Ship of Fools: An in/out referendum on EU membership

Thread: An in/out referendum on EU membership Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024570

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

In a long-awaited speech, the British Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, has said that he will offer an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, following an attempt to negotiate a better settlement with the EU.

Do Shipmates agree that a referendum should be held on this subject? And do you know how you plan to vote in the forthcoming referendum?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

Depends on the renegotiated bits...

If I don't think they're right then it will be 'out' but I imagine I will be satisfied enough for it to be 'in' with the changes.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Any referendum would be on accepting/rejecting the renegotiated terms of membership. Which in turn suggests that Mr Cameron would himself be recommending 'yes' (having spent all that time haggling 'n'that).

It is also the other side of a general election (result to be decided).

So I would have to say I think it is primarily designed to herd support away from UKIP against that same election.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

This, of course, presupposes that David Cameron will be able to make any headway in the re-negotiations. I wouldn't bet too much on this.

But there is a deeper flaw in this. The UK electorate will be asked to decide on staying in the EU or leaving, based on the renegotiated terms. But the key decision should surely be "should we be in the EU or not. Full stop." The renegotiation of terms is a bit of a red herring. If the nation decides that we shouldn't be in the EU, then there is no point renegotiating terms. If, on the other hand, the decision is that the UK SHOULD be in the EU, then this becomes the point at which we can seriously talk about terms and the way forward.

What is the point of the rest of the EU going to great lengths to try and accommodate the UK, if, at the end of the day, we're on the way out anyway?

IMHO - the UK HAS to remain in the EU. I have yet to see any serious attempt to address the economic and business problems that would ensue from leaving the EU. The UK would become marginalised and disadvantaged. It is in the nation's interests to be in the EU - but we won't get the other key players (such as Germany and France) to treat us seriously until we are properly committed to the EU.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I think he's drawn most of the poison from the sting of UKIP by announcing this and thus will avoid a dangerous split in the right-wing vote, but I don't think he will be able to swing Jack with the other EU member states.

[ 23. January 2013, 14:19: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

If there were to be some re-negotiation, presumably other countries would want to express their own views and tinker with a few things. And there's certainly a strong argument that the eurozone countries should be renegotiating a few things about how the eurozone is run. Which is all fine, but I don't see how all this would have been concluded by the deadline for the referendum.

Especially if the whole process is kicked off by a government that's currently behind in the polls; EU countries who don't see the point might decide it's easier to drag their feet until 2015 and hope the whole thing goes away.

So what happens in 2018 when the discussions are going well but we haven't got the new treaty agreed yet? Do we have a referendum on whether we agree with a document that hasn't been written or does David Cameron break his promise?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I think we have an in/out referendum on what ever has been achieved by then, even if nothing has been achieved

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Especially if the whole process is kicked off by a government that's currently behind in the polls; EU countries who don't see the point might decide it's easier to drag their feet until 2015 and hope the whole thing goes away.

There is a point there, which is why many on the right of the Conservative Party were pushing for a piece of legislation ensuring that the referendum occured.

I also wonder if there is more we could do with the Commonwealth. Whilst I know it has not been completely ignored, it is possible to ressurect it and utilise for good.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I worry about referenda on this sort of thing. It's the sort of issue over which everyone has an opinion, but I'm not sure it's very informed.

I, for example, an buggered if I know whether we should be in, out, or shaking it all about.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

It's actually pretty difficult to renegotiate the rules of a club when all the other members think the rules are fine, and that you are a sad loser. That is the key problem.

The honest position is in (and try to work patiently to improve it) or out. What Cameron is doing is a bit like me joining the Tory Party and trying to persuade them to bring in nationalization and high taxes for the rich. Progress is likely to be limited at best.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's drawn most of the poison from the sting of UKIP by announcing this and thus will avoid a dangerous split in the right-wing vote, but I don't think he will be able to swing Jack with the other EU member states.

I reckon that's the purpose of his statement; in 2015 UKIP, probably bolstered by some Tory MPs and a lot more Tory voters opposed to the coalition and the EU, will be a serious threat almost anywhere in England. I doubt Cameron will ever be able to renegotiate much for the UK, let alone in two years, although he may get some changes if other EU states cooperate (and other EU members, mostly the founders, do want change), but that won't satisfy the Euro-septics who will demand his blood and we'll end up with some evil <expletive deleted> like Michael Gove in the hotseat.

Personally I don't think the anti-EU campaigners realise how much damage leaving the EU would do to Britain, British people and British business. Then again, if we did leave, who would they hold responsible for the absurd regulations that Britain has had since Alfred burnt the cakes?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I worry about referenda on this sort of thing. It's the sort of issue over which everyone has an opinion, but I'm not sure it's very informed.

I, for example, an buggered if I know whether we should be in, out, or shaking it all about.

Exactly. My personal bit of yelling at the radio (well, more snorting at the radio, but y'know) this morning was for "the public must have the chance to make an informed decision".

As if that's ever going to happen. My experience of the Great British public is that they are going to make an uninformed one.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Personally I don't think the anti-EU campaigners realise how much damage leaving the EU would do to Britain, British people and British business.

Perhaps. But at the same time, do the pro-EU campaigners realise how much damage would be done by greater integration?

