Napoleonthechimp
Member
Because everyone else is all sunshine and rainbows, right?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EU referendum: Cameron hopes of deal delayed (migrant benefits sticking point)
- Thread starter Tak3n
- Start date
- Status
Because everyone else is all sunshine and rainbows, right?
I think the difference is that most never wanted a political union with Europe only a free trade deal. The political aspect has been foisted upon citizens for decades - and whilst it is nice they have stated not a closer union, that doesn't mean EU will reneg on the deal or that a future PM will abandon the previous deal.
Most will view it as if we leave it will be harder for someone in the future to 'alter' the deal.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
It's not like the emerging markets are doing much better. China is on the brink of an economic meltdown, Brazil is in deep decline and India might not be too far behind. EU has a lot of problems, but given what we may be heading into, the EU seems far more stable than a lot of other larger markets.
China should be of primary concern to Britain, since Cameron and the tories have insisted we need closer economic ties with the emerging markers rather than Europe, and that is clearly turning into a disastrous policy.
PJV3
Member
I didn't realise i said that.
I'm thinking more of "we only voted to join the common market" finally being dealt with.
on the other hand... banks already threatened to leave the UK in case the UK leaves the EU... Scotland may be able to sway them... and grant them asylum, so to speak.
ofc that's easier sad than done
we both know that's not true
https://youtu.be/WDqayC1sR7g?t=1m22s
Napalm_Frank
Member
It will be interesting to see which country will be next in line to negotiate a new deal.
YourMaster
Member
Yes it is.
I don't know how well a Brexit will turn out for them though, but I expect most of the problems they'll face are because the other EU 'countries' will sabotage normal relations as much as possible to proof the point that leaving the EU is not a good thing.
You really think banks will leave London?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Scotland won't be swaying anyone they'd be out of the EU also and it wouldn't even be certain they'd be able to join, or at least anytime soon.
Ireland has no oil, a smaller population and is doing quite well for itself actually. Can people stop with this bollox argument that Scotland cannot be successful if it dared pried itself away from Mother England? The same tired, worn out slogans and statements were wheeled out by the "stay" side during the Indie referendum despite being completely wrong.
Oh, and I'd rather Britain left the EU. We keep giving them opt-outs and exemptions from various EU rules and yet no one stops to ask why does Britain deserve all this special treatment. If a country is part of the EU then they're fully in. If not then leave. And same to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.
ClosingADoor
Member
Considering the exit of Britain would have an economic impact on the whole group, negotiating deals that are more beneficial to the other EU states is then more then logical. It's the exact same thing Britain is doing now, with making demands that are in their interest.
I don't think that would be sabotage. You can't expect to exit an union and then when you need something from the others again have them play nice. They should be looking out for their interest then, not Britains.
Those don't have a political seat in the EU, so I don't really have a problem with that. They accept some stuff from the EU because it is a net benefit, but without even having representation in it now.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Didn't ireland need to be bailed out by the EU. Also Ireland has some Oil reserves, it's largely un-explored in comparison to the North Sea.
They get many of the benefits of the Common Market and Schengen Zone without being bound to many of the rules. It's what many Europhobes in Britain want for their own country. I'd be like a country on the US' border being able to enjoy visa and passport free travel and free trade with the US without having to be bound by many of their laws as well. I believe in sticking to the rules of the club, not cherry picking the best one's and declaring oneself not bound to the others considered burdensome.
What, so because Ireland received a high interest loan (not a bailout) to balance its books it cannot be an independent and prosperous nation? Better tell that to the British themselves who sought an IMF loan in the 70's. Not only have we already started paying the loans back, including interest, we're also the fastest growing economy in all of Europe.
And we don't have oil, just a few gas fields. There's nothing to suggest that Scotland couldn't be a successful country if it broke free of Britain's rule, nothing. Anyone claiming it would be a failure is just fear-mongering.
YourMaster
Member
I agree that any changes that Britain manages to negotiate should be union wide changes, not exemptions. They allowed this in the past and this is policy I don't agree with. For example don't give Britain a discount in EU membership fees, but maximize the fees at some point relative to the economy. And now I would say it is fair for all EU citizens wanting to move to another EU country to needing to be able to support themselves for a few years before being able to claim benefits.
If Britain request changes that only benefit them, even if defined in a universal way, and other countries block those changes I wouldn't call that sabotage. What would be sabotage is if Britain wants to have a similar relationship like Norway and Switzerland have, with specific mutually beneficial treaties in place and the EU refuses to make trade agreements out of pure spite.
