Cameron Promises EU Referendum

[HST Power]

At present, information on this story is still coming in, however it does appear that should the Conservative Party win the next General Election, we will be given a referendum on EU Membership.

http://news.sky.com/story/1041652/david-cameron-promises-in-out-eu-referendum

The PM delivers his long-awaited speech about Britain and the EU, declaring: "It is time for the people to have their say."

Effectively issuing an ultimatum to Brussels, Mr Cameron declared: "The danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit.

"It is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain's departure," he said.

He called for "fundamental, far-reaching change" as he admitted that the "EU is seen as something that is done to people, rather than acting on their behalf".

Mr Cameron rejected the principle of "ever closer union" and called for the end to the "one-size-fits-all" approach with countries in future having different levels of involvement.

However, he set himself firmly against a British exit and warned voters not to choose to leave without considering all the consequences.

Thoughts?

 

[Monty]

Lets see if it actually happens, they've got to win the next election first.

 

[Oswyntail]

Such a complicated area. First define what is meant by Europe! It is not the Eurozone, but, for the Eurozone to have any chance of success, the countries within it need to become very close politically and economically, if not merge (neither is likely). This is adding to the confusion, as Eurozone leaders need their comfort blanket, so peddle the myth that criticising the Euro is the same as criticising the EU. The EU is itself confused, as its biggest members seek to manipulate its policies so as to protect the Euro, and tend to ignore voices from outside the Eurozone.
So, I believe Cameron is right, in that we need to remain in Europe, but a Europe that is not simply run for the Euro. If the Eurozone continues to be the controlling bloc but also as economically doomed, then massive reform of the EU is necessary, possibly even to the extent of having two organisations. Only if that is impossible should we even consider leaving, but that would be a massive setback.
Other issues, such as repatriation of powers, are a red herring, and tinkering round the edges, as there are very few significant powers that have been "given away".
I also expect the Labour Party to continue to show its immaturity as a political organisation by ignoring the nuances within Europe, and concentrating, instead, on attempts to "embarrass" the PM. They will succeed only in encouraging the British electorate to see the debate as a Manichaean "In/Out" issue, which will tend to play into the hands of UKIP. This suits Labour whose only aim is to regain power rather than find workable solutions to the issues.

 

[Ferret]

Lets see if it actually happens, they've got to win the next election first.

Agreed. It's an absolute hospital pass for Labour though, because they know that much of the electorate want a referendum - even some Pro-Europeans want one so that the issue can be put to bed.

I'm cautiously supportive of Cameron here, so long as we have a fully open debate without scare-mongering, and where the case can be made for both leaving and staying and then we the people can make an informed choice. That's what I'd call democracy!

 

[Haydn1971]

My nagging doubt is the cost of unraveling all the largely hidden European standards that we currently use (BS EN xxxxx etc) - plus all the legislation that doesn't need seperation from the Europe, on stuff like car safety, exemptions from standards like the CE marks and so on - stepping out of Europe could actually cost the UK significantly more than the average voter expects, who by and large want to retain the £ and imperial measures and don't really care about the rest of what Europe is about.

 

[Aictos]

I believe the Nordic countries and Switzerland are part of Europe and have a working relationship with the EU but are not actually EU members, this works fine for them so why shouldn't the UK be able to enjoy the same relationship?

By this I mean have the UK as a trading member with the EU but not a EU member as such.

 

[tbtc]

Alex Salmond:

The Westminster parties have consistently claimed that a referendum on Scotland's independence causes uncertainty

Eck's got a point here...

 

[WillPS]

Cameron had to do this, otherwise UKIP would have split the Tory vote, probably ensuring Labour a landslide victory.

I expect UKIP will probably return a couple of seats in 2015 and knock chunks from the other parties; and under those circumstances whoever win that election will probably be compelled to hold a referendum just to shut them up.

I expect an in/out referendum to return an 'In' result.

 

[tbtc]

I expect an in/out referendum to return an 'In' result

It'll be interesting to see how the political class react if that happens.

For years we've had bores like Farage banging on about how "nobody asked us if we wanted to join the European Union" (which ignores the fact that the only UK-wide referendum held prior to the AV votes was about EEC membership, the majority party at every election since then have been pro-EU, people have had the chance to vote for the Referendum Party/ UKIP/ Veritas over the past twenty years, and the only major party to propose coming out of Europe was Labour in 1983 and we know how badly they were beaten).

