Personally, this is my main worry about this whole thing....We are putting, arguably, the most important decision in this country's future, in the hands of a huge amount of people who haven't the first clue about what they are expected to vote on.

Worryingly, for the vast majority, their decision will be hugely influenced by the likes of The Sun and The Mail - Its almost inevitable that this whole thing will turn into race/immigration issue, with the little Englanders being swayed with xenophobic rhetoric - I'm expecting plenty of anti-German, anti-French, anti-AnybodyButOurselves stuff from the majority of our popular media and I'm afraid it will become increasingly distasteful.

This is nothing about Europe. It is about politics to win the next election.

It cuts the UKIP off at the knees.

It gives the Tories the chance to appeal to nationalism and to those who believe the cause of Britains woes are Europe.

It gives them clear water from the Lib Dems.

The Tories win the election and the Lib Dems are wiped out.

Cameron then negotiates with the EU who say no we will not let you be in our club but give you vetoes etc which give you economic advantages.

Cameron then goes to the country with a referendum saying i tried to negoatiate but got nowhere but we have to stay in Europe as it will be disastrous for the UK economy to leave ( he has already said he wants to negotiate powers back but that we should not withdraw from Europe).

All the major parties then say stay in Europe he either wins the vote or lose it and we withdraw from Europe.

Either way he is playing Russian Roulette with the British Economy. But as it is about winning elections who cares.

What is wrong with giving the voters a say on such an important issue? After all the last time the British public voted to stay in or leave what was the EEC which was then just an economic trading club.

So much has changed since then. The EEC has become the EU with the accent more on politics and bureaucracy than trade. An undemocratic commission having such a say in legislation on issues that were previously made in our own parliament is a reasonable concern. The single currency which became the disaster many had forecast. To overhaul the inherent flaws in the Euro the EU leaders are demanding changes that will affect all 27 members and not just the 17 members who adopted the Euro.

The EU (EEC) is continually changing and so it is not unreasonable for the PM to seek to change some of the terms of our membership as indeed others are doing with regard to the single currency. The EU needs to change and give some urgent priority to solving its loss of competitiveness.

In commiting to a future referendum on this important issue it should open up some serious debate and bring forth the real facts as to the pluses and minuses so we are all better informed.

I suspect that the Labour party now will follow the Conservatives and include a referendum pledge in their manifesto.

The EU has been splendid for career politicians and bureaucrats. It has also been very good for large companies and multi-nationals who have the funds and legals teams to overcome the hurdles. (coincidentally these same politicians and large companies would have had us join the Euro so no suprise that they don't want a referendum)

But for the large number of SME's that form the backbone of the UK it has been not so good.

I have a feeling too that our bigger companies found EU trade easier than working at the emerging markets so became complacent. Which may be an answer to our dismal export performance to the BRIC market

Well firstly of course it is about politics. This is a political issue.

You seem to be critical of a PM for being aware of the public's concern regarding the EU.

Are you against the PM trying to return some of the lost powers to our parliament?

If you read his speech he is obviously commited to remaining in the EU. But he is not shirking the very difficult job of trying to renegotiate lost powers. This may or may not be successful. But come the next election the public will know if he was successful and if he or the EU were being unreasonable and they can vote accordingley.

If he were to win the next election my guess is that all three main parties will campaign to stay in and the public will also then vote also to stay in.

Another senario is that this stategy brings out the real facts regarding our membership and it may show that leaving the EU is not the disaster that the Europhiles keep predicting.

eg Our huge trade deficit with the EU together with the cost of membership produces an unconvincing argument for staying in. (46bn GBP deficit with EU in 2011 ...17.1bn surplus with rest of world)

Indeed there could well be further trouble for the Euro before the election with more costly bailouts required.

My own view is to try and win back some powers that give some benefit to our trade but I am at present open minded as to staying in or leaving. I would like to see the full facts.

However my guess is that the real economic plus or minus to our membership is very small (UK exports to the EU are equivalent to less than 8.7% of UK GDP much less than the rest of the world (10%)) and talk of an economic disaster if we leave are just scare stories. Under Article 50, the EU is legally required to negotiate "free and fair trade" with non-EU countries, so we would continue to have access to the EU markets, just like other countries. The EU would not want a trade war with the UK, if we were outside the single market as they have much more to lose than we.

So why propose a referendum?

Maybe I was mistaken but did we not have a referendum re the EEC before?

What are we going to have about independence in Scotland?

I would suggest some issues are bigger than letting a skewed parliament make up decide.

