Camerons So Called Deal With The EU.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Without consulting Google, or any other search engine, any one out there know what concessions Cameron is demanding from the EU that would make us vote yes, to stay in the failed Union.

 

Angel1

[tinfoilhat]

Off memory, restricting benefit payments to EU migrants and possibly a cap on the number who can enter the country.

 

But I'm guessing a bit and there's no hope he'll get the latter anyway.

[Eric Arthur]

From the horse's mouth. David Cameron's letter to Donald Tusk which has 4 key topics.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475679/Donald_Tusk_letter.pdf

Edited January 15, 2016 by Eric Arthur

[Manlinose]

I think he's asking for a four year residency rule for benefit payments, less regulation & more opt outs but I couldn't give you any specifics

 

It's often difficult to separate what Cameron wants from what other politicians and media commentators say he should ask for as a minimum requirement

 

Whatever he gets, if anything, he'll still lead his Government into the "in" camp

 

His instinct is consensus not conflict and he would rather be in the club than out of it

[Eric Arthur]

1. Economic Governance

There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union. There

are Euro members and non-Euro members. As set out in Protocol 15, the

United Kingdom has a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone. Other countries

will in due course join the Euro. But, for now, there are nine of us outside; and

it matters to all of us that the Eurozone succeeds.

So we do not want to stand in the way of measures Eurozone countries decide to

take to secure the long-term future of their currency. But we want to make sure

that these changes will respect the integrity of the Single Market, and the

legitimate interests of non-Euro members.

I am confident we can achieve an agreement here that works for everyone.

Britain is not seeking a new opt-out for the UK in this area - we have the

opt-out from the single currency we need. Nor are we looking for a veto over

what is done in the Eurozone. What we seek are legally binding principles that

safeguard the operation of the Union for all 28 Member States - and a safeguard

mechanism to ensure these principles are respected and enforced.

These principles should include recognition that:

• The EU has more than one currency.

• There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business

on the basis of the currency of their country.

• The integrity of the Single Market must be protected.

• Any changes the Eurozone decides to make, such as the creation of a

banking union, must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never

compulsory.

• Taxpayers in non-Euro countries should never be financially liable for

operations to support the Eurozone as a currency.

• Just as financial stability and supervision has become a key area of

competence for Eurozone institutions like the ECB, so financial stability

and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like

the Bank of England for non-Euro members.

• And any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and

decided by all Member States.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2016 at 07:21 ----------

 

2. Competitiveness

People across Europe want the European Union to help generate growth and

jobs. The United Kingdom has always been a champion of making Europe

more competitive.

So the United Kingdom welcomes the current European Commission's focus on

supporting economic growth and scaling back unnecessary legislation. This has

included some important measures that British businesses have called for, such

as the further steps towards a single digital market, which could add 3 per cent

to EU GDP; and a Capital Markets Union, which will help get finance to

entrepreneurs and growing businesses.

The United Kingdom also welcomes the new trade strategy published last

month, reflecting an agenda we have been advocating for years and including

pursumg potentially massive trade deals with America, China, Japan and

ASEAN.

But with the best will in the world, we would all acknowledge that the EU can

go much further. In particular, for all we have achieved in stemming the flow of

new regulations, the burden from existing regulation is still too high. So the

United Kingdom would like to see a target to cut the total burden on business.

The EU should also do more to fulfil its commitment to the free flow of capital,

goods and services. The United Kingdom believes we should bring together all

the different proposals, promises and agreements on the Single Market, on

trade, and on cutting regulation into a clear long-term commitment to boost the

competitiveness and productivity of the European Union and to drive growth

and jobs for all.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2016 at 07:22 ----------

 

3. Sovereignty

As you know, questions of sovereignty have been central to the debate about the

European Union in Britain for many years. I have three proposals in this area.

First, I want to end Britain's obligation to work towards an "ever closer union"

as set out in the Treaty. It is very important to make clear that this commitment

will no longer apply to the United Kingdom. I want to do this in a formal,

legally-binding and irreversible way.

Second, while the European Parliament plays an important role, I want to

enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement

where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted

legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required

will be a matter for the negotiation.

Third, I want to see the EU' s commitments to subsidiarity fully implemented,

with clear proposals to achieve that. As the Dutch have said, the ambition

should be "Europe where necessary, national where possible".

In addition, the UK will need confirmation that the EU institutions will fully

respect the purpose behind the JHA Protocols in any future proposals dealing

with Justice and Home Affairs matters, in particular to preserve the UK's ability

to choose to participate. National Security is - and must remain - the sole

responsibility of Member States, while recognising the benefits of working

together on issues that affect the security of us all.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2016 at 07:22 ----------

 

4. Immigration

The UK believes in an open economy. But we have got to be able to cope with

all the pressures that free movement can bring - on our schools, our hospitals

and our public services. Right now, the pressures are too great.

