UK to possibly hold EU referendum

[atg]

David Cameron has said the British people must "have their say" on Europe as he pledged an in/out referendum if the Conservatives win the election.
...

Can our UK members comment on the chances of this? My only exposure first hand to people from the UK is older relatives who still talk like Britain has an empire...

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

Basically if Cameron gets a majority in the next election he's going to attempt to renegotiate the British position in the EU, and then will hold a referendum to let the country decide if they want to accept the new arrangement he negotiates, or leave the EU.

I don't see this ending up in Britain leaving the EU. Cameron's plan is hinged in the Tories getting a majority in 2015, which...isn't going to happen if the current polls hold and the economy continues to go down the shitter. The legislation isn't even going to be passed in this Parliament. Even if they do get a majority, the EU holds most of the cards because Cameron doesn't actually want to withdraw from the EU completely (it would be economic suicide) and the EU probably aren't going to appreciate being blackmailed like this. What'll probably happen is Britain will get some token concessions on a British rebate and maybe the Social Charter that Cameron will attempt to spin as a huge victory and will support a "yes" vote in any referendum. This is a political move for domestic consumption to keep the UKIP wolves from the door in the run-up to the European elections and the 2015 election. It's utterly cynical and playing with fire, but it's probably going to end up being, to quote the Scottish Play, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

[Thanas]

Well, to be honest, Cameron has shit the bed on so many occasions with the rest of Europe that there will probably be a huge party in Berlin the moment he leaves, along with the custom fines being levied against the UK again which will probably wreck the rest of the British economy, or not if Merkel decides to be gracious and not repay kindness with with kindness.

[Crazedwraith]

Yeah, this reads as trying to shore up his support for the next general election.

On the other hand if it works and we do see this referenum, I can see there being enough stupid wankers voting to get the 'no we want out' side the win. Which is going to be bad.

[DaveJB]

It'll be interesting to see if UKIP and the other anti-EU people are able to present actual arguments during the debates and advertising campaigns that will inevitably take place in the run-up to such a referendum. So far they've been using circular logic arguments such as "The EU is the cause of all our country's problems, therefore the only way to solve our country's problems is to withdraw from the EU," and if they carry on with that approach they'll get ripped to shreds by the pro-EU side.

As an aside, on the off-chance that the UK actually does withdraw from the EU, how is that likely to affect the thousands of UK expats in the Mediterranean countries? Are they all suddenly going to become illegal immigrants?

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

The EU is a weird thing in the eyes of the British public. From what I've see, any polls that give a choice between continued membership of the EU and leaving the EU but retaining all the trade links with Europe (a complete pie in the sky scenario, but oh well) come out in favour of Britain leaving the EU by about 60-40. On the other hand, any polls that give a choice between staying in the EU AND revoking all the trade links with Europe or staying in the EU leads to the EU withdrawal option losing by about 70-30.

People enjoy bitching about the EU, but they also know that leaving it and sacrificing European trade and business is a very bad thing indeed. The financial institutions and big businesses in Britain do not want a withdrawal from the EU either, and these guys have the money and power to make the politicians bend over whenever it suits them. The entire political and economic establishment will be behind a "Yes" vote in the referendum, and that should carry the day. I hope...

[Minischoles]

A referendum of some kind on the EU has been promised by both Labour and The Tories for years, ever since Tony Blair in fact - Labour were smart enough not to go ahead with it, but unfortunately Cameron practically has no choice.

Despite him personally being all for the EU, and his coalition members the Lib Dems being for it, the majority of his party are still the good old Tories that Cameron was hoping everyone forgot about (and they did somehow forget). They are almost rabidly anti-eu, and would quite readily leave - it's a blatent attempt to both shore up support from his own party, and to try and shore up support for the next election, where it's increasingly looking like he's going to get slaughtered.


Any referendum is a really bad idea, and I really hope it doesn't come about. I don't think the vast majority of people even know how good the EU is for us politically and economically - all they've heard is decades of red top propaganda (like bendy bananas, having to use metric instead of imperial, Human Rights etc) and politicians have been just as bad, anything unpopular having to be put through has been blamed on the EU.

[madd0ct0r]

full text available here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 62592.html

I quote the section dealing with his vision for europe below:

The rest of the speech seems mostly be to highlight the brinkmanship. "The EU is weak right now, and without the UK would be weaker still. The UK, in turn, would be much weaker outside the EU, so I (personally) don't want us to leave. But we will if you don't give us what we want."

So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21 Century.

It is built on five principles.

The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that Single Market, and must remain so.

