The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Harry - LCFC]

Stop twisting my post to mean what you want it to mean!

 

Nothing response.

 

People vote Labour or Conservative for their domestic policies, not because they want closer integration of the EU.

[bovril]

Nothing response.

 

People vote Labour or Conservative for their domestic policies, not because they want closer integration of the EU.

 

And you think that's what I meant?

 

The majority of people didn't want military intervention in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. They still technically endorsed it by voting for the people that carried it out.

[Harry - LCFC]

And you think that's what I meant?

 

You responded "they have" when Thracian said that the British people had not sanctioned what the EU has become. I would guess that you're going to say to me that I'm confusing the word 'sanctioned' with the word 'want'. I'd admit to that and there is a difference of course but I don't think it's that important either way.

 

When the the EU has undergone change this significant since 1975 I think we require a far stronger affirmation of support (i.e. an 'in' vote in a referendum) from the electorate for us to conclude that they have given the green light for greater integration.

[Webbo]

The thing is there won't be any treaty change before the referendum, we're going to have to vote on the promise of change and quite frankly I don't believe they'll keep their word. If we did vote to come out I'll bet the EU will be falling over themselves, promising all sorts of things to stay in.

[Strokes]

The thing is there won't be any treaty change before the referendum, we're going to have to vote on the promise of change and quite frankly I don't believe they'll keep their word. If we did vote to come out I'll bet the EU will be falling over themselves, promising all sorts of things to stay in.

They will, which should tell people they need us more than we need them.

[Rincewind]

Wondering if the pledges are purposefully weak to strengthen the NO campaign!?

cynic

[bovril]

You responded "they have" when Thracian said that the British people had not sanctioned what the EU has become. I would guess that you're going to say to me that I'm confusing the word 'sanctioned' with the word 'want'. I'd admit to that and there is a difference of course but I don't think it's that important either way.

 

When the the EU has undergone change this significant since 1975 I think we require a far stronger affirmation of support (i.e. an 'in' vote in a referendum) from the electorate for us to conclude that they have given the green light for greater integration.

 

I am . And I draw your attention to the word 'technically' in my post.

 

You assumed that I was saying the British public are broadly pro-EU, which I wasn't. It was a flippant (and badly-made) point about how the public generally continue to vote in the same establishment that are the architects of many of the things they dislike.

 

Just ignore me.

[Guest MattP]

Why on earth would a committed Europhile like Cameron want to strengthen the "No" cause?

[BlueSi13]

 

So here it is finally, the four point plan of renegotiation, which apart from a small part on restricting benefits is pretty much nothing.

 

 

Also, can we believe anything that comes out the mouths of the pro European Union lobby anymore? They tell us only a tiny fraction of EU immigration is reliant on any benefits and when we get the official figures from the the pro-EU government it's over 40%.

 

 

Even that has been resoundingly rubbished by the rest of Europe with rumours abound that Cameron is prepared to significantly climb down over the proposal.

 

What an absolute embarrassment of a 'renegotiation'.  In essence not a single power returned to these shores, nor any control over our borders regained.  All it will consist of will be non-legally-binding 'promises' and 'assurances' that will be broken as soon as the referendum is over as Downing Street has made it absolutely clear that there will be no second referendum.  An assurance that has completely taken the pressure off Brussels BTW.

 

I was leaning toward Out but this has pushed me over the edge personally.  Saying that, I doubt that the country will vote to leave.  The BBC, main political parties and big business will see to it that Britain is portrayed as a whimpering lightweight that should frankly be honoured the EU (Germany) includes it in the first place.

[BlueSi13]

Yep, that's it All the talk of reformation of the border control laws, human rights Act, a nations individually soverignty etc and it's this. Least we can start the "out" campaign properly now without all the nonsense from the Tory pro side about these wonderful measures that were upcoming.

 

What's more peculiar is that he also says he leaves everything open to his decision, I presume that means if he gets nothing he'll be on the side of Brexit as well?

 

Considering he has publicly stated that he believes it critical to national security that Britain remains in the EU, I think he has already made his personal position crystal clear.  Of course this statement terminally weakens his bargaining position but seeing these proposals makes me think that he never really planned on negotiating a new deal in the first place.  

