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.

The UK media is beyond parody when it comes to reporting on European issues.

 Da Boss wrote:
The UK media is beyond parody when it comes to reporting on European issues anything.

Fixed.

Shower, the lot of 'em

Yeah, I only read media for the funny stories and the interesting point of view.

The evening standard leads with some critisism from Boris, notes there is more work to do etc.

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/03/eu-reform-package-contains-proposal-to-decriminalise-porcine-necrophelia/

Just leave the EU. Trade deal only.

Nato membership etyc but no EU gak.

It's obvious what EU leadership thinks of us.

On the other hand, Cameron was always asking for "special cases" for UK.

Trouble is that if UK leaves the EU, well they lose all advantages as well. And Cameron knows it very well - the same for all big companies all set in UK just to take advantage of its fiscality and trading to all EU zone.

You want to leave? Then leave - and no, you will not have any advantage at all. Another place will gladly be the trading center for EU. That's the so called "Eurocrats" should say once and for all to Cameron.

But anyway, the true big economic powers behind UK will not let a Brexit happen. They will lose too much if that was the case.

It is to Cameron's credit (cringing as I say that) that he is allowing a referendum on Europe. And I don't think big moneyed interests will be able to do much about it if the public vote to leave. It will be a public statement of democracy.

So, yeah, go for it guys. I'm fed up of listening to it at this point, I honestly don't know what your press will focus on next when it stops filling 30% of it's content with complaining about the EU.

 Da Boss wrote:
It is to Cameron's credit (cringing as I say that) that he is allowing a referendum on Europe. And I don't think big moneyed interests will be able to do much about it if the public vote to leave. It will be a public statement of democracy.

I'm pretty sure that, even in the case the referendum gives an outstanding result in favor of a Brexit "right here, right now", it will just lead to nothing. Just see what happened in other countries when they did/say something similar - in the end, they always turn at the last moment and all sides say they have won.

So yeah, he's using it mainly to calm down his allies. If only EU had some balls and just tell him "Fine, you go out of the zone. Now enjoy your isolated island and pay taxes for all imports/exports like China and USA. We'll see how much time you will last."...

The thing thats gets me is that the EU is clearly reformable. If some countries want change, it happens.

France and Greece want the rule changing on where an asylum seeker has to apply, and the EU is looking at changing this.
Germany is saying that asylum seekers will have to return home to Syria after the war, because its Germany she might get away with it.

However every attempt that the UK makes to reform policy is met with the handbrake on the same issues.

 jhe90 wrote:
It's obvious what EU leadership thinks of us.

Care to elucidate for those of us who don't find it so obvious?

Every single attempt the uk makes, request or such is often met by a concrete wall.
EU human rights overriding out own laws. Then they fething do what they want, fences, seize valuables and block entery.

If Calais was in UK. They would be screaming at us demanding we take them as refugees.

It's a triple standard with Germanny as itys queen.

EU is run burocrats, self assigned comitee and member states just have to toe there line.
It's not democratic by any means.

 Orlanth wrote:
The thing thats gets me is that the EU is clearly reformable. If some countries want change, it happens.

France and Greece want the rule changing on where an asylum seeker has to apply, and the EU is looking at changing this.
Germany is saying that asylum seekers will have to return home to Syria after the war, because its Germany she might get away with it.

However every attempt that the UK makes to reform policy is met with the handbrake on the same issues.

Well there are sections of British public, large sections, that don't want asylum seekers at all, mostly working class and middle class English, which carry the majority of the UK votes.

 Orlanth wrote:
The thing thats gets me is that the EU is clearly reformable. If some countries want change, it happens.

France and Greece want the rule changing on where an asylum seeker has to apply, and the EU is looking at changing this.
Germany is saying that asylum seekers will have to return home to Syria after the war, because its Germany she might get away with it.

However every attempt that the UK makes to reform policy is met with the handbrake on the same issues.

A part of that, so far as I can tell, is that most of the issues that get reformed are global issues; they apply to all member states.
The rules affecting where asylum seekers must apply will change, but they will change for all states.
The rules regarding asylum seekers will change, but will change for all states.
Britain's requests largely apply only to Britain, because we should get unique treatment because we're special for some reason?