You are not going to have anything

Ignoring your erroneous stats, you are saying that because we have a trade deficit we should cut off (or, at the very least, create massive tariff problems with and hugely reduce trade with) our largest customer?
You have also ignored the fact that the UK has run a balance of trade deficit in goods for decades now ... should we therefore withdraw from the world as well as the EU? Of course not.


We need the EU to address the regulation of trade in services ... as it did so successfully with the regulations around trade in goods.
This is vital for the UK, otherwise we will see Frankfurt becoming the first-choice supplier of financial and other services for the Eurozone, taking business from the City of London.
If the UK is not at the heart of that transformation, the UK will be much worse-off over time.

CAP needs to be addressed, yet again,
Also, there may be areas of EU law where subsidiarity needs to be considered instead (see the other thread about federalism and subsidiarity).
But these are ongoing business, none are reasons for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Most of the facts are out there, freely available, no-one is stopping you finding them.
Mind you, I haven't noticed your confessed lack of factual knowledge stopping you from having a vociferous opinion.


The EU (the world's largest economy) negotiates with nations and trade areas and has vastly far more clout with them than the UK alone could have.
The UKs trade with the rest of the world will be significantly affected by this, whether we like it or not, and whether we remain in or opt-out of the EU, simply as a result of the EUs power.
You have taken a very simplistic view of trade in goods, for example ignoring the tariffs that would be imposed upon the UK's goods exports into the EU.
You have also ignored the massive impact on the UKs trade in financial and other services that would (not "could" but "would" occure) if the UK was outside the EU.
You state that the EU has more to lose than we have ... this is a skewed view ... we would risk nearly half our exports (e.g. we are nowadays net exporters of cars ... where are the jobs going to come from to replace that trade?), whereas the loss to the EU would be borne collectively by 26 states with no individual state having to bear more than a fraction of the impact that we would suffer.
The repercussions would take many, many decades to overcome, if indeed they ever could be.
Not only that, but we must not ignore the enormous elephant in the room ... i.e. the huge loss of geopolitical clout that the UK would sustain if it left the EU ... just as an example, the UN security council is already starting to shift inexorably to the BRICs and, if we are not in the EU (which can retain influence there), we will be reduced to the level of a puppet state dancing on US strings.

We did, that one was a political trick, as is this one.
But as you sound to be in favour, can you say why we need another?
Shall we have one every time a constitutional change occurs?
e.g. Should we have had one in 2009 when the House of Lords ceased to be the highest court in the land?


My vote would be for a federal UK (see the Federalism vs Subsidiarity thread, esp. the bit about The West Lothian Question)


Judging by the comments I see and hear from the general public, those issues are not generally understood.

why not? if this is such a big deal which will mean the collapse of ukplc (i'm sure their was similar nonsense spouted by the tories when the spectre of the minimum wage raised it's head), plunging untold millions into despair while still lining the pockets of the 'privileged few', then surely asking us what we want is the least they can do.
every 4/5 years we allow members of society who are 1 step away from needing to be watered every day put a little x in a box to elect some shyster who thinks the public should pay for her husband to watch porn or have his moat cleaned. so, why not have a referendum and let the people speak?

"Why not?" is a bit feeble.
Which areas of decision would you have referenda for and which areas would you not have them for?

"why" is equally as feeble.
me? i couldn't care less if we have a referendum or not. i'd wager my life won't alter to any great extent with either outcome. it does seem odd that people don't want the public to have a say on something they claim has the potential to change the economic status of the country for the worse. for ever. i'd have thought it's just the sort of thing the people should have a say on. giving the masses the chance to vote. madness eh?

The masses get a chance to vote at least every 5 years.

I think there are certain big decisions where a referendum is the right thing to do, like with Scottish independence. But there are also certain big decisions which are simply too complicated to be put to a referendum. The EU is one of those in my opinion.

Are you saying you do not agreed with the stats and if so please state what you think they should be?

I did not say we should cut off from selling to the EU. Why do you see things as just black and white? There will not be massive tarriff problems this is pure scare stuff.



That we have run a trade deficit with the EU is hardly a good reason for accepting the status quo. We have a trade surplus with the rest of the world and do not have to pay a huge annual contribution for this trade as we do for the EU.



I am quite sure the full facts are not fully in the public domain yet. As you have also expressed a vociferous opinion, but on many more occassions than I, perhaps you could answer the following question. What is the net monetary benefit p.a. to the UK of current EU membership?




