UK's Cameron rejects hard Eurosceptic wing of party

"It's no use giving in to the world - we've got to be unashamedly bold and hard-headed about pursuing our national interests," said the Conservative prime minister.

We aren't giving in to the world, but we are being governed by the eussr, and the over regulation, and overbearing manner in which this corruption ridden democratically deficient entity is governed is not in our best interests. We have very little say in any of the edicts coming from the unelected failed politicians in the commission, Ashton is a joke her name is seldom mentioned. It is true that the damage of a no vote is incalculable, because there is no means of calculating the good it will do for our nation. Freedom to trade with the world outside the eussr will be a huge boost to our economy, and we will not lose out on trade with eussr nations because we have a negative trade balance with them, they need our trade. Clearly the monies saved by not having to subsidise most of the european continental nations will also be a boost for us, although the Germans and french will have less money to spend without our contributions.

The eussr has had its day it is becoming a burdon on world trade, and is impoverishing the citizens of the previously free nations within it day by day, only politicians who gain on a personal level see it as being a worthwhile project.

Cameron is arguing that the national interest requires the UK to be represented at the highest level in international organisations, i.e., at the "top table". He asserts that part of his ambitions for the UK "is our place at the top table. At the UN. The Commonwealth. NATO. The WTO. The G8. The G20 and yes - the EU".

Either Cameron is stupid, or he believes that we are totally stupid and what's worse that we believe his lies.

For Cameron to say that the UK can be at the "top table" of both the EU and the WTO is idiotic. Trade policy is an exclusive competence of the commission.

When it comes to dealing with the WTO, the negotiations are decided at EU level by consensus, and we are then represented at the WTO "top table" by the EC.

Membership of the EU gives us access to the "top tables" of EU institutions, but the fact of our membership excludes us from the WTO top table. We can sit at one, or the other, but not both.

This is repeated across the board. When it comes to the UN, even where the EU is not directly represented as of right (and in an increasing number of cases it is), we agree to be bound by a pre-agreed "common position" and do not represent our own national interests.

We are not even represented on international bodies. For instance, when it comes to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, we have no direct membership and our interests are represented exclusively by the EC.

The vital North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which jointly manages the fisheries in the region, the UK interest is represented by the EC, and we are not even parties to the enabling treaty, the EU having taken over our seat.

Cameron should be asserting that we can hold "top table" positions in a range of international organisations – in many instances, it is a question of "either/or". If he is doing so out of ignorance, then it is a terrifying prospect to have a prime minister who does not know such things. If he is lying to us, that is deeply insulting. But that makes him either a fool or a liar, and I don't know which is more objectionable.

Of course, a case could be made that, by assuming the "top table" position in the EU is worth the sacrifice of reduced direct representation in other organisations, such as the WTO. This is not one with which I would agree, but the case can be made.

But Mr Cameron is not making that case. He is advancing an argument which is deeply flawed and, if advanced knowingly, would be fundamentally dishonest. Upon this, though, Mr Cameron builds his case further, stating:
My argument – and the argument of this government – is that to succeed, it's no use just hiding away from the world; we've got to roll our sleeves up and compete in it. And it's no use just giving in to the world – we've got to be unashamedly bold and hard-headed about pursuing our national interests.
With that, he rejects the "Little Englander" approach, arguing that he is "ambitious about pursuing our national interest and standing up for our values". But, in seeking the claustrophobic embrace of the EU, he is in fact demonstrating that he is something far worse – a narrow "little European".

Well indeed so. The "flat earthers" are welcome to their views of course; but why should we be lead out of the EU just because a few people say so? However one feels about the EU if you are out than you just have to do as you are told without having any real part in making the rules that will apply to the UK operating outside the EU. And just in case you feel that the UK can return to the days of of the Empire in splensid isolation from Europe the cost of this folly will be felt by most and pretty quickly. Incidentally the whole of Europe opearates as a fully integrated business system dependent on a myriad of company relationships; not as a bunch of idiosyncratic prima donna netion states well past their sell by dates. Politics to the politiciand - but leave business to us.

The EU should make a small but important change in the Treaty: we need a paragraph about exclusion from the EU.
If a country isn't good enough for the Union, it should be expelled.

Such undemocratic, corrupted, economically and socially unstable country as the UKssr will be the first candidate.