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

I for one am hopeful that we will get the referendum, as Cameron has even promised the legislation to facilitate one occurring will be before the next general election, so he might not (if he wins that election) be able to weasel out of a referendum like he did on the EU Constitution (sorry, 'Lisbon Treaty' in EU-speak).

I would be very surprised to find any renegotiation of terms/treaties likely to be achievable in practice would be sufficient to stop me voting 'No' to the UK's continued EU membership.

[ 23. January 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Personally I don't think the anti-EU campaigners realise how much damage leaving the EU would do to Britain, British people and British business.
Perhaps. But at the same time, do the pro-EU campaigners realise how much damage would be done by greater integration?

I think you've alluded to membership of the EU being a political DH, and as most people are on one side of the fence or the other (let's face it, Euro-Septic is largely anti-EU and those who are pro-EU are blind to most of the faults) so anyone with any credibility in either camp who tried to balance the arguments would be disowned by their own side before they got a fair hearing from t'other lot.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I know I will vote to stay in, because whatever its pros and cons, it seems to me a better choice.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I think Cameron is simply playing party politics and being duplicitous in the process.

His aim? To get the Tories elected in the next election.

His method? Silence the opposition which would draw off the necessaary votes. In this case the opposition is UKIP

His intention? To engage in a prolonged negotiating process which he hasn't a snowballs hope in a dust-storm of achieving.

Ultimately? In five years time the promised Referendum will never happen since Cameron has already reneged once on a cast-iron guarantee of a referendum. It never happened. Nor will it in future.

Cynical? Yes. But with very good reason.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

A lot of me is glad that we're getting the chance to vote on it, it's democracy in action.
But it's going to be like Christmas to a lot of people, and I just wish some of the other turkeys would think.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Two things worry me:

1) People talk endlessly about what's in the best interests of Britain. How selfish is that? We'll remain in the club or take our bats home.

2) While this hype continues for 3 or 4 years, businesses will sense instability and invest elsewhere, with all the loss of contracts and jobs that entails.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I agree this is designed to draw votes away from UKIP and it will work.

But there is also another reason - in my view at any rate - and that is, if we do renoegotiate the treaty, and we vote to remain in, then that is the European issue that has vexed the Conservatives for a generation now put to bed for a good long time: the people have spoken, they want to remain in! Deal with it!

I think renegotiation wont be as much of an issue as people think. After all, what is it to Spain, Italy, Belgium etc if Britain has some more opt-outs, providing we are paying in? And as far as France and Germany are concerned, they each want us in to counterbalance the other one! At the moment they are posturing for public consumption, knowing that by the time any renegotiations are underway, the economic and political climnate in Europe will be different anyway.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I think Cameron is simply playing party politics and being duplicitous in the process.

His aim? To get the Tories elected in the next election.

His method? Silence the opposition which would draw off the necessary votes. In this case the opposition is UKIP

My sentiments entirely . I think it's emotional blackmail of the highest order.
Just the same way as the main political parties hijacked Green politics.

Cameron knows the anxiety is out there , immigration , wobbly Euro , etc. etc.
Then if he's back on a second term, (hoping for a majority), we'll all be brainwashed into voting 'yes' to Europe just like last time.

All a bit boring really. But then peace and prosperity is boring.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I think Cameron is simply playing party politics and being duplicitous in the process.

His aim? To get the Tories elected in the next election.

His method? Silence the opposition which would draw off the necessaary votes. In this case the opposition is UKIP

His intention? To engage in a prolonged negotiating process which he hasn't a snowballs hope in a dust-storm of achieving.

Ultimately? In five years time the promised Referendum will never happen since Cameron has already reneged once on a cast-iron guarantee of a referendum. It never happened. Nor will it in future.

Cynical? Yes. But with very good reason.

Quite so.

In years past, albeit under a Rotten Borough, Scot and Lot etc. system, candidates at least had the decency to stand those enfranchised a free bar prior to the election. Here we are with same old "vote for me, jam* tomorrow".

Cameron - must try harder. Even better, must fuck off.

* same old shit flavour jam at that.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I think it's refreshing. It is high time the issue was got out in the open and debated sensibly. Of course it will take votes away from UKIP - who have only had any support because mainstream politicans keep trying to avoid the Europe issue despite public concern on the subject.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I think Cameron is simply playing party politics and being duplicitous in the process.

His aim? To get the Tories elected in the next election.

His method? Silence the opposition which would draw off the necessary votes. In this case the opposition is UKIP
My sentiments entirely . I think it's emotional blackmail of the highest order.

Rather unlikely considering that by adopting such a tactic Cameron might end up PM of a somewhat reduced state, e.g, one without Scotland (and the EU).

I doubt that's the legacy he'd prefer.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

We voted on this nearly 40 years ago. Why should anyone vote on it again? A succession of weak political leaders of both major parties but particularly the Conservatives, over the years since should have had the guts to tell UKIP and its predecessors 'this has been decided; shut up'.

This is being made an issue now solely so as to try and hold the Conservative party together, to stop them leaching some of their less attractive voters to UKIP. It is not in the country's interest.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We voted on this nearly 40 years ago. Why should anyone vote on it again?

40 years ago the vote was about whether to join a free trade area or not. These days it's about how much sovereignty the country should retain (I say "all of it"), and how much it should surrender to a bunch of unelected foreign oligarchs (I say "fuck them all").

