EU concessions for Cameron?

Should the EU give Cameron what he wants?
He wants more influence in the EU zone (which Britain doesn't participate in).
He wants the banks in London given special protection (to do their money laundering).
He wants EU immigration made stricter (for the first time a step backwards since 1961).
All this to pacify his own party's EU sceptics.

So, should the EU give him the concessions he needs?

I say no. Simple: GOODBYE MR. CAMERON. GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDENCE. DON'T FORGET TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON YOUR WAY OUT.

And, just before the door slams shut, I'd shout out to him: GO STICK YER TONGUE UP SOME YANKEE ARSE!!!

The best solution for everyone is a deal that doesn't really entail anything but is presented as a solid compromise by both sides.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Should the EU give Cameron what he wants?
He wants more influence in the EU zone (which Britain doesn't participate in).
He wants the banks in London given special protection (to do their money laundering).
He wants EU immigration made stricter (for the first time a step backwards since 1961).
All this to pacify his own party's EU sceptics.

So, sh ...[text shortened]... ust before the door slams shut, I'd shout out to him: GO STICK YER TONGUE UP SOME YANKEE ARSE!!!

I think every UKIP supporter is hoping precisely this will happen.

However, KN is more likely to be correct.

Originally posted by shavixmir
All this to pacify his own party's EU sceptics.

You are aware that UKIP won the European elections?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You are aware that UKIP won the European elections?

Roll on the vote ,sooner we (Britain ) leave the better.

Originally posted by phil3000
Roll on the vote ,sooner we (Britain ) leave the better.

What do you imagine will change for the better when the UK leaves the EU?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you imagine will change for the better when the UK leaves the EU?

My Country not being led by Germany

Originally posted by shavixmir
Should the EU give Cameron what he wants?
He wants more influence in the EU zone (which Britain doesn't participate in).
He wants the banks in London given special protection (to do their money laundering).
He wants EU immigration made stricter (for the first time a step backwards since 1961).
All this to pacify his own party's EU sceptics.

So, sh ...[text shortened]... ust before the door slams shut, I'd shout out to him: GO STICK YER TONGUE UP SOME YANKEE ARSE!!!

One man's money laundering, is another's protection against unjust taxation.

Originally posted by phil3000
My Country not being led by Germany

Your country isn't led by Germany. If we leave the EU we will lose influence all over the place. We are in a no win situation now because Cameron can't keep control over his own party. If the result of the referendum is that we leave Europe we will find that we have no influence in Europe and far less with the Americans as they tend to want something on the table in bargaining talks. If we vote to stay in Europe then the case for a peripheral position, which is what suits us, is weakened. It becomes harder to opt out of things.

British politics seems to be stuck in stupid mode at the moment. The Conservative party is prey to people that even Thatcher would look on with embarrassment while Labour, due to their inability to produce a party constitution that prevents this, is slipping into yet another left-right civil war.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You are aware that UKIP won the European elections?

You are aware that I have no idea what you're talking about?

Originally posted by shavixmir
You are aware that I have no idea what you're talking about?

I just think it is difficult to characterise Cameron's actions simply as an appeal to a Eurosceptic element in his party, when 4.4m people voted UKIP in the European elections.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you imagine will change for the better when the UK leaves the EU?

There are any number of EU laws that apply to the UK domestic market (and which the UK Government - Labour, Coalition and Conservative - did not support at the time of their introduction) which could be repealed or amended.

Some would argue that having the ability to do this is 'change for the better'.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
There are any number of EU laws that apply to the UK domestic market (and which the UK Government - Labour, Coalition and Conservative - did not support at the time of their introduction) which could be repealed or amended.

Some would argue that having the ability to do this is 'change for the better'.

Undoubtedly true. However, since the UK needs access to the EU market much more than vice-versa, this effectively leaves the UK in a position where it is forced to accept EU legislation and treaties concerning important economic matters in a way analogous to non-EU EEA members currently. So the UK could drop, say, some of the fairly minor environmental regulations and determine e.g. its own fishing quota, but it loses much influence in determining EU-wide economic policies which it will end up being forced to adopt anyway. One of the major advantages for the UK would be that they would be able to reduce or abolish agricultural subsidies (currently about half of the EU budget), which would save the UK taxpayer a lot of money. However, I don't think the Tories intend to exploit this opportunity.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Undoubtedly true. However, since the UK needs access to the EU market much more than vice-versa, this effectively leaves the UK in a position where it is forced to accept EU legislation and treaties concerning important economic matters in a way analogous to non-EU EEA members currently. So the UK could drop, say, some of the fairly minor environmental ...[text shortened]... K taxpayer a lot of money. However, I don't think the Tories intend to exploit this opportunity.

Although, unless they intend to wipe out the indigenous farming industry they'll have to pay the subsidies anyway.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Although, unless they intend to wipe out the indigenous farming industry they'll have to pay the subsidies anyway.

And that's exactly what they should do, just like they "wiped out" the indigenous weaving industry.