nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why are the British so anti Europe?

thechanger

And I'm not simply referring to just Daily Mail readers. I've noticed quite an anti Europe trend on more liberal papers like the Guardian recently.

I'm guessing the average man on the street couldn't explain the whole euro economic situation to a kid, so why do they want to leave the EU so badly?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fratton Fred

Solair wrote: »

True, but no French ex-colonies are remotely on the scale of economic influence / interest of Canada, Australia, NZ, India, etc... Or, the USA (despite its long long disassociation with the UK).

As for the UK involvement in former colonies ... for example, even within the EU, it still maintains RAF basis in Cyprus.
It's still deeply involved with various international conflicts around the world many of which are in areas it was involved in colonising / meddling with in the past.

I'm not saying France isn't a former colonial power that still has notions too.

I'm just saying that France's sense of self in Europe changed radically after WWII, Britain's really didn't.

I just always think that the UK saw the EEC/EC/EU as some kind of restorative project for countries that lost the war while it just kinda half plugged into it. Then as the project grew and evolved, it kind of became a reluctant participant.

I agree though, I think the EU needs massive reforms if it's going to continue ahead with notions of federalism.
There's got to be something to balance out the powers. Perhaps something along the lines of the US Senate which gives state two senators regardless of size.

The tendency in the EU is to try push for population based weightings and that's just going to cause conflict as the big two throw their weight around.

This Eurozone crisis will either make it (if it reforms, becomes accountable and adapts) or break it (if it just grabs power and acts without a proper mandate/legitimacy)

I just think the UK is kind of throwing in the towel a bit too early. The EU's a far healthier place with the UK in, rather than out with the Germans calling all the economic shots and being way too powerful.

you do realise that over 2.5m people are still under direct French rule but living outside of France?

France treats it's overseas territories the same way the UK treats Armagh, Essex or Gwent.

The Corinthian

NAP123 wrote: »

To be a xenophobe you have to actually hate.

Incorrect: xe·no·phobe, n,; one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

You'll note that the word is composed of the greek xenos, meaning stranger and phobos, meaning fear.

I don,t hate anybody or anything. I just don,t trust everybody or everything.

That fear or mistrust alone would not make you a xenophobe, except that that you are 'unduly' so, that is irrationally so. Or you may not be, but if no, you've done nothing other than give evidence that your concerns are based on irrational fears, given even you last post.

As for hating anyone, there's often a fine line between fear and hate and I'll have to say that in some of the things you've posted, you may well have crossed it.

We all know the Germans have long memories when it comes to the high inflation caused by the terms of the Versailles Treaty and the subsequent rise of Nazism, but they tend to have very short memories when it comes to bailouts and the forgiveness of sins.

How do we all 'know' this? Is this one of those things that we all 'know' in the same way that black people are all good at singing? I think you'll find that this is a prejudice rather than a fact.

I also note you've stopped talking about the French, all of a sudden.

I am niether a Europhile or a Europhobe.

I think you've made it quite clear what you are.

getz

notice david cameron said to-day,quote;europe is being out-competed, out-invested,out innovated,and it is time we made the EU an engine for growth,not a cause of cost for businesses and complaint for its citizens.; on wednesday ,german chancellor angela merkel said,;she will listen to britains wishes to try and forge a compromise,;so to sum it up,germany runs the EU with the help of france,and it does not matter what the little countries think or like,

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

notice david cameron said to-day,quote;europe is being out-competed, out-invested,out innovated,and it is time we made the EU an engine for growth,not a cause of cost for businesses and complaint for its citizens.; on wednesday ,german chancellor angela merkel said,;she will listen to britains wishes to try and forge a compromise,;

You do know that the UK is presently being "out-competed, out-invested and out-innovated" by Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands? Source.

So I wouldn't swallow everything that Cameron says at face value.

so to sum it up,germany runs the EU with the help of france,and it does not matter what the little countries think or like,

What were you summing up? Not anything from what you wrote earlier in your post, that's for sure.

NAP123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect: xe·no·phobe, n,; one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

You'll note that the word is composed of the greek xenos, meaning stranger and phobos, meaning fear.

