I often feel that Cameron and Osborne are underrated
Posted: 04 Nov 2015, 00:07This is an example of EU politics at it's finest.
It simply states that if you want something you are going to have to give something you don't want to give... Now I have a clear picture of why neither Cameron nor Osborne have given a clear list of what they want. Simply put, they had not yet set the scene. If they had put forward a list before this statement, the EU "organs" would have started their No, Nein, Non wagon immediately. Now, though, any response to demands must be balanced by the fact that a No result will mean the UK veto's every attempt of the Eurozone to organise itself for final recovery and to ensure the Euro is never again held hostage to member "states" who won't control their budgets.
This makes a lot of sense. As it stands now, the UK is bound to join the Euro and Schengen, at some point, or leave the EU. If Cameron gets what he wants; which is essentially a two speed EU, then it is possible for him to vote to allow the Eurozone to continue down the path of fiscal and political union. If he does not, then he must veto any further attempts because they are not compatible with the wishes of the British people.
Of course the EU would simply push out another treaty, in 2020, which takes away the British Veto, as the Lisbon treaty took away the British Veto on 40 more items, in order to get what they want. In the long run the EU superstate is the end game. If it takes 20 years or 200 years that will not change.
To be honest though, Cameron is not being honest with the UK on this. The eventual result of what he is doing now is to have the UK wind up in the same place as Norway is today in all but name. With, perhaps, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary and Poland as partners in that limbo.
I'd say it's better to leave now before even more damage is done to the UK, but that's just me.
It simply states that if you want something you are going to have to give something you don't want to give... Now I have a clear picture of why neither Cameron nor Osborne have given a clear list of what they want. Simply put, they had not yet set the scene. If they had put forward a list before this statement, the EU "organs" would have started their No, Nein, Non wagon immediately. Now, though, any response to demands must be balanced by the fact that a No result will mean the UK veto's every attempt of the Eurozone to organise itself for final recovery and to ensure the Euro is never again held hostage to member "states" who won't control their budgets.
This makes a lot of sense. As it stands now, the UK is bound to join the Euro and Schengen, at some point, or leave the EU. If Cameron gets what he wants; which is essentially a two speed EU, then it is possible for him to vote to allow the Eurozone to continue down the path of fiscal and political union. If he does not, then he must veto any further attempts because they are not compatible with the wishes of the British people.
Of course the EU would simply push out another treaty, in 2020, which takes away the British Veto, as the Lisbon treaty took away the British Veto on 40 more items, in order to get what they want. In the long run the EU superstate is the end game. If it takes 20 years or 200 years that will not change.
To be honest though, Cameron is not being honest with the UK on this. The eventual result of what he is doing now is to have the UK wind up in the same place as Norway is today in all but name. With, perhaps, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary and Poland as partners in that limbo.
I'd say it's better to leave now before even more damage is done to the UK, but that's just me.