Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

True to form, the Tories reveal their true colours - they just can't help themselves

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/20/tories-brexit-liam-fox-eu-david-cameron

Liam Fox's declaration of war is important as he is respected within the Tory Party, and he's long been seen as the 'mouthpiece' of other senior Tories who hold similar views.

Make no mistake, this is a clear and present danger to David Cameron, because if he tries to crack down on the Euro-sceptics, there will be a bloodbath, but if allows the cabinet a free vote, he'll be a laughing stock all over Europe, and will probably encourage a massive split down the middle of the Tory party.

Fox's timing is interesting as well. It's the Christmas break, and Tory MPs will be away from London and the scrutiny of the party whips, and back home in the shires. Plenty of time for the rebels to meet up and plot their next move...

I said months ago during the general election thread that Cameron should enjoy his victory, because it would be a short honeymoon.

I lived through the John Major years - the last time the Tories tore themselves apart over Europe, and it was not a pretty sight...

One advantage the Tories have this time around is that Labour are pretty much useless, and beset with their own in-fighting, and so they're unlikely to capitalise on this, unlike Tony Blair did.

What does everybody else think?

I think you're crowing over nothing.

There will be a referendum, the people will decide.

Civil war ? I think you're exaggerating.

I think it will be problematic for Cameron, but I'm always amazed at his ability to brush things under the carpet and the easy ride he and Osborne get given by the press, so I dunno if I can say I'm optimistic they'll eat themselves over this.

I reckon the UK should leave the EU. I'm pretty tired of the theatrics. We've got real problems to deal with.

 notprop wrote:
I think you're crowing over nothing.

There will be a referendum, the people will decide.

When, though?

There is a suspicion that Cameron is trying to rush one through in the hope of springing the result he wants. This could backfire.

After all, the Scottish referendum campaign lasted 2 years, and this EU referendum is just as important to Britain's future for decades to come.

If people think that Cameron's pulling a fast one, there will be trouble and strife.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LethalShade wrote:
Civil war ? I think you're exaggerating.

Not in the literal sense!

As long as the UK leaves the EU. I'd love to see that. With the UK leaving the EU, it all begins to slowly fall apart. We are very, very excited.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it will be problematic for Cameron, but I'm always amazed at his ability to brush things under the carpet and the easy ride he and Osborne get given by the press, so I dunno if I can say I'm optimistic they'll eat themselves over this.

I reckon the UK should leave the EU. I'm pretty tired of the theatrics. We've got real problems to deal with.

Cameron has been lucky in the sense that the more extreme fringe of the Tories went over to UKIP, but he's been stalling this day for years now, but unfortunately for him, the chickens have well and truly come home to roost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
As long as the UK leaves the EU. I'd love to see that. With the US leaving the EU, it all begins to slowly fall apart. We are very, very excited.

The US in the EU? WTF??

Typo. The US will be part of the German...eh..."EU" economy with TTIP

Heh heh heh. It's a rare day when we agree on something Sigvatr. Apart from computer games .

Though for different reasons, I bet

 Sigvatr wrote:
Typo. The US will be part of the German...eh..."EU" economy with TTIP

Don't underestimate the opposition to TTIP. It's another reason to pull out of the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Typo. The US will be part of the German...eh..."EU" economy with TTIP

Don't underestimate the opposition to TTIP. It's another reason to pull out of the EU.

The opposition doesn't matter - and really, a bunch of misinformed angry people shouldn't to begin with.

I got both perspectives. Large parts of TTIP are already confirmed to happen, only the time frame is up to debate. If TTIP as a whole doesn't get implemented, there are quite a few step-by-step plans that introduce parts of it. Off public. German people will remember the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung". Guess what was implemented recently

 Da Boss wrote:


Though for different reasons, I bet

Haha, most likely

I would laugh at all the people suddenly realizing that a "union" mostly based on a single country doesn't work...and then being surprised that Europe is in flames.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Typo. The US will be part of the German...eh..."EU" economy with TTIP

Don't underestimate the opposition to TTIP. It's another reason to pull out of the EU.

The opposition doesn't matter - and really, a bunch of misinformed angry people shouldn't to begin with.