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I think Cameron is simply playing party politics and being duplicitous in the process.

His aim? To get the Tories elected in the next election.

His method? Silence the opposition which would draw off the necessaary votes. In this case the opposition is UKIP

His intention? To engage in a prolonged negotiating process which he hasn't a snowballs hope in a dust-storm of achieving.

Ultimately? In five years time the promised Referendum will never happen since Cameron has already reneged once on a cast-iron guarantee of a referendum. It never happened. Nor will it in future.

Cynical? Yes. But with very good reason.

I agree. I also think it shameful that an important issue such as this is being used for entirely party political purposes. The PM is pro-Europe so he has no need to suggest a referendum other than for strategic political reasons. This is sheer electioneering and not statesman-like, he's suggesting a referendum on a subject for which he doesn't know the question, for 5 years time when he might not be in power. Yet he criticised the SNP for wanting to put off their referendum for a couple of years.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We voted on this nearly 40 years ago. Why should anyone vote on it again?
40 years ago the vote was about whether to join a free trade area or not. These days it's about how much sovereignty the country should retain (I say "all of it"), and how much it should surrender to a bunch of unelected foreign oligarchs (I say "fuck them all").

Like Murdoch?

In any case, I have British citizenship and therefore have the entitlement to live in Poland unhindered, and also to have health insurance here and pay contributions for a pension. I can also have a firm in Germany with no bother. I can travel across the Polish-German border with no bother (though having white skin helps).

I also do work with the EC-financed Youth in Action which enables me to do work about anti-discrimination, prejudice and historical education.

The EU is flawed in being an exercise in capitalist domination (a referendum on a Federation of Marxist-Anarchist collectives would be more my thing) and (partly through the aforementioned Youth in Action programme) to some degree accepts the "nationality" part of ones identify to be the most important one (as is the problem with nation states) and I would like to see hefty reforms (though not reforms that most here would want), but for me the question is a no brainer.

As it is, to return to my opening point, there are people (say, multinationals, or, regarding climate change, our lazy and short-sighted selves) who influence our lives here in the EU much more than the EC.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If Cameron can get an opt out from EU legislation on working hours, rich bosses can exploit their workers further.

Scotland is more likely to vote for independence so that it can stay in the EU.

We shall be left with boring little England.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
...to some degree accepts the "nationality" part of ones identify to be the most important one (as is the problem with nation states)...

It's funny how so many of the people who say stuff like this when talking about the EU get really angry when you suggest that the same logic means all those African and Asian countries were wrong to seek self-determination. After all, nationality and the nation state don't matter, do they?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Sioni Sais:

quote:
let's face it, Euro-Septic is largely anti-EU and those who are pro-EU are blind to most of the faults

I think you're being too pessimistic here. The EU has loads of faults that aren't going to go away, and I dislike it on many levels. But overall I think it's better for Britain, and for Europe, if we stay in.

Mind you, there was only one person who made me really pro Europe, and that was Thatcher. Anything she hated had to have some good points.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Two things worry me:

1) People talk endlessly about what's in the best interests of Britain. How selfish is that? We'll remain in the club or take our bats home.

What other measure should we use other than 'is it broadly in our interests to be a member'? We could be masochistic about it and not think about ourselves, but I doubt any other member states work on that principle.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This, of course, presupposes that David Cameron will be able to make any headway in the re-negotiations. I wouldn't bet too much on this.

Exactly.

The lack of specifics is worrying. It's not as though "Let's renegotiate our relationship with the EU!" is a new policy for the Tories. William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith wanted it, and I seem to remember the Tories pledging to fly to Brussels when they were elected to renegotiate some treaty or other (I forget if that was Howard's or Cameron's idea). In all those years, you'd have thought they'd have developed a more concrete idea of what they wanted and what was feasible.

quote:
But the key decision should surely be "should we be in the EU or not. Full stop." The renegotiation of terms is a bit of a red herring.

Yes. And what if their renegotiated terms are crap? Suppose they negotiate a possibility where Britain has the same status as Norway. I think the EU needs reform but I would rather stick with the status quo than be in Norway's situation. But apparently that wouldn't be an option on Mr Cameron's referendum.

[ 24. January 2013, 10:25: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Scotland is more likely to vote for independence so that it can stay in the EU.

Didn't we go over this a month or two ago?

Scotland seceding from the UK would require they apply for brand new memberships in all international organisations, and their application for EU membership would also require the Euro and Schengen, so no common currency or open border with the slightly-less-United Kingdom. If they piss off the UK in the process, the UK can use their power to veto all Scottish participation in the UN until the Scots shift to a more agreeable position.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
...to some degree accepts the "nationality" part of ones identify to be the most important one (as is the problem with nation states)...
It's funny how so many of the people who say stuff like this when talking about the EU get really angry when you suggest that the same logic means all those African and Asian countries were wrong to seek self-determination. After all, nationality and the nation state don't matter, do they?

You've made a false assumption about me. I'm all for self-determination.

I'm also for discussion about whether nation states are needed. It's relevant here in Poland. I support the creation of the Polish nation state in 1918 while still wondering, like Róża Luksemburg whether people need to be put together into artificial categories in order to liberate them.

