I don't know why people don't get that the EU wants the UK in because of the money we bring to the table, tens of billions in net contributions year in year out, 3rd biggest economy by GDP in EU, significant contributor to IMF bailout fund, and we're less exposed to current sovereign debt issue than France who are 2nd biggest economy by GDP. Forget red herrings about empire and Britain as former economic powerhouse, we are still 6th biggest economy in the world and that really matters to the EU, especially when the begging bowl is out.

This is the 5th time they've been through this loop, and I'm pretty sure each of the previous times was supposed to draw a line under the issue, just as I'm pretty sure the same will be claimed the next 5 times they go through the loop with the UK back at the table because nobody is really convinced they've got enough in this iteration for anything more than a bit more breathing space till they get to the next iteration. That's how these things really work, media copy might make it sound fatalistic, but it's not, it's the money that matters at the end of the day.

Cameron killed the negotiations dead. He did't walk away ion the hope of a better offer. Your analogy is completely wrong.

We'll see

If he goes back to the table, the likes of Bill Cash will make sure he won't be leader come the end of 2012

People almost predicting the end of the world because we will have less ties with EU.

Total scaremongering.

The Swiss have managed just fine.

The Swiss have managed fine without a nuclear deterrent and without a war on terror as well.

That's because nobody wants to take on the Swiss navy

Calm down - keep you Gieves & Hawkes on - just trying to stimulate the debate beyond the usual knuckle dragging pronouncements that you experience on here from the usual suspects!!

You - and others to be fair - are spectacularly missing the point. Here's the nub of the issue...

At the moment, companies from all over the world can either manufacture or warehouse goods in the UK and pay no duty when those good are sold in the EU. If we were to leave, this would no longer be the case. Those companies would then be faced with a choice between paying duty to move goods between the UK and the EU or simply bypassing the UK altogether and saving time and money.

Which do you think will be more attractive?

It's even more of a no-brainer for companies who have resellers in the UK. At the moment those goods attract duty when imported into the UK but none when sold on into the EU. Upon our exit they would be looking at paying duty TWICE if they kept the status quo or simply moving to an EU-based reseller and paying duty only once.

Not being in the EU makes business more expensive and therefore reduces the competitiveness of UK based companies. It really is that simple.

You might want to take a look at exactly how the Swiss operate and what EU regulations they are forced to comply with despite having no say before you start holding them up as a shining example of life outside the EU. For a start their economy is in no way shape or form comparable to ours.

We have already seen. Cameron wrecked 40 years of British diplomacy in one go by issuing a veto that at the end of the day won't stop anything.

Whether or not what the 26 are trying to do saves the Euro does not alter that. The 26 are going to do what they are going to do (which is why the veto is toothless) and if along the way it hurts Britain they won't care. If it fails to save the Euro any damage done along the way will still have been done. The success or failure of these attempts save the Euro does not alter that nor alter the the fact Cameron has been exposed as a poor statesman and a weak leader.

Why is he a poor statesman? Well for 40 years successive UK governments have forged alliances inside the EU to prevent there being undue Franco-German influence on the EU that would disadvantage Britain. Edward Heath began that policy and it was continued by Thatcher and Major as well as all Labour governments. They were able to do that because they were at the table. We are no longer at the table because Cameron walked right into Sarkozy's trap. Sarkozy in one fell swoop removed the British obstacle that has been there for the last 40 years and Cameron just didn't see it coming. He totally out manoeuvred Cameron. We can see this is case now. We do not need to wait.

Why is he a weak leader? Because he has let the Eurosceptic tail of his party wag the dog and did what he did to appease them as much as anything. He should have told them to feck off and played a hand not influenced by any potential domestic rebellion of a bunch of nice but dim Tory MP's who are clearly too thick to appreciate the very simple truth Kosh has spelt out.

I think we all need to wait and see what happens. The Germans are too tight not to want our huge net contribution to the EU. Britain is too pragmatic. Even the German press has conceded the proposed approach might be illegal (as Britain contends). A compromise will be reached, that will allow DC to claim some sort of victory. Alternatively, the Euro collapses and this will be but an irrelevant side-show.

And of course, as it didn't actually stop anything, it wasn't a veto.

Strop would perhaps be a better description.