I got both perspectives. Large parts of TTIP are already confirmed to happen, only the time frame is up to debate. If TTIP as a whole doesn't get implemented, there are quite a few step-by-step plans that introduce parts of it. Off public.

Off public? We'll see about that!

Anyway, lets get back to the Tories at war - it always fills my heart with joy

That be true. UK politics are so much more entertaining than German ones. Not as good as the US ones, especially with Trump, but still entertaining. *gets popcorn*

Leaving the EU won't prevent TTIP. Ours is one of the governments pushing for it. We'll just get the same deal with a different name.

It only makes sense for the UK. The UK already is a strong US partner and a lot of big German companies also are allied to the US by economical bonds. It's the only thing that makes sense and I agree - whether the UK stays in the EU or leaves it doesn't matter, the UK will act upon what's best for the UK and in this case, it's TTIP or one of its children.

Leave EU!

There a corupt monolith of control and stupidity.
It's undemocratic, wastes billions and hass gone miles from original remit.

 LethalShade wrote:
Civil war ? I think you're exaggerating.

Wait someone on dakka exagerated ?

no way...
GG

The EU budget actually is minute compared to national budgets, but apart from that, it is true that there is a serious lack of democratic accountability. Many countries are worried about it.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in European Union was worth 18460.60 billion US dollars in 2014.

EU budget for 2014 was 142,690 M Euros = 190,264 M USD.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU budget actually is minute compared to national budgets, but apart from that, it is true that there is a serious lack of democratic accountability. Many countries are worried about it.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in European Union was worth 18460.60 billion US dollars in 2014.

EU budget for 2014 was 142,690 M Euros = 190,264 M USD.

There own auditing department refuse to sign off on there own sections of budgets. Only happens when you have a serious problem there.

 jhe90 wrote:
Leave EU!

There a corupt monolith of control and stupidity.
It's undemocratic, wastes billions and hass gone miles from original remit.

Pretty good summary.

Everyone is playing tough at the moment thinking the other can be forced to back down because the stakes are so high. Leaving the EU could be damaging for the UK, but it's hard to say for sure. It could also be damaging for the EU, as if we get on ok then others will want to change the rules or leave, and the whole thing will fall apart - exactly what Merkel and those keen on a united Europe and single currency are desperate to avoid.

Both sides are spinning a lot of propaganda, I'm really unsure of how to vote because the economic arguments aren't balanced and don't look backed up in facts. It's scaremongering all round. It's issues like immigration that will decide the vote, something the public actually understand.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Everyone is playing tough at the moment thinking the other can be forced to back down because the stakes are so high. Leaving the EU could be damaging for the UK, but it's hard to say for sure. It could also be damaging for the EU, as if we get on ok then others will want to change the rules or leave, and the whole thing will fall apart - exactly what Merkel and those keen on a united Europe and single currency are desperate to avoid.

Both sides are spinning a lot of propaganda, I'm really unsure of how to vote because the economic arguments aren't balanced and don't look backed up in facts. It's scaremongering all round. It's issues like immigration that will decide the vote, something the public actually understand.

I too have been unsure as to how to vote, because there seems to be a lot of misinformation and uncertainty about what comes next flying around. I was unimpressed by Cameron's rather unambitious list of demands, but resolved to see how things went.

A few weeks down the line, and everyone in Europe seems to give two answers to even those low-level requests 'No, that's against 'European integration policy' or 'We were thinking about some sort of reform vaguely along those lines, so we'll work work it in consultation with everybody else's opinion on how they want reform to go'.

Whilst I'm not of the opinion that we should be holding Europe hostage, the list Cameron presented is reasonably low-key and SHOULD be achievable. The fact that the EU seems unwilling to even bend that far when one of their primary bankrollers is teetering on the edge of leaving speaks volumes to me about how little influence we do actually have over the creation of law and direction of the EU. And considering that one of the primary arguments for staying is that, 'You'll have to follow a bunch of EU laws anyway and have no input', well, it would appear we have little enough input anyway.

So I've decided to judge the way I vote based on Europe's response to Cameron's list of demands. If they seem willing enough to listen and accommodate, I will most likely vote to stay. If they continue to be obstinate and intransigent however, I will take that as a sign of inflexibility and a lack of answerability to us as a democratic populace, and an exceedingly bad sign for the future. In which case, I will vote to leave. The specifics hammered out between governments are not nearly as important here as demonstrations of good faith.

