Angela Merkel opposes Cameron EU renegotiation plan - Polidicks

[quote]David Cameron’s hopes of an EU renegotiation over the free movement of workers have suffered a blow after Angela Merkel spelled out her opposition to fundamental change. The prime minister has indicated he will make changes to the principle of freedom of movement within the union a “red line” in a mooted renegotiation of the UK’s membership terms. He is thought to be preparing a manifesto pledge to bring in quotas for low-skilled migrants from the EU. Before the last general election Cameron promised to bring net annual immigration down to the “tens of thousands” but has failed to get anywhere near the target. But, speaking to the Sunday Times, the German chancellor appeared to dismiss the prospect of radical change. “Germany will not tamper with the fundamental principles of free movement in the EU,” Merkel said. The setback comes after a difficult few days for the PM, in which he was presented at a Brussels summit with a demand to pay an extra £1.7bn into EU coffers. Cameron responded furiously to the bill, insisting it would not be paid by the deadline of 1 December, and warning that the row risked pushing the UK closer to the exit door. But the European Commission dismissed the objections, saying the contribution revisions were calculated by independent statisticians using a standard formula agreed by all member states. That process varies the fees charged depending on economic performance. [/quote] tl;dr: Nobody cares what Cameron thinks [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/angela-merkel-opposes-cameron-eu-renegotiation-plan"]Source[/URL]

Hows your dreams of the EU federation going?

I'm all for the UK staying in the EU if it annoys OP's wishes for Glorious European Reich.

Sometimes I feel like we are the dumb kid that always gets picked on but is scared to leave his friend group.

[QUOTE=Vasili;46338922]Hows your dreams of the EU federation going?[/QUOTE] Pretty well once the UK leaves already, surely all these threats of leaving will be backed up eventually.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;46341861]Pretty well once the UK leaves already, surely all these threats of leaving will be backed up eventually.[/QUOTE] If the UK leaves the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards, and if that dosen't do it, Marine Le Pen becoming president of France would.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46341889]If the UK leaves the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards, and if that dosen't do it, Marine Le Pen becoming president of France would.[/QUOTE] It would certainly set us (the EU, I see myself as European more than "british" or "english") but I think a united, cooperative Europe is inevitable, even if it takes a few more decades. If Britain goes it alone, things will stay shit and people will realise "the EU was better for us, we want back in" same for France. Then as eastern europe grows stronger the EU will grow stronger with them.

Can we just leave the EU, they're clearly not even interested in reforming even the most basic of issues with it. We shouldn't be jubilant in wanting to leave however, it's a tragedy that the best chance we've had at creating European prosperity has been utterly destroyed by an EU administration so utterly stubborn and blindly driven by the will to Unilaterally enforce arrangements upon it's members that we've been forced to leave. All we wanted was a European Trade Bloc, I'm not happy that we might have to leave it to reassert our sovereignty.

[QUOTE=The mouse;46341934]Can we just leave the EU, they're clearly not even interested in reforming even the most basic of issues with it. We shouldn't be jubilant in wanting to leave however, it's a tragedy that the best chance we've had at creating European prosperity has been utterly destroyed by an EU administration so utterly stubborn and blindly driven by the will to Unilaterally enforce arrangements upon it's members that we've been forced to leave. All we wanted was a European Trade Bloc, I'm not happy that we might have to leave it to [b]reassert our sovereignty.[/b][/QUOTE] Poppycock. What are you actually opposed to? Farage's looming spectre of "all muh laws come from brussels!" "some french man has more authority than british people" You've been well and truly played.

[QUOTE=meharryp;46341397]Sometimes I feel like we are the dumb kid that always gets picked on but is scared to leave his friend group.[/QUOTE] More like the dickhead kid who used to have all the cool toys but it turned out he'd stolen them from other kids so he had to give them back, and now he's grumpy having to be part of a group rather than the leader.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46341956]Poppycock. What are you actually opposed to? Farage's looming spectre of "all muh laws come from brussels!" "some french man has more authority than british people" You've been well and truly played.[/QUOTE] I utterly despise Nigel Farage, he's self-interested and intentionally misleads the public for his own gain. But that has nothing to do with what my views on the EU are. The fact of the matter is that there is a legislative body higher than that of our own, which can make decisions which effect us directly and regardless of how much more power it actually has it is still there none the less. The fact that we're treaty bound to allow anyone with an EU passport into our country and vice versa without the ability to have a say about it is still a violation of our sovereignty regardless of whether we signed up to it voluntarily or not, we deserve a right to change our mind on the matter. I also acknowledge that almost all of the EU laws have to go through our parliament as well but that isn't what I don't like about the EU. The problem is that they effect how we deal with other nations because they have to abide by EU rules, the common fisheries for example.