But when the Single Market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy - it is only half the success it could be.

It is nonsense that people shopping online in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want completing the single market to be our driving mission.

I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe's smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.

These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morning – and keep them working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision making that is holding us back.

That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic Union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete.

In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions?

Can we justify a Commission that gets ever larger?

Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multi-billion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven’t worked?

And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the Single Market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?

The second principle should be flexibility.

We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – North, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.

Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness - or Europe will fetch up in a no-man’s land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.

The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don’t and we shouldn’t assert that they do.

Some will claim that this offends a central tenet of the EU’s founding philosophy. I say it merely reflects the reality of the European Union today. 17 members are part of the Eurozone. 10 are not.

26 European countries are members of Schengen – including four outside the European Union – Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. 2 EU countries – Britain and Ireland – have retained their border controls.


Some members, like Britain and France, are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable with the use of military force.

Let’s welcome that diversity, instead of trying to snuff it out.

Let’s stop all this talk of two-speed Europe, of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.

Instead, let’s start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes.

By the same token, the members of the Eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all Member States, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make these changes too.

Some say this will unravel the principle of the EU – and that you can’t pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.

But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its Members more closely because such flexible, willing cooperation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.

Let me make a further heretical proposition.

The European Treaty commits the Member States to “lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European Court of Justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.

We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain – and perhaps for others - it is not the objective.

And we would be much more comfortable if the Treaty specifically said so freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so, without being held back by the others.

So to those who say we have no vision for Europe.

I say we have.

We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe.

And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.

This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to Member States, not just away from them. This was promised by European Leaders at Laeken a decade ago.

It was put in the Treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.

So let us use this moment, as the Dutch Prime Minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do and should stop doing.

In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review – to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.

Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.

Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

Nothing should be off the table.

My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.



There is not, in my view, a single European demos.

It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek Parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his Government’s austerity measures.

It is to the British Parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

Those are the Parliaments which instil proper respect – even fear - into national leaders.

We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.

My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the Eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.

So it is a vital interest for us to protect the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.

And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the Eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal coordination and banking union.

These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.

[madd0ct0r]

Highlighting mine, but basically he wants to abandon political unification, abandon the ability of the EU to stop his cronies raping the UK economy, and cripple the EU as a political force, so only the larger voices (France, Gemrany and UK) will be heard on the international stage.

But he wants to keep the single market.

[mr friendly guy]

For the non European, lets have a RAR hypothetical. What happens if the UK does leave the EU and Merkel is not generous. What can we realistically expect to see happen to both the UK and EU economies?

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

Assuming that Britain leaves both the EU and the EEA (they're not the same thing) and gets no concessions on trade and suchlike?

Bad things.

It's a ridiculously complicated scenario, and there are thousands of factors that could come into play, but here are what I think the most likely consequences would be.

As of the latest figures, the EU accounts for 48.6% of Britain's exports, but there are arguments that this is a very anomalous figure due to the current problems in the Eurozone and in normal circumstances it would be a lot higher. The figures for EU countries exporting to Britain is 22%, so they'd take a hit as well, but nowhere near as bad. Unless Britain did some serious work and got very lucky on sourcing non-EU exports it would probably kill off a British manufacturing sector which has slowly but steadily gone from "Completely and totally fucked" to "Only slightly fucked" over the past few years.

The financial sector in Britain would also have no influence over financial regulation introduced by the EU, and since Cameron has been by far the biggest block to the EU introducing financial regulation at the behest of his City paymasters I would expect any financial regulation to be passed in fairly short order in a Britain-less EU. It wouldn't end London as a financial capital overnight, but it would be a hell of a gut-shot and Frankfurt would probably end up eclipsing London as the financial capital of Europe.

Immigration is a trickier issue. The university sector would probably take a hit as I imagine EU students would face stricter controls and higher tuition fees which would probably convince a good chunk of them that it isn't worth the effort. Big business and the financial sector would probably start screaming as well for largely the same reasons, especially if the Tories get up to their usual tricks and start using immigration as a bogeyman for all of Britain's economic and social woes.

Withdrawal from the CFP would probably kill the British fishing industry as well, since they'll no longer have EU fishery controls and quotas to fall back on and Britain simply can't compete in a fisheries free-for-all with Spain and the Scandinavian countries.

