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.

Well, the moment of truth is here: Cameron's much documented EU demands have at long last, prompted a detailed response from the EU. I won't post links, because we can all look at any British newspapers, but my reaction?

Utter horsegak from top to bottom!

Cameron is trying to spin this as a victory, but to nobody's surprise, the EU have not budged an inch, and the thorny question of immigration, is going nowhere fast.

From demanding an 'emergency brake,' Cameron has settled for requesting an 'emergency brake.'

I'm sure the Tory backbenchers will love this.

It feels a little bit fudged. Lots of , 'We'll do it if everyone agrees' and 'we'll think about it later' or 'we were already doing that, so no need to include it...'

Not particularly impressed. I get the feeling the Eurocrats are fighting hard at any sort of attempt to codify future restrictions on their power, or the ability of anyone to resist that power.

I shall continue to wait and see, but the rhetoric coming out of Europe is not encouraging, and I'm starting to feel the whole thing is being whitewashed a little.

 Ketara wrote:
It feels a little bit fudged. Lots of , 'We'll do it if everyone agrees' and 'we'll think about it later' or 'we were already doing that, so no need to include it...'

Not particularly impressed. I get the feeling the Eurocrats are fighting hard at any sort of attempt to codify future restrictions on their power, or the ability of anyone to resist that power.

I shall continue to wait and see, but the rhetoric coming out of Europe is not encouraging, and I'm starting to feel the whole thing is being whitewashed a little.

You would think that Britain, with one foot out the exit door, and being one of the EU's most important members, would be treated far more seriously by the EU, but I think Tusk and co knew that in his heart, Cameron's going through the motions (he is an IN supporter after all) and have reacted accordingly.

I don't think the British public will be impressed by this one jot.

I wouldn't want to be outside the EU under this government, but at least a "no" vote would have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron hoisted by his own dishonest fear-mongering about benefits and migrants.

 Baragash wrote:
I wouldn't want to be outside the EU under this government, but at least a "no" vote would have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron hoisted by his own dishonest fear-mongering about benefits and migrants.

The benefits, I agree with. The migration thing, not so much. There is a serious issue there with regards to the strain on local resources that mass migration has caused.

 Ketara wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
I wouldn't want to be outside the EU under this government, but at least a "no" vote would have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron hoisted by his own dishonest fear-mongering about benefits and migrants.

The benefits, I agree with. The migration thing, not so much. There is a serious issue there with regards to the strain on local resources that mass migration has caused.

To be fair to the EU, they can't budge an inch on migration - it's one of their founding principals. Any talk of reforming migration is just that - talk.

I was surprised to learn that if the UK leaves the EU, the UK gets its seat back on the WTO. Interesting...

Immigrants didn't destroy the economy - that was corrupt bankers and equally corrupt politicians.

however I simply don't trust the monolithic black hole for taxpayers that is the European institution/s - symbolised brilliantly by the fact they have two parliaments and all the inherent costs they entails....

Asking "them" - the Eurocrats - to reform is like asking MPs to vote for a pay cut..................funny how that never happened..................

The Eurocrats are, and should be, seriously afraid of the UK. Its one of their most important members, maybe the most important along with France and Germany. As someone said, they are trying to avoid restricitng their own power, which the UK already does, as EU only applies in the UK because he government allows it to (following the R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd case of 1990. The UK poses the biggest danger to the EU, and the Eurocrats are afraid and should be afraid.

Cameron has just come out and said that if the UK were looking to join the EU, he'd accept Tusk's offer

 Mr Morden wrote:
Immigrants didn't destroy the economy - that was corrupt bankers and equally corrupt politicians.

Sorry, is this addressed to me?

And another thing: If Cameron does apply his emergency brake, what's to stop the ECJ throwing a spanner into the works and halting it with a legal challenge under article 45? It's all very vague. What a shambles.

He got more than I expected him to get (nothing), but still not a lot,

but probably enough to blather about a 'win'

but I suspect at least one of the other governments that will have to accept it will say no anyway

What's amusing is the fact there was a genuine belief this would succeed. He's also gagged his cabinet for the next few weeks so he can try to spin this as hard as he can. I can imagine the cabinet euroskeptics are seething.

Expect a lot of a lot crud to be appear. Spin cycles to max!

Puzzling how the PM can come away and present a brake as anything but a very weak compromise. I appreciate the with no credible opposition he probably feels this gives him some sort of position to max out his support from both sides of the argument but at this point with a heavily sceptical UK public (many of whom probably wouldn't vote but on Europe probably will) he'll get one hell of a beating in a poll unless he has some great masterstoke up his sleeve. Unlikely.

 Deadshot wrote:
The Eurocrats are, and should be, seriously afraid of the UK. Its one of their most important members, maybe the most important along with France and Germany. As someone said, they are trying to avoid restricitng their own power, which the UK already does, as EU only applies in the UK because he government allows it to (following the R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd case of 1990. The UK poses the biggest danger to the EU, and the Eurocrats are afraid and should be afraid.

