The UK has nothing in common with Europe, besides proximity.
We have however strong historical ties, cultural similarities and longstanding friendships with a number of commonwealth countries which I would rather see a political union with.
Treaty changes typically take 5-10 years to happen. Most member states also propose changes intended to acheive the common goals all member states have agreed to not ones which can be summarised as "all the benefits of golf club membership only with no membership fee and the rules of golf won't apply to me (alone) should I unilaterally decide I don't want them to (but everyone else must strictly implement them when it suits me)". As you can imagine, even if everyone agreed we were THE star golfer, they are going to balk at such demands.
Some examples to support your claim of 5-10 years would be interesting to see.
In any event treaty changes hardly ever happen, changes have been made by subsequent treaties changing what was in or adding to what was in previous treaties.
What is called the ordinary revision process to make treaty changes which was always used prior to the Lisbon treaty has only ever been fully gone through twice. The Lisbon Treaty established a simplified revision process which allows certain parts of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European to be changed by the European Council and then ratified by member states.
As for your golf analogy and changes are for the benefit and common goals of all members QMV drives a coach and horses through that claim. Btw most members of the EU don't pay any membership fees in fact they are paid membership fees to be in the golf club and the UK is a very signifciant source of the funds to pay them.
Why not pay EU migrants the level of benefits they would get in their home country?
That won't go down well with the poorer Eastern bloc Countries. When you consider a weeks child benefit equates to nearly half a weeks wages in Bulgaria.
I've been saying for years (and no-one would listen) that the parameters of 'out' need to be defined.
EFTA membership is really no different to what we have now, and will be Cameron's get-out in the event of an out vote I'm sure.
One thing it could cause, though, is a cementing of the whole "two-speed Europe" people have been talking about for decades. If we leave, go back to EFTA and it's a popular move, then I would expect to see the Scandinavian countries do the same thing.
I really don't care about EU membership -- I personally just want to remain in the EEA.
Yes, the out vote is pretty much the same as what Camerons renegotiated two speed Europe would look like with a bit of migrant benefit reduction.
And the organisation which is subject to nearly all the same regulations.
It won't break the UK because it'll be no different. Just no more gravy train for Farage and his gang.
But not their own Parliament and Court of Justice. The EU is trying to emulate the USA. Single currency, supreme law making process and central government. Hopefully, it will never happen but the EU will never cease to continue with it`s attempts to make it so. It will also take the UK`s contributions to achieve this goal.
It's all a diplomatic game of brinkmanship. It could lead to Brexit if they miscalculate. But it would be a miscalculation on both sides of the negotiating table if it does - or an indication that no amount of negotiation could salvage the UK's place in the EU.
EFTA membership is really no different to what we have now.
It is different. EFTA members while part of the single market and members of the EEA are able to negotiate their own trade agreements with countries outside the EU as they are not part of the EU customs area. Its members are not part of the EU VAT area and they only adopt EU laws which relate to the single market except for those on agriculture and fisheries.
The above doesn't fully apply to one EFTA member Switzerland which is not part of the EEA but has its own bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
So what you're basically saying then is that we can achieve reform of benefits payments to EU citizens without a renegotiation? Interesting.
Not afaik as basically whatever benefits UK citizens can get so can EU ones, so if you want to change benefit payments those changes would also apply to UK citizens.
So what you're basically saying then is that we can achieve reform of benefits payments to EU citizens without a renegotiation? Interesting.
Well the problem with the UK benefit system its its universal and free without any need for contributions.
That's different to how much of the continent works and makes it more of a pull for migrants.
It would be an enormous job to change how it works to a continental system and many Brits would be up in arms if they did try to change it. You only have to see what happens when someone mentions the NHS.
Lets face it, we are never ever going to join the Eurozone, so we might as well join EFTA instead of being full EU members. EIther way, it will not affect business one iota.
the UK's "opt out" from the Euro is not a permanent guarantee - if the UK votes to continue in the EU, that opt out will disappear and we will, eventually, be forced to join the single currency alongside the rest of Europe, it's a fundamental principle of the EU to have a single currency across all nations, the UK is clinging to an opt-out which can (and likely will) be revoked by the other 27 nations through QMV if we vote to remain part of the EU
The UK has nothing in common with Europe, besides proximity.