That fear or mistrust alone would not make you a xenophobe, except that that you are 'unduly' so, that is irrationally so. Or you may not be, but if no, you've done nothing other than give evidence that your concerns are based on irrational fears, given even you last post.

As for hating anyone, there's often a fine line between fear and hate and I'll have to say that in some of the things you've posted, you may well have crossed it.

How do we all 'know' this? Is this one of those things that we all 'know' in the same way that black people are all good at singing? I think you'll find that this is a prejudice rather than a fact.

I also note you've stopped talking about the French, all of a sudden.

I think you've made it quite clear what you are.

At least one of us is clear about something.

The Corinthian

NAP123 wrote: »

At least one of us is clear about something.

Despite a few typos, where and there, I thought I've been quite clear.

Nonetheless, thank you for admitting your prejudices and phobias.

oscarBravo

NAP123 wrote: »

Yes, I would like a legal basis for the people of Europe to have a referendum on whether they would like to be governed by their own elected Govt.

donaghs wrote: »

"Legal basis" is a bit of a distraction. Laws can amended for any purpose. I think the poster was leaning more towards a "moral basis".

You can't have a moral basis for an EU-wide referendum, only a legal basis.

In order for there to be a binding plebiscite across the entire Union, the member states would have to cede to the Union the power to hold such a plebiscite and agree that its outcome would be binding on them.

You both appear to be arguing for the member states to cede this huge chunk of sovereignty to the very EU of which you are so critical - and you probably can't see the irony, even after I've pointed it out.

As I've said before, the line between Euroskeptic and Eurofederalist is sometimes a very, very fuzzy one.

Solair

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you do realise that over 2.5m people are still under direct French rule but living outside of France?

France treats it's overseas territories the same way the UK treats Armagh, Essex or Gwent.

Yeah, but the difference is that those overseas territories are about as economically significant as Armagh or Gwent (probably not Essex).

Where as the UK still has a notional idea that it has great ties to places like India, Canada, Australia, NZ, and even China via Hong Kong and many other places too.

The British Empire was absolutely vast compared to the French one.

What I am saying is that it's a 'notion' that harks back to an era when the UK did have this huge empire (not all that long ago).

For practical purposes, the UK's deep ties to EU counterparts are far more significant than loose, fluffy connections from another era to countries that in many cases have the sense that it's a former colonial master that they were glad to see the back of, particularly in places like India.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the (British) Commonwealth ≠ European Union. One's a quasi-federal (controversial word) collection of states in Europe, the other is a sort of glorified golf club.

NAP123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Despite a few typos, where and there, I thought I've been quite clear.

Nonetheless, thank you for admitting your prejudices and phobias.

You mean your opinion of my prejudices and phobias.

Typos were not the reason for your muddled post. It just made no sense.

Your attempt at amateur psychology, is indeed amateur.

I am sure most readers had as good a laugh at it, as I did.

NAP123

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can't have a moral basis for an EU-wide referendum, only a legal basis.

In order for there to be a binding plebiscite across the entire Union, the member states would have to cede to the Union the power to hold such a plebiscite and agree that its outcome would be binding on them.

You both appear to be arguing for the member states to cede this huge chunk of sovereignty to the very EU of which you are so critical - and you probably can't see the irony, even after I've pointed it out.

As I've said before, the line between Euroskeptic and Eurofederalist is sometimes a very, very fuzzy one.

Why would the Sovereign States have to cede sovereignty to the EU in order to have a plebicite?

Your argument, augments our argument.

If sovereign states have to ask permission of the EU to have a plebicite on the power of the EU, then there is no such thing as sovereign states.

How did that happen?

BlitzKrieg

Just to ensure this is not crossed wires

NAP123 are you asking for a single europe wide referendum, as in national borders are ignored and it is treated as one single referendum across 27 states?

Or are you looking for the same referendum to be put individually to each state?

Both scenarios have serious problems on the point of sovereignty

The Corinthian

NAP123 wrote: »

You mean your opinion of my prejudices and phobias.

Quite right; for confirming my opinion of your character.

I suggested that the basis of your eurosceptic beliefs is based on xenophobia. You've repeatedly underlined your mistrust of foreigners and then went so far as to push stereotypical clichés about the Germans to underline your this phobia. I wouldn't mind if you bothered to actually back this up in any way, but you didn't - you just relied on good old "the Hun want to conquer the World" hysteria. Finally you surprised me by seemingly admitting it all.

If this is in any way misinterpreted, feel free to point out how. I won't hold my breath, that you will though.

Typos were not the reason for your muddled post. It just made no sense.

It made perfect sense. In English.

Your attempt at amateur psychology, is indeed amateur.

I am sure most readers had as good a laugh at it, as I did.

Quite the opposite, from what I can see.

The Browser

One of the odd things that struck me in Cameron's speech was his assertion that he didn't believe in a European demos.

Well, does he believe in a British one? And if he does, then why does he, when quite a few inhabitants of his island clearly do not?

I'd also question the title of this thread. Perhaps rather than "Why are the British so anti Europe?", it would be more accurate to ask "Why are the English so anti Europe?".

Solair

It's also going to complicate the Scottish independence referendum as from what I'm hearing, some Scottish people are very concerned that England may take them out of the EU. In which case, they will be more likely to vote for independence.

It could be really weird if you end up with Scotland out of the UK but in the EU while England, Wales and Northern Ireland end up out of the EU.

Personally, I think this will probably all blow over because it's unlikely the Tories will get re-elected. They haven't a majority at the moment anyway and the Lib Dems are toast in the same way that the Greens were here. Even without all that Cameron and his posh front bench have alienated at least half the country.

I'd say it's going to be Labour next time.

I do think however, that it in some ways is good that someone's putting a bit of pressure on the EU institutions. They have largely failed to reform or deal with the democratic deficit in a meaningful way. There's a lot of inertia and business-as-usual in Brussels.

The UK's other concern is that the EU's rapidly becoming the Eurozone + others. The Eurozone countries are tending to threaten to take decisions that impact on everyone else e.g. on financial regulation. I think that's probably where some of the more sensible aspects of the UK opposition to the EU are coming from at least in the middle of the Tory Party.

The Corinthian

Solair wrote: »

It's also going to complicate the Scottish independence referendum as from what I'm hearing, some Scottish people are very concerned that England may take them out of the EU. In which case, they will be more likely to vote for independence.

Which is one reason why, I suspect, any EU referendum will have to wait until 2017, while the Scottish independence referendum is due in 2014 - if Scotland leave the UK at that point, they would also be leaving the EU and would have to reapply. I expect Scotland will be easier to keep in the union if faced also with leaving the EU than a later referendum where this could well be moot.

Additionally, Scotland isn't exactly europhilic. While Eurosceptic sentiment in England is higher (about 60% looking to leave the EU), Scotland isn't that far behind (just under 50%).

Nonetheless, if I were the SNP, I'd probably play on the uncertainty of an EU referendum to counteract the uncertainty of of leaving the UK. While the Scots may not be overly fond of the EU, they're certainly more fond than the English and less fond of potentially being forced to leave the EU because the English have greater voting numbers than them.

It could be really weird if you end up with Scotland out of the UK but in the EU while England, Wales and Northern Ireland end up out of the EU.

I've not heard any suggestion that there is any significant Welsh independence movement at present.

Scotland, I'd feel, will remain in the union, on balance. Given this, were Scotland to leave, this would almost certainly affect Northern Ireland, potentially accelerating any move twoards unification with the south, a looser association with the UK or independence from both the UK and Ireland.

So were Scotland to secede, there's a fair chance that a rump UK, composed of England and Wales (and akin to the last incarnation of Yugoslavia), would not be an unlikely outcome by 2025. But, as I said, I can't see Scotland actually doing so, as things stand.

Solair

It could be a total mess!

I mean imagine a scenario in 2020 like this:

An Independent Scotland re-applying for EU membership.
The UK outside the EU.

While simultaneously on the continent:
Belgium split in two with Wallonia and Flanders applying for EU membership, possibly leaving the EU institutions physically outside the EU or Brussels having to become like Washington DC as an independent mini-state.

Perhaps Spain ending up with Catalonia and the Basque Country walking off..

Europe's never a dull place!

The Corinthian

Lot's of 'ifs' there.

I'm not that familiar with the Catalonian situation, but the Belgian one won't end in a split until the two sides can agree on who gets Brussels, which I can't see happening soon and it's more likely that it'll blow over before they do. Scotland I can't see seceding realistically, as things stand, and if a week is a long time in politics, imagine how far 2017 is, where it comes to the UK and the EU.

They were prophesying a similar split in Italy, the so-called Padania, back in the mid-nineties. Where's that now?

Eastern Europe went through a process of national redefinition, following the fall of Communism, but Western Europe hasn't seen any such succession since the 1920's - and that was us.

Solair

I suspect the whole thing will blow over, it usually does when people start to look at the actual economic / practical implications.

Most people tend to be a bit more pragmatic.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Lot's of 'ifs' there.

I'm not that familiar with the Catalonian situation, but the Belgian one won't end in a split until the two sides can agree on who gets Brussels, which I can't see happening soon and it's more likely that it'll blow over before they do. Scotland I can't see seceding realistically, as things stand, and if a week is a long time in politics, imagine how far 2017 is, where it comes to the UK and the EU.

They were prophesying a similar split in Italy, the so-called Padania, back in the mid-nineties. Where's that now?

Eastern Europe went through a process of national redefinition, following the fall of Communism, but Western Europe hasn't seen any such succession since the 1920's - and that was us.

The Catalans strike me as pushing ahead quite rapidly and forcefully - this happened a couple of days ago:

Catalonia’s parliament has adopted a declaration of sovereignty, the first step towards a possible referendum on breaking away from Spain.

The nationalist resolution was passed with 85 votes for and 41 against, increasing the pressure on Madrid.

Catalonia’s two main nationalist parties signed a pact last month pledging to hold a referendum next year.

http://www.euronews.com/2013/01/24/catalonia-s-parliament-adopts-declaration-of-sovereignty/

A major difference with Catalonia and most of the other breakaways is that it's not in any sense a dependent area, but rather an economic powerhouse within Spain. In that sense it's a little like Lombardy, but Catalonia has a far more definite identity - own language, existing regional government and a single capital city.

More likely to happen than Scotland, I'd say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

Scofflaw wrote: »

In that sense it's a little like Lombardy, but Catalonia has a far more definite identity - own language, existing regional government and a single capital city.

Well Lombardy has it's own language, or dialect, regional government and a single capital city (Milan). However, in the mid-nineties, the separatist movement would have been more for the northern (and north-central) Italian regions, christened Padania, than any singular region. There's never been a huge amount of support for returning to the Republic of Venice or Grand-Duchy of Tuscany.

In the end the matter was diffused with a mixture of greater autonomy and reform in the South, which was and still is a major bone of contention in the northern half of Italy.

What's happening in Spain at present, may or may not be similar, but as I said, I'm not up to speed on it.

oscarBravo

NAP123 wrote: »

Why would the Sovereign States have to cede sovereignty to the EU in order to have a plebicite?

What mechanism exists in the EU treaties as they currently stand to hold such a poll?

I'll save you looking: the answer is "none".

So, how exactly would such a plebiscite be arranged, and by what constitutional provisions would its outcome be enforceable?

SiegfriedsMum

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an issue with the ECHR, which is nothing to do with the EU.

And that's precisely the sort of misinformed rubbish that, sadly, forms the bulk of the discourse about Europe in the UK.

Of course, lots of things inform the debate right across the EU, and to pretend that all is right with the EU and that anyone who questions the EU is "misinformed rubbish" seems to display no argument and an intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you.

Most people realise, for example, the Euro has affected the debate in a very profound way, insofar as it has pulled the rug from under the EU table. And they also realise that the failure of the Euro has greatly affected the future of the EU, more particularly as we still have no solutions to the problem.

Mostly here I am a little shocked at the intolerance shown to anyone whose opinion differs with some posters, and at the seemingly absolute refusal to recognise there are increasing numbers who question the whole future worth of the EU.

The Corinthian

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Of course, lots of things inform the debate right across the EU, and to pretend that all is right with the EU and that anyone who questions the EU is "misinformed rubbish" seems to display no argument and an intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you.