Not quite true really. That case doesn't have any impact on the limitation of EU power. In that case the UK is just rolling over and taking it whilst making a pathetic attempt at saving face. The suspension of laws is however interesting but has little to do with the EU.

I think that talking about the EU is misleading as it is far from being a homogenous group of countries, or agents at work. It's mostly just denial and complacency. I don't think anyone takes our threat to leave very seriously and this latest news seems to confirm my perspective.

I just want the facts to be reported not everyone with an agenda screaming and trying to present it at as facts.

Lets take immigration, is it that bad? I have no idea. There are figures banded about, but there appears to be no real evidence either way.

It could be that immigration isn't having any real impact on jobs, but it is putting real pressure on local services. The government should be honest (ha, ha, I know, sorry) and publish the data. It could be that there is pressure and they don't want to admit it. It would crazy to think that some of these problems could be solved if the government simply acknowledge that they needed to release some more money. Ok it could mess up their austerity plans slightly, but it could be a simple fix that settles things down. If you take away peoples concerns on the strain to public services and that jobs aren't being lost, that's a big chunk of the problem solved.

Ultimately the government should be 'manning' up and dishing out the facts, whether they don't like them or not. It will stop all the hysteria that gets reported in the press.

Net immigration has been running at 200-300k people per year for over a decade.

Public services funding and affordable house building have been reducing over that period.

Clearly there will be an infrastructure problem as a result if there was not any spare capacity in it previously.

This should not be surprising for the Govt's that have overseen this and not planned accordingly. All parties are complicit in this. For their various reasons they have all wanted the UK to have a bigger population to compete with Germany in Europe on the cheap.

notprop wrote:Puzzling how the PM can come away and present a brake as anything but a very weak compromise. I appreciate the with no credible opposition he probably feels this gives him some sort of position to max out his support from both sides of the argument but at this point with a heavily sceptical UK public (many of whom probably wouldn't vote but on Europe probably will) he'll get one hell of a beating in a poll unless he has some great masterstoke up his sleeve. Unlikely.

Agreed.

Wolfstan wrote:I just want the facts to be reported not everyone with an agenda screaming and trying to present it at as facts.

Lets take immigration, is it that bad? I have no idea. There are figures banded about, but there appears to be no real evidence either way.

It could be that immigration isn't having any real impact on jobs, but it is putting real pressure on local services.
The government should be honest (ha, ha, I know, sorry) and publish the data. It could be that there is pressure and they don't want to admit it. It would crazy to think that some of these problems could be solved if the government simply acknowledge that they needed to release some more money. Ok it could mess up their austerity plans slightly, but it could be a simple fix that settles things down. If you take away peoples concerns on the strain to public services and that jobs aren't being lost, that's a big chunk of the problem solved.

Ultimately the government should be 'manning' up and dishing out the facts, whether they don't like them or not. It will stop all the hysteria that gets reported in the press.

The pressure on local services thing is accurate, and is matched by both figures and common sense.

To give an example, let's use school places. Your average local council can usually calculate a rough idea of how many kids are going to be signing up each term. To invent some figures for the sake of the example, let's say they calculate that with population increase, they need an additional 2,000 places the next academic year. If enough immigrants show up with kids, say another 800, and you have 1,900 British kids who turn out to need places, you're 700 places over. That's 700 new kids who need school meals, classroom space, teacher time, etc.

If that happens as a one off, the council can usually borrow money to cover those costs. But when it happens year on year, the council is always playing catch up. Whilst immigrants generally produce enough additional tax revenue to cover the costs, they don't do so until a year or two after arrival as well. This means that the council is consistently forced to keep borrowing to cover these unexpected increased costs.

This example can be applied in many scenarios, from GP's needed, to social housing. My parents are foster carers, and regularly tell me about the strain on the system caused by unaccompanied children that need placing. In that department, immigration has hit them to the point that Kent Council is having to send vulnerable British children out of the county because there aren't enough carers left to accommodate them.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/26/young-refugees-problems-uk

All the stuff about immigrants draining money off the state and stealing jobs at the same time (schrodingers immigrant) is largely guff. The tax revenue raised from immigrants has consistently matched that expended on them, and now we're no longer in recession, there are sufficient low level jobs for anyone who wants/needs them to be able to acquire them without a vast amount of effort.

But large scale immigration maintained over a consistently high time period is severely problematic in certain geographic areas (South England primarily), and really requires large scale release of Government funds to ensure local services can cope adequately. But releasing extra funds to subsidise immigration issues is anathema to a Conservative Government hellbent on cutting benefits to immigrants, especially on top the current drive to make fiscal economies. The only alternative solution is for them to lower immigration figures to a more sustainable level, at which local services can cope. Alas, the EU is determined to use the 'one size fits all' policy when it comes to immigration, which really is unsuitable in this department. It causes a lot of hardship and ill-feeling amongst the poorer inhabitants of Southern England, when the council house lists, doctors appointments, school places and more are all severely oversubscribed due to the level of immigrants utilising them. Naturally, they vocalise that this is an issue that needs dealing with, but our theoretically representative democracy in the EU refuses to even acknowledge it as a problem, let alone work on solutions.

