Philip Hammond stated ' "If there is no change at all in the way Europe is governed, no change in the balance of competences between the nation states and the European Union, no resolution of the challenge of how the Eurozone can succeed and coexist with the non-Eurozone - that is not a Europe that can work for Britain in the future, so there must be change, there must be renegotiation."
Hammonds said his government would put it to the British people to decide once there is substantive renegotiation and substantive change in Europe that addresses the concerns that Britain has along with the needs of Europe in a modern world.
He said he would make his recommendation to the British people after a renegotiation is carried out.'
As the leaders of the EU have stated there will be no renegotiation, why is this still being considered by Westminster? Haven't EU leaders (Germany and France from what I can see) stated that things will not change?
'Cameron has promised to try to reshape Britain's EU ties if re-elected next year before giving voters a membership referendum, something opinion polls show could be close.'
Why not make it mandatory to hold the referendum anyway?
'Swiss voters narrowly backed a referendum proposal to bring back strict quotas for immigration from European Union countries.
Final results showed 50.3% voted in favour. The vote invalidates the Swiss-EU agreement on freedom of movement.
Fiercely independent Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but has adopted large sections of EU policy.'
I believe they will be holding a second referendum (like the Irish vote?) in three years time.
'The EU has already suspended negotiations over joint energy, education and research deals with Switzerland, and indicates that it won’t be willing to sign any future agreements until Switzerland’s position on freedom of movement has been clarified.' - does that smack of threatening behaviour from the EU if Switzerland doesn't tow the line?
One poster stated something I hadn't heard before:
'I see the politicians are still quoting the often abused statement that “free movement is core to the European Project”
They love to quote this as a core principal because it is written in the Treaty Of Rome……what they fail to say is that this “core principal” was only for workers to move to another country to take up an offer of employment
The current situation where basically anyone and everyone if free to wander into any EU country that they choose and claim whatever they want has only been introduced by much later treaty changes and was never “core” to the EU project.'
So I have two questions:
Why can the EU leaders change the rules to suit themselves?
This doesn't sound like a group of countries collaborating but more like a couple of countries have elected themselves to make decisions regarding other countries but denying those countries any right to redress? Is that a fair EU system?
The more I find out about the EU the more I become disillusioned by it all.