The Student Room Group

Angela Merkel rejects EU reform

She said she may agree to reform some business regulation not specifiying what but outright rejected any major reform to treaties and specifcally said no reform to immigration

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26362034

So where does this leave the Tories and Labour it appears the UK has to be IN or OUT as that reform is no longer an option. Can the Tories and Labour really now postpone a referendum when reform is not possible

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
She said no reform without something back from the UK. That's what negotiation is. She said if Britain wants reform it needs to be fully engaged in the EU and not sulking on the sidelines as it tends to do.

But she stopped short of committing to specific reforms and said it had to be a "step by step" process.

Beginning her address in English, before delivering the main part of her speech in German, she said: "Some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of alleged or actual British wishes. I am afraid they are in for a disappointment."

"Others are expecting the exact opposite and they are hoping that I will deliver the clear and simple message here in London that the rest of Europe is not prepared to pay almost any price to keep Britain in the European Union. I am afraid these hopes will be dashed."
Reply 2
Avatar for Ace123
Ace123
OP
2
Original post by gladders
She said no reform without something back from the UK. That's what negotiation is. She said if Britain wants reform it needs to be fully engaged in the EU and not sulking on the sidelines as it tends to do.


here are Merkel's exact words:

"Some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of alleged or actual British wishes. I am afraid they are in for a disappointment''

She explicitly said there would be no major reforms
Reply 3
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
Original post by Ace123
here are Merkel's exact words:

"Some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of alleged or actual British wishes. I am afraid they are in for a disappointment''

She explicitly said there would be no major reforms


And following that, she said what I quoted. She is setting her terms but not slamming shut the door. Of course she'd not bend over for the UK; why should she? It has to be of mutual benefit. We'd be doing the exact same thing in her shoes.
Reply 4
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by Ace123
She said she may agree to reform some business regulation not specifiying what but outright rejected any major reform to treaties and specifcally said no reform to immigration

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26362034

So where does this leave the Tories and Labour it appears the UK has to be IN or OUT as that reform is no longer an option. Can the Tories and Labour really now postpone a referendum when reform is not possible


I don't see the surprise here.

She has stated that she will likely engage in some economic reform but that Britain will also have to pay a price (which is what negotiation is so should have been expected) and that there will be no immigration reform (again, not remotely a surprise).

If there is a referendum then there will be the option to leave.
Reply 5
Avatar for Old_Simon
Old_Simon
12
Lol I do not know how she has the cheek to talk about regulation and red tape. France and Germany are both notorious for both those things and have infected the whole EU project with the Continental Post Napoleonic regime of state interference.
Original post by gladders
She said no reform without something back from the UK. That's what negotiation is. She said if Britain wants reform it needs to be fully engaged in the EU and not sulking on the sidelines as it tends to do.


I'd say our substantial contribution financially to the EU was something but hey ho.

It's basically more of the same: "Pay up the hefty membership fees but also **** you you don't get any benefit in return", if I may paraphrase crudely.
Reply 7
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
Original post by Studentus-anonymous
I'd say our substantial contribution financially to the EU was something but hey ho.


You expect the Chancellor of Germany, leader of a country whose contributions to the EU are by far larger than ours to sympathise with our sense of entitlement?

It's basically more of the same: "Pay up the hefty membership fees but also **** you you don't get any benefit in return", if I may paraphrase crudely.


This is where you sound silly. Argue that the EU is faulty, sure. Argue that it's not in our interests, fine. Maybe you're right.

But to argue that the EU is something we get no benefit from is downright ridiculous. Are the benefits outweighed by the costs? Arguable. Could we do better out? Arguable. But does the EU incur some benefits? Absolutely undeniable.
Reply 8
Avatar for the mezzil
the mezzil
3
Time to leave then.
Reply 9
Avatar for thesabbath
thesabbath
2
Original post by the mezzil
Time to leave then.


Indeed. There are still a lot of people who believe that the UK should stay in the EU, with the caveat that various reforms are needed, generally involving the repatriation of various powers.

It is important that they understand that the EU does not do reform, is committed inexorably to ever closer union, and this is not therefore a realistic option. David Cameron is lying to us.
Reply 10
Avatar for Mockery
Mockery
17
The thread title is misleading, she mentioned several times that some reform is necessary and important due to the significance of the UK being a full member, not just for the rest of the EU but for Germany itself.

She made it clear that free movement between EU member states is not up for reform, as it simply doesn't need to be. What she has hinted towards is potential reform in the benefit opportunities to immigrants. This is the key issue when we talk about immigration and certainly something that we could and should have a huge say in.
Reply 11
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
Original post by thesabbath
Indeed. There are still a lot of people who believe that the UK should stay in the EU, with the caveat that various reforms are needed, generally involving the repatriation of various powers.

