[Update] Cameron promises EU referendum by October 2017

You're not going to get a Referendum now. Yes he wants it as an election issue but also, if he wants to stay in Europe, it's not advantageous to hold it right away. There won't have been time for a 'Stay' campaign to get underway and make it's case and he is clearly hoping to get some concessions from the EU to increases the chances of the referendum getting the result he wants.

Arthur, he's not an MP, he's an MEP (the irony is that he was elected using the European Proportional Representation - if it had been the UK method of First Past The Post, he would not be an MEP).

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I cannot believe anyone is taking Cameron's word on a referendum seriously.

He made exactly the same pledge at the last election and reneged on it. He will do exactly the same again. He is taking the electorate for a load of mugs with short term memory problems.

You appear to be suffering a short-term memory problem.

Cameron has never promised an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU. He promised a referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. When Labour ratified the treaty before the general election, the idea of a referendum on ratification became meaningless. Cameron therefore dropped that pledge, a full six months before the general election of 2010, and went into that election stating that there would not be a referendum on Lisbon if he became PM.

This whole referendum scam is just a ploy to get himself and his party re-elected.

Yes it is. But having stated that there will be an in/out referendum no later than October 2017 in the event of an outright Conserevative win in the 2015 election, he has committed himself. The only way he can wriggle out of it now is by losing the election.

Vote UKIP. It seems to be the only choice if you really want a referendum on Europe.

No, voting UKIP in 2015 will rob Tory candidates in marginal seats of the votes they need to help form an outright Consevative majority. You were right that the pledge is a ploy to get elected; you are wrong to think Camereon will be able to drop the pledge if he wins in 2015.

UKIP will not deliver a referendum because UKIP cannot win in 2015 or in 2020. Our electoral system prevents it. Voting UKIP will deliver another Coalition at best; at worst it will hand the keys of no. 10 to Ed Millipede.

I think the best means of keeping the pressure on Cameron is to vote UKIP at every opportunity short of the general election itself, particularly at the Euro-elections in 2014.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Well lets put it this way, l would rather vote UKIP, than vote for a man who claims he is looking after the voter of the UK, an yet he is nothing but a liar and knows that's by saying what he will do if he wins the next election - he is a liar and doesn't deserve to run this country as PM.

He has made promise after promise, and yet has not fulfilled one of them.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

He has made promise after promise, and yet has not fulfilled one of them.

Reminds me of your old m8 B-lier

[jonbxx]

I work in a highly regulated business that has to comply with EU rules on medicines and machinery. We have to comply with those rules to be able to sell products to EU countries. If we left the EU, we would still have to comply with those rules. The only difference would be that the UK would have no say in those rules any more. We would still have the downside to working in a regulated environment wihtout the means to influence things.

Just quickly, I see the term 'EU beurocrats hadning out diktats' being bandied about. Do people know how EU laws are written? They still have to go through a voting process via the Council or Europe and/or the European Parliament which consists of members you voted for. People seem to think that proposed laws from the European Commission are a fait accompli - that is not the case, there are rounds of debates, deals, etc. to get a law through to reflect member states interests. This is no different from UK politics - MPs don't write laws, they rely on Civil Servants for that job.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by martyh

Well said that man

I second that

---------- Post added at 09:00 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I work in a highly regulated business that has to comply with EU rules on medicines and machinery. We have to comply with those rules to be able to sell products to EU countries. l have the downside to working in a regulated environment wihtout the means to influence things.

.

Firstly just chopped bits out to save space. I understand your point.however (it had to come did it not.)

Do you sell in North America ,Australia etc? If so you would also have to follow the rules & regs.from those country's but have no input into them. So really it make little difference if we are in or out If not.
a) why? & b) for your company it is a reasonable point.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Most of these rules and regulations, certainly in electronic products that I'm involved with, are becoming harmonised across the world rather than just the EU. The work of BSI (British Standards Institute) and their colleagues in UL (Underwriters Laboritories) are probably as important as any EU institution in setting the rules.

