No welfare for the first 4 years......but in 7 years it goes back to how it originally was. Claim away.
The deal has a time limit folks. Vote NO.
Yep that's what I see
No welfare for the first 4 years......but in 7 years it goes back to how it originally was. Claim away.
The deal has a time limit folks. Vote NO.
It's worse that that, even.I have been leaning towards "No" for some time but am prepared to be persuaded to "Yes". But as far as I am concerned a deal with a time limit is little better than no deal at all.
Child benefit will be awarded at a rate equivalent to the claimants country of origin?
No. The child benefit changes are separate from the brake. With child benefit there won't be any new children covered by it once we pass the necessary legislation, and current recipients will have it index linked from 2020. Those things don't disappear after seven years... they're permanent.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ithdrawal-european-convention-on-human-rights
In a move that would raise questions about Britain’s membership of the Council of Europe, the 47-strong human rights watchdog, Grayling said a Tory government would withdraw from the convention if parliament failed to secure the right to veto judgments from the European court of human rights (ECHR).
A withdrawal from the convention could jeopardise Britain’s membership of the EU, which is separate to the Council of Europe whose members are drawn from across the continent and include Russia and Ukraine. Membership of the Council of Europe is a requirement for EU member states.
.. Be that as it may, we can't withdraw from the ECHR whilst we are members of the EU.
You come across as someone who feels a superiority to lots of people from the tone of your posts. This is as politely as I can put that point across.
It's actually not unrealistic at all, it's all just down to willingness to negotiate and then get the cogs turning eventually. The EU is just a few laws and bureaucratic red tape and it's easy for them to compromise and adjust but there's just lots of heads banging together. Hence why cameron has already made it clear what is happening by going on the EU trips before hand so they had fair warning. The problem is that we only really need to consider two things, the economic impact and the complications needed to implement the changes. Quite often I can't see what cameron is asking for being all too complicated but as we saw, the greek prime minister was threatening to veto due to simply wanting leverage on the migration issue. That is not complications of a large organisation, it's just single party self interests. That is the problem with the EU, it's not a large organisation with one head (like mcdonalds) trying to shift to make more profit but 28 different countries all trying to win it for themselves (like the eastern european nations who want us to pay more for there benefits than they would in there own country). I don't care how 'inconvenient or pressing' the other issues are, this is a test of how the EU 'democracy' works come crunch time and so far it's been a bad show of self interest, lack of compromise and no guarantees and the idea we need to launch a smooch campaign years in advance just to get minor compromises is a worry.It's unrealistic to expect to get rapid change from a huge structure like the EU. Cameron should have been laying the groundwork for the negotiations for years, and building connections and alliances. He hasn't done this and what we're seeing is the result. It's also rather poor timing, the EU has a number of very pressing issues that need addressing. Dealing with the UK squalling about domestic concerns isn't high on the other leader's list.
I agree. More power needs to be moved from the member nations to the democratically elected parliament and the parliament needs a directly elected leader.
It's hard to argue that the EU is dealing poorly with a number of issues at the moment - the treatment of Greece is the worst of them - but the EU has, for the most part, been a great success over the years. Even the much derided Euro has plenty of positives to its name.
The human rights issues are the ECHR not the EU.
So Cameron got nothing at all. Still voting out.
i still dont get how this is a "deal" when its simply a "we'll think about it...but only after you promise to stay".
day after the refferendum we stay in they could go "actually nah no to everything"
i still dont get how this is a "deal" when its simply a "we'll think about it...but only after you promise to stay".
day after the refferendum we stay in they could go "actually nah no to everything"
Exactly this!!
Although the Pro-EU won't see it as such and will feel Cameron has done good.
At this moment in time the rest of the EU are simply dangling a carrot on a stick in front of David Cameron and the UK.
Unless there is a EU wide minimum wage and EU standardised handouts such as child benefits etc, then this inequality will always hit the richer nations hardest.
The majority of financial discussions I've followed have come out as it bring fairly neutral if we left. Neil Woodford, one of the most well known UK fund managers, has even come out and stated the economic argument is fubar.I would change my vote to IN now. A close call but ultimately I want the London money train to keep rolling whilst I'm here. The talk of the out group that we'd actually be better off out economically is pathetic and embarrassing, with 'evidence' such as 'trust in good ol Nige'.