UK EU referendum by end 2017

Scofflaw

Cameron has finally set some kind of shape on his referendum proposal - by the end of 2017, and presenting the UK public with a choice between whatever he has managed to negotiate in the meantime, and leaving the EU.

David Cameron will on Wednesday set a deadline to hold an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union by the end of 2017 as he hardens his position on the issue that has bedevilled Tory leaders for a quarter of a century.

To the delight of Eurosceptics, the prime minister will throw down the gauntlet to his fellow EU leaders to agree to a revision of Britain's membership terms within two and a half years of the next general election or risk triggering a British exit.

In his long-awaited speech on Europe, which has been repeatedly delayed since the autumn, Cameron will pledge no rest until he wins because democratic consent for the EU in Britain is "wafer thin".

The prime minister will 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.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in-out referendum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/22/eu-referendum-2017-david-cameron

Of course, that requires the Conservatives to be in government in 2017 - hence the "new Conservative manifesto" bit. It'll be interesting to see whether Labour decide to match him, whether he negotiates anything much (the other Member States will certainly talk, but whether anything substantive results is anybody's guess), and whether this will successfully steal eurosceptical votes back off UKIP in the next election.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thomas_I

Scofflaw wrote: »

Cameron has finally set some kind of shape on his referendum proposal - by the end of 2017, and presenting the UK public with a choice between whatever he has managed to negotiate in the meantime, and leaving the EU.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/22/eu-referendum-2017-david-cameron

Of course, that requires the Conservatives to be in government in 2017 - hence the "new Conservative manifesto" bit. It'll be interesting to see whether Labour decide to match him, whether he negotiates anything much (the other Member States will certainly talk, but whether anything substantive results is anybody's guess), and whether this will successfully steal eurosceptical votes back off UKIP in the next election.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting to consider Scotlands referendum on its independence in autumn 2014 and depending on its result it also might affect the deadline 2017 for Britain as to say whether it still exists then or Scotland has left the Union with England already in 2017 and re-negotiate its own membership with the EU (if necessary).

swimming in a sea

is there going to be legislation put in place that this referendum has to take place? if that is even possible.

Odds say labour will be in power in 2017 so they won't hold one if given the choice.

Scofflaw

swimming in a sea wrote: »

is there going to be legislation put in place that this referendum has to take place? if that is even possible.

Odds say labour will be in power in 2017 so they won't hold one if given the choice.

I can't see any way for them to set it in stone at all. Under the UK's constitutional system, Parliament (technically, the monarch in parliament) is supreme, and cannot be bound in such a way by a previous Parliament. For the same reason, such a referendum cannot be binding, only advisory, and, in turn, that means that a UK Parliament cannot write into law a trigger similar to ours, where treaties impacting our sovereignty require the consent of the people - in the UK's constitutional setup, the people are not supreme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thomas_I

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't see any way for them to set it in stone at all. Under the UK's constitutional system, Parliament (technically, the monarch in parliament) is supreme, and cannot be bound in such a way by a previous Parliament. For the same reason, such a referendum cannot be binding, only advisory, and, in turn, that means that a UK Parliament cannot write into law a trigger similar to ours, where treaties impacting our sovereignty require the consent of the people - in the UK's constitutional setup, the people are not supreme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Aside from the constitutional aspects on that referendum, I find that Cameron really did make a point in his speech. He was telling what many people within the EU are thinking, not just the British and he pointed out the reasons for why the EU has become that unpopulare as it is. If he succeed in his negotiations with the EU and get what he wants, it would bear the chance for an general reform of the EU apparatus and from that point of view other EU member states could benefit from that stance.

Scofflaw

Thomas_I wrote: »

Aside from the constitutional aspects on that referendum, I find that Cameron really did make a point in his speech. He was telling what many people within the EU are thinking, not just the British and he pointed out the reasons for why the EU has become that unpopulare as it is. If he succeed in his negotiations with the EU and get what he wants, it would bear the chance for an general reform of the EU apparatus and from that point of view other EU member states could benefit from that stance.

It seems to be a common view in the UK - and thus secondarily perhaps in Ireland - that Cameron is only saying what "many people in the EU are thinking". If that is the case, there should, of course, be no difficulty in Cameron negotiating a more detached EU overall, because the governments of the rest of the Member States will respond to their own public opinion by welcoming, and indeed following, his proposals.