I'm of the opinion that there is a third option. If people from all over the EU wish to live and work in Southern England, their home states should pay for them to do so. Send a large bill to the Polish/Romanian/wherever governments and tell them that its the cost of subsidising their citizens large scale migration here. Or if you don't want to be state-specific, have the EU levy a tax on all member states, and devote the funds to expanding public services in suitable areas to be capable of handling the movement.

After all, if the EU wishes to impose a 'one size fits all' restriction on potential solutions, then it should handle organising and funding a viable one, rather than ignoring the problem, and tossing the ball back to national governments. If it's not willing to accept responsibility for solving the issue (after having caused it), it really has no place in deciding how the national government handles it.

@ Ketara.

I said to you last May, that Cameron better enjoy the election victory while he can, because he won't have his troubles to seek, but you were the chief naysayer against that viewpoint . And this sham of a deal will likely do nothing to appease the British public.

In all honesty, I believe that Cameron didn't want a Conservative majority. Another coalition, with the Lib-Dems, which would have allowed Cameron to weasel out of a referendum, and shift the blame to Nick Clegg, would have been ideal for Cameron.

In his heart, he's pro-EU, and these negotiations were Cameron going through the motions, and the EU knew it, which is why he got zero.

Still, it's good to be right

 Ketara wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Immigrants didn't destroy the economy - that was corrupt bankers and equally corrupt politicians.

Sorry, is this addressed to me?

no not really - more of a general point / opinion..............

No one has destroyed the economy though?

If the EU was going to be done properly as one big superstate/federation of nations (as per the USA), that would be one thing, however the creeping bureaucracy occurring at the moment is not the way to achieve unity.

EU politics at the moment is far too closed and obscure, not to mention horrifically wasteful of cash!

As it stands I would be in favour of stepping out of political union and remaining in a trade/trade regulation union (what was originally proposed when the EU was formed).

 SilverMK2 wrote:
As it stands I would be in favour of stepping out of political union and remaining in a trade/trade regulation union (what was originally proposed when the EU was formed).

To be fair, when everyones voted to leave (I can't see how this recent debacle could be seen as anything other than an embarrassing fiasco), the speed at which a free trade agreement will be arranged between EU and UK will be phenomenally quick.

Or we could simply do what we want and sod what the EU says. I'm pretty certain that there are plenty of EU rulings that France has ignored. So the EU courts rule against us, so what? Don't pay the fine, ignore it.

 notprop wrote:
No one has destroyed the economy though?

Er they did - the whole world economy crashed - did you miss that?

It was on the news and everything! - Then the bankers responsible all got bonuses and/or resigned and made sure their mates got them new jobs after their vast golden handshakes. Meanwhile the taxpayer in many nations had not only to help pay these "people" but also prop up the banks, sack vast numbers of people, reduce the public sector etc etc..

Wierd how none of them got prosecuted..........almost as if theyw ere too rich and powerful to be worried about the law......

No point being in the Eu then. Pay the fee but ignore the rules? All the perks would quickly go away from being membership.

If it don't work, get out. Don't fanny about.

I don't think these "reforms" will do much in the end to please the UK public, so this was all a waste of everyone's time.

I am happy that no big concessions were made though and I hope that nothing in the UK's list of concessions effects anything outside of the UK. I do not want Cameron's vision of Europe to get any more of a foothold than it already does. I am especially skeptical of his "reducing regulation" point. No thank you, I like regulations.

I wish he'd bring up TTIP or shutting down one of the parliaments or the democratic deficits or something actually useful to all of us, but as is it's pissweak or neo-liberal bs as usual.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 notprop wrote:
No one has destroyed the economy though?

Er they did - the whole world economy crashed - did you miss that?

It was on the news and everything! - Then the bankers responsible all got bonuses and/or resigned and made sure their mates got them new jobs after their vast golden handshakes. Meanwhile the taxpayer in many nations had not only to help pay these "people" but also prop up the banks, sack vast numbers of people, reduce the public sector etc etc..

Wierd how none of them got prosecuted..........almost as if theyw ere too rich and powerful to be worried about the law......

So not destroyed then. Pretty sure it's still going.

Unemployment is lower than its been for many a year... It was on the news and everything!

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't think these "reforms" will do much in the end to please the UK public, so this was all a waste of everyone's time.

I am happy that no big concessions were made though and I hope that nothing in the UK's list of concessions effects anything outside of the UK. I do not want Cameron's vision of Europe to get any more of a foothold than it already does. I am especially skeptical of his "reducing regulation" point. No thank you, I like regulations.

I wish he'd bring up TTIP or shutting down one of the parliaments or the democratic deficits or something actually useful to all of us, but as is it's pissweak or neo-liberal bs as usual.

Agreed. And most of those would have slightly pleased UK voters too. Far better than the wee-poor rubbish that has been "agreed" and discussed so far...

A quick scan of the UK press at the moment is nauseating. No critical stories, just regurgitating bald faced spin direct from Cameron's monkeys. Such a hugely important issue and hardly much in the way of any decent analysis.