table.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
Yes, so what is Ukip leave?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
I don't know how anyone cross with Brown for giving up major UK leverage without real concessions can support Cameron's deal that did exactly the same thing.
It is vital we get protection from Euro caucus if Eurozone integrates. The next Tory leader must demand this. (So should a Labour leader but I've given up on them.)
Maybe this would not have worked. Who knows? But not even asking and giving yourself a ludicrously short time to achieve it is pretty feeble. How long did it take Thatcher to get her rebate? Six years. And she was prepared to be unpopular at every EU summit until eventually she got something worthwhile.
Ruthlessness and focus and determination: Cameron has them when needed. Usually aimed at the opposition here. I don't get the impression that he has used those skills within the EU. I could be wrong, of course. I can only go by the results.
Maggie got her rebate because she had a veto. Now, I bow to no-one in my admiration for her, but it is simply nonsense to say it was to do with a difference of determination between her and Cameron.
As for waiting longer, Cameron had already got a hell of a lot of stick - from exactly the same people who are now criticising him - for not instantly calling a referendum in 2010, let alone in 2015. We need to get this running sore lanced. Delaying things would simply mean nothing happened, and in the meantime our EU friends could simply ignore our concerns completely.
Decline in the requirement for paper hasn’t helped. Although I understand that SeanT is doing his best to help there by encouraging book-reading. Nokia getting stuffed by Apple’s another reason. Have to say that the brick-like Nokia Communicator was an excellent, if bulky pocket computer. Had a much more finger-friendly keyboard than anything about today.
Nokia didn't get stuffed by Apple. Nokia was beaten by Apple because it got stuffed by its tie-up with Microsoft. No-one wanted Windows phones.
Nokia was already stuffed by the time it tied up with Windows. The tie up was an act of desperation already.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people. The right will hate him for it, of course. Dave looks like being unpopular whatever, but if Boris succeeds him and leads the Brexit negotiations he will be loathed too for his "betrayal". But then it would be the same whoever is PM at the time. Tory Leave is going to be very different to UKIP Leave. And UKIP, thankfully, will be nowhere near the negotiating table.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
Yes, so what is Ukip leave?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
I take it UKIP Leave is the one advocated by Nigel Farage. The one in which EEA membership has been categorically ruled out.
Comments
An annual fee keeps the overhead to a minimum and achieves the same goal.
The whole reason we get these stories of somebody on £50k a year on benefits, is because (especially under Brown) they would see somewhere where their poverty measure was failing and pump money into, and some people basically tick all the boxes, rather than just one of many boxes.
Hard luck for showing yourself up as stupid.
'I should be able to live with my wife': families divided by UK visa rules...says ‘The bard of Glastonbury....
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/21/i-should-able-live-wife-families-divided-by-uk-visa-rules
Not a palatable course.
Personally I have long thought that all the asylum and refugee conventions need to be torn up and we start again. Countries decide how many people annually are allowed in and how they will assess who will be let in. And we have to accept that no matter how appalling various countries round the world are Europe cannot be a safe haven for all the people in Asia, Africa and the Middle East who want or are able to get here.
6 FG !!
4 SF
3 IND
1 LAB
1 Speaker
2 IA
2 SD
Which adds through to 38 so I've missed a couple.
In Dover recently there were people wearing balaclavas who object to the burka.
The world is full of idiots.
Innocent Face.
Jude Law's "security" got attacked and robbed last week too....the fact he needed security might suggest something to him.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
He did not obtain any such opt out. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong.
Everyone on here do far has been quoting the final text from the European Council which is of course what Cameron wants you to do. Unfortunately that final text is only 1 of 7 documents that were agreed at the time of the negotiation and which make up the final deal overall.
The deal itself consists if the 7 documents or annexes and it is Annex 2 which makes clear that the Single Rulebook applies to all EU countries whether inside or outside the Eurozone. Cameron did not obtain an exemption from this.