That's just a very basic sketch of how Britain could be affected negatively off the top of my head. Somebody else may be able to go into it in more detail, but on my end I see far, far more disadvantages then benefits.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

Sorry for the double post, but something else just occurred to me.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this affects the Scottish independence debate. Unlike this EU referendum, we pretty much know that the Scottish referendum date is set in stone. All of the major parties in Scotland (the Scottish Tories aren't a major party, no matter how much they'd protest otherwise) are overwhelmingly pro-EU. The SNP will probably be able to make hay by claiming that Westminster is undermining the Scottish economy for their own venal domestic interests. It also turns the Conservative argument that Scotland staying in the UK is the choice of stability from a strong argument into a completely hypocritical one, since the Conservatives themselves are willing to plunge the entire UK into deep uncertainty on the EU question.

Salmond, once again, is probably rubbing his hands with glee at the Tories providing better justifications for Scottish independence than he ever could.

EDIT: It's already happened.

Alex Salmond says EU speech ‘completely changes’ independence vote

Alex Salmond. Picture: TSPL
By EDDIE BARNES
Published on Wednesday 23 January 2013 14:27

ALEX Salmond has claimed David Cameron’s pledge for an in-out referendum on EU membership “completely changes the nature of the debate” over the Scottish independence vote in 2014, as he warned the Prime Minister he had “confused” people over the country’s future in Europe.

Reacting to the Prime Minister’s call today, the First Minister said the pro-UK parties claim that Scottish independence would cause uncertainty had been holed by the fact that the UK now faces the prospect of a four year long run-in to a UK-wide referendum on the EU.

It comes after pro-UK business figures in Scotland have warned that the long run-in to the Scottish independence referendum will delay investment decisions here.

Mr Salmond said: “This was a fundamentally confused speech by the Prime Minister which is painfully short on detail.”

He added: “On the one hand he is trying to appease the Eurosceptics on his own backbenches and on the other he is trying to appear as a European reformer. He is trying to ride two horses at the same time and it is inevitable he will fall off before long.”

“This completely changes the nature of the debate in Scotland. The Westminster parties have consistently claimed that a referendum on Scotland’s independence causes uncertainty.

“It is now clear the persistent undercurrent of Tory Euroscepticism poses the biggest threat to Scotland’s position in the EU and has now helped to hole below the waterline the baseless scaremongering of Alistair Darling and the rest of the No campaign.”

The SNP Government does not favour an EU referendum in Scotland. SNP figures say their own preference would be for Scotland to vote for independence in 2014, after which they would seek to negotiate the country’s own membership of the EU.

They would not then plan to hold a referendum on that negotiated deal afterwards.

However, Scots Tory leader Ruth Davidson has backed the idea of putting the question of EU membership to Scots

said: “We have no fear of putting it to the people of Scotland to choose their preferred relationship within the EU, just as we are happy they will get their say on whether Scotland is to separate from the rest of the UK in the forthcoming referendum.”

She went on: “We recognise that people have concerns about the current arrangement between the UK and our European partners and it’s only right they get to cast their vote on what that future relationship should be.”

[Hillary]

The irony, of course, is that the majority of people who would happily fuck our economy by leaving the EU are exactly the same who spend their lives complaining that immigrants and the overseas development budget bleeds the country dry.

Fuckwits, the lot of them. It's a terrible idea to have a referendum on a topic where it is clear that the vast majority of those voting on it understand absolutely nothing about it.

May as well ask me to vote on soap star of the year.

[Crazedwraith]

Hillary, thats pretty much exactly right. I first read this story on Yahoo.co.uk. Guess what most of the comments there are like? *Shudder*

And the scottish indepedence thing is really worrying as well.

[madd0ct0r]

oh contraire, it means we might be able to emigrate without having to cross water!

[Teebs]

I am unsurprised by the the possibility of a referendum. I am worried though. I think the UK's mainstream politicians think they can easily win any referendum in favour of staying in the EU and I also think that may be a significant misjudgement. There are two factors acting against it, as far as I can see. One is that the anti-EU people are almost all virulently anti-EU while the pro-EU people are very equivocal ("The EU is in dire need of reform but on balance I support it."). Also people's tendency to vote in referendums on whether they're happy with the current political situation or not. Chances are that if/when a referendum is held it will be to try to distract people from other problems and they may well show their displeasure with the government when they vote.

Speaking for myself, if/when a referendum happens, I will be voting for the most pro-EU option.

Well, to be honest, Cameron has shit the bed on so many occasions with the rest of Europe that there will probably be a huge party in Berlin the moment he leaves, along with the custom fines being levied against the UK again which will probably wreck the rest of the British economy, or not if Merkel decides to be gracious and not repay kindness with with kindness.