It is clear to me that those counties that came into existence during the 20th century had people who had the right to want the same thing that more powerful countries had already had for some time. To deny them that right would be racist.

It is also clear to me that one can at the same time question whether those more powerful nation states should have come into existence in the first place. Especially (to bring this back on-topic) when over 18.000 people have died due to Fortress Europe.

Here's another nuance for you: One can be pro-EU while at the same time be against some of its policies, including its most essential policies.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
...to some degree accepts the "nationality" part of ones identify to be the most important one (as is the problem with nation states)...
It's funny how so many of the people who say stuff like this when talking about the EU get really angry when you suggest that the same logic means all those African and Asian countries were wrong to seek self-determination. After all, nationality and the nation state don't matter, do they?

Well actually, quite a few of those African countries aren't nation-states, they're multinational with a large number of cultures and languages...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I'm all for self-determination.

I'm also for discussion about whether nation states are needed.

I fail to see how you can have one without the other.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

orfeo, yeah, you're right.

Marvin: Self-determination doesn't just mean having nation states. Anarchist collectives are self-determinating.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
orfeo, yeah, you're right.

Marvin: Self-determination doesn't just mean having nation states. Anarchist collectives are self-determinating.

And in the Real World, where people live...?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

The EU is flawed in being an exercise in capitalist domination

We're obviously talking about two different EUs here...

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

(Crosspost)

I know it appears somewhat abstract to you, but it happens. In the real world.

[ 24. January 2013, 11:48: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Marvin: Self-determination doesn't just mean having nation states. Anarchist collectives are self-determinating.

They also don't really work on scales much larger than a few dozen people.

But you know what? If that's the sort of thing you're advocating then I'd be all for it. It would be several steps further away from the continent-wide superstate that I dread.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Two things worry me:

1) People talk endlessly about what's in the best interests of Britain. How selfish is that? We'll remain in the club or take our bats home.
What other measure should we use other than 'is it broadly in our interests to be a member'? We could be masochistic about it and not think about ourselves, but I doubt any other member states work on that principle.

What we have to contribute.

What we can share.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

This is exactly the kind of thing that arouses my specticism of nations states. A lot of time and attention is given to the nationality part of the identity. Whole myths are concocted of who we are and what has happened. This then introduces, in the context of the EU the dichtomy of "you're either one of us or one of them". Like I am can only be Welsh and not be a Pole, like there are no others parts to my identity.

There is a tradition of international socialism. I am not sure how widespread this is now. I am also not sure whether this was simply European or whether it means European workers having a stronger role in the domination by the north of the south. I do know though that in our daily lives it is not just our nationalities that are relevant.

Workers' rights, having disabilities, ones sexual persuasion, dietry needs, musical likings (whether you like metal or are heretics [Biased]

), the type of work you tend to do, whether you prefer to live in nature or in cities, these are all very relevant things, and they are the same (or at least similar) things no matter where one lives. Certainly there are differences.

There is therefore no "British perspective" as such, or if there is it is just one voice among many with regards to what people from GB may be saying. Cameron doesn't speak for me. Neither did Blair. I have more in common with my working-class family from Mała-Polska than with Cameron.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Marvin: Self-determination doesn't just mean having nation states. Anarchist collectives are self-determinating.
They also don't really work on scales much larger than a few dozen people.

But you know what? If that's the sort of thing you're advocating then I'd be all for it. It would be several steps further away from the continent-wide superstate that I dread.

So it seems that other than music we are more in common than I would have thought. To tell the truth I am not sure what I want. I have actual little contact with (in comparison to others) radical politics and I believe that people by and large are not so sure of alternatives to the present, and that the word "alternative" gets coupled with "communism" and "gułags". Certainly, there are plenty small-scale communities, largely anarchistic that work. I'm not too sure how that would work on a larger scale (by which I mean federations of collectives) and also with regard to law.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

The EU is flawed in being an exercise in capitalist domination
We're obviously talking about two different EUs here...

Cross-pond comparison, but there are American leftists who regard the New Deal as the epitome of modern managerial capitalism, and on the other hand, those who regard it as a forerunner(albeit a truncated one) of social democracy. Probably the latter would generally classify themselves more as liberal than leftist, though.

I'd imagine you have the same sort of division in Europe with regards to the EU. Centre-leftists(ie. the kind of people who identify with the state in-and-of-itself as a positive force) like it, those of a more adversarial bent(eg. Marxists etc) are suspicious.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I think it's refreshing. It is high time the issue was got out in the open and debated sensibly. Of course it will take votes away from UKIP - who have only had any support because mainstream politicians keep trying to avoid the Europe issue despite public concern on the subject.

The last time the Tories tried to debate Britain's role in Europe openly and sensibly it split them down the middle and caused them an electoral defeat of spectacular and humiliating proportions.
I'm not altogether sure what cameron is doing with this , but I'm damn sure he's got more sense than to wake that ghost up.

Lets face reality, Britain has to put a cork up it's arse everytime there's even a murmour of the euro going bust . The financial ramifications of us exiting the E.U. altogether, by comparison, makes it a total fantasy .

