Cameron's EU speech

[Giz]

Yes, I agree with this.

In related news, Richard Dawkins is saying that he doesn't see the point in a referedum because, after all, Europe is too difficult to understand and too complex, which is why we elect those clever MPs with their big brains to think this kind of thing through for us:



https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/294346763278639106

There's something quasi-fascistic about the whole "The people don't know what the nation requires! The elite shall lead them into the promised land!"

 

[spin0]

Well, if you pay into a club more than you have a hope of getting out then the other perks of membership had better be worth it. Of course, one of the problems that a lot of "moronic xenophobes" have is that they don't see what those perks are.
So, let's hear what they are...

Cameron did list some of the most obvious perks in his speech.

Access to Single Market.
"Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs. Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for one in five of all inward investments into Europe. And being part of the Single Market has been key to that success."

Free mobility.
"Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live or retire in any other EU country."

EU lends more political power and influence in the World.
"There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union. That matters for British jobs and British security. It matters to our ability to get things done in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU."

Ability to have a say on EU decisions.
"Even if we pulled out completely, decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions."


He also tackles the often-repeated argument about Norway and Switzerland:

There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland – with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle - it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.

The Swiss have to negotiate access to the Single Market sector by sector. Accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the Single Market, including in key sectors like financial services.

 

[Laeke]

There's something quasi-fascistic about the whole "The people don't know what the nation requires! The elite shall lead them into the promised land!"

Fascistic is probably not the correct term to apply to what you put in quotes.
There is however a strong disconnect between the EU and its constituency and thus it is clearly a dysfunctional democracy. How can voters hold accountable something they do not know about?

 

[spin0]

Really? I think I would prefer the UK to be able to make its own laws and cobble together its own human rights statutes. I don't see why it needs tutlege and divine intervention from elsewhere.

Well in that case UK would need to leave both EU and Council of Europe (maybe UN too). Which would be pretty funny considering they both were originally called for by Sir Winston Churchill.

Ability to get high quality medical care when travelling in EU countries with an EU health card.
Ability to move freely within the EU including the ability to settle in a foreign nation without a VISA or threat of deportation simply for staying for a long time.

That's nice and all that but I don't see why it has to come with such a price-tag.

How much does it cost to you then?

 

[spin0]

There is however a strong disconnect between the EU and its constituency and thus it is clearly a dysfunctional democracy. How can voters hold accountable something they do not know about?

True that. In British media it seems common to confuse different European organisations. For example framing a ECHR decision into a EU horror story. I don't know if it happens on purpose or simply by ignorance, but it's not good on democracy when even such basic things are confused. Would be ironic if Brits voted out of EU because of their feelings about ECHR.

 

[The Don]

My fear is that the soundbites (and outright lies) against EU membership seem to be simpler and more easily consumed than the pro-EU messages. As a result there's a real risk that we'll vote no (based on "saving" the net contribution to the EU budget, lack of EU interference in the UK's desire to work ridiculously long hours and a desire to expel foreign workers - thus keeping British jobs for British people) and end up in a very bad way indeed (failing to understand that those job-stealing immigrants are actually providing economic vibrancy to the country, that the net contribution is a drop in the ocean and that the EU is very important to us).

Speaking personally, over 50% of my service business's turnover comes from the Eurozone. The ease of getting people over there to work (as opposed to the visa nightmare of the US), ease of getting contracts agreed and ease with which we can receive payments is probably underestimated by people at large.

If it becomes significantly more difficult to do business with the Eurozone then it is likely that my business will have very significant short-term issues that may rapidly turn into long-term issues.

 

[Darat]

Summary from me: "meh" - and "I'll say anything to cling to power". So business as usual for any politician.

 

[angrysoba]

My fear is that the soundbites (and outright lies) against EU membership seem to be simpler and more easily consumed than the pro-EU messages. As a result there's a real risk that we'll vote no (based on "saving" the net contribution to the EU budget, lack of EU interference in the UK's desire to work ridiculously long hours and a desire to expel foreign workers - thus keeping British jobs for British people) and end up in a very bad way indeed (failing to understand that those job-stealing immigrants are actually providing economic vibrancy to the country, that the net contribution is a drop in the ocean and that the EU is very important to us).

Speaking personally, over 50% of my service business's turnover comes from the Eurozone. The ease of getting people over there to work (as opposed to the visa nightmare of the US), ease of getting contracts agreed and ease with which we can receive payments is probably underestimated by people at large.

If it becomes significantly more difficult to do business with the Eurozone then it is likely that my business will have very significant short-term issues that may rapidly turn into long-term issues.

Well, that may be true. But I don't speak for Europhobes when I ask whether the EU is the best thing for the UK, I just want people to spell it out clearly and most of the time when Europhiles are asked this they tend to get into some monstrous strop and say that anyone opposed to their way of doing things must be "moronic xenophobes".

Perhaps, given that it is in your interest to stay in the EU, you and others would give some clear idea about why it is the best idea.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Speaking personally, over 50% of my service business's turnover comes from the Eurozone. The ease of getting people over there to work (as opposed to the visa nightmare of the US), ease of getting contracts agreed and ease with which we can receive payments is probably underestimated by people at large.

If it becomes significantly more difficult to do business with the Eurozone then it is likely that my business will have very significant short-term issues that may rapidly turn into long-term issues.

This is why this is a tightrope act for Cameron.

Ask any business "do you want all of the good stuff from the EU bit dump the inconvenient stuff" then of course you will get the answer "dump the inconvenient stuff"! But Cameron knows very well that if businesses in the UK are faced with an "in or out" vote (even on the current terms) they will throw their support behind the in vote.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Perhaps, given that it is in your interest to stay in the EU, you and others would give some clear idea about why it is the best idea.