I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the EU would impose severe customs penalties on the UK. If nothing else, the rest of the EU has a trade surplus with the UK which gives a poor cost benefit analysis. I think you over-estimate how happy the German political classes would be to see the UK out too. As I understand the UK provides a pretty vital counter-balance to France when it comes to economic (as opposed to political) debates within the EU.

[Thanas]

The custom penalties would be the same as for every other country outside the EU. As to the counter balance, ever since Cameron has gone "No no no" the UK is increasingly irrelevant in the EU. It does not provide a balance to anything because it does not even have the reputation to be willing to talk about shared goals anymore. In any case, Germany has no need to counter the French that heavily anymore considering the emergence of Poland in the last few years.

[Teebs]

The custom penalties would be the same as for every other country outside the EU. As to the counter balance, ever since Cameron has gone "No no no" the UK is increasingly irrelevant in the EU. It does not provide a balance to anything because it does not even have the reputation to be willing to talk about shared goals anymore. In any case, Germany has no need to counter the French that heavily anymore considering the emergence of Poland in the last few years.

Having worked in EU customs, I can tell you that different countries are treated differently by EU customs. Myself I think that EEA membership would likely be granted. I could be wrong, but I think naked financial interest would outweigh anger with the UK.

I think we can agree Cameron has not been good for Britain in the EU. I'm willing to admit that I haven't paid that much attention to EU matters outside the euro-crisis recently, but have you actually got any examples of the UK vetoing things outside that area? I agree they've been pains over the euro, but largely irrelevant pains since the euro problems are in the end going to be solved (or not) by the eurozone members.

[mr friendly guy]

The irony, of course, is that the majority of people who would happily fuck our economy by leaving the EU are exactly the same who spend their lives complaining that immigrants and the overseas development budget bleeds the country dry.

Fuckwits, the lot of them. It's a terrible idea to have a referendum on a topic where it is clear that the vast majority of those voting on it understand absolutely nothing about it.

May as well ask me to vote on soap star of the year.

But Hilary, that's democracy, where the right to vote is an end in itself, rather than a way to make people's lives better.

[mr friendly guy]

Just noticed, if the UK were to leave the EU, in today's terms the EU economy will become smaller than the US.

[General Mung Beans]

A referendum of some kind on the EU has been promised by both Labour and The Tories for years, ever since Tony Blair in fact - Labour were smart enough not to go ahead with it, but unfortunately Cameron practically has no choice.

Despite him personally being all for the EU, and his coalition members the Lib Dems being for it, the majority of his party are still the good old Tories that Cameron was hoping everyone forgot about (and they did somehow forget). They are almost rabidly anti-eu, and would quite readily leave - it's a blatent attempt to both shore up support from his own party, and to try and shore up support for the next election, where it's increasingly looking like he's going to get slaughtered.

How much support would this get from the leftists in the Labour Party-a lot of them don't seem to like the EU either?

[Zaune]

How much support would this get from the leftists in the Labour Party-a lot of them don't seem to like the EU either?

Probably not much, actually; for all the issues the EU has in its current form, it's chiefly responsible for a lot of good things that we wouldn't have otherwise; damn near any large infrastructure project that isn't within an hour's drive of London, for example, and a border policy more nuanced than "if you're rich and white come on in, everyone else fuck off".

[Hillary]

a border policy more nuanced than "if you're rich and white come on in, everyone else fuck off".

If you're rich, white and speak English as a first language.

[Zaune]

Good point.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

As I see it, this whole thing is a wriggling-out exercise on Cameron's part, and it might just have worked.

He might wish to repatriate some powers for ideological reasons, but he and at least some in his party know that all-out withdrawal would be economically ruinous. At the same time he's in an invidious position, both because a substantial portion of the Tory party are either deluded enough to think Britain would be better off out or see some personal economic advantage in the consequences, and because he made the mistake of promising a referendum at some point. To make matters even worse, there is a growing risk that these members and votes will head for UKIP if they don't like how things are going, thus weakening the Tory party. Cameron needs to avoid that while not annoying Europe too much, and it'll probably destroy him in the and (as it has so many other Tory PMs).

This speech strikes me as a way of kicking the problem into the long grass. The Eurosceptics can't say he's broken his pledge (he hasn't outright) and he has left himself two ways out. One is to not be Prime Minister in two years time (a distinct possibility), and the other is to make some symbolic gain in renegotiation. If the other EU leaders are feeling merciful, they could engineer a situation in which Cameron can save face; allowing him something symbolically important yet meaningless in practice. But I reiterate, that itself is pretty much riding on whether or not the Tories are in power, or part of a ruling coalition, sometime between now and 2015.