The link to the full deal including the annexes can be found here:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/uk/2016-uk-settlement-process-timeline/
What are you going on about?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12177718/Calais-jungle-Migrants-set-tents-on-fire-as-riot-police-attempt-to-evict-them.html
"The French government says the removal of up to 1,000 migrants intent on reaching Britain is a “humanitarian operation” and that they are being offered accommodation in containers recently installed nearby or in migrant centres elsewhere in the country.
But many migrants, most of whom have fled war, poverty or persecution in the Middle East or Africa, are reluctant to move because to be allowed access to the containers they have to be fingerprinted."
* until he is overruled in a Brussels/Strasbourg courtroom..
Or the domestic violence victim (stay at home mum) who leaves her abuser husband.
I think we are already subject to the Single Rulebook, are we not? (There is however a bit of wiggle room on whether some clauses of the Single Rulebook apply only to the Eurozone.)
Not is this necessarily a bad thing - we actually want a single market in financial services. The problem is not the existence of a single set of rules, it is what is in those rules which matters.
(I do. It's a quiz question. Obviously.)
The voters are not being bullied, they are being urged very strongly (and some would say with false claims). Some politicians may well be being bullied (although I still don't see what's outrageous about a politician sacking people who undermine their positions - even if it might not be a good idea), and a case can be made about the public being misled (although I'm not bothering to claim one side will be better than the other - for each inaccuracy on one side, they'll be hysteria on the other), but the voters are not being bullied, and it is not much concern of mine how the Tories treat each other, except in that I hope they pick a decent leader once they are done.
Good news! The Adventures of Sir Edric (Volume One) is due out on 31 March. As regular PBers will know, it's a fantasy-comedy including the two novellas Sir Edric's Temple (previously self-published) and Sir Edric's Treasure.
I do hope you all give it a crack.
I will take a look at the annexes you linked to but to set out my position:
We have an opt out from SSM and SRM. These are the supervisory (by the ECB) and bail-in fund elements, respectively, of the single rule book. CRD-IV/BRRD concerns regulatory capital requirements and are the implementation mechanism of Basel III which we (and the rest of the civilised planet) are signed up to also.
What opt out haven't we got?
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
But, as I said, we have explicit acknowledgement that they can't discriminate against us, even in private meetings outside the EU structures.
Is it ideal? No, of course not. We no longer have a veto. Blame Gordon Brown for that.
But it is better than the position before the deal.
It is the euro problem writ large. What works for one country, Germany, does not work for others, Greece. Ditto re the single market rules for the financial sector. There is a real risk that rules which work for Eurozone countries will not be suitable for those outside. Our seat at the table cannot stop them being applied to us.
The deal does nothing to mitigate this issue in any substantive sense.
Inside we get a say but can be ignored. Outside we get no say and can be ignored.
What might have worked would be a double majority i.e. a majority of both those in and those outside the Eurozone. But that was not obtained and it is not even clear whether it was demanded.
But, there's a handful of MPs, who give the impression that they were happy to say one thing when it suited them, and then to do another thing now.
However, I could live with Johnson winning just to wipe the smirk off the loathsome Osborne's face. He truly is the heir to Brown.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35686209
How will the illegals cope.
Most MPs are sales reps working for the party,. like the bloke selling Duracell batteries they learn the script, parrot it in public and hope for promotion. Few of them have principles.
However, the issue now is: what to do about it. Cameron's deal was, IMO, the best that could be hoped for in this respect. It's fantasy to suppose we could have got back a veto, or a double-majority (which is much the same thing). The alternatives look worse, or (at best) they might have been better, if anyone had bothered to do the work to demonstrate that they might have been better.
I wonder, for example, how many europhile conservative associations are shocked the MPs who professed his love of all things EU is voting out. Precisely zero, I would think.
Politicians are politicians, that's the nature of the beast. Accusing one side of careerism in this case is the ultimate pot/kettle exercise.
-1.23% per year.
If we had no hope of getting proper protection for our very important financial industry, then why bother? Just be honest about it.
The fig leaf is an insult.
Currently if you marry someone from outside the EU, you need to earn more than £18,600 or have around £65,000 in savings before you can get them a visa, more if they have children. So far the ECJ has not ruled against us, which leaves people pissing around with things like the Surinder Singh Route.
