What's you thoughts about the recent negotiations between Cameron and Donald Tusk on the now draft proposals for UKs relationship with the EU?
My thoughts are that even if the other member states agree this package, I'm not convinced that the deal will go far enough for the sceptical members of the UK public to vote for the UK to remain in the EU. The latest poll conducted by The Times for the first time even indicates this:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4683420.ece
Of course, it's still early days and we first need to see how the EU negotiations conclude with the other member states, but for the first time I'm beginning to sense that there could really be a UK exit from the EU. Cameron's proposals don't go far enough for the anti-EU crowd, and the proposals are already being pulled apart by the press. At the same time, they could be watered-down by other EU members - which makes it even more of a farce..And with nearly every popular Newspaper blurting out their Anti-EU rhetoric, and sadly many UK citizens heavily being influenced by these articles, it's not looking good....
If the UK really votes to exit, it's going to make it interesting for us living in France (which I'm hope there will be replacement Treaties between UK and France to protect each others citizens social protection, pensions, etc) but what I'm more concerned about is the impact on the UK as a single nation.
For example, if Scotland as a whole votes to stay in the EU then this will rightly give the SNP more of a case for another Independence referendum for Scotland. If this happened, and Independence is voted for, then Cameron could go down in history for being the PLM who lost the UK (all for trying to prevent a split in the Conservative party by having this referendum...)
It's going to be an interesting few months... I just hope that the UK sees sense and votes to stay in the EU... The EU does need to evolve, but it would be much better for all if the UK remains within and helps with this effort..)
Tony
I totally agree Tony, I would hate to see the UK leave Europe because of the faint heart of the Prime Minister shaken by the rantings of an MEP who takes the pieces of silver but tries to destroy his paymaster. I have now started the lengthy path of applying for French citizenship in an attempt to protect what is left of mine and my wife's happy retirement in France. Cameron could indeed become the worst Prime Minister in recent UK history.
Quite agree. The UK could have been the dominant force in Europe but because of the empire/commonwealth politicians looked to the past not the future.
I suppose if there were a political will, then the different legal systems could be managed, as they are in the US, albeit that the differences would be greater.
History does not support the idea of a single state. You could say that both Charlemagne and Charles V sort of succeeded in uniting Europe (without Britain) but both, in effect, decided to split it up again on their death/abdication.
Although ironically it might more appropriately be 'Churchill's bastard love-child', but one the father never got to see...
Brian,
It sounds alot like the 'thoughts of Vernon Coleman' (very interesting and amusing website...
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm
I think I have mentioned him to you in the past.(.he used to appear on LBC occasionally as their health guru)...
He refers to the EU as 'Hitler's bastard love-child'......
It is my opinion of Cameron, no more. Each to his own. The SFN ethic is dinner party manners, I would certainly say that at a dinner party. It is for others to disagree.
Anyway, perhaps a single government might work. It is inconceivable given 28 member states, with 30 'constitutions' in one form or another and 30 legal systems (yes, the UK has three, Northern Ireland and Scotland do have their own) would merge very easily to that extent. Where the UK has slipped up and may be part of the economic sulk is that very early on, as Wikileaks first revealed but since they have confirmed, the Bilderberg group wanted (Western) Europe to have a single currency, that included the UK given that a large proportion of the businessmen in that group (I am not a conspiracy theory subscriber about them by the way, they are simply leading industrialist and bankers) were British and even they were foreseeing the absolute end of the British Empire. That was first discussed in 1951, by 1955 they were beginning to be disappointed. Had that happened then the single government, of a kind, may by now have come to be. De Gaulle did not want to hear what they had to say. Any other French politician of that period would have dragged the UK in. Imagine how history may have turned out then. The UK would have been at the centre of it and what Churchill and Schuman both foresaw, a powerful UK with Germany supporting them and France the other major partner leading Europe to be the leading world power together. Finger pointing at Germany is popular right now but from the beginning West Germany was still occupied and divided among the allies with bits like the Saarland Protectorate that meant they were not exactly the big shots back then. The UK might well have been.