Indeed. But the EU's clout will also diminish considerably if we were to leave. I do not share your concerns that we cannot negotiate free trade terms on our own or through the WTO.



I would say you are taking a very unrealistic view with added scare stuff in suggesting we would incurr trade tarriffs with the EU were we to leave.



Again your are overstating these risks.



This is not a skewed view. We are one of the major net contributors to the EU and run very large trading deficit and our texports to the EU has been in decline for some time. It is arrant nonsense to suggest there would be any form of a trade war if we leave. They need access to our markets as much as we do to theirs.



Equally to could say the benefits of leaving could bring more positive for the UK than negative.



Sorry but this is also nonsense. We are on our own one of the worlds leading economies with enormous influence and proven ability.

I suggest you try and listen to all of Mr Cameron's speech and questions in Davros this morning and you will see his plans for the G8 this year.

His stated objective is to improve the UK's terms within the EU as the EU begins to make big changes because of the Euro problems. He has not made a case for leaving the EU. Treaties will be changed and our governments job is to protect our interests. If we can improve and preserve our position then there will be strong arguments to remain in. What is wrong with that? The PM has also stated his intention to seek changes for the good of the whole EU and so far has brought encouraging responses from other members.

It's clear from these two comments that you don't understand a fundamental aspect or trading within the EU compared to trading without.

Currently there is no duty paid on goods moved between the UK and any other EU nation. Should we leave the EU, this would no longer be the case - i.e. a duty [itariff[/i would apply to all goods entering and leaving the UK just as it does presently with all other non-EU countries. At a stroke this would add somewhere between 2 and 10% to the price of all these goods, with the obvious effect of increasing price inflation in the UK (increased cost of imports) and reducing the competitiveness of our exporters.

It would also complicate VAT to a lesser extent.

In addition to the direct effect on prices, the additional cost and complexity will be a disincentive to overseas companies who use the UK as their bridgehead into Europe. And as we have seen, other EU countries will be only too happy to welcome these companies instead.

None of this is 'scare stuff'. It's just factual information that anti-EU types are either ignorant of or, more likely, deliberately ignoring.

Well the first point is you don't need a referendum in the UK to do this bit "..."to seek changes for the good of the whole EU.." do you.

As it's our governments job to protect our interests just what is it he thinks is against our interest in the EU at the moment that cold not be dealt with by "..seek(ing) changes for the good of the whole EU..."?

As to improving the UK's terms he hasn't said what he means so you seem to have a lot of blind faith in Cameron and his referendum.

We can however safely assume one of the key ones he and big business want to see is this one I mentioned earlier in the thread:

• A complete repatriation of social and employment laws such as the working time directive which imposes a 48-hour working week. Britain already has an opt-out from that aspect of the directive.

Now personally I feel the majority in this country are far better of due to EU social and employment laws and therefore what I would be being asked to vote on is this (in part):

Do I want to stay in the EU if Cameron can get those laws repatriated and makes it possible for my employer to demand I work long hours and have the ability to sack me on the spot?

Or, do I want to leave the EU if Cameron can't secure an opt out I am not in favour of?

That is apparently all that is on offer and if we leave they will rip up the social and employment laws anyway.

So at the moment as I see it I will be presented with two choices neither of of which I want to vote for.

And before anyone says abstain, abstentions don't count "for" anything and would not prevent one of the two options winning the vote.

So those who see a referendum as a very democratic way of doing things totally miss the point with this one. [uThe nature of the questions likely to be asked make it extremely undemocratic[/u for the reasons explained.

It will be like being asked would I like to be hanged or shot.

Therefore the only valid referendum on EU membership is a straight in/out one in the same way that Scotland has a straightforward question for remaining part of the UK.

Cameron won't go that route because he doesn't want us to leave and calculates his fudge will buy off enough voters for the UK to remain in, will give him a better chance to win the UK election in 2015 and will kick the can down the road as far as pacifying his Eurosceptic MP's goes.

He has proven a hostage to about 90 MP's and what we have ended up with is our parliamentary democracy being circumvented by that minority of MP's who see a chance to get their minority view enacted.

If they claim they represent a majority view of the people despite being a minority in parliament then what they should do is join UKIP and go to the polls in 2015 on an EU exit ticket not circumvent our democratic process by winning a referendum based on inadequate questions.

I'm sorry but just gainsaying what I post does not constitute a reasoned argument.
You could begin with a little bit of research, you could start with countries like Norway, Turkey or Switzerland.
You'll find very quickly that our economy is unlike that of any of these countries and that their positions vis-a-vis the EU could not be good for us, you'll find that Norway has had to implement various laws (e.g. Social and Employment, one of the areas that Cameron wants out of ... and also policing, another area that Cameron wants out of) and has adopted 75% of EU laws (some by choice, some because they simply had to) without the benefit of being able to vote on these laws to begin with.
Switzerland has had to negotiate more than a hundred individual bilateral agreements, spread over decades, to avoid various individual tariffs ... do we want to start our own all over again?
Again, Switzerland has to accept many laws in whose formulation they have no say and no vote.
Most importantly, Switzerland is not allowed to sell non-insurance financial services into the EU ... not a great idea for the UK whose fincial and services sector is huge. Switzerland is thinking of maybe adopting EU rules for its insurance services as a way of accessing EU markets. Oh, and by the way, Switzerland has paid about 4 bn Euros so far for the privilege plus it has built a railway through the Alps (15bn Euros), losing the money from road transport, because the EU wanted that connection through Switzerland.
Turkey isn't a great example, as it onbly exports goods and no services to the EU and has pragmatically accepted many EU demands in order to further its own bid for membership.... hence it is not a model for a UK leaving the EU.

There will not be a referendum because Cameron will not be PM in 2015.

Hopefully

If he goes into that election as the only party leader offering a referendum on the EU, with the largely rabidly anti-EU media banging away about it, I wouldn't bet against him TBH.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the electorate.

I think he will be PM after the election but will stand down / be removed to avoid the referendum. In my opinion, it's just a cynical ploy to stop the drift of supporters to UKIP, appease back-benchers and differentiate themselves from Labour.

No chance, if he wins the election, there will be no coup.


But I agree with that bit.

Same here.

Mind, it smacks of desperation, given that the next scheduled general election is more than two years away, to already be trying to bribe a portion of the electorate.

It's interesting seeing that business is split between those who see the long-term risks as outlined by yourself in this thread, whereas others are presumably so short-sighted that all they're thinking about is being able to exploit their workforce ever more.

One wonders if the latter are from the same group that begged Gideon to cut and cut and then cut some more, promising that they would create absolutely millions of new jobs.

Business is spolit on a self-interest basis. Big business likes it because more "red tape" prevents smaller businesses competing with them as small businesses do not have the staff, wealth or infra-structure to deal with compliance. Smaller buinesses (except those niche players who already have strong export business within the EU) don't like it for the same reason.

So you fully understand EU and non EU trading do you? mmm....

1. Consider that "90% of British exports would not face tariffs and even for those that do, average tariff levels are now generally low. They are charged only on trade in goods and not on services or income.

2. Our trade in goods is below 50% of our total trade and the cost of collecting these low tariffs on goods is more than the cost of tariff collected overall. Some notable sectors could in theory be subject to significant tariffs (eg. cars at around 8%) but reciprocal tariffs would damage EU exporters too, so the incentive for the mutual amelioration of tariffs is strong. This does however depend on negotiating a new positive relationship with the EU" which is what the PM is setting out to do.

Since the time we joined the EEC and after several General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) tariffs are now generally much lower. Many are negligible, or have been eliminated altogether. So today, customs unions are becoming less and less relevant. There are no substantial customs unions anywhere in the developed world except for the EU, which in global terms looks more and more anachronistic. It is interesting to note that neither ASEAN nor NAFTA are customs unions.



Honda recently announced it is making 800 redundancies at its Swindon plant. A Honda spokesman said, "sustained conditions of low demand in European markets make it necessary to realign Honda's business structure."

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have forecast business to remain flat in 2013. Paul Everitt, the chief executive of the SMM&T said "There are difficulties in Europe, there is no doubt about it. But the market in the UK has held up reasonably well."

In contrast to this position (the Single Market) then, one might look to Jaguar Land Rover, who only two days after the Honda announcement stated that they will be creating 800 new jobs at its factory in Solihull. Why? Because demand for its luxury vehicles from countries such as China, the US and Russia is now so strong, it needed to recruit those additional staff. So, irrespective of the UK’s car-buying activity – which seemed to perform well last year, at least – a focus on the Single Market means job losses; the orientation to the rest of the world means job creation.



Yes it is just scare stuff and none of it based on facts.

Consider: Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for a member state to withdraw from the EU, is explicit that “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

Such agreements must conform to the principles set out in Article 3(5) which includes “free and fair trade”. This is why Jacques Delors referred to “a free-trade agreement” as an option for a new UK-EU relationship in his comments in December.