That sabotage WILL take place in one form or another, because if they didn't you'd see that Britain would be better off outside the EU, and people from other countries would want to follow that example.
a load of hot air changes, mostly some Cameron can go off into the sunset in 3 years knowing he did not let the UK leave the EU...
The key points of the deal are:
An "emergency brake" on migrants' in-work benefits for four years when there are "exceptional" levels of migration. The UK will be able to operate the brake for seven years
Child benefit for the children of EU migrants living overseas will now be paid at a rate based on the cost of living in their home country - applicable immediately for new arrivals and from 2020 for the 34,000 existing claimants
The amending of EU treaties to state explicitly that references to the requirement to seek ever-closer union "do not apply to the United Kingdom", meaning Britain "can never be forced into political integration"
The ability for the UK to enact "an emergency safeguard" to protect the City of London, to stop UK firms being forced to relocate into Europe and to ensure British businesses do not face "discrimination" for being outside the eurozone
The key points of the deal are:
An "emergency brake" on migrants' in-work benefits for four years when there are "exceptional" levels of migration. The UK will be able to operate the brake for seven years
Child benefit for the children of EU migrants living overseas will now be paid at a rate based on the cost of living in their home country - applicable immediately for new arrivals and from 2020 for the 34,000 existing claimants
The amending of EU treaties to state explicitly that references to the requirement to seek ever-closer union "do not apply to the United Kingdom", meaning Britain "can never be forced into political integration"
The ability for the UK to enact "an emergency safeguard" to protect the City of London, to stop UK firms being forced to relocate into Europe and to ensure British businesses do not face "discrimination" for being outside the eurozone
Meanwhile the new "Grassroots Out" campaign is already facing internal divisions after arch Putinite is guest speaker at last night's rally:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-at-Brexit-campaign-rally-sparks-furore.html
Brexit, brought to you by two of the biggest cunts in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-at-Brexit-campaign-rally-sparks-furore.html
Brexit, brought to you by two of the biggest cunts in Britain.
You say a load of hot air but wouldn't that one be a huge disadvantage for the Eastern EU countries?
not really as it is only for 7 years at most, but in reality the UK will be allowed to apply benefit brakes ONCE...that is it... and that can last 4 years
When you couple that with Cameron saying his main aim was to curb immigration, how does this do that? ergo it is a hot air change
and the child benefit is really a stupid rule anyway, I never understood how you can come to the UK have a child the fuck off back to your own country and claim benefits for them until they are 18
what a daft rule
Mac@NeoGAF
Banned
No one says Scotland can't be independent, the issue has always been that the SNP tried to buy independence on a platform of lies and false figures.
The 'White Paper' they published has turned out to be a complete work of fiction, just as the realists predicted at the time.
If they go for independence, fine, but there needs to be some honesty with the Scottish people about the costs and implications of such a move.
Divesting yourself from 300yrs of economic and cultural integration will not be cheap or painless as was made out by the snake oil salesman of the SNP.
And need I remind you that Ireland remained dirt poor for nearly 60yrs after independence, it was only with the sudden influx of EU funds, cheap loans and generous tax avoidance schemes for multi nationals that changed the situation and in the end, it bankrupted a generation.
It can last 7 years though, hence, if they applied it in 2017 - the UK could stop benefits until 2024. Don't know where your getting just 4 years from.
Anyway in the daylight is not good enough for us ... should of been more provisions for us.
No I think it means we can apply to apply the brake for 7 years after the referendum, and said brake can last for 4 years....
so a nothing deal as once we vote to stay we will be allowed to apply the first brake, but then in 4 years when we go back they will tell us to do one....
and as I read it after 7 years has passed we can no longer apply
Nope all the readings have been brake can apply any time after referendum and can last upto 7 years.
Audioboxer
Member
Does a large population of England really want to leave the EU? I've always wondered if it's just the politicians making it sound like they do.
Unless it is just all the Conservative voters happy to blindly follow their party of choice.
Whatever happens I just hope Scotland has the balls to do another ref if England vote to leave and we don't.
Fuck the oil arguments. In all honesty I wish we didn't even have oil half the time people prattle on about it. A country can do okay without natural resources, especially a small one, they just benefit a little more if they do have them. Always seems like the scaremongering is simply because those in Westminster don't want to lose THEIR access to oil.
