Cameron says EU must sieze the opportunity for reform

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10858111/David-Cameron-EU-must-seize-opportunity-for-reform.html

He is currently in Brussels in talks with EU leaders and because many of the EU Member states are looking for reform , he might get somewhere and avoid
a Referendum. I presume other EU Countries are at the meeting, there is now widespread concern in the EU over the Election results.

JAMES KIRKUP
Follow James on Twitter WILL HEAVEN
Follow Will on Twitter Will Heaven
Subscribe to this email

FULL MARKS FOR EFFORT


FIGHTING JUNCKER, AND LOSING

"I don't mind how many people on the European Council disagree with me, I will fight this right to the very end."

So said David Cameron in PMQs, of his fight to stop Jean-Claude Juncker becoming head of the European Commission.

Mr Cameron’s statement is striking. He does mind if Mr Juncker is appointed — he has told us that he minds, a lot. Yet if many people on the European Council do disagree with him on that, Mr Juncker will indeed be appointed. So why does the PM claim not to mind such disagreement on the council?

There is, I think, a plausible explanation. Mr Cameron thinks he’s going to lose this fight, so he’s decided to lose it as noisily and publicly as possible.

It’s about demonstrating intent. If Mr Juncker gets the job, some (though in truth, probably not many) British voters will be unhappy. Some people at Westminster will also think a bit less of Mr Cameron. His response to those people is to say, in terms: “Hey, at least I’m trying.” By going down swinging, the PM hopes to get a bit of credit from sceptics, that they will at least be pleased with his effort, if not his results.

He’s taken a similar approach to the bill for an EU referendum. It’s failed once so far in this parliament, and may well fail again when it returns under Bob Neil’s stewardship. Yet the Tories will make noise about their attempt to legislate, partly to highlight the opposition they face from other parties, and partly to signal to voters their intentions on a referendum.

What matters more to voters, intentions or outcomes? David Cameron’s European strategy is shaping up as a fascinating attempt to answer that question.

DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE

Dr Sarah Wollaston was elected the new chair of the Commons Health Committee. That could worry Conservative leaders. Dr Wollaston is a Tory, but one largely devoid of partisanship, so she may not stint from asking awkward questions about health.

Keeping health off the political agenda is a key priority for CCHQ. Today's revelation of a £2 billion overspend in NHS England is a timely reminder that doing so will not be easy.

FRESH DOUBTS OVER MILIBAND

Alan Johnson, Mr Miliband’s former shadow chancellor, said that the Labour leader struggles to connect with ordinary voters, who lack enthusiasm for him.

Mr Johnson told the New Statesman magazine that the Labour leader is “maybe is not as able to connect [with people] as strongly” as his brother David Miliband. “It’s not his strong point,” he said. “I can’t pretend that, knocking on doors, people come out and they’re really enthusiastic about Ed.”

Underlining doubts about Mr Miliband’s appeal, a MORI/Evening Standard poll suggested that 49 per cent of voters believe he should he replaced as Labour leader. Only 22 per cent said Mr Miliband is “ready to be Prime Minister”.

Tomorrow the Labour leader will speak at the launch of IPPR's landmark "Condition of Britain" report. It is said to be Labour's "Magna Carta", and has been endorsed by Jon Cruddas, the party's chief policy reviewer. But is there really a policy cure for Miliband's woes?

ISIS AND THE UK

Jihadists from the Islamic terrorist group Isis are planning attacks on British soil, David Cameron has said.

The Prime Minister warned that the current crisis in Iraq must not be dismissed as a foreign problem because the same terrorists are planning to “attack us here at home in the United Kingdom”. Read our story here.

THERESA'S APOLOGY

Theresa May has been forced to apologise to people who have had holidays or business trips ruined by the delays in processing passport applications.

Tens of thousands of people have in recent weeks faced delays after a huge backlog in Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO).

Panda wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10902893/Die-is-cast-for-Jean-Claude-Juncker-to-take-the-EUs-top-job-as-defeat-looms-for-David-Cameron.html

#

Good morning panda

However he twists and turns, and tries to claim otherwise, te fact is that Cameron suffered a major blow yesterday. he claims among other things that the other leaders now know that when he says something he means it. It's just the opposite, they know he doesn't mean it. hardly 3 weeks ago, Cameron claimed that if Juncker were to be appointed, he would bring the in/out referendum forward. they appointed Juncker yesterday. What of this in/out referendum then? No more mention of it. That is what the European leaders know. That he promised a referendum in 2017 AFTER successful renegotiation. there will be no such successful outcome so there will be no referendum. Labour won't hold one, they have reneged twice already. The Liberals cannot wait to give the country away completely.

This time though, I have to disagree with Farage. He says the rest of Europe would see us out first. Well that is partly true, but they still want the money we provide, which you have mentioned more than once. The Polish PM said it all a couple of days ago, Cameron will only get what he wants in exchange for a mountain of gold. That is what they want, our money.