Yep - A 'we're not going to stand in anybody's way' attitude would have been much more dignified and made no material difference. Wouldn't have won applause from the rabid europhobes, though.

Circumstance dictated what would happen - the only choice was how to spin it. That's why it doesn't feel like a watershed [idecision[/i to me, for all that the [ievents[/i are historic.

Although you may not agree with them the MPs you describe are democratically elected by the public to represent their constituents. Whilst democracy is not [ide rigeur[/i at the moment in Europe (and never has been in Brussels) it's worth pointing out that we still vote for our representatives in Parliament and they represent a wide range of views reflecting a wide range of views in the country. Judging by recent surveys it seems the "thick" MPs you mention represent a significant proportion of public opinion, even if it doesn't match your own.

C

Come on Cameron and resign you stupid fool.

Lol be quiet. Stop trying to turn a huge positive into a negative.

What happens if the Euro collapses?

Another round of public bailouts which would make those initiated by the sub-prime fiasco seem trivial.

Majority opinion isn't always the correct opinion. And neither does democracy prevent the dimwitted from being elected. The whole of Europe is in a mess at the moment - including the UK - largely because of the spectacular failure of elected politicians. I don't see how pointing that out is in any way undemocratic. Neither would it have been undemocratic for Cameron to at least [iattempt[/i to negotiate a deal that could have been presented to Parliament for democratic scrutiny rather than running scared of a confrontation with those self same elected representatives in his own party.

We've ended up with a bad deal for the UK and a bad deal for the rest of Europe. Cameron is a miserable excuse for a statesman but he's hardly alone in that TBH.

Cameron's veto doesn't actually prevent the Eurozone group from enacting anything, it merely makes it less easy.
We now have a situation where he has stepped-out of any discussions, we don't even get to sit-in on the meetings.

He has achieved, not just nothing, but worse than nothing.

Way out of his depth and so used to getting his own way, he couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.

My comments about these Tory MP's being dim are based the [ufacts[/u of about how the single market works and how trade outside it works. Those things are facts and I find it astonishing some of them apparently think we can just leave the EU and if we do we will be just like Norway (which shows their ignorance of the Norwegian economy and how that works as well).

The fact they peddle this rubbish to an electorate the majority of which is basically ill informed on the issue as a possibility means they are really misleading people either deliberately or because they really are dim.

In a democracy like ours the elected representatives are put there to represent our interests not reflect opinion polls. The two are very different things. They are supposed to be in a position the rest of us are not to make informed judgements. What they are doing instead is peddling a myth that plays to nationalistic tendencies easily stoked up by a biased press. It's a vote winner but its an unrealistic myth of withdrawal that they peddle.

However as it is in many Labour strongholds, in some Tory areas you could put a blue rosette on a monkey and he would get elected. Having seen some of the Eurosceptic Tory MP's interviewed they struck me of such low calibre their constituents would have been better off with the monkey. I wonder how many people in some of these areas having seen their MP on TV for the first time are wondering how on earth anyone ever voted them in!?

The only truths about Europe I have heard from any of the sceptics are all numbers ... but none of the facts/reasons/comparisons behind those numbers. e.g. How much it costs but no mention of the benefits or what the alternative would cost.

Lots of mention of federalism and European state and no real analysis of what that would mean (if it were to occur).

If you ask most Brits about federalism, they will immediately think of centralisation, of control over them from a distance.
If you ask a German, Austrian, Swiss etc the same question, they immediately think the opposite, of the benefit of subsidiarity and the local power that federalism gives them.
e.g. The Germans have 16 local Länder, the Swiss have 26 Cantons ... only the stuff that can't be dealt with at the Länder level or is more effectively done at the higher level is allowed to be controlled at that higher level.... and the terms of what is dealt with at which level are enshrined in law, not subject to the whim, gerrymandering or political advantage of successive governments (e.g. Thatcher's abolition of shire county authorities because the persky electorate kept voting for the other guys).

That's just one example of how the majority of the UK population don't actually understand what they are voting for half the time

The current government would love us to be a sort of offshore tax haven with a nice large malleable pool of unpaid and unemployed, kept in their place and desperate for work at almost any price.
European ideas of trying to make the world a better place to live, for as many as possible, is not an aim for this government.
They are not called "conservative" for nothing.