I am sorry I could not find any funny headline this time. David Cameron has sent a letter to Dunald Tusk the president of the European Council (That is the assembly containing the head of states that has the executive authority in the EU) regarding what Cameron wants to see change in order for the UK to stay in the EU. Now Some of you will know I am deeply critical of Cameron, and his anti EU policy and thus will be reading the letter with that in mind.
The letter can be foud here.
Go ahead and read it, and then I'll make the points I found when reading it (before descending into sarcasm and cynisism, I am sorry it's just my nature)
Finished? Ok let's go:
"I have been encouraged in many of my conversations with my fellow Heads of Government in recent months that there is wide understanding of the concerns that I have raised, and of the case for reforms that would benefit the European Union as a whole."
The first part is a threat as far as I can tell, It's basically meant to be read as "There are more people on my side than you may know". The second part I expected Cameron is going to try to meddle in the internal functions of the EU even if partly leaving it. The Brittish isles have worked har dot destabilise mainland europe since the fall of the roman empire (Listen to the second verse of god save the Queen, "confuse their politics" allright) they are going to oppose a united European state even if no one asks them to be part of it.
"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."
No there really are not, as he states himself only Britain has been given an opt out, this is flirting with the other countries trying to avoid fulfilling their treaty obligations, namely Sweden and Denmark (Who are required to join as soon as they fulfill the criteria, which they are intentionally failing to do), by saying if they work with Cameron they may be given the opt out too. The last remaining six are simply countries that have yet to fulfill the criteria but as far as I know have every intention of joining the Euro zone (though someone from these countries may correct me here).
"These principles should include recognition that:
The EU has more than one currency."
The policy before has been that being part of the EU means adopting the Euro, this would grant a permanent sanction for the UK version of membership. That said this is not so diffrent from the two lane europe suggested by Guy Verhostadt.
"There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country."
Notice how it's always about the rights of buinesses never people, that is something the EU themselves always do too. Aside from that nothign important here.
"The integrity of the Single Market must be protected."
We want ensurances that even if we never join the EU we don't get left out. Over thime this will become untennable ofcourse then again there is no permanently binding nature of suhc a treaty. That said the free movement of people which is what the UKIP have been railing against, is part of the single market.
"Any changes the Eurozone decides to make, such as the creation of a banking union, must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory."
Without giving the euro zone it's own assembly for intenral issues this will pretty mcuh mean that the UK get's to pick whatever parts of being a member it that it likes and disregard all others.
"Taxpayers in non-Euro countries should never be financially liable for operations to support the Eurozone as a currency."
How is this new? They haven't paid a dime to the crisis relief. Neither have Sweden and Denmark by the way. At least not as part of the EU help programme.
"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."
This is again "I don't want to be part of the bank union, and flirting with sweden and denmark.
"And any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and decided by all Member States."
All issues to some capacity affects all member states, this is giving himself the rigt to meddle again.
"So the United Kingdom welcomes the current European Commission's focus on supporting economic growth and scaling back unnecessary legislation."
Note how he never says what he considereds "unnecessery legislation". If it's for an example the ban on GMO I'm there with him but I'm guessing that it's more along the lines of the ban on roaming charges. After all expect tories to stand up for the interest of buisnesses not people.
"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."
Hardly suprising there since Cameron wants the EU to just be a free trade agreement.
"The EU should also do more to fulfil its commitment to the free flow of capital, goods and services."
Note how he leaves out people from the four freedoms of the EU.
"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."
Nothing is irreversiable Davy boy, That said this pretty much is what Guy Verhofstadt said when he suggested a two lane Europe and it it preferable to losing the UK as part of the union. That said security meassures must also be put into place to ensure that their influence in the inner workings of the EU are limited accocrdingly.
"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."
"I'm sorry Dave I can't let you do that" Strenghtening the power of national parliaments and heads of states is exactly the opposite of the transperacy that we have been stricing so hard towards the last decades. It'll lead to more backroom deals and thus more corruption. Only by brinign these proceedings out into the light and allowing people to interact more directly with the European union without having to go through the hassle and beurucracy of national governments can we make the system work again.
"The UK believes in an open economy..."
But?
".. But..."
Called it
"... 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."
Except you take less people than Germany does, even per capita. Abd guess what they've concluded that taking people from the poorer countries of the EU and making them productive members of society actually gives a net income.
"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."
That's funny I read a report only a few weeks back that said france would be the most popolous country in the EU by 2050. Truth is by cherry picking you reports you can have them give you any conclusion you wish them to have.
"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."
Or atleast so Nigel Farrange claims and since he's stealing votes from you, you agree. But again sustainable is exactly what it is. May be some pressure in the short perspective but the sustinability is not the problem.
"Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change that."
But? (Also not technically correct)
"But..."
Who would have guessed.
"... 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."
You take less people than germany and fewer people per capita than a huge number of smaller EU members like sweden. But hey you know what we'll take even more, that's fair... oh wait. Jokes aside actually I really don't care since again eu immigration is a gain not a loss, but if germany keeps swallowing them up like they're doing then he can kiss that largest nation in the EU by 2050 goodbye. This is again not really about immigration Cameron was fine with that until the UKIP started taking his voters. The facts on the table haven't changed since then.
"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."They told you so did they? Because last I heard they predicted this pretty well, the poor go to the rich countries and work and then send money home which helps build the economy of the poorer countries. I think it's called a "market economy", there was one of you countrymen, name of Smith, who talked a lot about it, you may want to read up on that before saying what we knew and did not know would happen. God Dave you make me miss the american electoral race, say what you will of the americans but they do understand capitalism.
"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."
So... never then? If you withold the means for wealth to flow to them then they won't catch up... god you are the worst conservative since the menaing of the word changed to mean libertarian.
"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."
Pretty sure fraud is a crime, here's an idea why don't you let the police handle crime. But if you want to give them more authority for an example giving Europol actual policing powers I am all for that.
The second part is just emotion invoking rethorics, I know I do it too. Also funny how there was no (ok little) abuse before the UKIP statert convincing people these was.
"But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here."I am so glad I'm not an EU immigrant in the UK right now, this is getting nasty. Honestly cristallnacht nasty, time to get the hell out of dodge nasty. This is the moment people will look back on and say why didn't we leave at this point.
"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."Here's an idea let's segregate society into two groups, but my my Oliver Cromwell would be so poud.
"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."Well of course you do because before you turned your coat you used to argue for immigration. The diffrence is back then you were right, now you're just a populist.
And that's pretty much the last intresting part, after that it's just a bunch of courtesies.
So what do you think, do you read the letter diffrently than me? Comment below.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar