It's a purely political move for Cameron.He's satisfied his party for now, and given himself something to lead with at the next election, while placing Labour is a tricky position and reducing the power of UKIP. Very clever move in the short-term, but I reckon that quickly it will unravel. When the realisation sets in that the UK is much weaker outside the EU, this could well turn out to help Labour, as it will be billed that if you want to stay in, vote Labour. Anyway, austerity won't solve the economy so that will be what dominates in 2015 and return Labour to power, no matter how much the Tories complain about Europe.
Well, I heard Camerons's speech only in snippets today, but was pretty depressed by the snippets I heard. On the other hand I'm very encouraged by the general tone on this thread which is " we need a rational setting out of the facts, before we can decide one way or another".
I'm generally pro-EU but I would readily admit that there is a lot wrong with it. However I learnt at Uni that you are most likely to change something from within, not by stamping your foot and threatening to walk out if you don't get your way. I do also think that the radical antis use Europe as a convenient bogey-man for all ills. When confronted by a UKIP'er, I like to challenge them to answer honestly what three things bugged them most that day which you would normally expect the government to act on. If they are honest, they will typically list things like, their train is always late, a family member is waiting for a medical operation (less so recently), their energy bills are soaring uncontrollably. Then I ask them in what way membership of the EU prevents the UK government from taking action on all three issues.
I think this comment is relevant to what i just wrote:
"The Conservative belief that a referendum on Europe is a vote winner (see Grant Shapps at 2.44pm, for example) is based on the assumption that people care about the issue.
But, as Bloomberg's Rob Hutton explains here, there's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that voters don't give a stuff.
Ipsos MORI has been asking British adults to name the most important issues facing the country since 1974. The peak for naming European issues was in April 1997, when it was cited by 43 percent of voters, second behind education. This month it was named by 2 percent.
“Everybody is just worrying about the economy,” said Ben Page, Ipsos MORI’s chief executive officer. “The media and the obsessives can go on about this as much as they like, it never moves. It’s just not an obsession with most people.”
Why have I just seen a message saying your comment will be posted after it has been approved????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've now lost it.
PISSED OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Admin have a special alert set up so when the paramaters of "Len Glover" and "Europe" appear in the same thread the post must undergo rigorous vetting ;-)
There is as much chance of Cameron delivering on this as me getting a run out against Wednesday at the weekend. He's loaded this latest 'cast iron' guarantee with enough ifs, buts and maybes to wiggle out of it but the right wingers in his party will still have something to cling onto whenever the subject comes up on the doorstep.
OTOH, the benefits of leaving the EU are not insignificant. What we lose by no longer being a voice in a large and influential block of countries we gain by having our own voice. We regain control of our own policies in relation to a larg number of areas such as agricultural subsidies. We no longer have to pay into the EU.
It's not generally mentioned that the Norwegians are members of the European Economic Area, and the Swiss have a similar agreement. They are members in order to ensure that they have the access they need to European markets, or more specifically to ensure " the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries."
The price of this membership is "They... have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics." Elsewhere I have read that this amounts to about 75% of all key EU legislation. So the Norwegians are bound by most EU legislation but have no say in their formulation.
Why do they not then join the EU? I believe that its broadly because they are so damn rich, that they would immediately be big net contributors. And they dont like the EU fisheries policy (and they have a point). But even in Norway many younger people beieve they should join, and take part in shaping the legislation.
OTOH, the benefits of leaving the EU are not insignificant. What we lose by no longer being a voice in a large and influential block of countries we gain by having our own voice. We regain control of our own policies in relation to a larg number of areas such as agricultural subsidies. We no longer have to pay into the EU.
It's not generally mentioned that the Norwegians are members of the European Economic Area, and the Swiss have a similar agreement. They are members in order to ensure that they have the access they need to European markets, or more specifically to ensure " the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries."
The price of this membership is "They... have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics." Elsewhere I have read that this amounts to about 75% of all key EU legislation. So the Norwegians are bound by most EU legislation but have no say in their formulation.
Why do they not then join the EU? I believe that its broadly because they are so damn rich, that they would immediately be big net contributors. And they dont like the EU fisheries policy (and they have a point). But even in Norway many younger people beieve they should join, and take part in shaping the legislation.
You miss out the fact that Norway can (and has) vetoed legislation from the EU as a member of the EEA. One example being the postal directive. We just meekly closed all our post offices.
Compare and contrast the dilution of our EU veto to qualified voting in many vital areas.
Norway has accepted EU legislation for sure but only after due process through the Storting (Norwegian equivalent of Parliament). Our Parliament on the other hand accepts EU legislation "on the nod" via statutory instruments. 50%-80% of UK laws are passed in this way via the EU depending on whose figures you believe.
Much legislation is now shaped by world bodies eg the UN. The EU has a seat therefore the UK has a theoretical input of 1/27. Norway has its own seat and thus actually has MORE influence outside the EU to shape legislation that affects the EU and by definition the UK.
I don't know whether Cameron is simply ignorant or a slippery liar but the notion that the EU governs Norway "by fax" is laughable and a gross misrepresentation.
^ "UK has a theoretical input of 1/27". Not true, the amount of MEP's each nation has is based upon their population. The UK had the third (I think) amount of seats.
^ "UK has a theoretical input of 1/27". Not true, the amount of MEP's each nation has is based upon their population. The UK had the third (I think) amount of seats.
I'm not talking about the European Parliament I'm talking about seats within global organisations. The EU (27 countries including the UK) has a seat as does Norway.
I think this comment is relevant to what i just wrote:
"The Conservative belief that a referendum on Europe is a vote winner (see Grant Shapps at 2.44pm, for example) is based on the assumption that people care about the issue.
But, as Bloomberg's Rob Hutton explains here, there's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that voters don't give a stuff.
Ipsos MORI has been asking British adults to name the most important issues facing the country since 1974. The peak for naming European issues was in April 1997, when it was cited by 43 percent of voters, second behind education. This month it was named by 2 percent.
“Everybody is just worrying about the economy,” said Ben Page, Ipsos MORI’s chief executive officer. “The media and the obsessives can go on about this as much as they like, it never moves. It’s just not an obsession with most people.”
Precisely! At the risk of annoying diplomats and politicians across the main economies of Europe and creating uncertainty over UK membership Cameron has just played his trump card in order to beef up the Tory manifesto at the next election... On his logic we should have a referendum on whether growth or reducing the budget deficit is most important... or which hospitals to close.
When it comes to Europe why are the Tories not in the centre right group? Why do they not push on all of the important things like facilitating UK companies to open up offices in the rest of Europe which I hear is a nightmare. The UK, Germany and France could play a role in building and shaping a recovery across the continent, supporting Italy and Spain as between these five countries they must be looking at the vast majority of EU business, jobs, GDP and of course unemployed... All of these countries have consumers buying goods on the internet and not high streets and all have global players who may or may not take steps to reduce their tax liabilities through transfer pricing... so how about some cooperation with the market which makes up 50% of our exports and who knows how many jobs?
I wouldn't trust the modern general public to make a cup of tea without first having obtained clear instructions from Simon Cowell and Jordan.
I include myself in that. I only know what I have read, heard in the media etc on the supposed pros and cos and how trustworthy and credible the arguments are I don't know. Would hope someone will lay out in sensible terms the pros and cons without any political spin or bias before the vote but cant see who would do that.
Nobody knows what would happen.
There are two reasons why we might want to stay in Europe.
(1) We benefit from the ability to trade freely with the other EU members and are subject to the same rules and regulations as they are. This is massively important to us. We would be in a world of pain if it ends, genuinely catastrophic.
(2) We get a say in what those rules and regulations are. We also benefit from being part of the largest trading block in the world when it comes to negotiated with the rest of the world.
If we leave the EU that we lose (2). There's no real question about that. Sure we'll have some say but not as much.
The question is, do we lose (1) as well. Eurosceptics say that we won't. Free trade benefits all parties who engage in it so the EU member states will not want to lose their ability to trade freely with us. They point to countries such as Switzerland and Norway who have free trade agreements with the EU. Europhiles say that there is a real danger that we will lose the ability to trade freely. Europhobes agree with Eurosceptics and also downplay just how much of a disaster it would be for the UK if we lost our ability to trade freely with the Euroblock.
IMO, the overwhelming likelihood is that we would agree trade terms with the EU but it woudl be very much on their terms as they woudl have by far the better negotiating position. If we were unable to come to an arrangement it woudl be an absolute disaster way worse than anything we have suffered in the last decade. The period of uncertanty during any negotiations would be bad enough.
OTOH, the benefits of leaving the EU are not insignificant. What we lose by no longer being a voice in a large and influential block of countries we gain by having our own voice. We regain control of our own policies in relation to a larg number of areas such as agricultural subsidies. We no longer have to pay into the EU.
On balance, if there was a referendum tomorrow I would vote the stay in. For me the the small risk of a disaster together with the loss of collective strength and influence in the wider world outweighs the certainty of small fiscal gains and independence in policy making.
To answer your two points you made:
1) We can still make our own trade deals with Europe if we left the EU. We run a fairly permanent Trade Deficit with the EU of around £7 Billion for Goods, so we buy more from the EU than they buy from us. If (and when) we leave the EU, the EU will still want to sell us their goods. Can you seriously imagine the Mercedes, EDF Energy etc etc will want to leave the UK all because we will no longer be part of this political union when they make loads of money from us?
Trading, job losses and export decreases from leaving the EU is a complete myth.
2) 70% of our laws are made in Brussels so technically we don't have a say. The EU court of human rights dictates our own decision making, for example if it won't for the EU Abu Qatada would have left the UK ages ago. We are also prohibited in making our own trade deals with the rest of the World.
For me, it's to leave the EU and make our trade deals by signing up to the EFA and be good next door neighbours. By that we can control a number of things without any political dictatorship.
^ "UK has a theoretical input of 1/27". Not true, the amount of MEP's each nation has is based upon their population. The UK had the third (I think) amount of seats.
I'm not talking about the European Parliament I'm talking about seats within global organisations. The EU (27 countries including the UK) has a seat as does Norway.
That's the point.
And the fact we don't get much of a say at all as all these decision making goes to a vote and the majority of it we don't win our argument.
So where do the poor unwashed un educated learn the ins and outs
To make a fair a balanced decision
It's all bollox people vote Tory ate told you don't know what your doing you fools they will screw the country
You vote labour your told you fool they have screwed the country
You vote lib and are told you fool you have wasted the vote and stopped the real winners winning
You may not like it you may not want to hear it but people like me need information in simple terms
without trying to sound rude many post on here with their superior (alleged) knowledge on most things political and people are meant to take what is said as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yet you lot hardly ever agree
If there is a way to make a balanced decision then us folk who have an interest and want to understand more and want to assist to make the right decision for these sort of things need to have somewhere to gain all the information pro and against
That don't exist so unfortunately we have to fed the bullshit by some of you of not all on both side of the fence
Shit papers like the sun and mail
Papers that people like me look at and think I ain't reading that you can't hold it easily enough
Watch question time or the news but that will depend on what side you watch as I am sure they are not all non biased
I know that really bothers some of you but do you know what
Tough shit if your bothered by it do something about it but try to be impartial and not impose your point of view on people trying to make their own decision but want information and fact
Otherwise you are as much of the problem as the sun and mail
So where do the poor unwashed un educated learn the ins and outs
To make a fair a balanced decision
It's all bollox people vote Tory ate told you don't know what your doing you fools they will screw the country
You vote labour your told you fool they have screwed the country
You vote lib and are told you fool you have wasted the vote and stopped the real winners winning
You may not like it you may not want to hear it but people like me need information in simple terms
without trying to sound rude many post on here with their superior (alleged) knowledge on most things political and people are meant to take what is said as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yet you lot hardly ever agree
If there is a way to make a balanced decision then us folk who have an interest and want to understand more and want to assist to make the right decision for these sort of things need to have somewhere to gain all the information pro and against
That don't exist so unfortunately we have to fed the bullshit by some of you of not all on both side of the fence
Shit papers like the sun and mail
Papers that people like me look at and think I ain't reading that you can't hold it easily enough
Watch question time or the news but that will depend on what side you watch as I am sure they are not all non biased
I know that really bothers some of you but do you know what
Tough shit if your bothered by it do something about it but try to be impartial and not impose your point of view on people trying to make their own decision but want information and fact
Otherwise you are as much of the problem as the sun and mail
I don't know whether that criticism is directed at me or not.
If you want to learn about the EU and other things I've found this site useful though.
NLA - like it None of the main parties have a credible strategy on recreating 2%+ growth each and every year to get some jobs going and dig us (& Europe) out of this...
So where do the poor unwashed un educated learn the ins and outs
To make a fair a balanced decision
I like the Economist to give a balanced view. The Times isn't too bad nor is the FT. Every other paper is led eitehr by its own agenda or by it's core readership's.
This article in the Economist will tell you more about the pros and cons of leaving the EU than a year of reading the Sun or the Mirror.