To say that if we were not part of the EU we'd have no say in setting the major international standards and rules is IMO very misleading. We'd have no say in the petty bureucratic nonsense from Brussels but not being part of the EU we would have no need to implement them.

But it's always the way with Europhiles to muddy the waters and make claims that don't stand up to close inspection.

The classic false claim being "Three million jobs depend upon our membership of the EU" Wrong, wrong, wrong. They depend upon us trading with the EU. Quite a different thing but expect this mantra from the likes of Hesseltine and Mandelson over the next years.

Quite agree,it always amazes me how people swallow the garbage that if we leave the EU we lose 50% of our trade .Other countries don't trade with us because we are in the EU they trade because we have a product they want at the price they want and that will always be the case .Other countries outside of the EU trade within Europe quite successfully ,no reason at all why that should not be the case for us

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The classic false claim being "Three million jobs depend upon our membership of the EU" Wrong, wrong, wrong. They depend upon us trading with the EU. Quite a different thing but expect this mantra from the likes of Hesseltine and Mandelson over the next years.

And the single market is a benefit to such trading. There are also benefits, in the Financial and IT industries at least, brought by the free movement of workers across the EU. I.E Go around Old Street's 'Silicon Roundabout' and see how many companies and workers are from around the EU - Germany, France and Eastern Europe especially.

But it's always the way with Europhiles to muddy the waters and make claims that don't stand up to close inspection.

The waters are muddy. If we're going to start making sweeping claims of the entire sector of people on the other side of the debate then let me have a go. It's the way of Eurosceptics to talk in absolutist terms about the benefits and consequences of the leaving the EU without ever making clear what the alternative is and making assumptions the rest of the time.

We don't know what Cameron's new deal with be or what he is going to lobby for, we don't know what our relationship with the EU will be, we can't use examples from other countries because they don't apply and yet when people talk about the risk to jobs then they're the ones muddying the waters?

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Quite agree,it always amazes me how people swallow the garbage that if we leave the EU we lose 50% of our trade .Other countries don't trade with us because we are in the EU they trade because we have a product they want at the price they want and that will always be the case .Other countries outside of the EU trade within Europe quite successfully ,no reason at all why that should not be the case for us

Just under 50% of our trade is with the EU (additionally some trade to other countries are helped by Free Trade agreements that apply to the EU specifically). The question is what is done to protect that 50% in the event we leave? Not that it will all drop off.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Most of these rules and regulations, certainly in electronic products that I'm involved with, are becoming harmonised across the world rather than just the EU. The work of BSI (British Standards Institute) and their colleagues in UL (Underwriters Laboritories) are probably as important as any EU institution in setting the rules.

I was under the impression that these organisations and other usch as DIN work together to set a harmonised European Standard. I see more from agencies such as the UKs MHRA for drugs working with other organisations under the European Medicines Agency.

Without a doubt, we would still need to comply with European Regulations as we do with US, Australia, Japan, etc. The difference is, we can have some influence over the EUs regulations while in the EU

[Arthurgray50@blu]

How many times do l have to say this I DO NOT VOTE LABOUR, my last couple of votes went to Lib Dems - worst mistakes l ever made.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

How many times do l have to say this I DO NOT VOTE LABOUR, my last couple of votes went to Lib Dems - worst mistakes l ever made.

Then again, on 7 April 2010, in the run up to the last General Election, you said:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Let me clear one thing, l WON'T be voting Labour, I have voted Lib Dem, as a protest vote against our Labour MP, who is crap and she is from Hounslow. I am a strong Labout Voter and always have been, BUT won't vote for our MP.

I just think Labour is the best party to run this country, Cameron has as much brains as me, and that ain't much.

I've put a couple of bits in bold just so they stand out, as you seem to have forgotten yourself.

[Gary L]

Anyone else think that Dave thinks he's God. and is going to take over the world?

There's nothing like a well-reasoned thoughtful post to put things into focus.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

There's nothing like a well-reasoned thoughtful post to put things into focus.

That's a yes then.

I thought so too. he really thinks he's important now amongst all the other 'leaders'
Obama is still the man in my eyes though. Dave will never be in his class.