So finally, after months of frantic diplomacy, David Cameron is coming home with the results of his renegotiation of the terms of British membership of the EU. To the surprise of precisely nobody who's been paying any attention, it appears that he's successfully negotiated err... well there's, you know... it's a great deal though !

Here is a summary of the terms our modern day Talleyrand has managed to extract:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... enefit-cap

Social security – an “emergency brake” on in-work benefits for up to four years if there is pressure on a particular member state, which would have to be approved by the EU council; child benefit would be indexed to the level of the member state where the child resides.

Child benefit – Cameron’s proposal to stop EU workers being able to claim benefits on behalf of children living abroad was watered down. Instead, the UK will be able to alter the amount by taking into account the living standards in the country where the child is from.

European integration – in an attempt to allay Conservative fears about “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”, Tusk offered a declaration that the UK is “not committed to further political integration into the European Union”.

Other immigration measures – member states can take further action against sham marriages and fraudulent immigration claims; member states can take action against citizens who represent a serious threat to security.

• Economic governance – British taxpayers’ money can never be liable to support the eurozone; supervision of financial institutions in non-eurozone countries will remain a matter for their national governments. But the UK will have to pledge not to “create obstacles” to deeper integration in the eurozone, a clause aimed at meeting French demands that the British do not have a veto over measures to safeguard the single currency.

Competitiveness – a clear long-term commitment to increasing competitiveness and taking concrete steps towards better regulation and reducing administrative burdens. The European commission is charged with setting targets for “reducing [the] burden” of EU regulation on business, although Tusk does not specify any policy areas.

Sovereignty – a red-card system to allow national parliaments making up more than 55% of votes on the council to be able to veto EU legislation; spells out that “ever closer union” cannot be used to justify more political integration.

Needless to say, none of these things make any difference to our relationship with the EU:

The so-called 'emergency break' is something that we have to apply for permission from the Commission to use, and doesn't actually prevent us from having to pay in-work benefits for the full 4 years. Not that it matters in the slightest anyway since EU migrants, unlike their non-EU counterparts, are not attracted here by benefits, and we're about to massively boost the minimum wage, which will offset any meagre effects this policy might have. Quite why anybody cares about this I have no idea

The red card system thingie is just a joke. It would require 16 member state parliaments to hold votes on it in order for this to be enforced. That alone is probably impossible. These votes all have to be held within a 6 week period from the announcement of the relevant EU legislation. This is certainly impossible. What's more, because anything that could conceivably be controversial enough to warrant 16 national parliaments actually doing this would need to have been agreed by the Council of Ministers, it means that 16 national parliaments will have to vote against the wishes of their own governing parties. William Hague has been quoted as saying something to the effect that the Commission could pass a law for the killing of the firstborn and it's very unlikely that this mechanism would be able to prevent it.

The stuff about competitiveness and 'ever closer union' is just waffle and hyperbole. It has no legal implications and no standing in EU treaties. In fact, none of this stuff has any standing in treaties, meaning that any of the 'achievements' could well prove to be a mirage the first time they're subjected to challenge in the courts, and probably will be. Since the prospect of any treaty change has already been ruled out any time before 2020 it means that in all probability most of the leaders who have reluctantly agreed to the meagre terms that Cameron has extracted will be out of office by then, and their successors are unlikely to feel bound by them.

What a joke. If this is all he's come back with then he may as well not have bothered. Sadly, since nobody is really paying attention he'll probably get away with it at the referendum.

And of course this is not the agreement, it's just the initial starting point - basically what enough leaders have agreed to discuss. So we don't actually yet know what will get the agreement of the 27 other member states yet.

The referendum was a Cameron PR move, and always was. Only afterwards was any thought put to what could be negotiated. And clearly it was never going to be fundamental.

There is something there, and it does in some ways improve the relationship - and other countries can also get the same rights. But it won't be a "Treaty".

I hope that we stay in, because I think that the "independence" we'd get is not that great as we will still want market access so will need to apply the same standards and regulations in many areas.

