Re-negotiating the EU generally means We will be a part of the the things we want but we reserve the right to opt out of anything we don't want. Hypothetical illustration: we will enjoy the benefits of being part of a common market in terms of trading of goods but we reject any aspect of labour controls, minimum wage or any financial controls that work towards 'leveling the playing field' within the EU, especially where we currently hold an advantage within the overall trading structure. An analogy might be you buy your steak & kidney pie, but you want it without kidney ... but you also don't want to pay the extra that steak pie itself costs. So you argue with the producer to remove the kidney from the S&K pie. *cue discussion of steak & kidney pie and horsemeat* The words "eat cake" and "have cake" spring to mind. :smile: If you want to be a part of something, be a part of something. Wanting to be part of part of something is dishonest. If you want the upsides, take the downsides that come with it or get the hell out.
The EU is nothing like it was when we joined, my understanding is that our government want change for all members not just for us. Steve
If the Euro finally collapses, which I think it probably will, then being 'In' will be a disaster. AL
Eurovision is a replica of the EU. They all do deals and the UK gets stuffed :smile: On a more serious note; I feel completely disconnected with "our" MEP's, consider Brussels rife with corruption and waste (how about an AUDIT) and a completely out of control bureaucratic nightmare. I had some fringe involvement with some of the EU directives (flexible on a National level) on fire safety that jumped into regulations (completely binding). The technical committees are dysfunctional and end up with a set of requirements that seem to be taking Europe into a less competitive position in the World market. Did you know that about half the EU budget goes to farming? The French are by far the greatest beneficiary so you can see they get a good deal from membership and want to keep the status quo. The UK overall, receives less than even Greece and Poland. France is again a winner, they receive nearly twice the UK spend. Maybe one year we'll be so poor they'll give us some funds to repair the roads. If the EU could have remained a "common market" it was of great benefit. Because of the Euro, it now has to either become a Superstate, or the Euro fails, and I don't think they'll allow that to happen. I want to be ruled by an accountable set of MP's who are monitored (at least to a degree) and steer us roughly in the direction that the UK needs to take, not be bound by those who have little interest in the troublesome islanders. Tied to the EU, I think we will be destined to a decade of no, or slow growth and stagnation. Unbound, we could thrive again and don't forget how much Europe needs us to trade with, as we always trade with a deficit to Europe. I don't believe Cameron will be able to get any meaningful change (if he even get's the chance) unless the Euro really does come unstuck (which I still see as very possible). So I guess that makes me an OUT.
Perhaps I missed it, but I admit have no idea what Cameron actually wants to negotiate about, or what conclusion he seeks. Has he ever said? If he is talking about EU policies, legislation, budgets or directives, well those are negotiated all the time so no problem. Every issue which comes along goes through a political process of proposal and counter-proposal, debate, evidence, horse-trading, arm-twisting, voting and eventually a conclusion which everyone (or at least a majority) can accept. So exactly like the political process in every other democratic body in the world, then. To get what you want you have to get stuck in, produce arguments, seek allies, and influence outcomes. If that is what Cameron is proposing, fine. He can start today and not before time. Good luck to him with that. If he is talking about EU structures, that is an entirely different matter. The EU is created by treaties (currently the Treaty of Lisbon signed 2007, in effect 2009) between member states. EU institutions have absolutely no power to amend their own constitution under any circumstances; why not? Because the EU has no constitution whatever, just treaties. There was an enormously protracted, convoluted process by which Lisbon was agreed by 27 governments, 27 parliaments, 27 heads of state, etc. etc. - and they all had to be unanimous in every detail which was fantastically difficult. It was one of the most stunning political achievements of our age. If Cameron wants to revisit it, renegotiate Lisbon, and change EU structures, there is no chance whatever of doing so. Hell will freeze over before every one of 27 countries will go through all that agony again just to help Cameron placate his backbench MPs. And since everyone knows it, any such proposal can only be a gesture.