 

The 'proposals' have 'Approved by Angela M' written all over them IMO.

[davieG]

The Sun nicking my headline.

 

[davieG]

Claimants for some in-work benefits could be better off giving up their job temporarily as a consequence of the government's EU negotiations, Whitehall officials have told the BBC.

The PM has made welfare reform one of his key EU demands.

One option under consideration would see all claimants denied in-work benefits unless received unemployment benefit in the previous year.

No 10 said it would "not give a running commentary" on negotiations.

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who is campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union, said the idea was "appalling".

Legal restrictions preventing EU citizens from being discriminated against mean ministers are increasingly focusing on ideas that would also prevent thousands of Britons from getting benefits.

Indirect discrimination

Ministers have admitted an EU treaty change will be required to make any major welfare changes.

A document seen by BBC News in the summer from government lawyers to ministers said "imposing additional requirements on EU workers that do not apply to a member state's own workers constitutes direct discrimination which is prohibited under current EU law".

The legal opinion came several months after a speech by David Cameron last November in which he first announced his intention to stop EU migrants from claiming in-work benefits - typically housing benefit and working tax credits - for four years.

BBC News has learned that Whitehall officials were not fully consulted about the legality of the proposal prior to the speech.

David Cameron says he has a mandate to pursue EU reform following the Conservatives' general election victory.

The PM wants to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership ahead of an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. He has said he will campaign for Britain to remain in the EU if he gets the reforms he wants.

What Britain wants from Europe

EU vote: When, what and why?

Osborne: UK can get 'best of both worlds'

The legal problems that have emerged are forcing ministers and officials to focus on indirect discrimination - options that disproportionately affect EU migrants but would also impact UK citizens.

One option would see in-work benefits banned from anyone who had not received out-of-work benefits in the previous 12 months.

The proposal could see someone who has worked for many years failing to qualify for support if their income fell because, for example, their employer cut their hours.

'Worse off'

While some exemptions would be introduced, for those leaving education for instance, the scheme would "create an incentive for people to give up work for a little while in order to subsequently qualify for in-work help", said an official.

This option appeals to some ministers as changes already introduced as part of Universal Credit stop EU migrants from claiming out-of-work benefits.

An option BBC News revealed in the summer - a four-year residency test for all benefit claimants - has now been fully costed and is being considered by Treasury officials.

It would mean Britons, even if they had lived in the UK all their lives, would be ineligible for in-work benefits for four years from their 18th birthday.

If implemented, some unemployed British families who failed the test could be thousands of pounds worse off if one of them found a job.

"They would be much better off staying on out-of-work benefits," said a Whitehall official familiar with the proposals.

Benefit tourism

The legality of the proposals is being considered in Whitehall, as are the politics - officials say ministers are wary as both options will affect tens of thousands of British people and could undermine one of the government's central messages, that people should always be better off in work.

A third proposal, which has been floated by the Minister for Government Policy Oliver Letwin, would see in-work benefits denied to people who had not paid enough National Insurance contributions for three years.

That option was seen as being problematic however, said one official, as it would change the nature of Universal Credit and may conversely make EU migrants eligible for out-of-work benefits.

The prime minister remains insistent about getting welfare reform from his EU negotiations, despite officials believing the changes already introduced have tightened the system considerably.

"New EU migrants now face one of the toughest in-work benefit systems in Europe when they come here," said one official.

"We have made benefit tourism a thing of the past," they added.

But Mr Farage said the prime minister's renegotiation strategy was unravelling.

"Even the one area where he was going to go to the European Council and try to get a rule change, actually we've surrendered already by saying we will change the British social security system," he told Radio 4's Today.

"So young couples in this country, aged 21, who work and have got children, will, if this goes ahead, be better off not working than being in work. I think it's appalling."

[Captain...]

 

So here it is finally, the four point plan of renegotiation, which apart from a small part on restricting benefits is pretty much nothing.

 

 

Also, can we believe anything that comes out the mouths of the pro European Union lobby anymore? They tell us only a tiny fraction of EU immigration is reliant on any benefits and when we get the official figures from the the pro-EU government it's over 40%.

 

 

I would say people with in work benefits, are not people who rely on benefits, I presume these are tax credits, so it would still fit the narrative that they pay in more than they take out.  

 

It is not 40% of EU immigrants living off benefits.

 

The reform plan does look piss poor, I did hope that Cameron would be pushing for serious reform and not a few personal concessions, oh well.

[Thracian]

It is piss poor. I don't even think Cameron can be trusted on the issue and Webbo seems spot on to me.

I support the Government on many things but they'll bullshit on Europe all day.

A much reformed and accountable EU I might accept but, as it stands and will continue to stand in essence,  the sooner we're out and trading with/supporting Europe on our own terms and within our own legal framework the better. Unless we get the kind of apologists for politicians the Labour Party seem to dig up these days. 

Despite what people might think that's not a partisan comment.

The Labour Party's become a shameful shadow of its former self and there really is desperate need for sane and sensible voices to step forward and genuinely help and represent those who most need and genuinely deserve it.

It's a forlorn hope. The Party's riddled with mediocrity. The whole shambles needs to be entirely replaced and by a new party worthy of representing this great nation of ours.

[SMX11]

Looks like No.10 is briefing the papers that Cameron is giving up on the benefits idea. Seems to me to be a classic case of expectation management.

If this is Cameron's trump card then he is still in trouble.

[davieG]

Looks like they're preparing people for a kop out alternative. Not that what they're asking for overall is much to shout about.

 

 

 

EU referendum: UK 'will listen to other ideas to cut migration'

• 35 minutes ago
•  
• From the sectionUK Politics

Image captionMr Hammond is holding talks preparatory in the run-up to Thursday's EU summit

Philip Hammond has said the UK is willing to consider other proposals to reduce levels of EU migration amid reported opposition to its plan to limit access to in-work benefits.

The foreign secretary said the UK's plan to stop migrants claiming in-work benefits for four years was the "only proposal on the table" right now.

But he said alternative ideas that had the "same effect" would be listened to.

No 10 has rejected media reports that it may back down on the key demand.

• Follow the latest updates with BBC Politics Live

Downing Street has said David Cameron will put forward the benefits waiting time when EU leaders discuss the UK's renegotiation aims at a summit later this week and insisted the British people need action on this and all other aspects of his four-point plan.

Mr Cameron is pushing for EU reforms ahead of the UK's in-out referendum, which he has promised will take place before the end of 2017.

Ministers say the "pull factors" encouraging migrants to come to the UK need to be addressed but several European leaders object to the UK's proposals while Conservative Eurosceptics argue the curbs will make little difference to overall levels of immigration and the focus should be on reclaiming powers for the UK Parliament to set its own borders policy.

'Clear and consistent'

Speaking ahead of a meeting of foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, Mr Hammond said requiring EU migrants to wait four years to receive in-work benefits, such as tax credits, had been a "consistent demand".

"We've put that proposal on the table. It's very clear," he said.

But he suggested the UK was prepared to look at other options as long as their ultimate impact was the same.

"We've heard a lot of our partners in Europe have concerns about it. So far we haven't heard any counter proposals. We haven't heard any alternative suggestions that will deliver the same effect in a different way.

Image copyrightAPImage captionMr Cameron is struggling to convince some of his MPs that his demands are ambitious enough

"But we have made very clear if people have other ideas that will deliver on this very important agenda for British people we're absolutely prepared to listen to them and we're prepared to enter into a dialogue about them, but at the moment the only proposition on the table is our four year proposal."

The prime minister has acknowledged no agreement will be reached this week on the UK's wider agenda for reform but senior Conservatives are hopeful that progress can be made paving the way for a possible deal in February.

Asked whether Mr Cameron was prepared to compromise on the four-year limit, Downing Street said he was "open to looking at new ways of dealing with the issue" but the basis for discussions would be "what's on the table".

The UK was seeking "significant, far-reaching reforms", the spokeswoman added, and "you would not expect that to be done overnight".

The Mayor of London and Conservative MP Boris Johnson said the rest of the EU had "recklessly" disregarded a proposal from the UK which he believed would go down well with their citizens.