Plenty of people have openly criticized and questioned the EU and how the EU has been run on this and other threads - certainly, I have, as has Scofflaw and other 'pro-EU' posters.

What differs between us and many, if not all, eurosceptic posters is that we have not automatically come to the conclusion that "whole future worth of the EU" is, by virtue of these criticism, doomed. Neither have we repeatedly relied upon criticisms that are based on false information, which has been repeatedly demonstrated both here and on other threads.

For such critics, the criticisms appear to be little more than arguments created to support a preconceived conclusion - that we should leave the EU - not actual criticisms that will lead one to one or more potential solutions. This is why they do tend to be "misinformed rubbish"; they're based upon false information cherry picked or invented to support this conclusion, not to arrive at an objective one.

And forgive me for saying so, but one should not be tolerant of anyone attempting to convince others on the basis of false information, especially when it is all too clearly designed to deceive the reader and give an acceptable face to what amounts to little more than xenophobia. This too has been repeatedly demonstrated with many eurosceptic posters.

So you may well be shocked that some are intolerant of anyone wishing to push an agenda using falsehoods. Personally, I'm a little shocked that anyone pushing an agenda based upon falsehoods would consider this acceptable in the first place.

SiegfriedsMum

The Corinthian wrote: »

And forgive me for saying so, but one should not be tolerant of anyone attempting to convince others on the basis of false information, especially when it is all too clearly designed to deceive the reader and give an acceptable face to what amounts to little more than xenophobia. This too has been repeatedly demonstrated with many eurosceptic posters.

So you may well be shocked that some are intolerant of anyone wishing to push an agenda using falsehoods. Personally, I'm a little shocked that anyone pushing an agenda based upon falsehoods would consider this acceptable in the first place.

Falsehoods? That seems to be one of those irregular verbs; "I speak the truth, you utter falsehoods, he is a liar....."

Perhaps that is the nub of the matter, that some think anyone who disagrees with them does so on the basis of falsehoods, and that they, themselves, have a monopoly on truth.

Unfortunately we live in a democracy and we are all at liberty to make decisions on whatever basis we see fit. I am as much at liberty to vote for a politician because of his economic policies, as I am because I like his nice curly hair. I can no more decide for you what criteria you should use to make up your mind on an issue, any more than you can decide that for your next door neighbours.

Unfortunately, the wind is shifting across the EU as more and more people become dissatisfied with it. We may well judge them to be wrong, and may well think they should love the EU and embrace it unquestioningly. Or not. We may well wring our hands is despair that they are misinformed, or bading their opinions on what we consider to be falsehoods. But we are intolerant of them and ignore them at our peril.

The Corinthian

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Perhaps that is the nub of the matter, that some think anyone who disagrees with them does so on the basis of falsehoods, and that they, themselves, have a monopoly on truth.

No, falsehood denotes the numerous and invariably unsubstantiated eurosceptic claims that have been made in this and other threads, often repeatedly, that have been shown as false in rebuttal which also will typically cite sources for this purpose. It is specifically not one opinion versus another, as you would claim, but one opinion versus demonstrable and verifiable fact - making the former a falsehood lacking veracity.

Unfortunately we live in a democracy and we are all at liberty to make decisions on whatever basis we see fit. I am as much at liberty to vote for a politician because of his economic policies, as I am because I like his nice curly hair. I can no more decide for you what criteria you should use to make up your mind on an issue, any more than you can decide that for your next door neighbours.

Unfortunately, the wind is shifting across the EU as more and more people become dissatisfied with it. We may well judge them to be wrong, and may well think they should love the EU and embrace it unquestioningly. Or not. We may well wring our hands is despair that they are misinformed, or bading their opinions on what we consider to be falsehoods. But we are intolerant of them and ignore them at our peril.

Irreverent soapboxing. You're not Richard III.

Solair

oscarBravo wrote: »

What mechanism exists in the EU treaties as they currently stand to hold such a poll?

I'll save you looking: the answer is "none".

So, how exactly would such a plebiscite be arranged, and by what constitutional provisions would its outcome be enforceable?

The treaties don't really have to include anything on exiting.
If a country were to decide it was leaving, then it would just leave. The EU institutions and other member states could try and lobby and convince it to stay through normal democratic means, but that's about it.