We have however strong historical ties, cultural similarities and longstanding friendships with a number of commonwealth countries which I would rather see a political union with.
let's call a spade a spade shall we..... the UK has nothing in common with Europe beyond war, we've had wars with the French/Spanish/Germans/Italians and many others.... the only "allies" we historically have in Europe are Portugal and Poland, whereas we have far more in common with the Commonwealth and America because of our legacy from the Empire and global relationships we have pre-EU, those cultural relationships still exist, but the EU would rather we neglect those in favour of our "European cousins"
the EU however has a lot to gain from UK membership - many adults in Germany will remmember the poverty in former East Germany where they still remember the Soviet days of poverty, they don't want to return to that hence German support for the EU being so strong - no German person wants to return to the days of the Berlin Wall, people in the former British/French territories of Berlin remember how their childhoods were and want to make a better future for all, but anyone from an East German background will strongly support a new nation called Europe, because they want to forget their nation's past and especially want to avoid the poverty under the former Soviet bloc
likewise, former Soviet countries in Eastern Europe (Poland etc) will always support the EU because they want to make a better future for themselves, and having been part of the USSR and seeing how it all went wrong, they will naturally cling to this glorious vision of the EU as the saviour - they're effectively "too small" on the global scale on their own, they don't want an emerging Russia to take control of them again like they have with the Ukraine and they want to avoid, at all costs, any return to poverty, so Eastern European support for the EU is high because it's the only future they see for themselves
there's nothing wrong in discussing this (apart from the fact that it's too close for comfort for some pro-EU people) but there are too many people across Europe who have the last 70 years worth of history to look back upon and cling to a bright future under a unified (political) Europe.
the UK on the other hand is the one anomaly who doesn't have a post-WW2 depression to remember (yes we had a depression, but we weren't either the insigators or defeated nations that other EU countries were) so we have less of a negative view of our own past, and we want to control ourselves in the same way we always have, which is contradictory to the rest of the EU because of their own histories.... however if the UK votes to leave the EU, that poses a risk to the "legitimacy" of the project which so far is governed by the UK, Germany and France, if the UK leaves, will everyone else see it as another German-led domination of their countries (this is especially why Merkel is careful around her concerns over UK membership, she's afraid of how Germany will be viewed based on their own history) but the UK Government won't use this as "ammo" when dealing with them, because bringing up the past risks upsetting a LOT of people.... something Cameron seems unwilling to do (Thatcher would have done however, she was proud of Britain's past as a global leader, and wanted it to continue!)
since Thatcher, all UK PMs have been careful when dealing with Europe because the Empire has gone, and no UK PM wants to go down as the person who retracted the UK and rebuilt the Commonwealth because (for some reason...) they have eyes on another prize.... leadership within Europe, rather than leadership outside along with our natural, cultural, cousins
So what you're basically saying then is that we can achieve reform of benefits payments to EU citizens without a renegotiation? Interesting.
It would mean stopping benefits to UK nationals who havent paid in - Which wouldnt go down to well to some of our nationals and essentially make a large number of people homeless and penniless.
Well the problem with the UK benefit system its its universal and free without any need for contributions.
That's different to how much of the continent works and makes it more of a pull for migrants.
It would be an enormous job to change how it works to a continental system and many Brits would be up in arms if they did try to change it. You only have to see what happens when someone mentions the NHS.
Comments
We have however strong historical ties, cultural similarities and longstanding friendships with a number of commonwealth countries which I would rather see a political union with.
Some examples to support your claim of 5-10 years would be interesting to see.
In any event treaty changes hardly ever happen, changes have been made by subsequent treaties changing what was in or adding to what was in previous treaties.
What is called the ordinary revision process to make treaty changes which was always used prior to the Lisbon treaty has only ever been fully gone through twice. The Lisbon Treaty established a simplified revision process which allows certain parts of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European to be changed by the European Council and then ratified by member states.
As for your golf analogy and changes are for the benefit and common goals of all members QMV drives a coach and horses through that claim. Btw most members of the EU don't pay any membership fees in fact they are paid membership fees to be in the golf club and the UK is a very signifciant source of the funds to pay them.
That won't go down well with the poorer Eastern bloc Countries. When you consider a weeks child benefit equates to nearly half a weeks wages in Bulgaria.
Yes, the out vote is pretty much the same as what Camerons renegotiated two speed Europe would look like with a bit of migrant benefit reduction.
That's the way I see it.
We'd need to factor in the savings to the UK resulting from other EU states paying out benefits to UK citizens abroad.
How many billions are we talking?
But not their own Parliament and Court of Justice. The EU is trying to emulate the USA. Single currency, supreme law making process and central government. Hopefully, it will never happen but the EU will never cease to continue with it`s attempts to make it so. It will also take the UK`s contributions to achieve this goal.
None, probably.
UK taxpayers are giving money to foreigners. That's why some voters are annoyed.
How annoyed are German taxpayers that they are giving money to British ex-pats?
And is the resulting (and presumably grievous) loss to the UK economy worth leaving a trading bloc over?
And that requires treaty change. Along with admitting new member states, treaty change needs agreement from EU member states.
Among the last two treaties were the Treaty on Croatia's accession to the EU. And the Lisbon Treaty.
The UK parliament chose to ratify both.