In other words, if the EU would rather kowtow to the Polish PM whining about some of his citizens not being able to claim benefits, to the point that they'd risk us leaving over it? Then we probably should do.

I think it's arrogant of Britain to be walking in with demands in any case.

They should negotiate and compromise like anyone else. The thing with the benefits is such a non issue. It is for the British government to fix if they want to - they just need to make sure that the law treats british citizens and european citizens the same, as discrimination is illegal.

I disagree with pretty much all of the other reforms being sought by Cameron so I hope the renegotiation fails. I want the EU to be reformed but not along the lines of what the UK is asking for, and I resent that they are essentially holding a gun to their own heads and threatening the rest of us.

Pull the trigger, I say.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU budget actually is minute compared to national budgets, but apart from that, it is true that there is a serious lack of democratic accountability. Many countries are worried about it.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in European Union was worth 18460.60 billion US dollars in 2014.

EU budget for 2014 was 142,690 M Euros = 190,264 M USD.

There own auditing department refuse to sign off on there own sections of budgets. Only happens when you have a serious problem there.

No this is wrong. The 'non sign off of EU budgets' is right up there with 'straight bananas' as an anti EU myth.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_eu_budget_rejected_auditors_18_years-28593

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it's arrogant of Britain to be walking in with demands in any case.

Why is it arrogant for a sovereign nation state to require fresh changes (or have demands, if you will) to diplomatic/legal circumstances in order to continue to participate in it? We are sovereign. We have every democratic right to state the terms upon which we will be prepared to engage in specific activities, and when those terms are not granted, to withdraw from the accords. We are under no obligation to consider 'the good of the EU', or indeed, other countries. Our countries first and foremost loyalty and duty is to ourselves and our citizens.

They should negotiate and compromise like anyone else.

You will note that there are many, MANY things which are disadvantageous/problematic to Britain which did not make it to Cameron's list of negotiating points. I'm not saying that the remaining points should be automatically granted as a result, but I am saying that it should be considered that he is not actually asking for a lot compared to what he could be asking for. He wants to:-

a) cut some minor red tape around business affairs.
b) Cut subsidies to recent immigrants to the nation who have as of yet contributed nothing.
c) protection from current/future EU financial integration and it's assorted issues and protection for our financial sector.
d) Allow us to continue to participate in Europe without any more of this 'ever closer Union' stuff.

I mean, really? Red tape is just a matter of handwaving away a small amount of bureaucracy, not having to deal with the Eurozone's financial issues should already be a given considering we're not part of the Euro, and we don't want to be part of an ever closer Union (primarily because we were never actually asked). These are not unreasonable things, and frankly, should solvable with an absolute minimum of problems.

The thing with the benefits is such a non issue. It is for the British government to fix if they want to - they just need to make sure that the law treats british citizens and european citizens the same, as discrimination is illegal.

Is it a non-issue? Immigration towards this country from the EU has been at record high levels for a substantial period of time now, and it's placed a serious strain on local services. Seeking to exert some minor control over that is again, really not that big a deal. We're not part of Schengen for the precise reason that we WANT some minor control over our borders. That isn't really too much to ask, is it?

I mean, really. Let's be frank here. The only reason benefits is even being mooted as a possible way to discourage immigration is because we know that the EU will never permit any questioning of the right of freedom to move and work. And that's fine. That's why a rather large issue in Britain at the moment has been watered down to a minor negotiating point on benefits. Because we're flexible, and not pushing on points of central importance to other nations. We're accommodating others before we even sit down at the table, which isn't exactly the attitude of an unreasonable partner, is it?

Do you seriously consider that to be an issue worth Britain leaving the EU over?

I disagree with pretty much all of the other reforms being sought by Cameron so I hope the renegotiation fails. I want the EU to be reformed but not along the lines of what the UK is asking for, and I resent that they are essentially holding a gun to their own heads and threatening the rest of us.

Pull the trigger, I say.

See, that's the attitude taken by a lot of Europe, which is problematic (and frankly bizare, considering we're hte ones being accused of doing the dictating).