 Sarouan wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It is to Cameron's credit (cringing as I say that) that he is allowing a referendum on Europe. And I don't think big moneyed interests will be able to do much about it if the public vote to leave. It will be a public statement of democracy.

I'm pretty sure that, even in the case the referendum gives an outstanding result in favor of a Brexit "right here, right now", it will just lead to nothing. Just see what happened in other countries when they did/say something similar - in the end, they always turn at the last moment and all sides say they have won.

So yeah, he's using it mainly to calm down his allies. If only EU had some balls and just tell him "Fine, you go out of the zone. Now enjoy your isolated island and pay taxes for all imports/exports like China and USA. We'll see how much time you will last."...

I think you might perhaps be confusing how you are used to being governed with how it works in the UK. If a referendum results in leaving the EU then it will happen, it is not a poll or indication. The action after the referendum will be set out before the vote happens; all legal and binding like.

What you also seem to be ignoring is that not being in the EU does not equate to not being in Europe. Its no big deal; other nations manage without the painful bureaucracy/compromised sovereignty the UK is more than adaptable to do the same. Of course we didn't do too badly for ourselves before the creation of the EU and I don't suppose leaving it will be that much of a hindrance.

I'm all for European inclusion but listen in Junckers this morning sticks in the craw somewhat. The PM should stick to his guns rather than backslapping on each and every increment and announcement. No brinkmanship, we add many considerable assets to the EU model; reform or we leave. If the Brussels wants to placate Poland etc the enjoy the Merry-go-round while it lasts, we aren't paying for it no more.

Thing is, EU is not working as intended. The truth is that there should be more regulations on much more topics, and having an actual EU administration rather than non functioning, national ones. Police should be EU. Taxes should be EU. All rules should be the same in all EU - and not that gakky nonsense with each country having different tax systems so that some companies can elude taxes while actually working in the center of EU.

But of course, countries don't want to lose their sovereign. They want to keep control - it's better for them, after all.

Once you are part of an organization, you should work for the good of the organization. Because it will benefit you as well. You don't work against all the other members just so you are the only one gaining advantages and the others having nothing. That never worked and it's quite safe to say it will never be.


Yeah, people look at EU and say "bad EU, they're stealing our freedom". The fact most of them don't understand how it really works and what it implies on the long term doesn't help. And the politicians keep playing on it so that they can get more votes.

In Belgium, we have different regions that work separated, with a federal state that is mostly just a corpse being mutilated to no end. Our laws are stupidly complex because each region edited his own - so depending on where you are, the rules can change totally. Yeah, I'm saying my own country is getting it all wrong and is gacking it up. Not really surprising when we have an "All Right Wing" government with some elements actually wanting to end Belgium as a state.

How can you expect it can actually work on a higher level at the age of mondialisation? With everything being faster and faster? It just can't work, that is the truth. And anyone saying the opposite is fooling himself.

Until now, all Cameron tried to say, it was against EU and how much UK should be exempted of things the other countries have to do. To me, that doesn't sound like someone actually wanting to make EU work on the long term. And I'm not alone thinking UK is just trying to make itself much more important than it really is.

I mean, the main reason so many trading companies set foot on UK isn't really for UK itself; it's because it's the main door to EU. If UK was to leave EU, it would just become another outside trade partner, like China and US.

And all these trading companies would have no reason to stay there anymore. Which mean no more money from them directly to UK. And that's just a small part of the consequences of such an event....

After all, it seems like some people here believe UK would get an agreement for trade in case it was leaving EU. The thing is...why should EU accept it? UK isn't irreplaceable, that's the truth. Once the country is out, Cameron can say whatever he wants..he just won't be listened anymore.

 jhe90 wrote:
Every single attempt the uk makes, request or such is often met by a concrete wall.

When the UK is asking for uniquely special treatment where they get benefits but don't have to suffer the drawbacks, that's understandable.

EU human rights overriding out own laws.

Which is what we signed up for when we joined.

Then they fething do what they want, fences, seize valuables and block entery.

You're going to have to explain that one, as it sounds like you're talking about bands of bureaucrats roaming the countryside confiscating valuables and building fences across people's front lawns, highwayman style.

