Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Divorce is now the only course left for Britain and the EU (but here is how we can make it amicable)

By Daniel Hannan, Conservative Mep For South East England

Published: 02:03, 29 June 2014 | Updated: 02:03, 29 June 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2673698/DANIEL-HANNAN-Divorce-course-left-Britain-EU-make-amicable.html




At teatime on Friday, it became clear that Britain could no longer remain a member of the EU. Any hope that we might change its nature – make it looser, more flexible, more attuned to its nation states – was coldly extinguished. Knocking British objections aside, EU leaders entrusted the top slot to a man who has never hidden his support for a United States of Europe.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Luxembourg leader who has just been chosen to run the world’s most powerful bureaucracy, wants a common EU citizenship, with reciprocal voting rights at national elections.

He wants to merge the various foreign offices into a European diplomatic corps. He wants a pan-European minimum wage, a federal police force and army, and harmonised taxes.


He has – to his credit, I suppose – been open about all these things. And he has just been appointed, by 26 votes to two (Britain’s and Hungary’s) to Europe’s most important job.

As president of the European Commission, Juncker won’t just run the EU’s executive – its cabinet, so to speak. He will also have the right to initiate new laws.

It’s an extraordinary concentration of power.


Not bad for a man who was thrown out by his own voters in December and whom Brussels insiders describe as imperious, idle and overfond of a drink.

No one can now credibly claim that Europe is turning away from integration. The middle way that many British people had hoped for – the idea we could remain involved but on better conditions – has been closed off.

The choice we face is between leaving the EU or becoming, over time, a province of a country called Europe.




Other prime ministers weren’t even pretending to respect our sensitivities. On his way into the summit, Finland’s new leader, a Euro-fanatical former MEP called Alexander Stubb, brusquely informed the British people that they had better ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ and realise how economically dependent they were on the EU.

Afterwards, Angela Merkel, who had supposedly given David Cameron private assurances about blocking Juncker’s candidature, told the press that as far as she was concerned, ever-closer union was an obligation for all 28 members – albeit one they might fulfil at different speeds.

Viviane Reding, Luxembourg’s veteran Commissioner, was more succinct: ‘Game, set, match!’ she tweeted. So much for the ‘influence’ that our Sir Humphreys keep harping on about.

David Cameron had pleaded with his fellow heads of government to choose someone more palatable to public opinion. Juncker’s appointment, he told them, would push Britain towards leaving the EU.

Yet, in the event, his opposition served only to solidify support behind the abrasive Christian Democrat. A number of EU leaders who disliked Juncker felt obliged to back him rather than be seen to have given in to British pressure.

David Cameron ruefully told reporters afterwards that he wouldn’t publicly endorse any candidates for the other big jobs in case his support blighted their chances.

That’s the true measure of our ‘influence’ in Brussels: it’s not just empty, it’s negative.

Juncker’s appointment is especially bad news for our Foreign Office mandarins. Their strategy ever since Cameron announced the in/out referendum 18 months ago has been to make the minimum necessary changes to persuade the country to vote for continued membership.

These changes didn’t have to be substantive; they could be wholly presentational. After all, a similar tactic worked for Harold Wilson in our 1975 referendum which, though they were soon forgotten, had supposedly also been held on ‘improved terms’.

In March, the PM set out his goals in a newspaper article. None of them would have fundamentally altered the terms of our relationship and, indeed, none of them would have required a new treaty – the original justification for delaying the referendum to 2017.

The talk we used to hear from the PM about taking back social and employment policy, about unilateral repatriation of power, had been dropped. No wonder Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke cheerfully endorsed all the proposed ‘reforms’, pointing out that they didn’t change anything.

That strategy has now been blown to sparks and cinders. The country won’t fall for cosmetic changes being presented as a grand new deal – not now we have seen where the rest of the EU wants to go.

A British Prime Minister who came back trumpeting some memorandum about ever-closer union not applying to Britain, or some agreement to limit benefits claims for migrants, would be laughed at.

The electorate would see perfectly clearly that we were still full members of the EU, subject to the Common Agricultural Policy, Fisheries Policy, the Common External Tariff, the European Arrest Warrant and all the rest.

What, then, are Cameron’s options? One is to stick to Plan A: to get whatever concessions he can, oversell them and rely on our aversion to change to win the referendum. That strategy looks a lot less attractive now: he would risk defeat and, with defeat, resignation.

A second is to campaign for a No vote in the referendum – to announce that he had given reform his best shot, had got nowhere, and could not now in conscience recommend remaining part of what the EU was turning into. He would almost certainly win such a referendum comfortably – indeed, he’d break all records for popularity – but he won’t do it, because he fears that an acrimonious break with the EU would be harmful.

That leaves option three. An amicable separation that would leave us in the free market but outside the political institutions.

Britain could angle for the sort of deal Switzerland has: that is, free movement of goods, services, labour and capital, but not much else.

Switzerland pays only a token contribution to the EU budget, does not recognise the primacy of EU law on its own territory and – critically – is free to negotiate trade deals with non-EU states such as China.