Mind you if France and Germany have a bust up ?
Well then history says that would be the end of the E.U. and our part in it. But if ever that were to happen the sound of champagne corks popping would soon be overshadowed by a sound more familiar to Europe -- Gunfire.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
This is exactly the kind of thing that arouses my specticism of nations states. A lot of time and attention is given to the nationality part of the identity. Whole myths are concocted of who we are and what has happened. This then introduces, in the context of the EU the dichtomy of "you're either one of us or one of them". Like I am can only be Welsh and not be a Pole, like there are no others parts to my identity.

I think one of the issues is simply a geographical one, that people in continental Europe are much more used to the idea that different 'nations' of peoples live side by side and gradually mix, rather than having bright lines between them, simply because that's what happens.

I certainly got struck by this as I went around parts of Central Europe for the first time a few years ago, and observed the history of cities I visited.

Whereas the UK has a rather large and obvious natural boundary that tends to make it much easier to think in terms of a distinction between the people on one side and the people on the other.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Scotland is more likely to vote for independence so that it can stay in the EU.
Didn't we go over this a month or two ago?

Scotland seceding from the UK would require they apply for brand new memberships in all international organisations, and their application for EU membership would also require the Euro and Schengen, so no common currency or open border with the slightly-less-United Kingdom.

Furthermore, there are a number of countries who have separatist regions who wouldn't be all that happy with setting the precedent that breakway regions would have automatic EU membership.

There are various Spanish and Hungarian politicians who are on record as stating that they would vote against Scottish membership of the EU for this reason.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

I was trying to find the comment on trying to compare the situation to the Scottish referendum... but I can't, but anyway:

There is a big difference between an EU referendum and the Scottish one in that Alex Salmond has decide to have a vote without presenting the electorate with the political, economic and social situation after the referendum comes down on either side - at the moment the only one thing we know for sure is that and independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU without any of the opt-outs that the UK currently has.

The EU referendum is to come after negotiations on a new relationship have taken palce.

Alex Salmond could have held the referendum the day after the legislation was passed, it would have made little difference, except that polls indicated he would have had a thumping defeat rather than a victory. David Cameron can't hold a referendum tomorrow as there is no new deal to present to the electorate - as for exacts at the minute, well that still has to be decided in depth but there is enough to glean from the speeches made to indicate where powers would be looked at and negotiations attempted.

As for uncertainty, although the BBc seems to have moved the actual article, this blog , does give an indication that business is not so concerned as some might paint the picture to be. There is more to Britain than having a place within the EU - which I forsee it having long into the future, but on some sort of renegotiated terms, Britain is not alone in wanting to have renegotiation of terms, most countries to less of an extent than Britain, and some individual European politicians more so... Britain is not alone here, and as the EU changes to meet the needs of the Euro, those outside of the Euro need to have a voice and be taken care of, especially if they wish to continue to see us produce the membership fee every year...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

As for uncertainty, although the BBC seems to have moved the actual article, this blog , does give an indication that business is not so concerned as some might paint the picture to be.

That article is based on a single data point - a conversation with one CEO whose business - constructing new power stations in the UK - is likely to be there whether or not the UK is in the EU.

quote:

Britain is not alone here, and as the EU changes to meet the needs of the Euro, those outside of the Euro need to have a voice and be taken care of, especially if they wish to continue to see us produce the membership fee every year...

There's a fiction that the UK stumps up and never gets anything in return. It's merely that - a fiction.

The best the PM is likely to get out of Europe is some kind of fig-leaf - the worst he'll get within a looser arrangement is EU laws without the ability to influence them at all.

[ 25. January 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

As for uncertainty, although the BBC seems to have moved the actual article, this blog , does give an indication that business is not so concerned as some might paint the picture to be.
That article is based on a single data point - a conversation with one CEO whose business - constructing new power stations in the UK - is likely to be there whether or not the UK is in the EU.

quote:

Britain is not alone here, and as the EU changes to meet the needs of the Euro, those outside of the Euro need to have a voice and be taken care of, especially if they wish to continue to see us produce the membership fee every year...
There's a fiction that the UK stumps up and never gets anything in return. It's merely that - a fiction.

The best the PM is likely to get out of Europe is some kind of fig-leaf - the worst he'll get within a looser arrangement is EU laws without the ability to influence them at all.

Yes, the link was to one point, but there are others out there...

Nor did I say that the UK stumps up and gets nothing in return (though it may have come across as such) - it is however a net-contributor to the EU project.

As a German newspaper has remarked, this is turning into a point about democracy, and how (ever unintentioned and farcical it may turn out to be) the PM has actually introduced an element of democracy into this (an element that Labour, the EUP and others are seeking to deny the citizens of Europe) - forbid that those who live in the EU have a right to say what goes on and be allowed to express their views on what goes on, especially in a country which will not just back down and go to the polls again to ensure the correct result - like Ireland was forced to, if we remember rightly...

It is beyond doubt that those in the Euro (and with any luck God will ensure we never become one of those) require the institutions and structures of the EU to change, how greatly and whether it is either slightly or fundamentally to change is up for discussion still IMO, and therefore requires a discussion about those who do not have to join the Euro, and will never join the Euro, and how EU can best serve those countries in the future. It would be madness for the UK to completely halt the changes the Euro-zone requires, but for that to happen the UK does need a new relationship with the EU to maintain it's best interests whilst ensuring the success of the Euro-zone.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

What if Cameron can't renegotiate our membership of the EU, due to the unwillingness of other members to play ball?