I personally know of people that have living outside the EU for several years, and married a local citizen while they were there, but because foreign earnings are not taken into account, have been unable to take their husband/wife back to the UK, and instead have to go back alone and start earning for six month or so, it's idiotic. Worse there are people who can afford to take their husband/wife, but not their kids as well, and have to either leave their whole family behind, or take their wife and leave their kids with relatives until they can afford them, which is a disgrace.
Edit: Why wouldn't you just keep your 5 million CHF in a Swiss bank account rather than buying bonds ?
1. The desire to preserve the euro is very strong so the countries in the Eurozone will do whatever it takes to save it, no matter now diverse and different their countries are.
2. As they integrate further, it is much more likely than not that they will vote as a bloc. That is to an extent already happening now.
3. The review procedure as a casus belli can only in reality be used in extremis rather than all the time and only if you had the sort of British leadership that was determined to get its way and willing to be as difficult as possible. In reality, I doubt that this will happen. The pressure will be not to make technical matters into great issues and so the review procedure will likely be as useful as a hill of a beans in a sandstorm. There will be no one casus belli but a drip drip of constant rule changes which collectively could have quite a deleterious effect on the UK's competitiveness as a financial centre.
But then, I have realistic expectations.
That is the single rule book.
What else do you think they are going to do in which area??
Also, the fact they share a currency makes them share interests. For example, if Eurozone wobbles mean they need to force new standards on Eurozone banks to maintain marker confidence, they will then decide whether non-Euro nations should also have to abide by those. Having agreed them for themselves they will not want UK undercutting them.
That is its purpose. It is entirely for domestic consumption both now and in the future.
Talking about stupid,this from flightbot from previous thread,get your pointing fingers ready and laugh.
Flightbot posted -
If Leave win that will not be the end of the arguments - we will then start on where we leave to plus endless arguments about endless other treaties and laws. And if Leave win the arguments and demands on how we treat immigrants and blacks and muslims will only just begin.
Nokia getting stuffed by Apple’s another reason. Have to say that the brick-like Nokia Communicator was an excellent, if bulky pocket computer. Had a much more finger-friendly keyboard than anything about today.
He should never have given up the UK's ability to veto further integration without getting something (this) substantive in return. He should have made clear from the start that Brown's abandonment of the veto was a disaster and that he expected it or something equivalent back and he should have kept on and on and on at it, in every forum large or small, in public and in private, until he got something that really worked for Britain. It's what the French or the Germans would have done had they been in our shoes.
Maybe this would not have worked. Who knows? But not even asking and giving yourself a ludicrously short time to achieve it is pretty feeble. How long did it take Thatcher to get her rebate? Six years. And she was prepared to be unpopular at every EU summit until eventually she got something worthwhile.
Ruthlessness and focus and determination: Cameron has them when needed. Usually aimed at the opposition here. I don't get the impression that he has used those skills within the EU. I could be wrong, of course. I can only go by the results.
Clinton 52 - 40 Bernie in MA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/12177629/US-warns-of-tsunami-wave-across-Iraq-if-the-Mosul-Dam-collapses.html
Wonder if it collapse before the Chilcott report is released ?
You I believe have said the next Tory leader and so by definition next PM will be a sceptic. Given Labour's issues that means we could very reasonably have a sceptical PM until 2025 giving a 9 year window for a new referendum.
If the EU rips up our deal and makes it worthless said PM will have every right to turn to the country and say "we tried to make this work but it isn't working so I need to recommend we leave". With the PM backing Leave how do you think the country would vote?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
It is vital we get protection from Euro caucus if Eurozone integrates. The next Tory leader must demand this. (So should a Labour leader but I've given up on them.)
As for waiting longer, Cameron had already got a hell of a lot of stick - from exactly the same people who are now criticising him - for not instantly calling a referendum in 2010, let alone in 2015. We need to get this running sore lanced. Delaying things would simply mean nothing happened, and in the meantime our EU friends could simply ignore our concerns completely.