And you can’t help noticing that it’s doing rather well.

If Britain secured such a deal – and Eurocrats keep indicating that it’s on offer – it might save face all round to dress it up as some form of associate status or semi-detached membership.

Other European states, both within the EU and outside, might want something similar.

After all, with the partnership pacts signed with Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia on Friday, the only European country that doesn’t enjoy free trade with the EU is Belarus.

We could create a pan-continental market, stretching from Iceland to Georgia, with 40 or 45 members – some 20 or 25 of which might also choose to have a single currency and shared political institutions.

If we can’t negotiate such a deal from within, we should do so from outside, replacing our current membership with a Swiss-type free-trade agreement. The Swiss, after all, manage to sell four-and-a-half times as much per head to the EU as we do.

More to the point, the EU is declining as an export market: every continent is now experiencing growth except Europe.

There is a teeming world across the oceans, a world where we still have friends. Why stay in a declining customs union when the rest of the planet is waiting?

Many pay the costs of a divorce for decades after the event!

The only ones to escapes scot free are the "lawyers".

The CBI and most of business wish to remain in the EU.

Who are the little englanders and what is in leaving EU for them.

It won't happen.

-------

Interesting article in Observer

"has torrid Brussels showdown pushed Britain nearer EU exit?! by Toby Helm.

Max,

If you want to summing up of the Brussels fiasco and possible consequences:

A bad day for Britain, Mr Cameron


< "http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/29/after-juncker-blunder-where-now-david-cameron" alt="" />

Only thing missing is exiting to Where and What?

.

The Eton Mess is licking up to the Junket!

A bit late.

in politics, things are rarely as seen let alone heard

Do you mean Cameron is worse than he appears!

8-)

Why is it a bad day for Britain Fred? Cameron perhaps, but not Britain.

Read the article!

The majority of clubs have entrance and membership fees.

The members can negotiate fees and change rules, outsiders have less influence.

UK may wish to trade with EU , but EU will be more reluctant to deal with UK.

Also, if not within the EU probably Financial services will gradually move to Brussels etc.

Also, with more integrated EU. cost of Defence, R&D, foreign policies, cross border criminality can be more efficient..

Ask the CBI.

ETC Etc

I don't think it is a bad day for Cameron. Most of the EU leaders don't want Juncker and he is unsuitable for the job. Many say he doesn't want the job. He wants another job that he can't get. Merkel doesn't want him. She showed signs of rejecting him and was attacked by the German press so she supported him. She is in a coalition and her partners want him. It is suggested by commentators that many of the EU leaders support Cameron and admire him for what he did. They won't support another candidate for similar reasons to Merkel. It is interesting that several leaders including Germany, Sweden and Holland have indicated that they are open to some discussions about the rules with Cameron and welcome them.

http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15005

In Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU's member states have settled on a European Commission president who is potentially ill-suited to the role for which he has been chosen, and selected through a process which has proved to be flawed in its execution. Further, it has significant consequences for the balance of power between the EU's institutions, key bilateral relationships between the EU's member states (especially the position of the UK), and for the likely future agenda of the EU.

Haze,
Are you fragmenting.
What was the vote for Juncker in Brussels?
Or was that a figment of the imagination.
=============
As perhaps you have problems
How to relate the following Poll.



29-06-2014

There was also a Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday with fieldwork conducted on Friday (tabs here).

Topline figures there were CON 27%(nc), LAB 36%(+4), LDEM 7%(-2), UKIP 22%(-1).

The rest of the poll dealt mostly with Juncker, and again opinions are split largely along existing party lines – so 38% saw Cameron’s opposition to Juncker as a sign of strength, 36% as a sign of weakness… but 75% of Tories thought it was a sign of strength, 57% of Labour voters thought it was a sign of weakness.


.

I think you've lost the plot Fred!

The members can negotiate fees and change rules, outsiders have less influence.


We pay our due's, lots of em, but get little or no say.


That has to stop, no, not stop, be wiped out altogether, lets get out now!


You can move to the continent Fred, no one will stop you.

I'd be happy to pay his fare Max :O)

The Standard for the UKippers and little englanders.

Is it back to work on Captain:

David Cameron: Why I still believe Britain can do business in Europe

The Juncker defeat is not a fatal blow. Britain will champion change in Europe, argues David Cameron



The Prime Minister: 'I will fight with all I have to reform the EU over the next few years’ Photo: AFP



The flannel is here, but read the comments, Call Me Dave is a dead man walking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10934647/David-Cameron-Why-I-still-believe-Britain-can-do-business-in-Europe.html

He was blown away in Europe.

fred was guaranteed to stand on his soapbox and rant

for myself, I think there is plenty more life in this debate as unquestionably there are many leading politicos within Europe who are certainly not enamoured with juncker ..... though they were arm-twisted into voting for him - e.g. angela merkel - what now happens behind the scenes may (not will) bring about a rather different complexion reflecting better the wishes of the voters who strongly demanded significant reform