If Calais was in UK. They would be screaming at us demanding we take them as refugees.

Except it's not and they aren't. Hypotheticals don't make very good arguments.

It's a triple standard with Germanny as itys queen.

I'm assuming that you're attempting to make it sound scarier than a double standard, but a triple standard isn't a thing. Other than a short film about a homophobic closeted basketball player, but I'm going to guess you aren't talking about that. Besides which, Germany has the highest GDP in the EU, as well as being geographically central and bordering 8 other member states; it kind of makes sense for them to be fairly important within the organisation.

EU is run burocrats, self assigned comitee and member states just have to toe there line.
It's not democratic by any means.

You mean, other than those MEPs we elect to take part in the European parliament? Are you implying that they have no say whatsoever?


(unrelated to the subject at hand, but please, please run your post through spellcheck or something before submitting, it really undermines any argument you might attempt to make)

The EU was not intended to be a unified state; which what you seem to be saying it should be.

The nonsense is that it is being used in this way. It sounds like the Belgium model is SNAFU, so I can see why Belgians wouldn't be that bothered by more of the same.

The whole thing needs to be streamlined and is not fit for its original or mutated purposes.

Sorry, not for us.

 notprop wrote:
Sorry, not for us.

Pardon? You don't speak for me.

 notprop wrote:
The EU was not intended to be a unified state; which what you seem to be saying it should be.

The nonsense is that it is being used in this way. It sounds like the Belgium model is SNAFU, so I can see why Belgians wouldn't be that bothered by more of the same.

The whole thing needs to be streamlined and is not fit for its original or mutated purposes.

Sorry, not for us.

It was meant for cooperation between states for a common purpose. You can't make it work if some countries refused to follow the same rules just because it doesn't suit them.

It's not about being an unified state. It's having a workable system so that everything goes smoother for everyone.

UK doesn't want it? The exit is here. And say good bye to all your advantages. All.

Situation in Belgium is much more than that, but that's not the topic.

If the UK doesn't get what it wants in Europe given it's international clout and position on the Security Council (advantages not possessed by many of small countries in the EU who seem to do okay) then surely that's an indictment of UK diplomacy in Europe? Why are they so bad at it?

From my perspective, Cameron has made successive blunders with regard to EU diplomacy, for example pulling the Conservatives out of the EPP (the biggest conservative bloc) and going for the far right fringe group he's currently in. This marginalizes him and pisses off his previous allies in the EPP who see him as a flake, a lightweight, unreliable.

Add to that the UK habit of sending UKIP MEPs to Europe who never show up to debate or vote, and you start to see a problem. Farage was on the Fisheries Committee but he rarely showed up or voted on what was going on, and then complains about a lack of British influence. Well sorry Nige, but securing that influence was your job but you were too busy showboating your way around the UK to actually do what you were elected to do.

That is just two examples, but if you're wondering why your politicians are not successful in Europe it's also useful to look at what they are actually DOING.

 Sarouan wrote:
Thing is, EU is not working as intended. The truth is that there should be more regulations on much more topics, and having an actual EU administration rather than non functioning, national ones. Police should be EU. Taxes should be EU. All rules should be the same in all EU - and not that gakky nonsense with each country having different fiscalities so that some companies can elude taxes while actually working in the center of EU.

But of course, countries don't want to lose their sovereign. They want to keep control - it's better for them, after all.

Once you are part of an organization, you should work for the good of the organization. Because it will benefit you as well. You don't work against all the other members just so you are the only one gaining advantages and the others having nothing. That never worked and it's quite safe to say it will never be.


Yeah, people look at EU and say "bad EU, they're stealing our freedom". The fact most of them don't understand how it really works and what it implies on the long term doesn't help. And the politicians keep playing on it so that they can get more votes.

In Belgium, we have different regions that work separated, with a federal state that is mostly just a corpse being mutilated to no end. Our laws are stupidly complex because each region edited his own - so depending on where you are, the rules can change totally. Yeah, I'm saying my own country is getting it all wrong and is gacking it up. Not really surprising when we have an "All Right Wing" government with some elements actually wanting to end Belgium as a state.