The German system is funded by ring fenced employee funded social insurance schemes.
So if you haven't paid in, you don't get out ( or not very much at least).
Might be worth asking some British based companies who do business across the EU.
So what you're basically saying then is that we can achieve reform of benefits payments to EU citizens without a renegotiation? Interesting.
How about about asking Tesco how its competition with Aldi is going?
It is different. EFTA members while part of the single market and members of the EEA are able to negotiate their own trade agreements with countries outside the EU as they are not part of the EU customs area. Its members are not part of the EU VAT area and they only adopt EU laws which relate to the single market except for those on agriculture and fisheries.
The above doesn't fully apply to one EFTA member Switzerland which is not part of the EEA but has its own bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
Not afaik as basically whatever benefits UK citizens can get so can EU ones, so if you want to change benefit payments those changes would also apply to UK citizens.
Well the problem with the UK benefit system its its universal and free without any need for contributions.
That's different to how much of the continent works and makes it more of a pull for migrants.
It would be an enormous job to change how it works to a continental system and many Brits would be up in arms if they did try to change it. You only have to see what happens when someone mentions the NHS.
Tesco presumably being disadvantaged by EU legislation as against Aldi.
If Tesco can't compete with Aldi then that's just capitalism at work. Are you suggesting protectionism again?
Doesn't seem to be a problem for Germany.
If other EU states can make the same rules work for them, then the fact that we can't is a reflection of our government rather than the EU.
the UK's "opt out" from the Euro is not a permanent guarantee - if the UK votes to continue in the EU, that opt out will disappear and we will, eventually, be forced to join the single currency alongside the rest of Europe, it's a fundamental principle of the EU to have a single currency across all nations, the UK is clinging to an opt-out which can (and likely will) be revoked by the other 27 nations through QMV if we vote to remain part of the EU
let's call a spade a spade shall we..... the UK has nothing in common with Europe beyond war, we've had wars with the French/Spanish/Germans/Italians and many others.... the only "allies" we historically have in Europe are Portugal and Poland, whereas we have far more in common with the Commonwealth and America because of our legacy from the Empire and global relationships we have pre-EU, those cultural relationships still exist, but the EU would rather we neglect those in favour of our "European cousins"
the EU however has a lot to gain from UK membership - many adults in Germany will remmember the poverty in former East Germany where they still remember the Soviet days of poverty, they don't want to return to that hence German support for the EU being so strong - no German person wants to return to the days of the Berlin Wall, people in the former British/French territories of Berlin remember how their childhoods were and want to make a better future for all, but anyone from an East German background will strongly support a new nation called Europe, because they want to forget their nation's past and especially want to avoid the poverty under the former Soviet bloc
likewise, former Soviet countries in Eastern Europe (Poland etc) will always support the EU because they want to make a better future for themselves, and having been part of the USSR and seeing how it all went wrong, they will naturally cling to this glorious vision of the EU as the saviour - they're effectively "too small" on the global scale on their own, they don't want an emerging Russia to take control of them again like they have with the Ukraine and they want to avoid, at all costs, any return to poverty, so Eastern European support for the EU is high because it's the only future they see for themselves
there's nothing wrong in discussing this (apart from the fact that it's too close for comfort for some pro-EU people) but there are too many people across Europe who have the last 70 years worth of history to look back upon and cling to a bright future under a unified (political) Europe.
the UK on the other hand is the one anomaly who doesn't have a post-WW2 depression to remember (yes we had a depression, but we weren't either the insigators or defeated nations that other EU countries were) so we have less of a negative view of our own past, and we want to control ourselves in the same way we always have, which is contradictory to the rest of the EU because of their own histories.... however if the UK votes to leave the EU, that poses a risk to the "legitimacy" of the project which so far is governed by the UK, Germany and France, if the UK leaves, will everyone else see it as another German-led domination of their countries (this is especially why Merkel is careful around her concerns over UK membership, she's afraid of how Germany will be viewed based on their own history) but the UK Government won't use this as "ammo" when dealing with them, because bringing up the past risks upsetting a LOT of people.... something Cameron seems unwilling to do (Thatcher would have done however, she was proud of Britain's past as a global leader, and wanted it to continue!)
since Thatcher, all UK PMs have been careful when dealing with Europe because the Empire has gone, and no UK PM wants to go down as the person who retracted the UK and rebuilt the Commonwealth because (for some reason...) they have eyes on another prize.... leadership within Europe, rather than leadership outside along with our natural, cultural, cousins
The only way to level the trade deficit is with protectionism, yes.
I am anti globalisation.
It would mean stopping benefits to UK nationals who havent paid in - Which wouldnt go down to well to some of our nationals and essentially make a large number of people homeless and penniless.
So, the problem is with us and not them.
And this makes the EU at fault how exactly?