I'm voting to leave. In truth I was always leaning that way in any case, but I did want to wait and see what we actually got before making my mind up. As it is, we've got nothing. The only thing that I can see which might make any meaningful difference to anything is the agreement to prevent non-EU spouses to get the right to work under the EEA regulations (this is a huge source of abuse in the immigration system which may be resolvable), but ultimately this is a trivial issue that would be solved in a more comprehensive fashion if we leave anyway.

The EU is heading in a direction that I don't want to follow. In truth there isn't a status quo option on the ballot. Either we get out and take a jump into the unknown but at least regain the ability to kick out our rulers or we stay in and end up submitting to ever greater centralisation and undermine our democracy. I'm willing to take a chance on the former to avoid the latter, and I don't especially care about the economic risks.

What annoys me about this whole 'renegotiation' farce is the the insult to our intelligence. Exactly how stupid does Cameron think we are ? I suppose there is going to be a certain amusement in watching all the fake-Eurosceptic Tories trying to keep a straight face while they praise Cameron's deal to the skies for the sake of their careers, but when the fun wears off we'll more than likely be left with a resurgent UKIP and a slow-burning constitutional crisis.

Sassenach wrote: I'm willing to take a chance on the former to avoid the latter, and I don't especially care about the economic risks.

Well, I do care about the economic risks.

That's fine, it's a perfectly rational position, albeit one I disagree with. I'm not convinced that the risks are as great as they're made out to be by any stretch, but even if I was then I'd still lean towards coming out. In the long run we can cope with any economic turbulence that leaving the EU might cause, whereas we could never recover from surrendering our democracy.

What does surprise me is that, as a socialist, you're not more concerned about the fact that EU membership makes it that much harder to ever enact your agenda.

Sassenach wrote:That's fine, it's a perfectly rational position, albeit one I disagree with. I'm not convinced that the risks are as great as they're made out to be by any stretch, but even if I was then I'd still lean towards coming out. In the long run we can cope with any economic turbulence that leaving the EU might cause, whereas we could never recover from surrendering our democracy.

I'm not sure how we have "surrendered" our democracy. We can come out, and we can choose to come out later. And while we are in, we should be doing more to improve on the democratic aspects of the EU - more powers to the Parliament and less to the Council of Ministers & Commissioners.

Our democracy is far from perfect anyway. Our system means that in the last 10 years we've had two governments voted for by 25% of the electorate. Local democracy is still being undermined and eroded (we are now seeing what a sham the "Northern Powerhouse" and city devolution is).

What does surprise me is that, as a socialist, you're not more concerned about the fact that EU membership makes it that much harder to ever enact your agenda.

I think it is harder, but at the same time that means any gains would be more concrete. We have the Social Chapter, which is a start.

On the other hand, I see why some people want us out, and it's to "free" capitalism. Which means worse conditions for employees.

I'm not sure how we have "surrendered" our democracy. We can come out, and we can choose to come out later. And while we are in, we should be doing more to improve on the democratic aspects of the EU - more powers to the Parliament and less to the Council of Ministers & Commissioners.

People have been talking airily about reforming the EU for decades, nothing is ever achieved. In fact the direction of travel is quite clear, there's going to be greater concentration of power in the centre whether the peoples of Europe want it or not. Ask a Greek whether democracy has been surrendered and see what kind of an answer you get.

The European Parliament is not really a democratic institution for the simple reason that there's no such thing as a European demos. It's a forum for elite stitch-ups that doesn't have to put up with anything tiresome like public accountability. Giving it greater powers wouldn't change that, not that there's even the slightest chance of the Commission agreeing to cede any meaningful powers to democratic control.

At some point you have to accept that the EU is not going to change, however much we may wish it to.

Our democracy is far from perfect anyway. Our system means that in the last 10 years we've had two governments voted for by 25% of the electorate. Local democracy is still being undermined and eroded (we are now seeing what a sham the "Northern Powerhouse" and city devolution is).

I never claimed that it was perfect. What I do claim though is that it's possible to affect change if the people want it. We really can kick the bastards out. That's simply not the case at the EU level, there's no accountability and the EU elites like it that way and have no intention of changing it.

If you want to improve local democracy then work hard and elect a party that's committed to doing that. It shouldn't be too difficult. Labour will inevitably get back in power in the end (sooner if you ditch Corbyn). If enough Labour people can be convinced that local devolution is a cause worth fighting for then within no more than 15 years it could be implemented. We're going to be waiting an awful lot longer than that before we ever see a democratic EU.