How can you expect it can actually work on a higher level at the age of mondialisation? With everything being faster and faster? It just can't work, that is the truth. And anyone saying the opposite is fooling himself.

Until now, all Cameron tried to say, it was against EU and how much UK should be exempted of things the other countries have to do. To me, that doesn't sound like someone actually wanting to make EU work on the long term. And I'm not alone thinking UK is just trying to make itself much more important than it really is.

I mean, the main reason so many trading companies set foot on UK isn't really for UK itself; it's because it's the main door to EU. If UK was to leave EU, it would just become another outside trade partner, like China and US.

And all these trading companies would have no reason to stay there anymore. Which mean no more money from them directly to UK. And that's just a small part of the consequences of such an event....

After all, it seems like some people here believe UK would get an agreement for trade in case he was leaving EU. The thing is...why should EU accept it? UK isn't irreplaceable, that's the truth. Once the country is out, Cameron can say whatever he wants..he just won't be listened anymore.

Well the issue is that most of the EU member states have codified Constitutions and follow civil law systems, while the UK and a few others (but UK most prominently) follow a common law system and have an uncodified system, so trying to enforce the same rules for everyone would undermine at least one side. UK does in fact have the compromised sovereignty as to allow a supranational level institution like the EU to have supercedance over their own laws undermines the entire basis of "Parliament of Westminster can make and unmake any law it chooses," while also giving scope for courts to strike down Acts of Parliament for being incompatible (which they legally cannot do) with EU law, further undermining authority.

As for everyone saying "bad EU" there is the general feeling in UK that, being an island and therefore detached from the rest of the EU, that we're not really part of it, just having to obey the unseen foreign masters, plus the fact that we have the stronger currency and so can easily detach whenever we want (unlike say, France or Ger many).

 Sarouan wrote:
I mean, the main reason so many trading companies set foot on UK isn't really for UK itself; it's because it's the main door to EU. If UK was to leave EU, it would just become another outside trade partner, like China and US.

And all these trading companies would have no reason to stay there anymore. Which mean no more money from them directly to UK. And that's just a small part of the consequences of such an event....

Which is Bollocks frankly. There is an established environment for corporation to thrive in London/UK, its not by accident of joining the EU. Though I don't pretend it is not a reason.

After all, it seems like some people here believe UK would get an agreement for trade in case it was leaving EU. The thing is...why should EU accept it? UK isn't irreplaceable, that's the truth. Once the country is out, Cameron can say whatever he wants..he just won't be listened anymore.

Europe trades with the UK, the UK trades with the Europe. This wasn't invent recently and has been the case for over a 1,000 years.

On the contrary the UK isn't replaceable. There are not other Nuclear capable G8 nations in Europe to replace us with.

"Take your toys and leave" is not a threat when that is what we are proposing. This is only frustrating from a UK POV because Junckers clearly thinks he holds some sort of magic trick that will bamboozle the UK in the next year. What he should be doing is coming to a quick agreement rather than pissing another year away on horse trading, but alas that is the way of Brussels (EU capital that is not the Belgians themselves). Everyone agrees there are better things to talk about, all the major players agree that the EU requires reform, why prevaricate? It's embarrassing what passes for leadership from the EU. I can only guess Cameron is playing politics by acknowledging this announcement as anything so that he can have peace for a few more months. He should pull his digit out and get some progress or denounce the lack of it.

So yeah, given the choice we Joe Public will leave so we can concentrate on something productive.

Ireland is an island and is pro-EU, despite your Euroskeptic press buying out a lot of our media share over the last 25 years.

We're even further detached than you guys, I don't think being an island is the real reason. I'm not sure what it is really, aside from maybe a post Imperial hang up?

 Goliath wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Every single attempt the uk makes, request or such is often met by a concrete wall.

When the UK is asking for uniquely special treatment where they get benefits but don't have to suffer the drawbacks, that's understandable.

EU human rights overriding out own laws.

Which is what we signed up for when we joined.

Then they fething do what they want, fences, seize valuables and block entery.