Imagine if we find that a majority of people want us to stay in Europe - maybe not a massive majority, but a majority nonetheless - will this finally shut the likes of Farage up?

 

[455driver]

I have just had a deja vu moment, didnt he promise it before he got in last time?:roll:

He is just a typical lying politician and wont be getting my vote.

 

[radamfi]

What is most important to me is whether we will still be allowed to live and work in other European countries. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are outside the EU but nevertheless take part in the freedom of movement.

 

[HST Power]

Imagine if we find that a majority of people want us to stay in Europe - maybe not a massive majority, but a majority nonetheless - will this finally shut the likes of Farage up?

Interestingly, a YouGov poll on the left of the headline I linked shows that 40% of those questioned would sooner stay in the EU. 34% said no, 20% were unsure.

 

[Ferret]

The other issue here is that Cameron wants to renegotiate the terms of our membership. That will be resisted in Brussels because if the UK does it, other countries will want to as well. Brussels will not want us to leave, but will not want us to be able to renegotiate either, but if Brussels are seen to not give ground, I imagine that will tip the balance in favour of a departure.

I predict what will follow is a game of brinkmanship on all sides.

 

[WillPS]

Interestingly, a YouGov poll on the left of the headline I linked shows that 40% of those questioned would sooner stay in the EU. 34% said no, 20% were unsure.

I'd be surprised to see a majority wanting Britain out. UKIP isn't a popular party, it's a party for those who feel the Conservative party isn't elite enough and in recent years has become a protest vote, taking the place of the now toxic Liberal Democrats.

 

[Barn]

I have just had a deja view moment, didnt he promise it before he got in last time?:roll:

He is just a typical lying politician and wont be getting my vote.

No, he campaigned for a Lisbon treaty referendum while in opposition. Gordon Brown ratified it without a referendum (breaking a pledge made by Blair) and thus there ceased to be a treaty to vote on by the time Cameron got in. He made this clear a long while before the election.

The one leader who was promoting an In/Out referendum before the election was a certain Mr Nicholas Clegg...

On balance, Cameron come out of this fairly well on the honesty stakes.

 

[Oswyntail]

....For years we've had bores like Farage banging on about how "nobody asked us if we wanted to join the European Union" (which ignores the fact that the only UK-wide referendum held prior to the AV votes was about EEC membership,....

I agree about Farage and UKIP, but the inconvenient truth is that the former referendum was about a trade organisation, and the current dominant forces in the EU are tending towards the "Union" part of the title. I would vote to stay in, but not if there was a tight union of economic, fiscal and banking policy and law. The "EU" is poorly defined, and is being used as a vague term to justify every possible argument.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Listening to Cameron's speech I heard him say:

'...such a European Union is best with Britain, innit?'

but I may be wrong'

Frankly I'm against any speech that is supported by Liam Fox.

 

[Zoe]

Gordon Brown ratified it without a referendum (breaking a pledge made by Blair)

The pledge was for a referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. This treaty was signed in 2004 but France and the Netherlands had voted against it in referenda and this treaty was then abandoned, removing the need for any further referenda. A new treaty was then written which was signed in Lisbon in 2007 but this was a different document and not one that a promise had been made on.

 

[Ferret]

Oswyntail, will you stop making posts I agree with! It's breaking with tradition!

 

[table38]

Did Cameron actually promise an In or Out referendum?

Or did he actually say:

The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.

It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice.

So no new settlement = no referendum

There's an interesting article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/9813101/Norways-fax-democracy-is-nothing-for-Britain-to-fear.html

Under the EU’s treaty rules, there is no way powers, once handed over by a country, can be given back. Such negotiations as Mr Cameron has in mind would require a new treaty, a convention and an intergovernmental conference, which his EU colleagues would never allow. The only way he could compel them to negotiate would be by invoking Article 50 of the treaty, which can only be triggered by a country announcing that it wishes to leave.

 

[Barn]

The pledge was for a referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. This treaty was signed in 2004 but France and the Netherlands had voted against it in referenda and this treaty was then abandoned, removing the need for any further referenda. A new treaty was then written which was signed in Lisbon in 2007 but this was a different document and not one that a promise had been made on.

I'm not sure if you really believe that, Zoe. The Lisbon treaty had a different name and different formatting to the constitution but the content was almost entirely the same, including many of the 'constitutional' elements such as the president and foreign minister. The claim that a referendum was not covered by the pledge was to promote a literal, pedantic interpretation over a purposive one. It was an insult to the nation.