I think it is harder, but at the same time that means any gains would be more concrete. We have the Social Chapter, which is a start.

On the other hand, I see why some people want us out, and it's to "free" capitalism. Which means worse conditions for employees.

There's nothing in the social chapter that couldn't be legislated for by a Labour government. Why do we need EU directives to protect worker's rights ? If you want it then fight for it, convince enough of your fellow citizens to go along and it can be done.

It strikes me that left-wing enthusiasm for the EU is essentially just defeatism. You don't believe that it's possible to win the argument within the UK to enact your program democratically so you'd prefer a benign dictator to come along and impose it for you instead. The problem with benign dictators of course is that sometimes they're not so benign. Perhaps when TTIP is signed into law you'll come to realise the error of your thinking. Tony Benn (a man I seldom find myself in agreement with) had it right on this one: "better a bad parliament than a good king". We're going to regret subsuming our democratic rights into a centralised behemoth run by unaccountable elites.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... id-cameron

I'm beginning to wonder if Cameron is actually trying to win this referendum. So we have to stay in the EU to protect against Russia and North Korea (!) do we ? That's such a feeble argument I'm amazed he feels it worthy of using. Never heard of NATO ?

The EU has nothing to do with the security of Europe, and the only way that it might have any relevance is if they start building up a European army, the thought of which is hardly likely to boost the IN campaign.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... el-figures

Vote Remain or you'll never have a cheap holiday again !

Desperate stuff.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ongress-eu

Vote Remain or lose your maternity pay !

Sassenach wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/brexit-threatens-british-workers-rights-maternity-leave-holiday-frances-ogrady-tuc-trades-union-congress-eu

Vote Remain or lose your maternity pay !

I do have grave reservations about the potential for a UK government to roll back employment rights if we leave the EU. It is one Of UKIP's sometimes stated aims, along with all the "red

Not for nothing has the Working Time Directive been a hot potato in the UK since the 1990s. With further restrictions on unions in the TU Bill, I can see the way the wind is blowing.

As we both know, the EU directives that establish statutory maternity and holiday pay are implemented in the UK by way of either an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument which formally incorporates them into UK law. If we were to leave the EU tomorrow they'd still be UK law. What this means is the PM Osborne (or whoever) would have to stand up in Parliament and announce that he was going to revoke our rights to paid holidays. The Tories would be out of office in a heartbeat. Even Jeremy Corbyn could get himself elected to government in those circumstances. Hell, I might even consider voting Labour.

The key point is that we'd have the opportunity to kick the bastards out and replace them with a government who could legislate renewed employment rights.

Sassenach wrote:As we both know, the EU directives that establish statutory maternity and holiday pay are implemented in the UK by way of either an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument which formally incorporates them into UK law. If we were to leave the EU tomorrow they'd still be UK law. What this means is the PM Osborne (or whoever) would have to stand up in Parliament and announce that he was going to revoke our rights to paid holidays. The Tories would be out of office in a heartbeat. Even Jeremy Corbyn could get himself elected to government in those circumstances. Hell, I might even consider voting Labour.

The key point is that we'd have the opportunity to kick the bastards out and replace them with a government who could legislate renewed employment rights.

Would they demolish it all in one go? Not if they have any brains. Would they start to erode it over time, and so be less likely to cause such a reaction? I think that is more likely.

So how many years do you think it's going to be before we get another Labour government ? I'm going to say 10 years tops (or maybe 9 I guess, given that we've already had almost a full year of the current government). These things are cyclical, and employment rights are the sort of thing that affect everybody and which (crucially) can determine how a lot of people vote. It's very unlikely that any Tory government would want to risk undermining them too much, and even if they did we'd eventually elect a new government that could change it.

Now consider the situation in Greece. They elected a socialist government and nothing changed. It was impossible for anything to change because their entire polity is controlled by the centralised EU institutions which were making decisions which were not for their benefit and over which they have no control.

Is there a way to go half-way? It seems like the choice is either full EU member or not. Is there something in the middle, like core EU membership without some details? Or something like that? Or is that contrary to the very concept?