We need this treaty change for the case the UKssr will vote "yes".

There is a common misconception here, that the Commission decides the rules. They don't they merely propose them, decisions are taken jointly by the council (ie. ministers from all 27 member countries) and the elected European Parliament. It's a bit long-winded and complex, but hardly undemocratic, though we could all see ways of improving the system.
UK has the same influence on the changes as any other member state, though we need to work with others if our elected politicians are to secure the best outcome for UK, Hence my original suggestion that we work with other non-Euro countries to secure a better deal for us all, rather than seeking a special deal for UK, which is less likely to be agreed.
If we leave the EU and still want access to the single market, then we would need a special deal, rather as Norway has now. They have to implement most of the same legislation, but have no say on how it is drawn up, play no part in decision making. They also, incidentally, contribute more per head than we do. Then there would be a democratic deficit.

Barry,

you don't know anything about your country, don't you?

The economy of the UKssr is at death's door:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Budget_Deficit_and_Public_Debt_to_GDP_in_2012_%28for_selected_EU_Members%29.png

Most of the Eurozone states have a stronger economy.

There are two main sources of the social instability in the UKssr:
1) the colonial politics of the British Empire. One should think about uncontrolled immigration BEFORE one occupy another country (for example, India or Ireland)
2) the medieval structure of the British society. You can't have a stable society in the 21 century, if your country still ruled by nobility.

So, today you just reap the fruits of your country's past. You can name it justice.

Peter the commission frequently releases edicts that countries have to follow, it reports countries that don't follow them to the ECJ, it is the only body in the eussr that can introduce any laws, and the eussr parliament only ribber stamps them, without the veto a single country can not stop any law which would be damaging to it, or for that matter other nations. The corruption, and the democratic deficit are palpable and even politicians refer to this as fact.

So, with all member states enjoying the right of withdrawal, why not go for it right now?

Very funny in this debate that the ones who are depicting the Eu members with the darkest colors happen to be the ones with the most indulgeance when it comes to the british current situation, I wonder from which coutry they themselves happen to come from.

We need to free ourselves from the UKSSR with is corrupted to the bones with all their MP's expenses, falsification of documents for illegal wars, phone taping in the media, off shore teaming up of the criminal bankers with the police, absence of proportional or regional elections, private school education system, fight against human rights, worshiping of money above any kind of morals... Regarding the current economic health of the UKSSR, a Brexit would equally be a salvation for the whole continent, as any indicator shows.
Not only would an expelling of the UKSSR preserve the EU from this Lord quangocracy's influence, but we would also help the UKSSR itself loosing all sorts of access to interational deciding institutions for the good of the whole world (and ultimatly the british sheep themselves too).

PlEASE,PLEASE DO!

Perhaps the 'Sustainer' of the thesis that "the UKSSR" is corrupt should reflect that what is corrupted to the bones is probably the very party whose MEPs he may be happy to support. Such may even possibly have a dismal performance in the running of that Parliament, its committees or working groups but an excellence in drawing our taxpayers money for little work. They do sound out a lot though...

Maybe they ought also to be engaging a bit more with the citizens in the UK they "represent" to explain what works and how to influence our sovereign national governments to be more effective in the areas they share in responsibility at the European level. It was an old British saying that people who live in glass houses should refrain from using elasticated slings... Or perhaps it's really the UKSSR of the UK that needs to be re-reformed.

Please do not patronize all us foreigners or natives who study your endeavours and pub like habitats with your ill researched and usually ill founded "Euro Myths".

Or, again please give us more mirth as you espouse the tilting at windmills as a national passtime.

The system of government we have includes Europe, the Nation (perhaps even minus Scotland), the County and Unitary Councils, District Councils and Parishes - and we have all to understand what they all do and we must play our part in working the system for our mutual benefit. Being constructive as a citizen is often very useful in any community!

Actually, as your prime minister so eloquently stated, the UK can not afford to withdraw without paying a heavy price.

Earl what heavy price would that be, um failed politicians would not get jobs to boost their pension pots perhaps. Maybe having to make new laws rather than rubber stamp lowest common denomination one size fits all over regulation from the unelected commission would be to onerous for the poor politicos.

The UK can't afford to stay in the eussr with its very heavy price.

Leaving the EU would damage the UK according to the Eurofanatics. Apparently, leaving the EU would result in fewer jobs and higher prices.

When it comes to letting the EU determine for us what trade agreements we sign up to and what conditions we have imposed on us, all is not as rosy in the bloc!

News filtering out from Canada reveals that the trade agreement currently being negotiated between Ottawa and Brussels – the biggest deal for Canada since its agreement with the US – is in trouble. Canada’s Globe and Mail explains that:

Canadian trade negotiators are running up against bureaucratic infighting among European Union officials, who are backing away from earlier commitments in talks for a Canada-EU trade deal – increasing the chances Stephen Harper will return home empty-handed after a week-long trip to the region.

One of the Canadian negotiators has gone on to reveal that:

The EU side seems increasingly incapable of getting its act together to close a deal. The various competing directorates within the EU are fighting each other, which is leading to erratic moves such as backing away from earlier commitments – actions that are on the verge of bad faith. The EU has to demonstrate it’s serious about cutting a deal.

While the EU exhibits bad faith with the Canadians, the UK is powerless to hammer out a deal independently with the Canadians because we are not at that Top Table, so beloved of David Cameron, and do not have the right to agree anything outside the EU’s common position. This is British influence in the EU laid bare.

It is against this backdrop that, according to Cameron, the UK would be harmed by extracting itself from the EU’s political structures.

Any bets on how long the EU/US trade talks are going take? 10 years? 20?

Agriculture & pharmaceutical agreements alone will take 5 years!

Yeah, it will be really painful leaving behind a grouping that can’t get its act together on anything other than how to afford itself ever more control over us.

h/t AM

Dan Hannan "The EU is the reason we DON'T have free trade with North America" http://bit.ly/11lF7Bg

THE EU IS RESPONSIBLE FOR US LOSING MONEY AND JOBS!

Nothing in your responses mentions our DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO CHOOSE to govern ourselves. That, to over 60% of Britons is the most important factor. Countries do not belong to banks, politicians and governments, they belong to the people. You have lost sight of what is important. The EU has grown into an unmanageable horrific monster that devours and then throws our hard earned cash around without asking our consent or opinion. If you want to be a cash cowed slave to bureaucrats all your life Earl, that's up to you. As far as I'm concerned, I'll do everything in my power to get us out of this dictatorship and I am not alone. In my opinion this farce of a democratic entity is no better than the Third Reich or old Soviet Union.

Where is the government, national, regional or international, without a bureaucracy? Bureaucracies, like jails, tend to be more alike than different. It is your view, that the governmental bureaucracy in the UK is less corrupt and insulated than the one in the EU?

I will repeat this again. If you want freedom from foreign Rule Barry, there is going to be a REFERENDUM on an "in" or "out" of the EU. I understand it is in 2015 only it is called the "General Election". Use it as the REFERENDUM you have been denied since 1975.

The only way the United Kingdom can be heard and listened to in the United Nations (especially the Security Council) The Commonwealth. NATO. The WTO. The G8. The G20 and yes - the EU", is to be OUT of the European Union completely and FREE to use our own 'voice' at those meetings, and the only way the people will ever be heard is by using the GENERAL Election as the REFERENDUM they have been denied since 1975.

It matters not if those that are elected have never actually "Governed" this or any Country before, for our elected Governments since 1972/3 have only obeyed EEC/EC/EU legislation since then.

I cannot Barry, make a valid positive argument in favour of remaining in the European Union and it grieves me greatly to see old people, the sick and the needy, the reduction in our Services and Forces all to give the many billions (allegedly saved)to the EU to do the job of Governing OUR Country which we have voted for IN THE PAST to govern this our Country according to its Constitution. WE MUST USE THE GENERAL ELECTION IN 2015 TO GET OURSELVES OUT OF THE EU, We cannot afford to remain in the EU any more.

Again, you do not respond to the continuing importance of regional and international economic institutions that fashion the rules of the game and are basically permanent. On this issue, Cameron's are are sound and fact. Second, the list of reasons for Europe to continue to work for the mutual interest of member states is imposing and has been given by several responders not just me. One vital area for all member states is the protection of national security in the region. The individual military spending and capacity, by the countries of Europe, is dangerously inadequate. Are you advocating that on national security every country in Europe go their own way? If that happened, not only would it be more dangerous but your taxes for military expenditures would go up hugely.

I will give you a short answer Earl Bell. While we are paying our BILLIONS OF BRITISH pounds to the EU, we, and any other country in the EU for that matter, will never have enough money to defend, fight, feed, protect etc our or their own people and Country.

If you haven't worked that out yet, you are deemed to realise that mistake along with other alleged Leaders of other Countries along with out own, later rather than sooner and by then it may be too late for them to survive. Just because we here are an Island does not prevent us from knowing what is happening in continental Countries and how some people in them are suffering.

WOW! Congratulations. I hope you feel better soon. I sure do after that.

uk sceptic do you really think that the eussr has anythijg to do with national security? We have been in NATO for far longer than we have been governed by unelected foreigners in Brussells. The Pentagon is the military headquarters and does not make the policy. Yes America has a big say in what happens in Nato, but that is because it has the majority of the forces used in it, or are you saying that the eussr should tell the americans when to risk its troops lives as well. there are vast swathes of the world not controlled by the eussr although I have no doubt these power hungry political failures that hold the positions in it would like to think they do.

Earl the UK would have more of a say at the top table as an independent nation than it does as a province of the eussr

Europe as you call it, couln't care a toss about the UK. it never has and never will. Can't you see every Country in the EU except Germany is absolutely broke and the people in those Country's are ANGRY?

The idea is to keep them "broke". That way, none can rise up or fight their way out of the mess they are finding themselves in at the moment. We in the UK cannot afford to keep paying billions to the EU. We are an Island nation without any ships to speak of any more. You sure are right in your last sentance but "Europe" couldn't care a toss whether we are in our out of the EU.

Barry, it doesn't make more sense if you yourself write twice at a time the same post. See, your vertiginous lake of arguments could always be used against you.

The UKSSR shares more votes in Brussels than in Nato, and especially has more chances to see its position triumph in the absence of an hegemonic player in Europe, compared with the Transatlantic Alliance hierarchy. What's more (for a fervent defenser as yourself of political resposability and control of decisions by "the" people), the bargainings taking place between bureaucratic diplomaties and chiefs of staff behind the closed doors of Nato's headquaters, as you call them, suffer a far huger democratic deficit than the EU's, and its public debates, legislation and Rule of Law, as well as elections and referenda eventhough one could always critise their imperfections (at least these instituions exist unlike for Nato).

I wonder what possibly could for you be so difficult to understand in this obvious contradiction?

How easily fickle man doth embrace
That flag with twelve stars on blue,
To dislodge a flag that over time
Won the loyalty of those that knew
The brave that fought and paid the price
To keep their flag flying high.
That flag of St George for England
And those that survived know why.

Loyalty and allegiance comes with national flags,
Those too play an important part,
We cannot shed either so easily,
One flag will have to depart.
Is there a choice, a chance to decide
Twixt Country, or the State of EU?
For WE will never embrace that flag
What YOU do, is up to you.

I wouldn't be surprised considering how the UK has for 70 years worked out so far its european integration, that as a result of all Cameron's loony blablabla about membership to the EU, the eurosceptics in the next elections gather thanks to the british system all the right wing votes but no MPs, to the benefit of a Labour cabinet, who could easily abrogate the legislation forcing them to call a referendum which the former (defeated) government wouldn't himself have dared organising in 5 years of power (and why not, join the euro as a result which the usual british delay for any new common european policy). Politics in the Land of her Majesty will always surprise us, that's for sure!

Anne, Have a look at your passport: you so far embrace the EU's flag as much as all members of the EU do since they joined. That is so far the reality everybody can observe and you shouldn't confuse your own fantasies with accompliched history, however much you might be sure everybody think like you.

Anyway hasn't Saint George's flag which you claim to worship so much already changed, ages ago in the UK for the Union Jack? You see everything may sometimes be slightly more complex than you often would put it!

What 70 years are you refering to uk-sceptic, another of your fantasies perhaps. I never asked for the words european union to be placed on my British Passport, if I could get one without that slur I would even pay more to get it. I made sure that the flag on my car licence plates was the British flag the union flag, it's only the union jack when it is on a ship, I wouldn't have the vile rag of the ussr on it.

Don't use the word europe for the eussr because some countries on the area of the globe designated as the continent of europe are sensible enough to stay out of it.

It seems that your whole argument is to try to make out you are clever, and you only end up showing how little you know about the United Kingdom, or the eussr.

Roberto we are all aware that St George never came to Britain, that's old news. Are you saying we should take Normandy, and Brittany from France? Richard the lionheart, prior to the 14th century used the red cross on white background, it was the flag of the knights Templar after all, the kknights hospitaler used a white cross on a black background, and it has been used as the English flag since then. If you undrstood anything at all about heraldry you would know that a lion is only a lion when it is rampant, the so called three lions are actually leopards passant guardant. You clearly are not a scholar of British history, and to be honest the time line that you are trying to bring in to the discussion has no pertinence.

Just for YOU Roberto.

Hold high the Flag of England,
Let it flutter in the breeze,
In honour of our fighting forces,
In those far off foreign fields.
Hoist with pride the Flag of England,
On this St George’s Day,
Wipe not away those gentle tears
That fall on tender cheeks today.

Remember too the Rose of England,
Our National Emblem worn with pride,
A tender Rose of magnificent beauty,
In remembrance of those that died
So far away in distant Afghanistan,
Their loved ones way back home,
Will hold high the Flag of England,
And wear with pride the English Rose.

Let's once make a referendum on the word "subject" written on the passports. How democratic would that be?

UK skeptic we were forced by a bunch of unelected foreigners to have to place the despicable words european union on our passports, as a subject of the United Kingdom I have no concern with that, as a slave of the eussr, I have a problem. Make your mind up Roberto first you claim it has been the flag of georgia since the 14th century now you are trying to claim it before the Knights Templar who incidently used it prior to the crusades. You clearly have a problem with flags so perhaps you should be posting on the frenh site instead telling them that the tricolor the flag of Bonapart should be replaced with the original bourbon flag, a completely white one which to be honest would be very suitable for the french.

Ok, well thank you Barry for your democracy lessons, we now see better what kind of freedom fighter you are, when you claim your indignity not to have been given a whole referendum for the simple words "European Union" written on your passport, allthough you have no problem with the words "subject of the United Kingdom", and this is enough as a reason for you to suddently, not need at all any referundum ever on this matter (the obvious forseeable results of which would for sure have already made these words disappear from the british passports).

Would that also mean you just need to be asked questions about what you personaly have a problem with (or basically is it just that you only fancy voting "no")? Anyway shouldn't there be, in a democracy, quetions asked about what you may not have a problem with and even sometimes referendums leading to answers you personally wouldn't have given?

Strange notions of democracy to be mixing so unapologetically your own personal preferences (in the case at hand the word "subject") and the idea you have of the democratic need for a referendum (were it on a couple of words written on a piece of paper).

Nobody in Europe forced the UK to join. They have been applying for more than 10 years before joining, struggled long with De Gaulle for it, and finally got offered a referendum in which more than 67% of the voters chose to stay in. Many "foreigners" as you call them would have prefered the UK to stay out but Britain only joined because its successive governments were highly determined in making it join.

Uk skeptic why do you find it difficult to understand that being a subject of the UK is what I am, it is where I was born it is my nation. the european Union is not something I have any affinity with, never have never will, just as the nations that were enveloped by the original ussr never had any real affinity with it. As ever with the sheep who are in favour of the eussr you try to make something out of nothing I stated clearly I object to the european union having it's name and flag on British passports I did not choose to be a part of it and would like the possibility of having a passport that signifies that I am British I don't need the european junk to be added to it, because some unelected commissar wanted more propaganda opportunities.

Yes Earl we are all to well aware that due to the creation of the eussr by the americans the eussr adopted part of americas flag.

Before reshaping the british passports in a more democratic version, you'll have to change other arms of your country before the european flag.

Barry Cameron uses a flag for escatological purposes: how uncivilized! Personally I believe that the French have a far more hygienic device for that purpose without the seven gold stars - the bidet- we should not let the side down, should we? Using flags when washing is healthier! Was it not a Briton who invented the u bend for the WC? - even so it was those continentals - the Romans - that perfected the latrine: a better system for that use accepting that their standards were also even in use in the then province of Britannia.