It would be a simple, unilateral decision.

There's equally no provision for claw-backs of EU funds or anything like that in the treaties.

It would be up to that country and the other members to renegotiate some kind of new relationship though. There's no guarantee of anything as there is no exit process. The other members could be fine about it (likely) and negotiate some kind of new arrangement or they could equally turn around and say : that's grand, good luck!

For the Eurozone countries leaving's probably harder as there's far more economic / fiscal integration.
Even for the UK, it's quite deeply integrated in many respects and there would be a pretty huge mess to deal with in terms of all sorts of practicalities if it did just leave.

I'd say there'd have to be some kind of phase out period negotiated.

Even simple things like, what would happen to all the British EU employees? Would they just be fired on the day the UK left?
What would happen to the 711,151 UK citizens living in other EU countries?! Would they immediately lose their jobs / residency permits and be sent home or have to start applying for permanent residency visas and all that stuff?
What about the other EU citizens living in the UK? - Hundreds of thousands of people could be suddenly forced out and that would cause economic chaos and possibly even the collapse of the UK economy as jobs would go unfilled / people would walk off.
A very large % of these people cannot just be replaced, they're often highly skilled specialists etc etc.

There are really really serious practical implications to any sudden change of status that would have to be worked out.

I think there's an over-simplistic view of this being taken.
The relationships are gone way beyond bilateral trade agreements at this stage and undoing them is no easy task.

All that being said, don't assume that I am blindly pro-EU either.

I think the organisation needs massive reform as it's really leaped into new areas of competence without the democratic accountability it ought to have to be making the kinds of decisions it does.

The European Commission has grabbed too much power while the Parliament hasn't grabbed nearly enough.

oscarBravo

Solair wrote: »

The treaties don't really have to include anything on exiting.
If a country were to decide it was leaving, then it would just leave.

Fair enough, but not what I'm talking about. I'm arguing with those people who believe there is either a legal or "moral" basis, or both, for a binding referendum to be held across the peoples of all the member states. There isn't, and there shouldn't be.

Scofflaw

Solair wrote:

I think the organisation needs massive reform as it's really leaped into new areas of competence without the democratic accountability it ought to have to be making the kinds of decisions it does.

The European Commission has grabbed too much power while the Parliament hasn't grabbed nearly enough.

This statement, while correct, is phrased to make me twitch a bit, I'm afraid. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament "grab" power - they're handed tasks, and the powers necessary to undertake them, by the Member States. It's like saying the UN has "grabbed power" over Ireland because we operate the Triple Lock. It also phrases things as if there were two power centres in the 'constitutional' EU - the Commission and the Parliament - completely ignoring the most powerful of the three, the Council.

Aside from that bit of tabloidese (and we're all guilty of it from time to time), it's true that the crisis has provoked a raft of integration measures, many of them involving supervision and judgement of Member State economies, without any concomitant increase in the level of directly representative control over the Council and Commission. In a sense, we're lucky that Lisbon was in the door, otherwise the imbalance would be worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123

A lot of commentary over the weekend about the scare stories being propagated by the European Federalists.

Seemingly a lot of very eminent business people and very prominent and powerful multinationals are not to worried about the effect Britains exit from the EU would have and are more worried about the effect bueraucracy and red tape coming from Brussels has on their businesses and investment potential.

One thing is certain after Camerons speech, the EU needs to change from a duopoly to an actual fair and equal Union of Sovereign States, if it is to survive.

View

NAP123 wrote: »

One thing is certain after Camerons speech, the EU needs to change from a duopoly to an actual fair and equal Union of Sovereign States, if it is to survive.

The one thing that is certain is that the EU doesn't need to change unless its member states so choose. And, in fact, they probably won't change it unless they can see very good reason to do so.

Cameron has been UK Prime Minister for almost 3 years now. In that time, he and his government have had plenty of time to formulate proposals for changes to the EU Treaties and to present these to the other member states. Which changes has he proposed to date to the European Council?

The likelihood of him tabling actual proposals for change - as opposed to engaging in rhetoric about the possibility of doing so - is, in this change I would suggest, strongly correlated to his past performance in doing so.