It is important that they understand that the EU does not do reform, is committed inexorably to ever closer union, and this is not therefore a realistic option. David Cameron is lying to us.


The EU does reform constantly. There's tons of Treaties as testament to that. In 1979 the European Parliament was elected. With Maastricht came subsidiarity, with Amsterdam came a stronger role for national Parliaments. With Lisbon a formal means of a country withdrawing for the Union was laid out. And through all of those the powers of the elected European Parliament have grown and grown.
Original post by gladders
The EU does reform constantly. There's tons of Treaties as testament to that. In 1979 the European Parliament was elected. With Maastricht came subsidiarity, with Amsterdam came a stronger role for national Parliaments. With Lisbon a formal means of a country withdrawing for the Union was laid out. And through all of those the powers of the elected European Parliament have grown and grown.


There should have been a referendum on each and every one of those treaties.

The EU Empire's core doctrine: once powers have been handed over to Brussels and found their way into its acquis communautaire they can never be returned. Reform is not on the table.

We have to make a choice between the United States of Europe and a sovereign UK. Cameron needs to stop his lies that there is a third way.
Reply 13
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
Original post by thesabbath
There should have been a referendum on each and every one of those treaties.


It's not constitutional required, so 'should' comes down to your opinion. Constitutionally the approval of Parliament is all that suffices in the UK. It's not something the EU can help.

The EU Empire's core doctrine: once powers have been handed over to Brussels and found their way into its acquis communautaire they can never be returned. Reform is not on the table.


They can, actually; it requires, unfortunately, the unanimity of all the Member States. So good luck with that. That's why the EU is so useful - it negates the necessity of unanimity on some areas so that things can actually get done.

We have to make a choice between the United States of Europe and a sovereign UK. Cameron needs to stop his lies that there is a third way.


The only way a US of Europe could come about is with the knowing, formal and public consent of the UK. It is entirely impossible such a thing could occur without public consent.
Original post by gladders
It's not constitutional required, so 'should' comes down to your opinion. Constitutionally the approval of Parliament is all that suffices in the UK. It's not something the EU can help.


Labour in their 2005 manifesto on which they were elected pledged a referendum on the EU Constitution. The Netherlands and France rejected the EU Constitution via referendums. It was then rebranded by the EU as the "Lisbon Treaty" and forced through. Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty and were forced to vote again until they got it right. David Cameron gave a Cast Iron Guarantee that he would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and weaselled out once elected. Nick Clegg promised a referendum and has changed his tune now in office. The EU and its supporters don't do democracy. They know we'll give the "wrong" answer by voting to leave.

They can, actually; it requires, unfortunately, the unanimity of all the Member States. So good luck with that. That's why the EU is so useful - it negates the necessity of unanimity on some areas so that things can actually get done.


Oh, pardon me for not bowing to the glorious EUSSR. There was me thinking I lived in a sovereign democratic nation, not a vassal state of a dictatorial empire.

The only way a US of Europe could come about is with the knowing, formal and public consent of the UK. It is entirely impossible such a thing could occur without public consent.


Your assurances, like Ted Heath's lies about us joining a "common market" are worth nothing. We've just demonstrated that the EU doesn't do democracy.
Original post by gladders
She said no reform without something back from the UK. That's what negotiation is. She said if Britain wants reform it needs to be fully engaged in the EU and not sulking on the sidelines as it tends to do.


The UK sulks because it gets shafted by a bunch of member states who do not contribute.

Original post by Fizzel
Opting out in a referendum would be madness. Plain and simply, you'd have to be an idiot to think we'd be better of outside the single market than in it. Most people who entertain the idea of leaving do so on the basis of a trade deal being in place instead, which the tone of her speech suggests is not something the EU want to do.

She also didn't say reform was not possible but that if we wanted reform we had to do as Germany do and take a bend the EU to our will from within not like a petulant child on the sidelines.

She was quite positive about the EU from an economic point of view anyway. The EU red tape for business is usually one of the biggest complaints.


You seriously hold the belief that no trade deal would be put in place?

Even if it wasn't held by the EU as a whole, it would be held by the individual members. Think of all the services we provide, the German cars we buy, the French food we import and the financial prevalence of London. It's the hub of Europe - it's the most important city the EU has.