What then? Will he go ahead with the referendum anyway on a purely in / out basis?

Or will he (as I imagine he will) play for time, and effectively kill the referendum idea until this impossible renegotiation process has taken place, but knowing that he has been re-elected on the promise of holding this referendum?

The whole thing stinks, AFAICS.

[ 25. January 2013, 16:35: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It all seems like smoke and mirrors to me. I don't believe Cameron really - I suspect it's all about silencing UKIP and his own right-wing.

And it all seems so intangible - maybe, if the negotiations succeed, maybe, in four years time, if the Tories win the election, we might have a referendum.

And of course, Cameron would be terrified of leaving the EU, but presumably he is more terrified of UKIP!

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Nor did I say that the UK stumps up and gets nothing in return (though it may have come across as such) - it is however a net-contributor to the EU project.

Well, in purely direct financial terms it is impossible for every country to be a net beneficiary from the EU. Indirectly you'd have to count the benefits that the UK gets in terms of trade, influence on different levels, and it's attractiveness as a place for investment for countries outside the EU.

You could argue that Norway gets all these things - except Norway has no control over the legislation that it gets subjected to via EFTA. There is also no guarantee that the UK would be offered anything similar - EFTA membership was originally offered to Norway as a means of tempting it towards full EU membership in the future.

quote:

As a German newspaper has remarked, this is turning into a point about democracy, and how (ever unintentioned and farcical it may turn out to be) the PM has actually introduced an element of democracy into this (an element that Labour, the EUP and others are seeking to deny the citizens of Europe) - forbid that those who live in the EU have a right to say what goes on and be allowed to express their views on what goes on, especially in a country which will not just back down and go to the polls again to ensure the correct result - like Ireland was forced to, if we remember rightly...

There's a democractic deficit in the EU, but the way to solve its isn't by positing a possible once only referendum that merely seeks to elicit a yes or no answer to a particular set of arrangements which have yet to be decided upon and will be subject to change anyway.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What if Cameron can't renegotiate our membership of the EU, due to the unwillingness of other members to play ball?

What then? Will he go ahead with the referendum anyway on a purely in / out basis?

Or will he (as I imagine he will) play for time, and effectively kill the referendum idea until this impossible renegotiation process has taken place, but knowing that he has been re-elected on the promise of holding this referendum?

The whole thing stinks, AFAICS.

Do you mean .... he's proposed the referendum so as to get re-elected? There's a surprise.

Nick Clegg (remember him?) is doing the same thing, by saying that the cuts were too deep and too sudden. ISTM that the partners are already moving apart, and when the ball is over (ie, the five-year term of this government) they won't leave sharing a taxi.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I think it's refreshing. It is high time the issue was got out in the open and debated sensibly.

I think it's refreshing too and I agree that it is time the issue was debated properly. There is clearly disquiet about the role of the EU in our country both at present and in the future. To ignore that disquiet would be foolish. I'm certainly glad the subject is out in the open. A closer union with the EU rather fills me with dread.

I am not as convinced as some that a renegotiation is impossible. Some leaders are showing a willingness to talk and Cameron has been meeting with them individually at Davos. I think some of the scaremongering coming out of Europe has more to do with what certain European nations are afraid of because, let's face it, as a net contributor to the EU as well as an important trading partner to EU nations, if the UK does pull out (either in part or wholly) then that could destabilise the whole project. France in particular is not going to take kindly to that idea (hence its ridicule of late, laying out the red carpet for companies which desert us, etc).

The media and some EU enthusiasts like to regularly point out how much of an economic disaster it would be for us to pull out, and how important the EU is to us. However, nobody is really talking about how much of an economic disaster it could be for other countries - especially the poorer ones - if we as a net contributor pulled out or indeed how important we are to the EU. There is an awful lot of self-interest on both sides of the Channel, and understandably so because regardless of what the main players like to say, the EU consists of individual nations with different problems, strengths, attitudes and cultures. Self-interest, therefore, is both appropriate and to be expected.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

We are currently the financial centre of Europe - will that continue if we leave? We were before the union but with the euro now established in the rest of Europe there may well be a feeling that somewhere else (Germany?) might be a more appropriate place for financial trade. Will other countries such as the US look to them? Is that what Obama is warning us about? I think it would be very reasonable of Europe to decide they want to keep their financial transactions within their own borders. We have a lot to lose here.
Many of the things Cameron wants renegotiated are to do with workers' rights, such as the working time directive which amongst other things regulates Doctors' hours. I worked on wards prior to the directive and can remember a junior doctor working all day Friday, being on call in the hospital all weekend and finishing her shift at the end of Monday morning. The weekend was busy and she had no sleep at all during that period. It was normal for weekends on call to have these hours. The directive protects both Doctors and patients from this situation and I wouldn't want it removed.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
We are currently the financial centre of Europe - will that continue if we leave? We were before the union but with the euro now established in the rest of Europe there may well be a feeling that somewhere else (Germany?) might be a more appropriate place for financial trade. Will other countries such as the US look to them? Is that what Obama is warning us about? I think it would be very reasonable of Europe to decide they want to keep their financial transactions within their own borders. We have a lot to lose here.
Many of the things Cameron wants renegotiated are to do with workers' rights, such as the working time directive which amongst other things regulates Doctors' hours. I worked on wards prior to the directive and can remember a junior doctor working all day Friday, being on call in the hospital all weekend and finishing her shift at the end of Monday morning. The weekend was busy and she had no sleep at all during that period. It was normal for weekends on call to have these hours. The directive protects both Doctors and patients from this situation and I wouldn't want it removed.