Unless it is just all the Conservative voters happy to blindly follow their party of choice.
Whatever happens I just hope Scotland has the balls to do another ref if England vote to leave and we don't.
Fuck the oil arguments. In all honesty I wish we didn't even have oil half the time people prattle on about it. A country can do okay without natural resources, especially a small one, they just benefit a little more if they do have them. Always seems like the scaremongering is simply because those in Westminster don't want to lose THEIR access to oil.
The numbers are tiny, for example much better could of been done by sorting out the fisheries industry which has been decimated by EU law...
it is all about perceptions and signals, Cameron et al believe if you say to people that you will be on your own if you come here so dont come asking for any help, it will stop them coming
Mac@NeoGAF
Banned
Oil is irrelevant to the UK economy, less than 1% of GDP.
Audioboxer
Member
I don't disagree, but the mass hysteria about Oil either seems to come from English people supporting better together or Westminster itself. I'd give the English people the benefit of the doubt and say most of them are just buying into what Westminster say and parroting it.
Same goes for any Scots paranoid about Oil. Stop being scared shitless by Westminster. They have an agenda to push and in my opinion regardless of how little oil is worth they do not want to lose their "free tap" on an oil resource up north. England on its own with Wales and Ireland are the countries that would have to continue on without much in the way of natural resources, not us, yet we get painted as the unfortunate scenario of Independence as we are the ones WITH natural resources? Wut?
Mac@NeoGAF
Banned
Oil only became an issue because for decades the SNP spouted the line that oil will pay for everything in an independent Scotland.
Now the figures don't add up, they try and ignore it, so pull figures out of hat to try and show why oil is 'just a bonus'.
It was perfectly legitimate of opponents of independence to pull them up on this
Audioboxer
Member
Yeah that reads like scaremongering to the max. Sure oil was part of the revenue and projections, but pay for everything? Please. That it utter bullshit.
Again how I wish we had no oil just so people would stop saying and believing ridiculous things. When the oil market crashes you get less money, when it prospers you get more money. It's about what you do with the money you are getting, when you're getting it. Look at the countries with oil most sit on large cash reserves and invest it wisely. Our Westminster friends like to piss money away left right and centre and sell everything off (privitazation for their own personal wealth agendas and whoever their corporate buddies are). That's the cancer a lot of us up here want away from.
Whether that's with the SNP or not I don't think most Scots would give a fuck. Problem is Labour and Conservatives have far too many ties to London and Westminster. I'd happily vote for another Scottish party if they sounded better than the SNP. Problem is there are no other parties right now. Maybe others could rise after independence, who knows. "Scottish" Labour and "Scottish" Conservatives are just the puppets of Westminster made to try and appeal up here. Maybe if they could be their own parties who didn't need to report in to main HQ in London they'd garner more support.
If your referring to the North Sea fishing industry, that has required regulations for years but all coastal nations just kept overfishing until the very strict EU sanctions came in and forced countries to fish less.
The above image shows things fairly well, we couldn't keep fishing at those high levels forever and Britain suddenly going back to this will undo years of hard work.
If your referring to the North Sea fishing industry, that has required regulations for years but all coastal nations just kept overfishing until the very strict EU sanctions came in and forced countries to fish less.
The above image shows things fairly well, we couldn't keep fishing at those high levels forever and Britain suddenly going back to this will undo years of hard work.
I watched a documentary on this and they made out like it decimated it whilst other European countries flouted the law and fished in UK waters
Not sure why people are saying the deal is a "load of hot air"
And like it or not, London is pretty much the most important city not just in the EU, but on the face of the Earth, when it comes to finances. People like to moan that London gets special treatment, but it needs it. Like it or not, London is a massive benefit for both the UK and the EU. It's essentially a gateway in and out of Europe for the financial world.
My only real disappointment is on the child benefit front. If the child isn't living in the UK then there should be no child benefit being sent at all. I suspect that was what Cameron asked for, but a compromise was to lower it to the same levels as would be received in the home country.
I don't think anyone can criticise Cameron for not getting everything he asked for though. Did anybody honestly expect he would? The whole point of a negotiation like that is to ask for more than you're willing to accept, then to compromise down to a level acceptable for everyone.