[QUOTE=The mouse;46342021]I utterly despise Nigel Farage, he's self-interested and intentionally misleads the public for his own gain. But that has nothing to do with what my views on the EU are. The fact of the matter is that there is a legislative body higher than that of our own, which can make decisions which effect us directly and regardless of how much more power it actually has it is still there none the less. The fact that we're treaty bound to allow anyone with an EU passport into our country and vice versa without the ability to have a say about it is still a violation of our sovereignty regardless of whether we signed up to it voluntarily or not, we deserve a right to change our mind on the matter. I also acknowledge that almost all of the EU laws have to go through our parliament as well but that isn't what I don't like about the EU. The problem is that they effect how we deal with other nations because they have to abide by EU rules, the common fisheries for example.[/QUOTE] Well you seem very reasonable in your points and I'm glad you are not lured by Farage's hysteria. This is the same issue with any democracy, the bigger it gets the less individual people feel empowered to make a difference. We still get vote on EU matters, the MP to population ratio is roughly the same as france, germany and italy, this could be fairer but it still means we have more MP's than most other members. We do get representation and thus we do get to take part in the process for making those laws. If Westminster passed some law you didn't like on manchester would you have the same reaction? Wanting to leave? As for the actual laws them selves it works 2 ways. Each law is generally "for a greater europe", so freer immigration means the poorer states have to clean themselves up, thus making themselves more desireable places of living and working, this is working. Look at Romania and Poland, higher GDP and better living conditions. On the other side, for the richer nations it does mean there is an influx in Immigrants, this can be good or bad depending on how you view immigrants. If you consider that immigrants are generally good, less likely to claim benefit, more likely to start jobs and provide employment then you will view immigrants as a positive thing, thus freer movement being a positive for the UK. On the other hand if you consider immigrants dilute culture, have different (often lower) standards of education and often more conservative mindset (gender roles, racism, homophobia) or create competition for jobs then you will view it as a negative. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467[/url] Suggests immigrants are a net positive for the country. For human rights, that is there to defend our rights as people. Why would you as a person be opposed to human rights? Most likely because the government or media have criticised it rather than actually considering the implications of denying people their rights. On the note of the media/government they are spewing propaganda about immigrants. Today the paper reported "___ swamped with immigrants" Automatically suggesting they are dirty, unwanted and damaging. As for the forced cooperation, its like paying taxes. It doesn't benefit you directly but it helps your neighbourhood. Us giving money to the EU so they can subsidise reform in the poorer states means more business opportunities for us, more goods to buy/sell, safer places to travel, more educated immigrants and more profitability for the whole eurozone. If we grow stronger together then we will cooperate, its like we're expanding our tribe/nation from it being limited on this island to over the whole eurozone. In future when we need labour/resources/services/land we can rely on the eurozone to help us out, together we are stronger.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46342109]This is the same issue with any democracy, the bigger it gets the less individual people feel empowered to make a difference. We still get vote on EU matters, the MP to population ratio is roughly the same as france, germany and italy, this could be fairer but it still means we have more MP's than most other members. We do get representation and thus we do get to take part in the process for making those laws. If Westminster passed some law you didn't like on manchester would you have the same reaction? Wanting to leave? [/QUOTE] The issue however is not the same. There is little common identity over Europe as a whole and ancient rivalries still exist over much of it, this makes it very difficult to compare the EU to a nation-state in-terms of democracy because in most well-functioning democracies there is a sense of common purpose and identity. This is why using Manchester is a bad example because while they might not like the laws that Westminster pass, they still acknowledge that they're part of the same country and share the same identity, this doesn't work for the EU. If Brussels passes a law that we don't like, we feel as if it has no legitimacy because we don't share an identity with them. Not only this but what laws, regulations and subsidies which work for some EU countries might not work for others and if we see no benefit to us, why should we not feel outraged by it especially considering we don't recognise the authority of the body which passed them and ultimately some of our money is going toward paying it. [QUOTE]As for the actual laws them selves it works 2 ways. Each law is generally "for a greater europe", so freer immigration means the poorer states have to clean themselves up, thus making themselves more desireable places of living and working, this is working. Look at Romania and Poland, higher GDP and better living conditions. On the other side, for the richer nations it does mean there is an influx in Immigrants, this can be good or bad depending on how you view immigrants. If you consider that immigrants are generally good, less likely to claim benefit, more likely to start jobs and provide employment then you will view immigrants as a positive thing, thus freer movement being a positive for the UK. On the other hand if you consider immigrants dilute culture, have different (often lower) standards of education and often more conservative mindset (gender roles, racism, homophobia) or create competition for jobs then you will view it as a negative. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467[/url] Suggests immigrants are a net positive for the country. [/QUOTE] On the whole, I agree. There's a net positive for freedom of movement but if European immigration is so good for us, what's wrong with attempting to filter out the 10% of bad immigrants and ensuring that we have only good immigrants by giving us a say in who comes into our country from the EU? [QUOTE]For human rights, that is there to defend our rights as people. Why would you as a person be opposed to human rights? Most likely because the government or media have criticised it rather than actually considering the implications of denying people their rights. On the note of the media/government they are spewing propaganda about immigrants. Today the paper reported "___ swamped with immigrants" Automatically suggesting they are dirty, unwanted and damaging. [/QUOTE] I don't believe that we need so many layers of Human Rights bodies. We're already signed up to Global Human rights conventions as well as European ones. Not only this but we have a free press, many pressure groups focused around Human Rights and we intend to write our own Bill of Rights anyway. Why do we need a European Convention on Human Rights when we have so many other ways of ensuring that our human rights are upheld? [QUOTE] As for the forced cooperation, its like paying taxes. It doesn't benefit you directly but it helps your neighbourhood. Us giving money to the EU so they can subsidise reform in the poorer states means more business opportunities for us, more goods to buy/sell, safer places to travel, more educated immigrants and more profitability for the whole eurozone. If we grow stronger together then we will cooperate, its like we're expanding our tribe/nation from it being limited on this island to over the whole eurozone. In future when we need labour/resources/services/land we can rely on the eurozone to help us out, together we are stronger. [/QUOTE] I understand the principle of this but my understanding is that we are a net-contributor to the EU meaning that we could easily pay any of the subsidies which the EU gives us ourselves and would save money. Sure subsidies help these other countries but just because we leave, it doesn't mean that other EU countries won't stop paying these subsidies to poorer countries. The other issue with these is that as far as I know, we don't get to chose where our subsidies go or how much we pay in them so we get little control in actually aiding our national interest as far as subsidies go.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;46341861]Pretty well once the UK leaves already, surely all these threats of leaving will be backed up eventually.[/QUOTE] You honestly truly think that Germany and or France will be happy to pick up the slack if the UK leaves?