 

[Johnuk123]

Cameron is a proven liar re - the referendum we never had which he faithfully promised.

I don't believe we'll ever have a proper in-out referendum as they don't trust us to vote the way they want us to.

We're sleep-walking into the United States of Europe and eventually this country will just have "county" status in a German dominated mess.

The Conservatives won't get in at the next election it will no doubt be another coalition so the referendum promise will lapse anyway.

Move on nothing to see here.

 

[Zoe]

Cameron is a proven liar re - the referendum we never had which he faithfully promised.

I'm certainly not a fan of Cameron but to be fair, what purpose would a referendum in 2010 or later have served? The treaty had already been ratified by all nations and came into force in December 2009.

 

[Johnuk123]

I'm certainly not a fan of Cameron but to be fair, what purpose would a referendum have served? The treaty had already been ratified by all nations and came into force in December 2009.

I think it's called having a say.

 

[Zoe]

I think it's called having a say.

But it would have been a pointless expense to hold a referendum just so that people can "have a say" when the result would have made no difference. The structural changes agreed in the treaty were already effect and could not be reversed.

 

[NSEFAN]

Cameron is a proven liar re - the referendum we never had which he faithfully promised.

I don't believe we'll ever have a proper in-out referendum as they don't trust us to vote the way they want us to.

We're sleep-walking into the United States of Europe and eventually this country will just have "county" status in a German dominated mess.

The Conservatives won't get in at the next election it will no doubt be another coalition so the referendum promise will lapse anyway.

Move on nothing to see here.

And yet the majority people still vote for the two largest parties, although this is changing with more people gradually voting for UKIP.

I don't agree with all of UKIP's policies but I get the impression they are somewhat more honest than the current lot. Doubling-back on political promises is a sure way to drive people to minority parties, and hence more likely cause another coalition to be needed.

 

[SS4]

I'd rather stay with Brussels. I don't trust the Tories one iota to do what's right for those who don't have money

 

[WestCoast]

I believe the Nordic countries and Switzerland are part of Europe and have a working relationship with the EU but are not actually EU members, this works fine for them so why shouldn't the UK be able to enjoy the same relationship?

By this I mean have the UK as a trading member with the EU but not a EU member as such.

The only Nordic countries which aren't part of the EU are Norway and Iceland. Both are members of the European Economic Area and the Schengen Agreement, which means they they have to adopt a lot of European legislation without having a say in it. Switzerland has adopted some policies in its relationship with the EU and has also signed Schengen.

Do people believe that having no say in EU matters, but still having to adopt many aspects, is really a better situation?!? That's where the UKIP view falls down for me. Forget joining the North American trade pact or whatever, that just isn't going to happen. The Daily Mail brigade would then make out we were being ruled from Washington wouldn't they?

Britannia doesn't rule the waves any more, I think some just can't come to terms with that and this overrides a rational debate on the merits and drawbacks of EU membership. I see more holes in the UKIP solution than a block of Swiss Cheese!

 

[radamfi]

Being told what to do without having a say in it even has a phrase - 'fax democracy'.

Norway is basically 'de facto' EU without actually officially being in it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16594370

 

[yorksrob]

Imagine if we find that a majority of people want us to stay in Europe - maybe not a massive majority, but a majority nonetheless - will this finally shut the likes of Farage up?

Presumably about as much as Mr Salmond will stop banging on about Scottish independence if they lose their vote.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Being told what to do without having a say in it even has a phrase - 'fax democracy'.

Norway is basically 'de facto' EU without actually officially being in it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16594370

That is a worthwhile point to remember. One has to wonder how much of the three quarters of EU adopted by Norway have been adopted through coincidence or similar interests. It might be that the quarter not adopted are the laws that really would cause problems for Norway.

The policy areas noted all have precedents for not adopting legislation wholesale anyway:

Borders - We've opted out of Schengen wholesale anyway;
Immigration - admittedly, this might be easier for us being largely an island;
Foreign Policy - You couldn't really come up with bigger splits on foreign policy than some of those between us and our EU partners in the last ten years;
Agriculture; Not quite agriculture, but Iceland has always maintained a pretty robust independence of thought from it's neighbours on fisheries matters;
Police Co-operation - well, a lot of this is desireable anyway and it's difficult to see how a non EU country could be forced to have the European arrest warrent for example.