Cameron doesn't say if the referendum would be binding or not. I am certain that in any referendum, 'the public' would vote to stay in the EEC. Amongst young people the 'stay in' vote would be huge, amongst older people perhaps the collective vote would be more in favour of 'get out'. According to recent press reports, Cameron could be in danger of a 'rebellion' amongst his own MPs unless he takes a firmer stand against the EEC and, more surprisingly, against gay marriage
Not aimed at anyone specifically Len I assure you just get annoyed by the fact that unlike some people on here who are better educated , whether that be by schooling or just the fact they have the ability to absorb information on things like this in a much more educated understanding, that those who don't are best of on Jeremy Kyle as they are deemed thick
When really they don't know the first place to look or what things actually mean
Most just want to know how they are better off in EU or out based on their families well being and that of their future earnings and rights to live their life without inference as long as they stay within the law
I suspect that the reality will be that any "renegotiations" with Europe will produce precious little and that even if they did they would produce precious little to change the tune of the predominant Eurosceptic tendency within the Conservative Party which would only want to stay in if all the powers attached to EU institutions were handed directly to a sub committee of the local Conservative Association (if I'm not exaggerating perhaps the Eurosceptics here could let us all know what would change their views). In the meantime the economy is going to suffer 5 years of uncertainty just because Cameron wants to try and appease his own party - rather than try and offer it some leadership.
So where do the poor unwashed un educated learn the ins and outs
To make a fair a balanced decision
I like the Economist to give a balanced view. The Times isn't too bad nor is the FT. Every other paper is led eitehr by its own agenda or by it's core readership's.
This article in the Economist will tell you more about the pros and cons of leaving the EU than a year of reading the Sun or the Mirror.
I agree with you that the quality of analysis can be very good in both the publications you mention and well worth reading.
However I think they are influenced by their core readership in the same way as the tabloids.
The FT wants credibility with big business. In simple terms Big Business is pro EU as it means less countries to negotiate with and less inconvenient obstruction from people holding democratically elected governments to account.
The Economist wants credibility within the mainstream political framework.
Hence the essentially pro EU stance of both publications.
Comments
I'm generally pro-EU but I would readily admit that there is a lot wrong with it. However I learnt at Uni that you are most likely to change something from within, not by stamping your foot and threatening to walk out if you don't get your way. I do also think that the radical antis use Europe as a convenient bogey-man for all ills. When confronted by a UKIP'er, I like to challenge them to answer honestly what three things bugged them most that day which you would normally expect the government to act on. If they are honest, they will typically list things like, their train is always late, a family member is waiting for a medical operation (less so recently), their energy bills are soaring uncontrollably. Then I ask them in what way membership of the EU prevents the UK government from taking action on all three issues.
I think this comment is relevant to what i just wrote:
"The Conservative belief that a referendum on Europe is a vote winner (see Grant Shapps at 2.44pm, for example) is based on the assumption that people care about the issue.
But, as Bloomberg's Rob Hutton explains here, there's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that voters don't give a stuff.
Ipsos MORI has been asking British adults to name the most important issues facing the country since 1974. The peak for naming European issues was in April 1997, when it was cited by 43 percent of voters, second behind education. This month it was named by 2 percent.
“Everybody is just worrying about the economy,” said Ben Page, Ipsos MORI’s chief executive officer. “The media and the obsessives can go on about this as much as they like, it never moves. It’s just not an obsession with most people.”
:-)
Good post. Just one thing, you wrote
OTOH, the benefits of leaving the EU are not insignificant. What we lose by no longer being a voice in a large and influential block of countries we gain by having our own voice. We regain control of our own policies in relation to a larg number of areas such as agricultural subsidies. We no longer have to pay into the EU.
It's not generally mentioned that the Norwegians are members of the European Economic Area, and the Swiss have a similar agreement. They are members in order to ensure that they have the access they need to European markets, or more specifically to ensure
" the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries."
The price of this membership is
"They... have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics." Elsewhere I have read that this amounts to about 75% of all key EU legislation. So the Norwegians are bound by most EU legislation but have no say in their formulation.
Why do they not then join the EU? I believe that its broadly because they are so damn rich, that they would immediately be big net contributors. And they dont like the EU fisheries policy (and they have a point). But even in Norway many younger people beieve they should join, and take part in shaping the legislation.
"Charlton Life in intelligent debate shocker!"
Compare and contrast the dilution of our EU veto to qualified voting in many vital areas.
Norway has accepted EU legislation for sure but only after due process through the Storting (Norwegian equivalent of Parliament). Our Parliament on the other hand accepts EU legislation "on the nod" via statutory instruments. 50%-80% of UK laws are passed in this way via the EU depending on whose figures you believe.