The United States of Europe is the aim, not only of Juncker but all those countries who joined for the benefits. As 28 separate nation states, they have to borrow money, and pay it back with interest. This they object to. If we were all one big Un happy family, the money would be in a communal pot. No borrowing, and no repayment.

Of course this decision flies directly in the face of all those voters across Europe who voted against further integration, and therefore against Juncker. I wonde how many of them can spell democracy?

katertaif wrote:

Panda wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10902893/Die-is-cast-for-Jean-Claude-Juncker-to-take-the-EUs-top-job-as-defeat-looms-for-David-Cameron.html

#

Good morning panda

However he twists and turns, and tries to claim otherwise, te fact is that Cameron suffered a major blow yesterday. he claims among other things that the other leaders now know that when he says something he means it. It's just the opposite, they know he doesn't mean it. hardly 3 weeks ago, Cameron claimed that if Juncker were to be appointed, he would bring the in/out referendum forward. they appointed Juncker yesterday. What of this in/out referendum then? No more mention of it. That is what the European leaders know. That he promised a referendum in 2017 AFTER successful renegotiation. there will be no such successful outcome so there will be no referendum. Labour won't hold one, they have reneged twice already. The Liberals cannot wait to give the country away completely.

This time though, I have to disagree with Farage. He says the rest of Europe would see us out first. Well that is partly true, but they still want the money we provide, which you have mentioned more than once. The Polish PM said it all a couple of days ago, Cameron will only get what he wants in exchange for a mountain of gold. That is what they want, our money.


The United States of Europe is the aim, not only of Juncker but all those countries who joined for the benefits. As 28 separate nation states, they have to borrow money, and pay it back with interest. This they object to. If we were all one big Un happy family, the money would be in a communal pot. No borrowing, and no repayment.

Of course this decision flies directly in the face of all those voters across Europe who voted against further integration, and therefore against Juncker. I wonde how many of them can spell democracy?

Good evening katertaif,
What can those who vote against these undemocratic decisions do? Revolt is out of the question in existing and established EU countries on mainland Europe. Certain of these countries havel used weapons to quell riots in the not so distant past.

How many of the new member states can understand anything other than the welcome flow of money into their country and the chance to cross borders to the 'Lands of Milk and Honey' in Western Europe?

So far neither Germany nor France, both populations showing dissent with the EU haven't had the problems of Human Rights inflicted upon them that Blair signed this country up to. If Cameron can't keep his word to the electorate about a complete pull out of Europe, then he should at least level the playing field and insist that the rules of the EU apply equally to every nation. That might change the mind of even the most ardent supporter of Europe when seeing their country turned into third world squalor.

But he won't, the lying toad along with his banker and industrialist cronies value the advantages of cheap migrant labour from Eastern Europe too much to put a stop to their ingress into the UK, and a complete pullout from the EU.

good evening malena stool

As you say, revolt is out of the question, and if the leaders are going to ignore the ballot box, the only other option would seem to be to get rid of them at the first opportunity. That might make them think. Cameron won't. he can insist all he likes. So many nation states with their eyes on the goodies, and transfer of monies are not going to accept any level playing field.

Apart from us which of them does. look at France over the ban on British beef. they refused to lift the ban in the face of all sorts of threats of sanctions. same with the Falklands war. France was the first country to come out in support of us while Aerospatiale was happily completing an order for Exocet missiles, they knew full well were going to Argentina. (Something about friends and enemies spring to mind)

Angela Merkel made a speech not so long ago, in which she clearly stated that no one was going to give any leeway to Britain, and she was standing beside Cameron at the time.

I think we both agree that other considerations may take over in Europe before too much longer and nullify much of what is happening now. In the meantime I am quite happy to abide by the result of Teddy Teeth's referendum. Trade with Yes/Oui/Ja, be ruled by No/Non/Nein.

Good afternoon katertaif,

Yes, it was a foregone conclusion that Junker would take over as president after Merkel's blatant backing while standing next to Cameron.. but I doubt anyone would have expected to see this sight on the tront page of the Telegraph... I guess a recount is out of the question, then.

Seriously, though reading the final paragraph of the following report does expose the danger of involving the EU with the Ukraine, a state that was after all a founding member of the Soviet Union.
As per your final comments on previous post.
------------------------------------------------------------

The Telegraph Comment.

Juncker vote leaves the EU in a worse mess than David Cameron
EU leaders have chosen a man they know is really not up to the job of Commission president

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10931953/Juncker-vote-leaves-the-EU-in-a-worse-mess-than-David-Cameron.html

Christopher Booker By Christopher Booker4:46PM BST 28 Jun 2014Comments935 Comments


Jean-Claude Juncker was backed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel Photo: AP

When I saw a front-page headline, “Humiliation of Cameron”, last week, with an article inside headed “The most foolish blunder of Cameron’s career”, I naively thought these must be referring to that shoot-out with his EU colleagues over their choice of Jean-Claude Juncker (below) as the new Commission president. Of course, they were only about his hapless former spin doctor. But certainly they might have applied equally to his defeat over Juncker (below), which has left his hope that he could somehow negotiate a new relationship for Britain with the EU, then lead a “Yes” campaign for us to remain a member, in ruins.

