dosxuk Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It looks as though UKIP could win the next general election. Latest YouGov voting intention survey results: 17th January - CON 34% LAB 44% LD 9% UKIP 8% http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/18/update-labour-lead-10/ Yup, looking like surefire winners... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Two-speed EU (in fact, 'North-South' EU) is already a factual reality. Have a look at what recently happened with the Unified Patent Court. FR/GB/DE in, ES/IT out, and the UPC is going ahead regardless. A two-speed Europe isn't the issue. A two-speed Europe has already been negotiated. Cameron's issue is to renegotiate what has already been negotiated which is something other EU states will not want to do. It'll take up time and resources which can be spent on taking on the next challenge. It'll also set a precedent that a member can keep going over old ground and cause inertia. The other 26 won't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 There is a lot of EU money coming into the UK such as grants and loans for one scheme or another. So they give us a bit of our own money back..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 London will lose its financial pre-eminence to Munich the second the UK exits the EU... That may be the opinion of Anders Borg but he fails to give any specific reason, just "the financial sector can never be separated from political structures". Quite what that actually means is anyone's guess. There are many advantages the City has but membership of the EU is a new one on me. Are you saying that the Germans have allowed London to be the global financial centre? That was good of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 On Question Time last night Nigel Farage gave straight answers while the other parties appeared to prevaricate. What I found disturbing was that the Cambridge University professor quoted from a report and seemed to give that more credence than a member of the audience who was living with problems caused by EU policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Why? Is it because perhaps they don't bother to learn to speak a foreign language? You would have thought those with good English arriving here for work would act pour encourager les autres. However I don't think that is so :-( Which language would be the best for them to learn, which country as very low unemployment and lots of jobs for low skilled workers as well as a good health service and benefits system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 A two-speed Europe isn't the issue. A two-speed Europe has already been negotiated. Cameron's issue is to renegotiate what has already been negotiated which is something other EU states will not want to do. It'll take up time and resources which can be spent on taking on the next challenge. It'll also set a precedent that a member can keep going over old ground and cause inertia. The other 26 won't have it. I don't think the other member states will allow the UK alone to pick and chose what they adopt and implement from the EU, but maybe there are other member states that feel the way we do (that want to be part of an economic free trade area but not a federated political union) and see the UK as the only country taking a lead. Perhaps it will take just one country to put their head above the parapet for others to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Cameron and his fag, Gideon, have successfully managed to kick this into the long grass of 2018. I suspect that they are hoping that by then the failed, corrupt, third world economies of Greece, Portugal et al will have failed and these dysfunctional states will have seceded from the Gerry-built, cobbled together mess that is the current fiscal union. They will also be praying that the less sustainable, gangster-led Eastern European counties will either have similarly failed or formed an new, less centralised Soviet with or without Russia. This will leave a retrenched European Union, comprising of the economical stable Northern industrial nations, the low countries and France. Cameron could then go to the country asking for a mandate for the UK to stay within this more economically viable, modern union, which the British people would, in all likelihood, accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 That may be the opinion of Anders Borg but he fails to give any specific reason, just "the financial sector can never be separated from political structures". Quite what that actually means is anyone's guess. There are many advantages the City has but membership of the EU is a new one on me. Are you saying that the Germans have allowed London to be the global financial centre? Of course not, the Germans have been fighting it tooth and nails for years. Membership of the EU provides a well-known 'financial trojan horse' function for the City within the EU, due to the ease of capital movement derived from EU membership, and which intra-EU and, importantly, outra-EU financiers have long made the most of. I'd have thought that point to be obvious enough Take away membership, and I'll let you imagine what the Paris-Berlin axis is going to do as regards UK<->EU capital movements. We'll just not have any say in getting lamped with the FTT at the border, as it were. TRIPS or no TRIPS. A two-speed Europe isn't the issue. A two-speed Europe has already been negotiated.It is very much the issue, since it clearly paves the way for further fragmentation in 'common' (increasingly, in all but name) provisions governing Member States. Cameron's issue is to renegotiate what has already been negotiated which is something other EU states will not want to do. It'll take up time and resources which can be spent on taking on the next challenge. It'll also set a precedent that a member can keep going over old ground and cause inertia. The other 26 won't have it.Bold bit - and what is that? (genuine question) Most of the other 26 countries, aside from the obvious 2 big ones and the few resonably affluent ones to the north, are not in an economical position to say zilch. They know which side of their sh*t sandwich is butterred: they know full well the UK is one of the only, if not the only, big guy in the club apt to keep some leverage on the Paris-Berlin axis, for Berlin not get their cake and eating it. In that respect, I don't think the other member states will allow the UK alone to pick and chose what they adopt and implement from the EU, but maybe there are other member states that feel the way we do (that want to be part of an economic free trade area but not a federated political union) and see the UK as the only country taking a lead. Perhaps it will take just one country to put their head above the parapet for others to follow. is likely indeed. IIRC several EU Member States clearly backed the UK's anti-FTT not so long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayggb Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 No can't see any point in staying in europe but,I don't want to vote ukip either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.