But we're not asking for much. A little understanding, a little clarification of our democratically desired position within Europe. Nothing radical (we're not demanding people make the pound the official currency), nothing extreme (we're not demanding the end to free movement and work), nothing substantial (we're not even mentioning the vast amounts of money we shovel we into Brussels). What's been requested is exceedingly reasonable, and if the attitude of the Europe to such minor points is, 'We're not interested, either do absolutely everything we say on everything forever on our march to becoming one Reich or piss off', then well, frankly, I'm not sure the citizens of Britain want to partially ruled by such an inflexible, centralised, and frankly, undemocratic organisation.

I for one, know I do not. If the EU cannot accommodate such trifling, unambitious issues without tearing itself apart and telling us to get lost in the process, I do not feel it has any business telling me what to do, and would rather those powers reverted back to Parliament, where I can kick the buggers out every five years at least.

 Ketara wrote:


Why is it arrogant for a sovereign nation state to require fresh changes (or have demands, if you will) to diplomatic/legal circumstances in order to continue to participate in it? We are sovereign. We have every democratic right to state the terms upon which we will be prepared to engage in specific activities, and when those terms are not granted, to withdraw from the accords. We are under no obligation to consider 'the good of the EU', or indeed, other countries. Our countries first and foremost loyalty and duty is to ourselves and our citizens.

It's the way in which it is done. EU diplomacy is a story of compromises and give and take. Britain is coming in with the Brexit as a nuclear option to intimidate everyone into getting what they want. People find that extremely offputting because it's frankly, rude. If you are under no obligation to be good to the EU, why should we be under any obligation to be good to you? To be fair, you guys are the ones who are talking about quitting. How did you feel when it was Scotland talking about quitting the UK?

You will note that there are many, MANY things which are disadvantageous/problematic to Britain which did not make it to Cameron's list of negotiating points. I'm not saying that the remaining points should be automatically granted as a result, but I am saying that it should be considered that he is not actually asking for a lot compared to what he could be asking for. He wants to:-

a) cut some minor red tape around business affairs.
b) Cut subsidies to recent immigrants to the nation who have as of yet contributed nothing.
c) protection from current/future EU financial integration and it's assorted issues and protection for our financial sector.
d) Allow us to continue to participate in Europe without any more of this 'ever closer Union' stuff.

I mean, really? Red tape is just a matter of handwaving away a small amount of bureaucracy, not having to deal with the Eurozone's financial issues should already be a given considering we're not part of the Euro, and we don't want to be part of an ever closer Union (primarily because we were never actually asked). These are not unreasonable things, and frankly, should solvable with an absolute minimum of problems.

a)"Cut some red tape" exactly which regulations do you want done away with? I intensely distrust this sort of rhetoric. "Leaner, meaner and more competative" usually means "Let's screw over the workers for the benefit of corporate interests!". The Tories track record on this is terrible.
b) Core tenet of the EU is that people are treated equally by the different states. If you want to cut subsidies to immigrants who have contributed nothing, you have to cut subsidies for those in your population who have contributed nothing, as well. It's a point of principle that I do not want to see compromsied (as an immigrant in an EU country).
c) Protection for Britain as not being Eurozone, perhaps. Special protection for your financial sector? No. The finance industry in Europe need stricter regulation and control and oversight.
d) Don't care about this one and I think you will definitely get an exception on this.

I'd also like to see some of the "many, many" other issues outlined to be honest.

Actually, I think the only issue you're going to lose on is the benefits to migrants one. There are lots of EU member states who agree on the other points, unfortunately.

Is it a non-issue? Immigration towards this country from the EU has been at record high levels for a substantial period of time now, and it's placed a serious strain on local services. Seeking to exert some minor control over that is again, really not that big a deal. We're not part of Schengen for the precise reason that we WANT some minor control over our borders. That isn't really too much to ask, is it?

I mean, really. Let's be frank here. The only reason benefits is even being mooted as a possible way to discourage immigration is because we know that the EU will never permit any questioning of the right of freedom to move and work. And that's fine. That's why a rather large issue in Britain at the moment has been watered down to a minor negotiating point on benefits. Because we're flexible, and not pushing on points of central importance to other nations. We're accommodating others before we even sit down at the table, which isn't exactly the attitude of an unreasonable partner, is it?

Do you seriously consider that to be an issue worth Britain leaving the EU over?