I do suspect that some of the Eastern European countries were more or less forced into acceptance by countries like Germany. Leaders of Eastern European states wouldn't want anything that might discourage the migration of low/un-skilled labour from their own countries since it means they might suddenly have to start dealing with their own welfare problems in a much bigger way rather than relying on richer countries to do it for them.
These seem like pretty significant gains really. The UK public want absolutely nothing to do with the Euro (And who could blame them? The currency has been an utterly disastrous experiment), and an 'ever-closer union' would likely entail giving up more powers to the EU away from our own government. Curbing that trend is a major breakthrough.
And like it or not, London is pretty much the most important city not just in the EU, but on the face of the Earth, when it comes to finances. People like to moan that London gets special treatment, but it needs it. Like it or not, London is a massive benefit for both the UK and the EU. It's essentially a gateway in and out of Europe for the financial world.
My only real disappointment is on the child benefit front. If the child isn't living in the UK then there should be no child benefit being sent at all. I suspect that was what Cameron asked for, but a compromise was to lower it to the same levels as would be received in the home country.
I don't think anyone can criticise Cameron for not getting everything he asked for though. Did anybody honestly expect he would? The whole point of a negotiation like that is to ask for more than you're willing to accept, then to compromise down to a level acceptable for everyone.
I do suspect that some of the Eastern European countries were more or less forced into acceptance by countries like Germany. Leaders of Eastern European states wouldn't want anything that might discourage the migration of low/un-skilled labour from their own countries since it means they might suddenly have to start dealing with their own welfare problems in a much bigger way rather than relying on richer countries to do it for them.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Just heard about this "deal" on Radio 4 this morning. The top point announced was "Britain will be allowed to keep the pound indefinitely".
Fucking winner winner chicken dinner Dave!! Holy shit, what awesome negotiating skills our lad has! #voteremain
Fucking winner winner chicken dinner Dave!! Holy shit, what awesome negotiating skills our lad has! #voteremain
Fucking LOL, was that even up for debate?
Problem is the treaties need to be ratified to be able to include the amendment, any country can veto that - which they most likely will. Now Cameron should of got the treaties ratified first. Then the referendum.
SporeCrawler
Member
I dont know why everybody thinks its a bad Idea to have UK outside of the EU. UK seems to be confident and if they feel thats good for their country they should do what they feel whats good, honestly I dont care. from the perspective of the EU, sure you would loose a big market but also a big blocker for major political decision making. The EU needs to get closer and closer politically to master the problems of globalization (refugee crisis, financial crisis just show that you cannot solve problems like that unless you have a certain size)
no to be honest if GB wants to stay in first do the referendum and then if its accepted ratify that shit. you cant fuck the EU and then just go out .
The Euro has evolved into a major currency. Name any currency (Mark, Franc, Lira..) that would have similar power. The EU is the second most important reserve currency of the IMF (24% for comparison GBP only is 4%, CHF is 0,3%)
Thats basically the idea of a political union. to give away powers and harmonize in order to prevent warmongering and to enhance prosperity for all.
Yeah sure but Berlin, Paris, Rome are all also important but they dont get that special treatment.
no to be honest if GB wants to stay in first do the referendum and then if its accepted ratify that shit. you cant fuck the EU and then just go out .
QuicheFontaine
Member
I didn't think so. Maybe the phrasing was just poor and they were referring to that exemption from "ever closer union", but I was gobsmacked when they said it. We already have an opt-out from the Euro don't we?
Edit:
How long would that take? Also I'm pretty sure several EU countries have a requirement to hold their own referendum when approving any treaty change.
What a farce.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Both colossal fuck-ups the continent will be dealing with for a generation.
To ask an expansionist entity like the EU to stop expanding is something is also something i hold little confidence for unfortunately.
Europe is breaking anyway. Have you not seen Greece?
CyclopsRock
Member
I think that technically it was supposed to be the long term goal of all nations to join the Euro. That's not technically not the case with us, though for all the practical difference it makes it might as well not have change.
Personally I'm most interested in the City protections.
Good.
Its hardly fucking the EU, when they wanted to get this deal done. It also doesn't affect EU whether or not is ratified first. The only reason they wouldn't want to do that first is of course they are scared than when the UK leaves.
The idea of doing the treaty first is to protect the UK from other PMs who will try and get further entangled in the hot mess of the EU. Second it is to show that they, the EU parliament can be trusted to ratify. If we vote to stay in, the treaties won't be ratified at that point you will have UK mostly ignoring anything Europe has to say.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked