03-06-2014 7:56 AM
The PM reportedly warns he may bring forward a UK referendum depending on who becomes the next European Commission chief.
David Cameron and Jean-Claude Juncker at a budget meeting in 2012
David Cameron has reportedly said Britain could quit the EU if Jean-Claude Juncker is elected as president of the European Commission.
The Prime Minister has previously said he sees the former Luxembourg leader as a symbol of Europe's past and argued other leaders are more capable of delivering change.
He is now so worried Mr Juncker's appointment would destabilise the UK Government he would bring forward an in-out referendum, according to German publication Der Spiegel.
"A figure from the 1980s cannot resolve the problems of the next five years," he is reported to have said.
The magazine claimed Mr Cameron made the threat during a meeting with the German Chancellor at a summit of EU leaders in Brussels.
Angela Merkel has given her backing to Mr Juncker, who told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper he has support from "a broad majority" of conservative and centre-left leaders and is confident of being elected.
Ms Merkel and Mr Juncker's parties both belong to the European People's Party bloc, which dominates the European Parliament and has chosen him as its preferred candidate for the presidential post.
A Downing Street spokesman refused to comment on what Mr Cameron may have said in what it called "a private conversation".
The Prime Minister's alleged warning came as Iain Duncan Smith said Mr Cameron must deliver "substantial and significant return of powers" from the EU to win the backing of Tories.
03-06-2014 7:58 AM
What happened to ..We cant leave the EU as we need it.. Now we can as the PM dosent like a person..
03-06-2014 8:09 AM
So on everything else, Cameron says we must listen to Business leaders, the CBI and the City of London
But on the EU He and his party ignore the advice of all 3, who say remaining in, is extremely vital to the UK economy
03-06-2014 11:35 AM
When the original national vote was taken, back in the 70's, it was to join something referred to as the "Common Market". The concept was to have free trade among members and an alliance of protection, between like minded, friendly states. It was NOT called the EU, was NOT supposed to be a super state ( run as one, by a bureaucratic, unelected parliament in Brussels ) and it was NOT designed ( at that time ) to have one currency for all member states. That last particular event, was originally designed to facilitate trade, among member states, by avoiding currency conversation charges and the differing fluctuations of different currencies on the exchange markets. So what we've got NOW, has not and never was voted for, or agreed to, by the people of this Country and just goes to show; that in Politics, if you give them an inch..........they take a mile ( or in other words, take the P*** ). As far as state security is concerned, it's worthless.......the United Nations came into being for much the same reason; With all signatories supposed to adhere to a code of conduct and mutual respect. That has not worked AT ALL.
Bosnia
Serbia
Croatia
Angola
Cambodia
Egypt
Iraq
Libya
Mali
Burma ( myanmar )
Afghanistan
Libya
Syria
The list is practically endless, Strife and Wars in ALL these places; while an Impotent, joke of an organization, called the UN, sat back and did nothing.
Once you let somebody else start running your life..........it's the beginning of the end !!
03-06-2014 12:01 PM
The EU is a very expensive farce.
I don't see the point in paying in vast sums of money so that the unelected bureaucrats can cream off loadsa money for themselves whilst dishing out some of the money back as "grants".
The whole thing has got completely out of hand and it's high time we were out of it. All that was needed was an agreement for fair trade across borders and that was all it should have been. All the rest of it is a waste of money.
As to the UN........ what can the UN do? When there's warring factions within countries there's a few options.
1/ Seal the borders and let them get on with it.
2/ Go in mob handed, take one side or the other and make sure all opposition is eliminated.
3/ Do as they do now and try to mediate.
It seems that neither options 2/ and 3/ will meet with "Internationl approval" or works in the long term so that leaves 1/ BUT..... how do you seal the border in a place like Afghanistan?
Looking at a wider picture.... a lot of countries were "better off" when they were Colonies. As soon as they started bleating for "Independence" the trouble started.
Three successful previous colonies are the USA, Canada and Australia but just LOOK what has happened to many other places? Ian Smith must be turning in his grave to see what's happened to Southern Rhodesia which is a prime example?
The best thing for "The West" to do is keep our noses OUT but ensure that the warring factions in a country STAY there and don't get out to cause trouble elsewhere. You can't "be nice" to the people of some nations, they're still in the Dark Ages but with modern weapons!
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
03-06-2014 12:33 PM
on 04-06-2014 3:02 AM - last edited on 04-06-2014 5:37 AM by kshah008
>> #4: When the original national vote was taken, back in the 70's, it was to join something referred to as the "Common Market".... What we've got now has not been and never was voted for, or agreed to, by the people of this country. Just goes to show that in politics, if you give them an inch... they take a mile ( )...
>> #6: What we (some of us!) voted for in the 70's was just a trade agreement. But the original intention all along was to create a United States of Europe...
All the gory details are here:
http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/book-reviews/the-great-deception/
Monumental deceit - how our politicians have
lied and lied about Europe:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255506/monumental-euro-deceit
05-06-2014 12:46 AM