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;46342322]You honestly truly think that Germany and or France will be happy to pick up the slack if the UK leaves?[/QUOTE] Not happily but they will, it's in Germany's interest that the EU continues. If they won't, then EU falls and we can put an end to this story. The UK clearly wants special privileges in this Union and that ain't alright, so leave and let the EU either fall or become even more centralized once there's nobody to be against voting new laws anymore.

It doesn't help that most of our newspapers are fueling anti EU sentiment 24/7 with meaningless shit stories about hordes of immigrants stealing our taxes that don't exist.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;46342353]Not happily but they will, it's in Germany's interest that the EU continues. If they won't, then EU falls and we can put an end to this story. The UK clearly wants special privileges in this Union and that ain't alright, so leave and let the EU either fall or become even more centralized once there's nobody to be against voting new laws anymore.[/QUOTE] No shit we want special privileges. We contribute a shitload. Why would it be wrong to expect some leniency in return? The fall of the EU is an inevitability at this point. Countries that use the Euro are slowy gathering more debt. Ask Spain, Greece and France.

The hands of UKIP will be tied as soon as they reach the British Parliament, the UK depends on the EU a whole lot more than the common person thinks. The pressure from businesses to stay in the EU would just be too great to do a whole lot. And that will be the rise and fall of UKIP.