The problems with the EU need sorting; especially business ones. The French get a huge portion of the EU agricultural budget (the largest of the lot) to the detriment of the English and German farmers when arguably, it's the country that least needs it for development.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm# has a good tool from a few years ago highlighting expenditure. We put in so much when you consider the returns - look at the Spanish regional aid finance for example. That's for 2007 which is pre-bust, forget about now when the Spaniards are severely poorly off! It's the same for their agriculture. In that infographic, we are the 4th highest contributors to the EU. Why is their such a big discrepancy in returns when we pay our due? We shouldn't have to contribute to Spanish farms or poor villages - we would be better off using the money on our own.

The problem with the EU is that we have accepted countries into the fold who are not capable of self-sustenance or even genuine productivity. We shouldn't have countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Spain, Greece or Italy in the union - they are so badly in debt with corrupt governments and uncooperative people that it's a joke that we even entertained their entry!

The only way the EU would work in its current state is with a unified treasury and equivalent taxes set across the board. That would require unified legislation and you'd end up forming one giant new country. That's the reason the Greeks went bust - they lived a period throughout the recession practically mocking the rest of us until their bubble burst and they came crashing to the ground. They lived the high-life with low taxes and high social expenditure and when that had to stop because of the recession they started rioting in the streets.

I won't pretend to understand how the EU fares with world economics, or economics in general, but when you put those statistics in front of me I find it difficult to believe we would actually be that worse off.

At least we wouldn't have to give prisoners the vote.
Original post by Ace123
She said she may agree to reform some business regulation not specifiying what but outright rejected any major reform to treaties and specifcally said no reform to immigration


Are you sure? She said...

He added that EU rules on freedom of movement needed to change to ensure people could not move from country to country to sign up for welfare payments.

Mrs Merkel said the UK and Germany could pass laws to limit this problem, saying: "Where there's a will, there's a way."

She said freedom of movement was intended to allow people to work in different countries, not "having immigration into social systems".


This would reform immigration (to some degree, at least). This would prevent migrants from immediately aquiring benefits/help from the NHS/*something that everyone says is a problem*.

Original post by Ace123
here are Merkel's exact words:

"Some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of alleged or actual British wishes. I am afraid they are in for a disappointment''

She explicitly said there would be no major reforms


Wrong (see bold). She has said that the speech would not be there to help the UK with every wish it had, but rather with some of the wishes. As stated earlier, this is likely to include immigration.

Original post by Ace123
So where does this leave the Tories and Labour it appears the UK has to be IN or OUT as that reform is no longer an option. Can the Tories and Labour really now postpone a referendum when reform is not possible


Reform is not an option, but negotiations still are (see above).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by thesabbath
There should have been a referendum on each and every one of those treaties.

The EU Empire's core doctrine: once powers have been handed over to Brussels and found their way into its acquis communautaire they can never be returned. Reform is not on the table.


You've contradicted yourself. You acknowledge that these reforms have occured, ''There should have been a referendum on each and every one of those treaties.'', yet you say the following: ''Reform is not on the table''.

Original post by thesabbath
We have to make a choice between the United States of Europe and a sovereign UK. Cameron needs to stop his lies that there is a third way.


Merkel herself said that the UK could see things change in its favour if it were to negotiate changes to legislation (or whatever needs changing) with the EU. Sweeping reform is not possible, but significant change is.
Original post by SHallowvale
You've contradicted yourself. You acknowledge that these reforms have occured, ''There should have been a referendum on each and every one of those treaties.'', yet you say the following: ''Reform is not on the table''.


The direction of travel is one way only (ever closer union). Reform would be going the other way. That is not on the table.

Merkel herself said that the UK could see things change in its favour if it were to negotiate changes to legislation (or whatever needs changing) with the EU. Sweeping reform is not possible, but significant change is.


The leader of a German dominated Empire would say that, wouldn't she.

What significant changes do you think the UK can achieve (bearing in mind that they have to be agreed with the 27 other member-states)?
Original post by thesabbath
The direction of travel is one way only (ever closer union). Reform would be going the other way. That is not on the table.


This is an incorrect use of the word ''reform''. Reform does not mean going 'backwards'. Reform means to, ''make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it''. Regardless of what you may think of reforms within the EU (say, whether they did indeed improve things), they are reforms none the less. This goes against what you initially said (that the EU does not do reform).

Original post by thesabbath
The leader of a German dominated Empire would say that, wouldn't she.


How does Germany dominate the EU, or should I say the nazi-communist-fascist-anti-white-anti-british-nazi-dictatorship empire that we are slaves to?

Original post by thesabbath
What significant changes do you think the UK can achieve (bearing in mind that they have to be agreed with the 27 other member-states)?


I'm not aware of anything too specific. It has been suggested, that the UK could 'opt-out' of things such as the Working Time Directive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive. This would give, say, the NHS more control over how long nurses/doctors work.

Opting out is not impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you