I wonder if that will actually be the case? So far, it seems there's little sign of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Thomas_I wrote: »

Aside from the constitutional aspects on that referendum, I find that Cameron really did make a point in his speech. He was telling what many people within the EU are thinking, not just the British and he pointed out the reasons for why the EU has become that unpopulare as it is.

All I see is populist rhetoric designed to pump up Eurosceptic sentiment:

David Cameron wrote:

...there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is – yes – felt particularly acutely in Britain.

...

People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity...

...

The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer thin.

There is little substance behind any of that.

BlitzKrieg

This will go one of two ways if Cameron gets re-elected.

1. Other EU leaders will do him a solid and implement some amount of the policies he is looking for, enough to look like a win for him and he'll put the referendum on hold (ala Tony Blair) there'll be a bit of a backlash initially but EU issues keep the british public's attention for so little time that by the next election only UKIP will be banging on about it and it will be domestic issues that will dominate the election.


2. Cameron will have the referendum but will stand on the *yes* vote side and learn quite painfully that he cannot control elections. I dont think the UK parties have paid attention to any of the Irish EU referendums, party loyalties lose a lot of value in referendums and Cameron will lose control of it and even if every major party stands by a yes vote it will most likely still get a *no* vote and parties like the BNP and UKIP will benefit the most from the referendum.


I hope for his sake, even if he doesnt announce it publicly that he has already made a decision on where the conservatives stand on the issue because they will need all the time between now and 2017 to prep the public for it (i.e teach people in the UK about the EU and quash the myths) I know from experience the knowledge on the EU in the UK is laughably poor.


Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but the last attempt at streamlining the EU to make it more efficient was the much hated by the public EU constitution? It feels like we are in bizarro world now.

hoff1

I dont follow politics that much but I find this very interesting .. Why have decided to hold a referendum if they get re-elected ?

BlitzKrieg

hoff1 wrote: »

I dont follow politics that much but I find this very interesting .. Why have decided to hold a referendum if they get re-elected ?

there has been a fear that ukip have been eating up the euroskeptic support of the tory party, a fear that has caused a few upsets in it's backbenchers during cameron's term.

So to fight off ukip at the next election and put labour in an uncomfortable position, they promise the referendum for after the election.

NAP123

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't see any way for them to set it in stone at all. Under the UK's constitutional system, Parliament (technically, the monarch in parliament) is supreme, and cannot be bound in such a way by a previous Parliament. For the same reason, such a referendum cannot be binding, only advisory, and, in turn, that means that a UK Parliament cannot write into law a trigger similar to ours, where treaties impacting our sovereignty require the consent of the people - in the UK's constitutional setup, the people are not supreme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not in ours either. The last 2 rejections of European treaties were just ignored.

The Brits will vote No if given the chance. Whether they elect the Cons or not is a different matter, but LAB might have to promise something similar in order to get elected next time.

Scofflaw

NAP123 wrote: »

Not in ours either. The last 2 rejections of European treaties were just ignored.

No, they delayed ratification until people voted Yes - and I say that as a Nice 1 No voter. Please don't try to interpret other people's votes to your own agenda.

NAP123 wrote: »

The Brits will vote No if given the chance. Whether they elect the Cons or not is a different matter, but LAB might have to promise something similar in order to get elected next time.

Possibly, but they may prefer to have clear water between them and the Tories on the issue. I tend to agree that taken right now, the UK would vote No, but up to now there has only really been one side in the game - those who would prefer not to see a UK exit from the EU haven't ever had to publicly support the EU in the teeth of public and media sentiment, so haven't done so. Forcing them to nail their colours to the mast might well produce some interesting results.

And if Cameron does hold a referendum and gets a Yes, he will effectively have emasculated euroscepticism as a political force in the UK for at least a decade.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

I was saying this in another thread
I think the UK public get a very slanted view of the EU and are capable of voting the country out. Even though I firmly believe leaving would be very bad for them. All these mysterious 'powers' we keep hearing about will turn out for the most part to not make much, if any, difference to the general public. Also if they leave I suspect the general public in the UK will learn the difference between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU the hard way.

Thomas_I

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems to be a common view in the UK - and thus secondarily perhaps in Ireland - that Cameron is only saying what "many people in the EU are thinking". If that is the case, there should, of course, be no difficulty in Cameron negotiating a more detached EU overall, because the governments of the rest of the Member States will respond to their own public opinion by welcoming, and indeed following, his proposals.

I wonder if that will actually be the case? So far, it seems there's little sign of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The respond of the governments of the other Member States to their own public opinion varies and differs from State to State. In Germany for instance, they won´t give a damn on public opinion, in France more likely to have a referendum too. I rather take the pattern by those Member States who gave their people a referendum on the Nice Treaty. The obstacles Cameron will have to face in his attempt to get the most out of it for the UK will come from the EU Commission, less from the EU Parliament and something in between from certain Member States like Germany and France. Well, there is certainly much left for speculations at the present. Cameron didn´t say what in particular he wants for the UK, the aims he talked about were just mentioned in a general manner.

I think that if there would be referendums in all Member States on whether the EU needs a great deal of overhaul in reforming itself, the result might be either very narrowly in favour of that or even a overwhelming yes.

I´m not in agreement that when some politicians are going to speak about the negative perception of the EU by the people that it is always right to deminish that as "populism". The frustration and anger of the people have been ignored for too long by many governments.

I´m in favour of an larger reformation of the EU and its institutions altogether with the aim to abolish those institutions which are not necessary anymore but more over to strenghten the EU Parliament by transferring more power to it. Further to replace the EU Commission by a second chamber in which the legislation of the EU Parliament has to get the consent of the Member States and from which chamber the Member States can bring in their own motions for and in legislative proceedings.

I´ll follow Camerons negotiations in the media from the day they start. I´m quite interested in how this will go and the concrete proposals he´s going to make.

Scofflaw

Thomas_I wrote: »

The respond of the governments of the other Member States to their own public opinion varies and differs from State to State. In Germany for instance, they won´t give a damn on public opinion, in France more likely to have a referendum too. I rather take the pattern by those Member States who gave their people a referendum on the Nice Treaty.

Yes, the standard answer - foreigners just aren't democratic.

Thomas_I wrote: »

The obstacles Cameron will have to face in his attempt to get the most out of it for the UK will come from the EU Commission, less from the EU Parliament and something in between from certain Member States like Germany and France. Well, there is certainly much left for speculations at the present. Cameron didn´t say what in particular he wants for the UK, the aims he talked about were just mentioned in a general manner.

Neither the Commission nor the Parliament would be particularly relevant in renegotiating the treaty obligations of a Member State. The main obstacles will be other Member States, of necessity, because it's the Member States that determine the obligations of EU membership.

Thomas_I wrote: »

I think that if there would be referendums in all Member States on whether the EU needs a great deal of overhaul in reforming itself, the result might be either very narrowly in favour of that or even a overwhelming yes.

And you base that on what set of facts?

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´m not in agreement that when some politicians are going to speak about the negative perception of the EU by the people that it is always right to deminish that as "populism". The frustration and anger of the people have been ignored for too long by many governments.

I´m in favour of an larger reformation of the EU and its institutions altogether with the aim to abolish those institutions which are not necessary anymore but more over to strenghten the EU Parliament by transferring more power to it. Further to replace the EU Commission by a second chamber in which the legislation of the EU Parliament has to get the consent of the Member States and from which chamber the Member States can bring in their own motions for and in legislative proceedings.

I´ll follow Camerons negotiations in the media from the day they start. I´m quite interested in how this will go and the concrete proposals he´s going to make.

Er, there are already two chambers in the EU's constitutional architecture - the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, the latter representing the Member States. And the current setup is that all legislation has to be passed by the Member States, and some of it by the Parliament. The Commission, while it prepares legislation, does so almost invariably in response to a request by one or other of the two chambers who vote on it. Once the legislation has left the Commission, the Parliament and Council vote on it and amend it - the Commission plays no further role.

The role of the Commission in the EU is a constitutional peculiarity necessitated by the fact that legislation for Europe is legislation for Europe, so the Commission acts as a filter to determine whether a proposal for legislation - whether by the Parliament, the Council, or more recently by the Citizens' Initiative - is actually necessary at a European level. Replacing this by a system in which the Member States proposed legislation off their own bat has the effect only of removing that filter, which would mean more European legislation, and European legislation driven entirely by national interests.

I can't see that as an improvement on the current process - it would produce more legislation, and legislation aimed at bolstering the interests of particular nations. Given the size differences between the Member States, that would simply result in legislation to benefit the largest nations. You might perhaps trust them to act only in the interests of Europe, I do not, so I would prefer to see the legislative initiative retained in the hands of a neutral body charged with ensuring European legislation is both European and necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thomas_I

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, the standard answer - foreigners just aren't democratic.

I neither said nor meant that.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither the Commission nor the Parliament would be particularly relevant in renegotiating the treaty obligations of a Member State. The main obstacles will be other Member States, of necessity, because it's the Member States that determine the obligations of EU membership.

If that is so, then it shouldn´t be a problem with them and it is - as you said - left to the Member States themselves.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And you base that on what set of facts?

Which facts? The most and nearly only source for such assumptions are the polls reported in news articles. Their reliability is questionable, its the nature of polls re their accuracy, but curious enough they do have some influence not only on public opinion, but also on politicians.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, there are already two chambers in the EU's constitutional architecture - the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, the latter representing the Member States. And the current setup is that all legislation has to be passed by the Member States, and some of it by the Parliament. The Commission, while it prepares legislation, does so almost invariably in response to a request by one or other of the two chambers who vote on it. Once the legislation has left the Commission, the Parliament and Council vote on it and amend it - the Commission plays no further role.

The role of the Commission in the EU is a constitutional peculiarity necessitated by the fact that legislation for Europe is legislation for Europe, so the Commission acts as a filter to determine whether a proposal for legislation - whether by the Parliament, the Council, or more recently by the Citizens' Initiative - is actually necessary at a European level. Replacing this by a system in which the Member States proposed legislation off their own bat has the effect only of removing that filter, which would mean more European legislation, and European legislation driven entirely by national interests.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. The public perception when anything unsuiteable comes from the EU in regulation it is reported to be issued by the Commission, so they got the blame. The Council of Ministers is rather rarely mentioned. It doesn´t seem to me that that filter is working propperly in compare to the often to hear and to read complaintes that there is too much regulation, too much legislation and too much bureaucracy. An reduction on these is what many people, advocated by their national governments want.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't see that as an improvement on the current process - it would produce more legislation, and legislation aimed at bolstering the interests of particular nations. Given the size differences between the Member States, that would simply result in legislation to benefit the largest nations. You might perhaps trust them to act only in the interests of Europe, I do not, so I would prefer to see the legislative initiative retained in the hands of a neutral body charged with ensuring European legislation is both European and necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is all a question of how far and which directions some reforms will go. Anyway I really welcome a stronger committment of the UK in EU affaires, but if they decide to leave for they don´t get what they want, then it is a pity, but one has to respect of their vote (if that referendum really will take place - it´s only a pledge by a vague guarantee depending on the victory in the next UK general elections with an Conservative government).

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Scofflaw

Thomas_I wrote: »

I neither said nor meant that.

If you read your answer back, you'll see that that's very much what you implied - that the UK government is responsive to public pressure, while other - continental - governments are not. I can't see how that can be interpreted as anything other than "foreigners aren't democratic".

Thomas_I wrote: »

If that is so, then it shouldn´t be a problem with them and it is - as you said - left to the Member States themselves.

It will be, but that doesn't mean there won't be a problem.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Which facts? The most and nearly only source for such assumptions are the polls reported in news articles. Their reliability is questionable, its the nature of polls re their accuracy, but curious enough they do have some influence not only on public opinion, but also on politicians.

Which is to say, then, that you have no source for the claim that the result of an EU-wide referendum on "EU reform" would be a Yes.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out to me. The public perception when anything unsuiteable comes from the EU in regulation it is reported to be issued by the Commission, so they got the blame. The Council of Ministers is rather rarely mentioned.

Unfortunately, that is indeed the case, which is actually quite bizarre when one considers that all EU legislation has to be accepted by the Council, with the exception being strictly limited cases where the Council has agreed to delegate certain statutory powers to the Commission. Lisbon made a hefty number of additions to the legislation that also has to pass the Parliament, but it seemed to escape people's attention that the other party in all legislative processes was the Council, not the Commission.

Thomas_I wrote: »

It doesn´t seem to me that that filter is working propperly in compare to the often to hear and to read complaintes that there is too much regulation, too much legislation and too much bureaucracy. An reduction on these is what many people, advocated by their national governments want.

I don't think there's any case in recorded history of people agreeing that their government is under-regulating them. The exercises think-tanks do in totting up the "cost of EU legislation" are kind of bogus, because the implied comparison is with a situation of no regulation, which wouldn't happen anyway. The UK would still have spent 1973-2013 introducing rafts of legislation were it not in the EU, so the proper comparison is with the purported alternative national regulatory regime.

In fact, if one looks back, the EU has been very much an overall reducer of red tape, particularly for any company that either imports or exports, because there's only one European rule to comply with, as opposed to 27 different national rules. But, sure, there's plenty of streamlining that can still happen.

The accusation of 'too much bureaucracy' - well, again, it's rare to hear the opposite complaint, at least couched in those terms. The EU certainly does really classic bureaucratic bloopers, but it's hard to regard a bureaucracy consisting of about 30,000 civil servants and maybe twice that number of agency personnel - total 100,000 or so for the EU's 500 million citizens - as "excessive". EU administration costs €16.50 annually per person, which is hardly onerous.

Thomas_I wrote: »

That is all a question of how far and which directions some reforms will go. Anyway I really welcome a stronger committment of the UK in EU affaires, but if they decide to leave for they don´t get what they want, then it is a pity, but one has to respect of their vote (if that referendum really will take place - it´s only a pledge by a vague guarantee depending on the victory in the next UK general elections with an Conservative government).

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Sure - it's a long road that has no turnings, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thomas_I

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you read your answer back, you'll see that that's very much what you implied - that the UK government is responsive to public pressure, while other - continental - governments are not. I can't see how that can be interpreted as anything other than "foreigners aren't democratic".

It´s an generalisation and I´m more for differenciated views.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It will be, but that doesn't mean there won't be a problem.

Agreed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is to say, then, that you have no source for the claim that the result of an EU-wide referendum on "EU reform" would be a Yes.

Yes, no source at all that could be used as evidence. It is just an assumption, nothing more.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that is indeed the case, which is actually quite bizarre when one considers that all EU legislation has to be accepted by the Council, with the exception being strictly limited cases where the Council has agreed to delegate certain statutory powers to the Commission. Lisbon made a hefty number of additions to the legislation that also has to pass the Parliament, but it seemed to escape people's attention that the other party in all legislative processes was the Council, not the Commission.

That is quite so, because the Commission is more often present in the media than the Council. Sometimes they both might be confused in case one doesn´t payes the proper attention.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think there's any case in recorded history of people agreeing that their government is under-regulating them. The exercises think-tanks do in totting up the "cost of EU legislation" are kind of bogus, because the implied comparison is with a situation of no regulation, which wouldn't happen anyway. The UK would still have spent 1973-2013 introducing rafts of legislation were it not in the EU, so the proper comparison is with the purported alternative national regulatory regime.

In fact, if one looks back, the EU has been very much an overall reducer of red tape, particularly for any company that either imports or exports, because there's only one European rule to comply with, as opposed to 27 different national rules. But, sure, there's plenty of streamlining that can still happen.

The accusation of 'too much bureaucracy' - well, again, it's rare to hear the opposite complaint, at least couched in those terms. The EU certainly does really classic bureaucratic bloopers, but it's hard to regard a bureaucracy consisting of about 30,000 civil servants and maybe twice that number of agency personnel - total 100,000 or so for the EU's 500 million citizens - as "excessive". EU administration costs €16.50 annually per person, which is hardly onerous.

I agree on most of what you´ve said. It´s the hobby-horse of most populistic politicians to stirr up anti-EU sentiments to gain votes or simply to draw attention to themselves. Otherwise I also see it that way that there has been more EU regulations than would be necessary, i. e. which also could be handled better by the national governments without EU interference.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - it's a long road that has no turnings, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There is of course no guarantee that from what the British might gain for themselves others might benefit from it as well. It depends on what turns up from these up coming negotiation process and how far it might influence an attempt to reform the EU in the future. The British were for too long just standing by and instead to make constructive proposals, just complaining about the EU. It´s good to see that at last Cameron is taking up some engagement, although I know that it is for the UKs national interest in the first place. I find it at least constructive to kick off that issue, but I still have to wait for what he has in his mind on concrete proposals. In his speech he mentioned many points and how it could or even should work better, the details yet have to come forward.

Kind Regards,
Thomas

djpbarry

Thomas_I wrote: »

It´s good to see that at last Cameron is taking up some engagement...

Well, he hasn’t actually engaged in anything yet. He’s basically stated that the EU needs to change to suit the UK – doesn’t sound like he’s in the mood for compromise. Of course, I don’t really believe for a second that Cameron wants to see a UK withdrawal, but he’s being held to ransom by the UKIP and his own backbenchers.

As such, the best thing that could happen for both the UK and EU is a split in the Tory party, with Cameron and the moderates (the bulk of the party) on one side, and the right-wing dinosaurs on the other, who would likely either form their own “new conservative” conservative party, or join the UKIP. This would likely result in an increased vote for the ultra right-wingers, but at least we’d have them all in the one place and we could keep an eye on them. The Tories would probably lose a substantial number of votes to them, but at least Cameron could focus on what he believes is best for the country, rather than what he feels he ought to believe in order to hold on to votes.

Thomas_I

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, he hasn’t actually engaged in anything yet. He’s basically stated that the EU needs to change to suit the UK – doesn’t sound like he’s in the mood for compromise. Of course, I don’t really believe for a second that Cameron wants to see a UK withdrawal, but he’s being held to ransom by the UKIP and his own backbenchers.

As such, the best thing that could happen for both the UK and EU is a split in the Tory party, with Cameron and the moderates (the bulk of the party) on one side, and the right-wing dinosaurs on the other, who would likely either form their own “new conservative” conservative party, or join the UKIP. This would likely result in an increased vote for the ultra right-wingers, but at least we’d have them all in the one place and we could keep an eye on them. The Tories would probably lose a substantial number of votes to them, but at least Cameron could focus on what he believes is best for the country, rather than what he feels he ought to believe in order to hold on to votes.

In the event that it´ll go the way you say, the next UK government would be of Labour. A split in the Tory party would only weaken them. The other question that remains is, would the LibDems benefit from that?

Either way if Cameron is to focus on what he believes or feels he ought to believe, there are not less things he said in which I think that he was right. He was honest and frankly enough to state that his intention is to gain what suites the UK at best and in this regards I´ll have my focus on the side effects as well.

evercloserunion

Very cute of him to say "tell you what, guarantee my salary for another five years, *then* I'll give you what I promised you".

djpbarry

Thomas_I wrote: »

In the event that it´ll go the way you say...

I really don't think it will.

Thomas_I wrote: »

...the next UK government would be of Labour.

Wouldn't do the country any harm if Labour split too.

Thomas_I wrote: »

A split in the Tory party would only weaken them.

In the short term, definitely, but they may benefit in the long term. It would certainly modernise the party.

LindowMan

swimming in a sea wrote: »

is there going to be legislation put in place that this referendum has to take place? if that is even possible.

Odds say labour will be in power in 2017 so they won't hold one if given the choice.

I think there will be a referendum whether the Conservatives or Labour win the election. There will be a referendum either way.

Both parties know that the majority of the British people want an EU in/out referendum so both parties know that any party which promises to hold an EU in/out referendum should they be re-elected in 2015 will win many votes because of it.

It's because of this that Labour know that they cannot sit back and allow the Conservatives to have their promise of a referendum should they win the next election whilst Labour do nothing. They know that the Conservatives will win many votes because of it. So it's only a matter of time before Labour respond in kind and also promise a referendum should they win in 2015. It's a vote-winner for both parties.

LindowMan

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't see any way for them to set it in stone at all. Under the UK's constitutional system, Parliament (technically, the monarch in parliament) is supreme, and cannot be bound in such a way by a previous Parliament. For the same reason, such a referendum cannot be binding, only advisory, and, in turn, that means that a UK Parliament cannot write into law a trigger similar to ours, where treaties impacting our sovereignty require the consent of the people - in the UK's constitutional setup, the people are not supreme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the Scots can have a UK in/out referendum then the British can have an EU in/out referendum.

LindowMan

NAP123 wrote: »

Not in ours either. The last 2 rejections of European treaties were just ignored.

The Brits will vote No if given the chance. Whether they elect the Cons or not is a different matter, but LAB might have to promise something similar in order to get elected next time.

Here's some bad news for those who want Britain to remain in the EU:


Poll shows half of Brits would vote to leave the EU

Published 18 February 2013

Only one in three Britons would vote for the UK to remain part of the EU, according to a poll by Harris Interactive for the Financial Times.