You're going to have to explain that one, as it sounds like you're talking about bands of bureaucrats roaming the countryside confiscating valuables and building fences across people's front lawns, highwayman style.

If Calais was in UK. They would be screaming at us demanding we take them as refugees.

Except it's not and they aren't. Hypotheticals don't make very good arguments.

It's a triple standard with Germanny as itys queen.

I'm assuming that you're attempting to make it sound scarier than a double standard, but a triple standard isn't a thing. Other than a short film about a homophobic closeted basketball player, but I'm going to guess you aren't talking about that. Besides which, Germany has the highest GDP in the EU, as well as being geographically central and bordering 8 other member states; it kind of makes sense for them to be fairly important within the organisation.

EU is run burocrats, self assigned comitee and member states just have to toe there line.
It's not democratic by any means.

You mean, other than those MEPs we elect to take part in the European parliament? Are you implying that they have no say whatsoever?


(unrelated to the subject at hand, but please, please run your post through spellcheck or something before submitting, it really undermines any argument you might attempt to make)

The problem is though that Germany gets more representation due to much larger population that the UK just can't match, so Germany gets a much louder voice in any decisions. Also, the turnout for MEP elections in the UK is disturbingly low. 40% or so if I remember right from my politics presentation last semester, compared to the likes of Germany and Belgium who are 70%+ and into the 90%s for Belgium. That's something to do with the british public, not any government, and that can't be solved until the public are more invested in the EU. So clearly the UK doesn't want or care about the MEPs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Ireland is an island and is pro-EU, despite your Euroskeptic press buying out a lot of our media share over the last 25 years.

We're even further detached than you guys, I don't think being an island is the real reason. I'm not sure what it is really, aside from maybe a post Imperial hang up?

if UK said black, Ireland would say purple just to be different. Plus, their strugglign economy does better with the Euro and the support of the EU, whereas the UK and the GPB being stronger.

As you say post Imperial - who cares about Ireland?

I think the point is we are used to cracking on and getting gak done rather than the half arse efforts of others.

Nice and condescending, good stuff.

Yeah, we do alright in the EU, though I feel the financial end needs serious reform and regulation - something the UK has steadily tried to block. So I may end up happier with ye gone, in the end.

Like I said above, the UK is one of the three biggest and most powerful nations in the EU, if it can't get it's concerns heard and we smaller, far less influential nations can, I would suggest a large part of that is incompetence on the part of your diplomats and politicians.

Edit: Yeah, Germany, so half arsed.

No really, what does Ireland have to do with a possible Brexit.

You had your choice and left the UK many many years ago.

You had your choice and joined the EU.

Playing the Imperial card was your choice; it's old, it's boring, it's irrelevant to the debate.

It is also confusing the issue on irrelevant things like this that really highlight why the EU has become a waste of time. Irrelevant agendas: the EU in two words.

 Da Boss wrote:
Nice and condescending, good stuff.

Yeah, we do alright in the EU, though I feel the financial end needs serious reform and regulation - something the UK has steadily tried to block. So I may end up happier with ye gone, in the end.

Like I said above, the UK is one of the three biggest and most powerful nations in the EU, if it can't get it's concerns heard and we smaller, far less influential nations can, I would suggest a large part of that is incompetence on the part of your diplomats and politicians.

Edit: Yeah, Germany, so half arsed.

Well that's what I'm saying, UK MEP voter turnout is pathetic because the public doesn't care enough to turn up, so we get lackluster representation, plus our population is pretty small compared to Germany, France, even Italy, Spain, etc, so our section of the council is smaller as well. Plus the fact that the UK is 4 countries with 4 different views on things (Scotland wants to stay, England wants to leave, Northern Ireland is more interested in whether they leave or stay in the UK and Wales just wants the rules on human/animal relationships reformed).

notprop: Well, Ireland's interaction with the Brexit is a whole 'nother story (Good Friday Agreement, land border with the republic, our biggest trading partner and each other's biggest source of immigrants).

I was responding to the idea that the UK is euroskeptic because of being an island, pointing out that not all island nations in Europe are euroskeptic.

I suggested the post-Imperial thing as an alternate hypothesis, but that was a bit naughty alright - I apologize. I know it's a sore topic.