It's an issue driven by british xenophobia. Britain was one of the strongest campaigners for eastern expansion of the EU, and now you (as a nation) are whining about the consequences. You have control over your borders for non EU citizens, and the benefits thing is such a small, piddly amount of money that it is essentially just a message thing, as you say. I think it's fine for the EU to answer with it's own message.

See, that's the attitude taken by a lot of Europe, which is problematic (and frankly bizare, considering we're hte ones being accused of doing the dictating).

But we're not asking for much. A little understanding, a little clarification of our democratically desired position within Europe. Nothing radical (we're not demanding people make the pound the official currency), nothing extreme (we're not demanding the end to free movement and work), nothing substantial (we're not even mentioning the vast amounts of money we shovel we into Brussels). What's been requested is exceedingly reasonable, and if the attitude of the Europe to such minor points is, 'We're not interested, either do absolutely everything we say on everything forever on our march to becoming one Reich or piss off', then well, frankly, I'm not sure the citizens of Britain want to partially ruled by such an inflexible, centralised, and frankly, undemocratic organisation.

I for one, know I do not. If the EU cannot accommodate such trifling, unambitious issues without tearing itself apart and telling us to get lost in the process, I do not feel it has any business telling me what to do, and would rather those powers reverted back to Parliament, where I can kick the buggers out every five years at least.

The way in which you ask is just as important as what you ask for. Threatening a brexit and then coming in is not good diplomacy, it's brinkmanship. Cameron has isolated himself in Europe by taking the Conservatives out of the main conservative block in parliament and into a far right eurosceptic block. This was a stab in the back for the group he used to be part of, who are the majority of ruling governments, and the majority in the EU parliament. This is bad politics. You guys have a large number of UKIP MEPs, who don't show up to vote (worst voting records of any group of MEPs) and then whinge about things they didn't use their influence to effect. (Farage for example whines about the Fisheries policy constantly, because it plays well with the coastal constituencies he has the best chance in. He's been a member of the fisheries committee and barely ever shown up, let alone voted on issues). If you disengage from European politics and isolate yourself in parliament, is it really shocking that your influence declines? If people seem unresponsive, it's good to reflect on why. We can read the British press too, and we can see the amount if inaccurate vitriol that gets flung at Europe. We can see the lies and misrepresentations. I am personally pretty sick of it. I do not like being threatened by the UK. You are making out that the UK is being reasonable, when in reality it is issuing an ultimatum to Europe. This is bad diplomacy and bad politics.

I could go on. I probably shouldn't.

For what it's worth I expect you guys to get pretty much everything bar the benefits thing, and by including it Cameron has made a rod for his own back. He's a desperately bad diplomat and does not seem to understand european politics well. I don't know how the vote will go, I suspect it will be close.

It's not rude.

"Hey. A couple of decades ago we agreed to something and it has radically changed since then and we aren't too fond of the situation? Can we have a go at sorting this out? Otherwise we'll have to have a divorce because our relationship is not what it used to be."

The EU used to be about Free Trade and bundling the economies together more effectively, it still does that, but has many more supranational powers now as well. Which grinds against the idea of being an independent nation.

That's fine, honestly. But I would like a federal europe in my lifetime and it would be lovely if you guys would get out of the way.

 Da Boss wrote:
That's fine, honestly. But I would like a federal europe in my lifetime and it would be lovely if you guys would get out of the way.

May I ask why you want a federal Europe? Especially seeing as Europeans have a long history of not getting on with each other.

For a lot of reasons, a big one being as you say the historical differences between us. The closer together we come, the more unthinkable war between nations in Europe becomes.
Edited to add: Though we've got an equally long history of getting along with each other, if you look at it in another way

I feel that Europe is dysfunctional in it's current state. It's response to crisis after crisis has been disorganised and disatisfactory. This is because there is no clear structure to how decisions need to be made. Similarly, the financial crisis could have been a lot easier on all of us if we'd had more political integration along with the financial regulation.

In my opinion, federalisation, done properly, is the best solution to all of these challenges and problems facing Europe. I do acknowledge that there is great potential for federalisation to be done poorly, but I reject that as a reason for not trying to fix the problems we have.

I'd be open to countries like Britain staying outside the Federal Europe idea, but I think the rest of us should go on with integration and it's benefits.