Much legislation is now shaped by world bodies eg the UN. The EU has a seat therefore the UK has a theoretical input of 1/27. Norway has its own seat and thus actually has MORE influence outside the EU to shape legislation that affects the EU and by definition the UK.
I don't know whether Cameron is simply ignorant or a slippery liar but the notion that the EU governs Norway "by fax" is laughable and a gross misrepresentation.
http://witteringsfromwitney.com/government-by-fax-really/
That's the point.
At the risk of annoying diplomats and politicians across the main economies of Europe and creating uncertainty over UK membership Cameron has just played his trump card in order to beef up the Tory manifesto at the next election...
On his logic we should have a referendum on whether growth or reducing the budget deficit is most important... or which hospitals to close.
When it comes to Europe why are the Tories not in the centre right group? Why do they not push on all of the important things like facilitating UK companies to open up offices in the rest of Europe which I hear is a nightmare. The UK, Germany and France could play a role in building and shaping a recovery across the continent, supporting Italy and Spain as between these five countries they must be looking at the vast majority of EU business, jobs, GDP and of course unemployed... All of these countries have consumers buying goods on the internet and not high streets and all have global players who may or may not take steps to reduce their tax liabilities through transfer pricing... so how about some cooperation with the market which makes up 50% of our exports and who knows how many jobs?
1) We can still make our own trade deals with Europe if we left the EU. We run a fairly permanent Trade Deficit with the EU of around £7 Billion for Goods, so we buy more from the EU than they buy from us. If (and when) we leave the EU, the EU will still want to sell us their goods. Can you seriously imagine the Mercedes, EDF Energy etc etc will want to leave the UK all because we will no longer be part of this political union when they make loads of money from us?
Trading, job losses and export decreases from leaving the EU is a complete myth.
2) 70% of our laws are made in Brussels so technically we don't have a say. The EU court of human rights dictates our own decision making, for example if it won't for the EU Abu Qatada would have left the UK ages ago. We are also prohibited in making our own trade deals with the rest of the World.
For me, it's to leave the EU and make our trade deals by signing up to the EFA and be good next door neighbours. By that we can control a number of things without any political dictatorship.
Qualified majority voting does rather dilute our input.
To make a fair a balanced decision
It's all bollox people vote Tory ate told you don't know what your doing you fools they will screw the country
You vote labour your told you fool they have screwed the country
You vote lib and are told you fool you have wasted the vote and stopped the real winners winning
You may not like it you may not want to hear it but people like me need information in simple terms
without trying to sound rude many post on here with their superior (alleged) knowledge on most things political and people are meant to take what is said as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yet you lot hardly ever agree
If there is a way to make a balanced decision then us folk who have an interest and want to understand more and want to assist to make the right decision for these sort of things need to have somewhere to gain all the information pro and against
That don't exist so unfortunately we have to fed the bullshit by some of you of not all on both side of the fence
Shit papers like the sun and mail
Papers that people like me look at and think I ain't reading that you can't hold it easily enough
Watch question time or the news but that will depend on what side you watch as I am sure they are not all non biased
I know that really bothers some of you but do you know what
Tough shit if your bothered by it do something about it but try to be impartial and not impose your point of view on people trying to make their own decision but want information and fact
Otherwise you are as much of the problem as the sun and mail
If you want to learn about the EU and other things I've found this site useful though.
http://www.eureferendum.com/
Take it or leave it.
None of the main parties have a credible strategy on recreating 2%+ growth each and every year to get some jobs going and dig us (& Europe) out of this...
This article in the Economist will tell you more about the pros and cons of leaving the EU than a year of reading the Sun or the Mirror.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21567914-how-britain-could-fall-out-european-union-and-what-it-would-mean-making-break
According to recent press reports, Cameron could be in danger of a 'rebellion' amongst his own MPs unless he takes a firmer stand against the EEC and, more surprisingly, against gay marriage
When really they don't know the first place to look or what things actually mean
Most just want to know how they are better off in EU or out based on their families well being and that of their future earnings and rights to live their life without inference as long as they stay within the law
However I think they are influenced by their core readership in the same way as the tabloids.
The FT wants credibility with big business. In simple terms Big Business is pro EU as it means less countries to negotiate with and less inconvenient obstruction from people holding democratically elected governments to account.
The Economist wants credibility within the mainstream political framework.
Hence the essentially pro EU stance of both publications.