As I have been pointing out ever since he made that referendum pledge, in January 2013, there was never any hope that his policy could work. The EU could never have allowed the “reform” he was talking of, because it would have been an unprecedented breach of its sacred treaty rules.

What is even clearer, however, is that Friday’s debacle has left the EU itself in an even sorrier state than Mr Cameron. It was the Prime Minister who was, forlornly, trying to uphold the rules of that same treaty, by insisting that it is not the right of the European Parliament to nominate a candidate for the presidency. And we are now left with the astonishing spectacle of his colleagues having landed themselves with a man who many of them privately agree is hopelessly unfitted for such a taxing job: a chain-smoking boozer, a bad-tempered loner who hates paperwork and whose name was seemingly known to less than one per cent of those supposed to have “voted” for him in the recent Euro elections. His only merit in their eyes can be that he has spent his entire career championing further EU integration, which is why he will give two fingers to any attempt by Mr Cameron to win any reduction in the EU’s powers.

How apt it was that the same day should have seen the EU signing that agreement with Ukraine and two other former Soviet republics, the moves towards which had been precisely what triggered off this whole crisis with Russia in the first place. The BBC may describe this as simply a “trade agreement”, but it is also very much a political and military alliance, which President Putin was bound to see as intolerably provocative.
When history comes to be written, this reckless attempt to expand the EU’s empire right into Russia’s backyard will be seen to rank alongside the crazy gamble of the euro as the two most obvious symbols of how the “European project” eventually over-reached itself.

I thought that Cameron did rather well in throwing that Rompuy fellow out of Downing Street. Also he told the leaders that were supposedly supporting him about the appointment of Juncker, what he thought of them.

Maybe now he really knows that he is not going to get anywhere. The rest of the EU is taking, the you know what, out of him. Do we really need a referendum? Can't he just tell them to all go and jump now? Stop the cheques. Oh I wish

Good afternoon fuzeta.

You're completely correct of course. stopping the cheques would cause some serious consternation because that is what they want from us and all they want from us.

Pulling out altogether is a different matter. in a matter of this gravity, we do need a referendum. The only caveat with that is we need a period of full, frank and above all honest explanation, so that we would be able to make an informed choice of the stakes.

There is only one problem there though, and I fear it's an insurmountable one. Where are we going to get these honest politicians from? Not in Westminster that's for sure. This present crew would make an itinerant snake oil salesman blush for shame.

Agree Katertaif. Mind you if they did try and inform us of the pros and cons. It is not likely we would understand as we are all thick. Seriously, there would be such huge propaganda, telling of all the bad things to come if we voted to leave. Well I would take my chances because if we remain in we have no chance at all.

Good afternoon fuzeta

Yes, I forgot for a moment just how thick we all are. Of course we couldn't reach an informed and rational decision could we. One thing Mr. Chuckus yer money MP didn't explain though. if we go back to voting tory or labour or even liberal demolition, do we get our IQ's back?

On the other hand, you are right that as it stands, we have no chance in the EU. I am not in favour of a complete pull out. I think the original mutual beneficial trading bloc was fine. the trouble being that Eire/Romania/Greece/ and a few others would not agree, and since Blair signed away our veto their voices are as loud as ours, and combined together, as they would be, in an effective veto even louder. Apart from being totally undemocratic Barroso and his ilk must be lacking in some way if they are unable to see that half a dozen countries who may be rich enough now, can only beggar themselves propping up an ever growing list of freeloaders. it's simple mathematics.

Yes katertaif it is simple mathematics, that thick as we are, even we understand. I for one never realised that other countries in the EU did not sign for the complete full caboodle as we did. Giving away all our sovereignty at a stroke of Blair's pen. I have in the past wondered why other parts of the EU do as they like whilst we have to adhere strictly to all that they foist on us. I just fume, I cannot resign myself to it all. What is to be done? I do not think we will ever get a referendum

Hi Fuzeta

All is not lost. I agree with you that Cameron never intended to give us a referendum, unless he had sufficient bargaining power to guarantee a Yes. Angela Merkel scotched that only a couple of weeks ago. The latest lurch towards the United States of Europe and the corresponding lurch away from democratic accountability virtually guarantee a no vote. Therefore, of his own free will Cameron will not offer any referendum (remember he is in favour of remaining in the USE warts and all) Ditto if Labour were to win the next election, or if the Liberals have anything to do with it. We only get a vote if they can be certain of the result or as they did when Eire gave the wrong answer vote again.
upset the voters

However, I can see a great many things changing now. The sceptic back benchers will become more vocal, and business may start to retrench themselves because of the uncertainty. Then next year we have an election. If enough of us thickos remember this week when they cast their vote, Perhaps UKIP will be in a position to dictate terms. Perhaps even coalition.

Then a lot depends on Juncker. Assuming he presses ahead with closer integration, he will upset the electorate in the "richer" countries. Germany is already showing clear signs of being sick of coughing up. Even Merkel cannot stay in power if voted out. No all is not lost.