Given an in-out referendum on EU membership tomorrow, 50% would vote “out” against 33% “in” and 17% who would not vote either way, according to the poll.

The findings, which are likely to spark alarm in pro-European circles, suggest that anti-Brussels sentiment is sweeping through the British public, the Financial Times reported on Monday (18 February).

In a landmark speech, British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to hold a referendum in 2017.

The promise of a plebiscite is very popular with the electorate, with 50% supporting the decision and only 21% opposing it.

During the speech, Cameron also said that he would be able to convince the public of the merits of staying in the EU so long as he can renegotiate the relationship.

However, of those who would vote “out”, only 12 % said they would “definitely” change their minds if there were a successful renegotiation. Another 47% said “yes, possibly” to the idea that they could alter their vote. But 41% of those wanting Britain to leave would definitely not change their point of view.

The Harris poll of 2,114 adults was conducted after Cameron's speech, from 29 January to 6 February.

http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/poll-shows-brits-vote-exit-eu-news-517867

Scofflaw

LindowMan wrote: »

If the Scots can have a UK in/out referendum then the British can have an EU in/out referendum.

Sure, but it's not legally binding.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

LindowMan wrote: »

Here's some bad news for those who want Britain to remain in the EU:


Poll shows half of Brits would vote to leave the EU

I'm sure a poll could be conducted to show that half of Brits want a lifetime supply of free ice-cream, but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

LindowMan

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, but it's not legally binding.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Passing a law to allow an EU in/out referendum withing a fixed time frame would be quick and easy.

The Left wing europhiles of Labour and the LibDems may have enough votes to block the legislation in the Commons but to do so would involve them explicitly lining up to prevent the British people - who want an EU in/out referendum - from having their say.

It would be suicidal. Labour and the LibDems know that if this did block such legislation, they would then pay a heavy political price in the next election after that. They would be severely punished by voters. So they would surely have to allow the legislation to pass.

Basically, Labour and the LibDems would have two choices. Either:

1) Permit the legislation to pass to allow an EU in/out referendum to be held within a fixed time frame, or;

2) Do not allow it to pass and then see themselves destroyed in the next election after that.

LindowMan

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure a poll could be conducted to show that half of Brits want a lifetime supply of free ice-cream, but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

It's called democracy. The British people haven't had a say on whether they want to be in the EU since 1975, since when millions of voters have died and millions of voters have been born and when the people's attitude towards the EU has changed greatly. It's now the time for us to be allowed a say again. If the Scots can have a say on Scotland's future in the UK then the British should be allowed to have a say on Britain's future in the EU. It's not right if the British cannot have such a say when the Scots are being allowed to.

I also wouldn't like to be the Conservative Party should they win the next election and then NOT give us the referendum. That would be suicidal for them.

And if I was Labour, I would also start thinking about promising to hold a referendum should THEY win the next election. Because, as things stand, they risk the Conservatives winning the next election just so that the referendum can be held.

Scofflaw

LindowMan wrote: »

Passing a law to allow an EU in/out referendum withing a fixed time frame would be quick and easy.

The Left wing europhiles of Labour and the LibDems may have enough votes to block the legislation in the Commons but to do so would involve them explicitly lining up to prevent the British people - who want an EU in/out referendum - from having their say.

It would be suicidal. Labour and the LibDems know that if this did block such legislation, they would then pay a heavy political price in the next election after that. They would be severely punished by voters. So they would surely have to allow the legislation to pass.

Basically, Labour and the LibDems would have two choices. Either:

1) Permit the legislation to pass to allow an EU in/out referendum to be held within a fixed time frame, or;

2) Do not allow it to pass and then see themselves destroyed in the next election after that.

None of which makes such a referendum legally binding, because the UK has no provision for binding referendums, and the supreme power is vested in the monarch in Parliament.

Just saying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

LindowMan wrote: »

It's called democracy.

I call it populism.

LindowMan wrote: »

The British people haven't had a say on whether they want to be in the EU since 1975...

Haven't they? Why are the Tories proposing a referendum then?

LindowMan

Scofflaw wrote: »

None of which makes such a referendum legally binding, because the UK has no provision for binding referendums, and the supreme power is vested in the monarch in Parliament.

Just saying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Scots have had no problem having a referendum next year.

No that long ago there was a nationwide referendum on AV.

So I don't see what the problem is.