"These people are radically and dangerously misreading the prime minister if they think he wants to stay in the EU at any price," he wrote in the Daily Telegraph. "The David Cameron I know is much more Eurosceptic than some of his senior colleagues."

'Bobbing about'

And Tory MP Kevin Hollinrake told Radio 4's World at One that the EU need to wake up to public concerns about migration in the UK, warning "the whole EU project could fall apart" if the UK voted to leave.

But the PM is also facing a backlash from some within his own party who argue he has not been bold enough.

Former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson likened the PM's position to "someone bobbing about in the back of a dinghy, being towed along by a Channel ferry", arguing his negotiations were "froth and nonsense" compared with the much bigger question of the future shape of the eurozone.

And the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan told the World at One that the UK was "banging the table and angrily demanding the status quo", having abandoned hope of securing meaningful opt-outs from social and employment laws or European court judgements.

But former Tory minister Damian Green, a strong advocate of remaining within the EU, told the same programme there was a "real negotiation" going on and the benefits limit was just one of a series of important objectives.

"Frankly nothing the prime minister brought back would satisfy the sort of hardline people who have always wanted to get out of the EU," he said.

Later on Monday, Labour peers are to make a fresh attempt to give 16 and 17 year olds a vote in the planned referendum on the UK's EU membership, after MPs voted for the third time last week to oppose it.

 

 

[Thracian]

Cameron's message to the nation: 

 

https://www.rt.com/uk/213139-turkey-eu-cameron-membership/

 

But while the allies and Russia seek to curb IS the news columns have this to offer:

 

  http://www.iraqinews...upport-of-isis/

 

As I've asked in another thread, perhaps someone will explain Cameron's logic in this - and Obama's - seeing as both are supposed to be on the same side whoever Turkey's actually batting for. It all seems very strange to me but I'm sure there are ridiculously clever politics students who will understand the bigger picture.       

[Thracian]

You responded "they have" when Thracian said that the British people had not sanctioned what the EU has become. I would guess that you're going to say to me that I'm confusing the word 'sanctioned' with the word 'want'. I'd admit to that and there is a difference of course but I don't think it's that important either way.

 

When the the EU has undergone change this significant since 1975 I think we require a far stronger affirmation of support (i.e. an 'in' vote in a referendum) from the electorate for us to conclude that they have given the green light for greater integration.

 

 

Just like the reasoning the public were coerced into supporting for the Iraq war, so there's been so much political stealth (by the Conservatives and Labour) in the way both have allowed the EU to increase its influence and dominance at the expense of our ability to act in our own interests and to plot our own political course.

I didn't knowingly or willingly sanction either.

Sadly there are such poor political alternatives but our country is crying out for something better and for politicians much more committed to honesty and the interests of UK citizens along with the world in general, than they seem to be just now.

Indeed the more democracy evolves the less I like it. What I want from people leading this country is proven expertise, integrity, honesty, good sense and a lack of hypocrisy to name but a few qualities.

"Party" politics doesn't impress me at all because, sooner or later,  it demands that politicians have to vote against their real beliefs and convictions.  

Regretably, our current system doesn't encourage those sort of people at all.  

[bovril]

Turkey are never going to join the EU.

[davieG]

If we're still in it should have referendum on whether they should be allowed to join as we should have been with any significant change.

[Rincewind]

Cameron's message to the nation: 

 

https://www.rt.com/uk/213139-turkey-eu-cameron-membership/

 

But while the allies and Russia seek to curb IS the news columns have this to offer:

 

  http://www.iraqinews...upport-of-isis/

 

As I've asked in another thread, perhaps someone will explain Cameron's logic in this - and Obama's - seeing as both are supposed to be on the same side whoever Turkey's actually batting for. It all seems very strange to me but I'm sure there are ridiculously clever politics students who will understand the bigger picture.       

There are a lot of things I do not see Cameron's logic but he  is the leader of the country so what I think does not matter.

[davieG]

A new cross-party group that will campaign for the UK to leave the European Union is being launched.

Grassroots Out is supported by UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Labour MP Kate Hoey and Conservative MP Tom Pursglove, among other politicians.