The issue is one of scale and speed. Unlike some other Member States,

Britain's population is already expanding. Our population is set to reach over

70 million in the next decades and we are forecast to become the most populous

country in the EU by 2050. At the same time, our net migration is running at

over 300,000 a year. That is not sustainable. We have taken lots of steps to

control immigration from outside the EU. But we need to be able to exert

greater control on arrivals from inside the EU too.

Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change

that. But we do want to find arrangements to allow a Member State like the UK

to restore a sense of fairness to our immigration system and to reduce the

current very high level of population flows from within the EU into the UK.

These have been unplanned and are much higher than forecast - far higher than

anything the EU' s founding fathers ever envisaged. These very substantial

flows of population have, of course, also had a significant impact on a number

of Member States, many of whose most highly qualified citizens have departed

en masse. So this is a shared challenge.

We need to ensure that when new countries are admitted to the EU in the future,

free movement will not apply to those new members until their economies have

converged much more closely with existing Member States.

We also need to crack down on the abuse of free movement, an issue on which I

have found wide support in my discussions with colleagues. This includes

tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham

marriages. It means addressing the fact that it is easier for an EU citizen to

bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than it is for a British citizen to do the same.

It means stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back, as

well as preventing entry in the first place. And it means addressing ECJ

judgments that have widened the scope of free movement in a way that has

made it more difficult to tackle this kind of abuse.

But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here. As I have said

previously, we can reduce the flow of people coming from within the EU by

reducing the draw that our welfare system can exert across Europe. So we have

proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and

contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social

housing. And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas.

I understand how difficult some of these issues are for other Member States and

I look forward to discussing these proposals further so we can find a solution

that deals with this issue.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Eric Arthur

[I1L2T3]

Off memory, restricting benefit payments to EU migrants and possibly a cap on the number who can enter the country.

 

But I'm guessing a bit and there's no hope he'll get the latter anyway.

 

The comical thing is we can do the benefits thing without any need for a EU deal.

 

The migrant thing, well even if we leave the EU we are not likely to go as far as exiting the single market. If we stay in the single market free movement of people within the single market is a prerequisite. The true cause of excessive net immigration is the amount of non-EU migrants allowed in but much of that is at the insistence of the business interests that fund the Tories.

 

Cameron's deal is a silly charade to placate his party

[retep]

From the horse's mouth. David Cameron's letter to Donald Tusk which has 4 key topics.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475679/Donald_Tusk_letter.pdf

 

A begging letter.

[L00b]

1. Economic Governance

2. Competitiveness

3. Sovereignty

4. Immigration

In a nutshell, measures to get the UK to a rolled-back position where the EU means little more than an economical club to it (non-partisan opinion here, just commenting).

 

Item 1 is clearly aimed at preserving the strength of the UK's financial services industry and isolating it from Germany and France. Nothing wrong with that. Like it or loathe it the UK can't do without it, and personally I view letting the EU (Germany really) phagocyting it through the EU backdoor as a national security risk.

 

Item 2 is a bit too wishy-washy, makes me think that's just filler so far.

 

Item 3 is as fundamental to UK as item 1 (and equally important other non-€ Member States) in that it is effectively asking the EU to acknowledge that there already is a de facto two-speed EU (€ and non-€) and to sort its systems and policies to accommodate the fact (likely irreversible for at least the UK, since I can't ever see it adopting the €).

 

Item 4 is the hot debating potato, but objectively (IMHO) he's right, the UK can't continue piling in all of the incoming EU talent (and non-talent) at the same rate of knots, because of the lag between what the national economy (and economical migrants within that) contributes and what the Gvt has to invest to keep the country functioning.

 

The true cause of excessive net immigration is the amount of non-EU migrants allowed in but much of that is at the insistence of the business interests that fund the Tories.

Can we have some objective info and data about that claim? My money about 'excessive net migration' is on EU migrants plus family/dependents reuniting once a non-EU migrants has got in. It's not easy at all for a non-EU migrant to get a full visa, hasn't been for years. Edited January 15, 2016 by L00b

[retep]

So how is dave doing so far,

 

"Brits to lose benefits under plans to clamp down on European migration: Merkel offers ‘nonsense’ deal to Cameron"

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400234/Fears-EU-deal-offer-Merkel-curb-migrant-benefits-Nonsense-plans-poorest-Britons-banned-receiving-tax-credits.html#ixzz3xIpvcbHv

[L00b]

So how is dave doing so far,

Unsurprisingly, he's not...because every last bit of what he's after, takes power away from Merkel Brussels, sorry.