Your history is, of course, absolutely correct, and, like you, I think, I would much prefer to see the UK remain in the EU, for a variety of reasons. One does, though, need to recognise that there are some very real problems about the future of the EU highlighted by the recent euro and internal border problems. One can argue that the best (or maybe only) way of resolving these sorts of problems is to have, in effect, a single government, and I suspect that that would not be the will of the UK (or indeed the French) people.
My one disagreement with you (and some others who post on this and other topics) is that I don't believe we should use insulting language to denigrate our politicians whichever side of the political divide we might be on.
Britain has always been an attractive migration destination going back to before Roman Times. It's got nothing to do with the EU. However, if you really want to stop it you need a severe recession, which may happen with Brexit, as the UK will no longer be an attractive gateway to the rest of the EU.
I read an article recently on Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty which sets out the process for a country leaving the EU. The remaining countries have to agree the terms of a continuing relationship and the leaving country needs to decide whether or not to accept them. This process takes 2 years but it could be extended by agreement with all parties. If there is no agreement at the end of the 2 years or extension, the existing treaties involving the departing country are automatically voided.
Given that the other EU members don't want Britain to leave and feel this will damage the EU project and given UK's public reluctant membership over the last 40 years, it would be reasonable to assume that this will be an opportunity for revenge.
Whilst this process is going on the global financial markets will be having their say in a sea of uncertainty.
Vote for Brexit at your peril, I say.
Where on earth did that version of the origins of the EU come from?. It is from one of a small selection of daily rags no doubt and totally, scurrilously wrong. In fact one of the driving forces was the UK.
in 1946 Winston Churchill, the great hero who it is always being said did not lead the UK to victory in 1945 to see 'us' the servants of Europe, made a speech in which he called for a 'United States of Europe'. He wanted to see that in his lifetime. As a first step the Council of Europe was established in 1949 as the first pan-European organisation.Now all European countries except Belarus are members. In 1950 the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe because then they were the two elements necessary to make armaments. On the basis of his speech, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands,Luxembourg and West Germany signed the Treaty of Paris in 1951 creating the European Coal and Steel Community. When the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 it established the European Economic Community (EEC) stating the objective of closer integration as one of it main aims. New members including the UK joined. The Merger Treaty was signed in Brussels in 1967 creating the European Communities (EC). The Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 establishing the European Union (EU) when it came into force in 1993. The UK was at the heart of and enthusiastic in the negotiation, expecting to take a leading role. UK politicians messed up and here we are now, the sulky little island with an overblown fool leading the UK back out.
A quick straw poll at work had a vast majority voting for an exit. The overriding concern being the lack of a grip on migration.
I am frankly amazed at this whole fiasco. No sovereign state goes cap in hand and shirt lifting like Darling Dave does. You do not seek permission or deals to represent the democratically elected body of the people - you simply state what you are going to do without other countries agreeing to it. If this so-called mighty body of the EU ( who clearly are incapable of agreeing to anything except inflated bureaucracy and unelected bodies) are so keen to have you in their trading agreements then let them come to you with offers.
The idea of the European Union, dreamed up by France to avoid another invasion by Germany and agreed to by the Germans in order to achieve economic domination where military had twice failed, has moved so far away from its original concepts that the UK has little or no interest in participation. Why on earth should they be subjected to immigration influxes when the vast majority of the population clearly do not want it?
I am sure that ex-pats like me will be wondering about the future with a Britexit (Darling Dave does not care and refuses to let them vote). personally I am looking at Canada - at least the people are nice there.
There are now three posts looking at more or less this under discussions, so perhaps it is getting or will get repetitive. The hype made of Cameron's win is smoke and mirrors stuff. There is no agreement, there could not be until all EU member states have chewed it over and voted. Those were talks, nothing more, Tusk is in no position to agree to anything anyway. The smiles and self congratulation Dave awarded himself are beginning to become a boomerang that he is going to get in the back of his head soon. Both sides of the divide are saying so and soon the excuses will begin.
In the meantime, the misinformed UK population is increasingly preparing to do what it was once believed lemmings did. No more EU and the UK falling apart as Scotland walks soon, Northern Ireland decides to confederate with the Republic and Wales gets uppity, well if that is what they really want then short sightedness will be their downfall. As others have made clear on the longer post on this topic, I am staying put. I might pop up to Calais to wave them 'goodbye' though.