For financial matters, London is already the centre for trading in Euros despite being outside of the Eurozone - and despite efforts in the past to move Europes financial hub elsewhere it remains so (the push for Frankfurt has happened in the past and not come to much).

Under the thougths you put forwards we should become part of the USA as roughly twice as many US$ are traded in London than in the States.

The positioning of a trading market has a slight baring on the importance and trade of a particular market, a lot more is to do with regulation, skill base and the 'infrastructure' that is already in place and the investment which is going into it. It is highly unlikely that London would stop being a major player in the worlds currency and financial affairs because it renegotiated it's membership of the EU.

As for employmnt law, it is best to maintain the rights and protections employees need, but is it better to decide tham based on the cultural context of each individual nation - by all means the EU could have an overarching idea and ask for member states to implement it, but as is showable, the different countries of Europe have different work cultures etc. and therefore employment laws cannot be set monolithically and require some mutation to fit local cultural contexts.

I also wonder what people's considerations of Parliaments supremacy is in this area. Although Westminster theoretically is still sovereign (as it can repeal any of the Acts that give jurisdiction away) I wonder if people think/perceive it working like that in reality...

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Switzerland's position of being outside everything hasn't prevented it from being an important financial centre.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Switzerland's position of being outside everything hasn't prevented it from being an important financial centre.

Yes, but it hasn't exactly covered itself in glory here. It has had a reputation for generations of assisting in illegal financial transactions on a worldwide scale. It's oldest bank announced it was closing down a few weeks ago after being found guilty of aiding US tax evasion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20907359

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

A couuple of points come to mind. If a referendum happens and the vote is to stay in will that really be the end of the matter or will Eurosceptics try to revisit the issue again (and again) until the right answer is produced? Also reading the British press on-line it often seems that the likes of the Mail and Telegraph which rail against the EU as an unworkable multinational federation are loudest in their condemnation of the wishes of some Scots to end their participation in a multinational state. They also say Scotland faces economic ruin by withdrawing from the Union while the UK can find economic salvation in withdrawing from the EU!!! I realise I have cobbled two issues together here but does anyone else see a glaring inconsistancy here?

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
A couuple of points come to mind. If a referendum happens and the vote is to stay in will that really be the end of the matter or will Eurosceptics try to revisit the issue again (and again) until the right answer is produced? Also reading the British press on-line it often seems that the likes of the Mail and Telegraph which rail against the EU as an unworkable multinational federation are loudest in their condemnation of the wishes of some Scots to end their participation in a multinational state. They also say Scotland faces economic ruin by withdrawing from the Union while the UK can find economic salvation in withdrawing from the EU!!! I realise I have cobbled two issues together here but does anyone else see a glaring inconsistancy here?

No, the Union between England and Scotland has had centuries to work (OK it officially began at the start of the 18th century, but the economic and political links existed well before that, not to mention the obvious geographical link).

The economies of the two countries are far more similar than, say, the economies of Germany and Spain, or the UK and Greece. The currency is the same. The language is (more or less! [Eek!]

) the same.

Yes, we EU sceptics would continue 'to revisit the issue' as we (some of us) think that the EU is inherently bad and anti-democratic. And the EU itself has some form on getting people to 'revisit the issue' when a referendum gives 'the wrong result'!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Switzerland's position of being outside everything hasn't prevented it from being an important financial centre.

Switzerland has an agreement with the EU which is virtually identical to that which Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have. It isn't a part of the EEA in name, but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.

Are you suggesting that the Swiss Confed. is allowed to pick and choose what it does and does not implement - where listening to Europhiles I would be led to believe that anyone in the same sort of relationship as Norway has to follow every diktat without any of the power of shaping it...

Your comment seems to paint a different picture...

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.
Are you suggesting that the Swiss Confed. is allowed to pick and choose what it does and does not implement - where listening to Europhiles I would be led to believe that anyone in the same sort of relationship as Norway has to follow every diktat without any of the power of shaping it...

Your comment seems to paint a different picture...

The Swiss do not (for example) allow free movement of labour. I worked in Switzerland for a number of years, and if you are there for any length of time, you require a work permit from the Kreisburo, and you have to start paying taxes locally (including church taxes, if you declare yourself to be Protestant or Catholic. I declared myself to be a Methodist, which confused the guy enough that I didn't end up paying that bit). The work permit is tied to your particular job, and can be rescinded (or indeed, not granted at all) as they see fit. Lose the job, and you can go back where you came from. And you didn't get to vote. Taxation without representation!

On the other hand, in the EU countries I worked in, you could just turn up and do whatever, and nobody cared.

So the Swiss certainly have some important differences.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.
Are you suggesting that the Swiss Confed. is allowed to pick and choose what it does and does not implement - where listening to Europhiles I would be led to believe that anyone in the same sort of relationship as Norway has to follow every diktat without any of the power of shaping it...