But The Don did:

"...Speaking personally, over 50% of my service business's turnover comes from the Eurozone. The ease of getting people over there to work (as opposed to the visa nightmare of the US), ease of getting contracts agreed and ease with which we can receive payments is probably underestimated by people at large.

If it becomes significantly more difficult to do business with the Eurozone then it is likely that my business will have very significant short-term issues that may rapidly turn into long-term issues....

"

As he said above that is not as easy to compress into a soundbite - especially when the "out of Europe" side often simply lie. Unfortunately with the EU the British have been victims of "...follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous...."

 

[angrysoba]

But The Don did: "

As he said above that is not as easy to compress into a soundbite - especially when the "out of Europe" side often simply lie. Unfortunately with the EU the British have been victims of "...follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous...."

Did he? I don't know because the Don talked of "the Eurozone" which we are not a part of.

Also, if the Don's business were located in Norway or Switzerland, would he find it more difficult to do business with the Eurozone?

I am not asking for this to be compressed into a soundbite. It might be nice to see some reliable facts and figures, on the other hand. I sometimes get the impression that that too is difficult, and I can understand if it is. But if that is the case then it is not true that the EU is only looked at with a jaundiced eye by "moronic xenophobes".

 

[Darat]

Did he? I don't know because the Don talked of "the Eurozone" which we are not a part of.

...snip...

The Eurozone is a subset of the EU. Why would what he was saying be changed by that? (And I suspect he may have mistyped.)

Also, if the Don's business were located in Norway or Switzerland, would he find it more difficult to do business with the Eurozone?

He says it would.

I am not asking for this to be compressed into a soundbite. It might be nice to see some reliable facts and figures, on the other hand. I sometimes get the impression that that too is difficult, and I can understand if it is. But if that is the case then it is not true that the EU is only looked at with a jaundiced eye by "moronic xenophobes".

I'm not sure what you are wanting to see?

 

[spin0]

I am not asking for this to be compressed into a soundbite. It might be nice to see some reliable facts and figures, on the other hand. I sometimes get the impression that that too is difficult, and I can understand if it is.

Not sure what facts and figures you're asking for, but maybe this is of help: The Economic Benefits to the UK of EU Membership

 

[dudalb]

Nice job of straddling the fence by Cameron.
IMHO a lot of people in the UK don't Mind the EU as a Economic Union, but don;t like it pretensions of becoming some kind of "Federal Government" for Europe. And that the EU does come off like a bunch of bureaucrats totally remote from the common people does not help matters.

 

[spin0]

As he said above that is not as easy to compress into a soundbite - especially when the "out of Europe" side often simply lie. Unfortunately with the EU the British have been victims of "...follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous...."

It's always a good laugh to read what nonsense, lies and myths British press spreads as EU horror stories. QI had a great segment about some of the silliest ones: Call My Euro Bluff

But it has been shocking to learn that some people actually believe them no matter how outrageously ridiculous they are. Here's a dedicated website that seeks to timely correct some of the most ignorant or purposeful falsehoods spread by British media (esp. Daily Telegraph, Daily Express and Daily Fail): http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/

 

[DrDave]

I say we should leave the euro. Just had to queue for 30 minutes to get through passport control behind French, Germans,... I want the British passports only queue back

 

[spin0]

Cameron proposes new location for Great Britain, wants referendum

 

[spin0]

Nice job of straddling the fence by Cameron.
IMHO a lot of people in the UK don't Mind the EU as a Economic Union, but don;t like it pretensions of becoming some kind of "Federal Government" for Europe.

EU is a political and economic union. It is not and was never ment to be just a economic union. There's simply no way to dismantle it and turn it into a economic union only.

And that the EU does come off like a bunch of bureaucrats totally remote from the common people does not help matters.

Perhaps it's partly because of how British media paints them?
The EU’s media deficit

The most depressing result from my analysis of media coverage of EU reform is the complete absence of substance and detail in the arguments presented. Politicians and commentators alike seem to think that by simply saying that the EU needs to change then that’s enough, argument won. If pushed, they roll out vague complaints like EU ‘social and labour law’ (20%), ‘too much regulation’ (27%) and maybe even a Euromyth (20%). The truly informed out there might even throw the working time directive at you (7%). Few, if any, can give you more detail than that.

This lays bare the appalling state of media coverage of European issues. I cannot think of another political topic where such lazy argumentation stands so little scrutiny.
...
Much of the blame lies squarely with the media. Firstly, the press has failed in its duty to provide in-depth coverage and attention to the decisions taken at an EU-level and the institutions which take them.
...
Serious coverage of political developments in the European Parliament, Council, Commission or indeed other EU countries is non-existent outside of the Economist and Financial Times. As the Charlemagne column reported some time ago, it is now rarer for daily British newspapers to have a Brussels correspondent than not.

 

[Peephole]

I say we should leave the euro. Just had to queue for 30 minutes to get through passport control behind French, Germans,... I want the British passports only queue back

Don't worry, it won't be long until a European directive comes along that abolishes queuing.

Seriously, what's up with you Brits and your queues?

 

[Giz]

EU is a political and economic union. It is not and was never ment to be just a economic union. There's simply no way to dismantle it and turn it into a economic union only.

But the initial referendum in the 1970's that took Britain into the EU was, deliberately, given as a purely economic union - with no transfer of sovereignty. (as opinion polls had shown that any possibly of sovereignty transfer would have resulted in a no vote).

As a result, a large proportion of the UK don't see any political union as legitimate -until there is an honest referendum.