Two thousand people are expected to attend its launch in Northamptonshire.

The Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns are already competing to become the official "out" voice in the referendum on Britain's EU membership.

The prime minister, who wants the UK to stay within a "reformed" EU, is pushing to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership ahead of an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.

If agreement with other EU leaders is reached next month, a vote could potentially be held as early as June.

Commitment to exit

Mr Pursglove said the group's launch in Kettering would be "an historic event, bringing together political foes, who are willing to put aside their differences for the common good".

He added: "We are all united in our commitment to work at grassroots level to get the United Kingdom out of the European Union."

Of those aiming to become the referendum's official "out" voice, the group that comes out on top will enjoy significant advantages.

These include higher spending limits, campaign broadcasts, free mail shots and public funding of up to £600,000.

Last week saw the launch of Conservatives for Reform in Europe, a new pro-European Conservative campaign group led by former minister Nick Herbert, which will argue the case for the UK to stay in the EU under renegotiated terms.

PM David Cameron has said ministers will be free to campaign on either side ahead of the referendum, but he has also warned that they must treat each other with "appropriate respect and courtesy".

What Cameron wants from the EU
Image copyrightReuters

The UK is to have a referendum by the end of 2017 on whether to remain a member of the European Union or to leave. The vote is being preceded by a process of negotiations in which the Conservative government wants to secure a new deal for the UK including:

• Integration: Allowing Britain to opt out from the EU's founding ambition to forge an "ever closer union" of the peoples of Europe so it will not be drawn into further political integration


• Benefits: Restricting access to in-work and out-of-work benefits to EU migrants. Specifically, ministers want to stop those coming to the UK from claiming certain benefits and housing until they have been resident for four years


• Sovereignty: Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation. The UK supports a "red card" system allowing member states to scrap, as well as veto, unwanted directives


• Eurozone v the rest: Securing an explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not disadvantaged. The UK also wants safeguards that it will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts

[Foxxed]

There's an interesting difference between how UK citizens see the EU and how the rest of Europe does.

The Swedes hate the EU for watering down its environmental legislation. The Germans hate how their taxes seemingly go to other nations. The Polish government is having issues trying to regulate/censor its TV/press. But they see the point in pooling sovereignty and working together to 1) not start working against each other leading to wars in the past 2) be a larger trading block to counter weight the US and China.

The British also have issues with various legislation, some spurious, some valid. But unlike their counterparts they don't see the value in political cooperation, being they often see themselves as the sole victors in WW2 with no need to work with others, or needing to be a realistic counter weight to either the US or China, being unable or unwilling to grasp the UK's power in the world post WW2.

[Foxxed]

UK in the EU is forced to take on legislation, legislation agreed to by the European Council (which has the UK's ministerial representatives) and European Parliament (which we have the second or third largest national group due to our population).

But even if we leave, we have Norway's problem. They're not part of the EU, but like us, most of their trade is with the EU. So they have to abide by its legislation and regulations in order to trade. But, unlike the UK, they don't have a say in the debates that create the legislation, and in the UK's case a larger say than most due to our population size. Norway is also forced to pay about a billion pounds in order to trade with the EU, much like will happen to us.

[leicsmac]

There's an interesting difference between how UK citizens see the EU and how the rest of Europe does.

The Swedes hate the EU for watering down its environmental legislation. The Germans hate how their taxes seemingly go to other nations. The Polish government is having issues trying to regulate/censor its TV/press. But they see the point in pooling sovereignty and working together to 1) not start working against each other leading to wars in the past 2) be a larger trading block to counter weight the US and China.

The British also have issues with various legislation, some spurious, some valid. But unlike their counterparts they don't see the value in political cooperation, being they often see themselves as the sole victors in WW2 with no need to work with others, or needing to be a realistic counter weight to either the US or China, being unable or unwilling to grasp the UK's power in the world post WW2.

 

This is spot on, and the biggest problem most people have with the idea of the EU, based on ideology. Lots of people from the UK are still hugely hung up on the rose-tinted days of Empire and think that we're still a mover and shaker on the world scene to match the US or China. Well, we're still a pretty big player, but that simply isn't the case any more - economically or militarily.