Your comment seems to paint a different picture...

Their relationship is outlined by a series of biltateral treaties which sort of baseline the EEA.

So generally outside the economic treaties themselves the Swiss can pick and choose - for instance they are part of Schengen since 2005.

As far as the economic treaties go they do indeed have to accept them without really having the ability to shape them

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
Do you mean .... he's proposed the referendum so as to get re-elected? There's a surprise.

Oooh no. I can't imagine myself being so cynical! [Big Grin]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
A couuple of points come to mind. If a referendum happens and the vote is to stay in will that really be the end of the matter or will Eurosceptics try to revisit the issue again (and again) until the right answer is produced? Also reading the British press on-line it often seems that the likes of the Mail and Telegraph which rail against the EU as an unworkable multinational federation are loudest in their condemnation of the wishes of some Scots to end their participation in a multinational state. They also say Scotland faces economic ruin by withdrawing from the Union while the UK can find economic salvation in withdrawing from the EU!!! I realise I have cobbled two issues together here but does anyone else see a glaring inconsistancy here?

No inconsistency, the coherent bit of their world view is what England (not Britain and certainly not Northern Ireland) needs is to have the freedom to 1. have the death penalty and corporal punishment back, 2. curb workers' rights, 3. have the right to ride roughshod over the devolved parliaments and 4. Google Pettigo and Tullyhoman. I would be greatly amused to see what an anti EU UK Government would do there if the Republic of Ireland stayed in the EU. Clue: Spike Milligan's Puckoon.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

Good analysis RB! I agree entirely. The Euroscepticism of UKIP and parts of the Conservative Party does seem to be a form of aggrieved and very Anglo-centric English nationalism. Threre is - for sure - a Euroscepticism of the Left (common in Scandinavia and in Green parties) which mistrusts what can appear to be a distant and unnacountable organisation and I can find some sympathy for this. This is quite different from the sentiments David Cameron is trying to placate.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Switzerland's position of being outside everything hasn't prevented it from being an important financial centre.
Yes, but it hasn't exactly covered itself in glory here. It has had a reputation for generations of assisting in illegal financial transactions on a worldwide scale. It's oldest bank announced it was closing down a few weeks ago after being found guilty of aiding US tax evasion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20907359

So in other words, nothing much would change if London ended up outside the EU.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Switzerland's position of being outside everything hasn't prevented it from being an important financial centre.
Switzerland has an agreement with the EU which is virtually identical to that which Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have. It isn't a part of the EEA in name, but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.

And I expect the UK would be able to arrange something similar. Vested interests on the Continent may not particularly like London's importance in financial services, but that does not affect the fact that businesses across the contininent find it useful to use London's services. This is for a variety of reasons: the legal system, expertise, infrastructure, London's position as a global centre (not least as the spider in the centre of a web of various tax havens) and so on. The fact that London is situated within the EU is only part of the reason for its importance.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Switzerland's position of being outside everything hasn't prevented it from being an important financial centre.
Switzerland has an agreement with the EU which is virtually identical to that which Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have. It isn't a part of the EEA in name, but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.
And I expect the UK would be able to arrange something similar. Vested interests on the Continent may not particularly like London's importance in financial services, but that does not affect the fact that businesses across the contininent find it useful to use London's services. This is for a variety of reasons: the legal system, expertise, infrastructure, London's position as a global centre (not least as the spider in the centre of a web of various tax havens) and so on. The fact that London is situated within the EU is only part of the reason for its importance.

That might be hoped for by some, but Switzerland has never been part of the EU, so the starting position for any negotiations would be different. As that would be different it would be, IMNSHO, much harder to gain concessions for a former EU member than for a country that has unique political and economic relationships with the entire world, but happens to be geographically at the centre of the EU & EEA.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
For financial matters, London is already the centre for trading in Euros despite being outside of the Eurozone

Though according to a former ECB central committee member, quoted in The Telegraph, the ECB could move to prevent the City from euro trading if Britain left the EU.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Switzerland has an agreement with the EU which is virtually identical to that which Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have. It isn't a part of the EEA in name, but in all respects that suit the Swiss it is.
And I expect the UK would be able to arrange something similar.

Probably, but would we want to? AIUI the issue with Norway is that they're still subject to all the Red Tape and Regulations, but they have much less of a voice in deciding what those regulations should be.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That might be hoped for by some, but Switzerland has never been part of the EU, so the starting position for any negotiations would be different. As that would be different it would be, IMNSHO, much harder to gain concessions for a former EU member than for a country that has unique political and economic relationships with the entire world, but happens to be geographically at the centre of the EU & EEA.

It doesn't follow that the ending point would be any different. Britain's leaving the EU would - couldn't - be a simple matter of leaving but would involve protracted and difficult negotiations over various matters - just as would happen if Scotland left the UK. I think it's better to assume that the outcome will depend on the respective strength of the negotiating parties - just as if the UK had never been in the EU in the first place.

I think controls re EU deals is an interesting point. I wonder how far the EU could enforce that without harming the euro's status as a worldwide currency and a reserve currency. In any event, controls could be used to exclude London anyway because it's not in the Eurozone - it being in the EU is perhaps beside the point.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0