[Update] Cameron promises EU referendum by October 2017

Originally Posted by Angua

Deliberate avoidance by the government. A referendum will only happen in 2017 if the Tories are re-elected in 2015.

Meanwhile the offer may take some support from UKIP, whilst being fully aware Labour (who may well win in 2015) will not allow a referendum.

Sadly papers such as the Daily Wail will continue to confuse, obfuscate and mislead over all the different aspects of Europe to generate more jingoistic anti Europe feeling.

It's all too easy to blame the Daily Mail. There are a lot of perfectly sound and intelligent reasons to be ambivalent towards the European Union - you could do worse than to read Daniel Hannan MEP, who writes regularly in the Telegraph. He's a thoughtful and intelligent writer and an advocate of full withdrawal, in the absence of any truly radical loosening of the EU.

Years of stories about the shape of bananas and the reclassification of chocolate didn't bring us to where we are today. The public mood has shifted because it is becoming clear that the long-term economic and social policies of the EU are infringing on our national sovereignty. In that regard, it is finally becoming clear to everyone, and not just the political anoraks, that this organisation is not, was never, and was never intended to be, merely a "common market".

^ What Chris said. Daniel Hannan does occasionally write for the Daily Mail and his observations are well worth reading.

I am in the get out soon as camp there may be benefits to being in the the eu but there are also large downsides that might get a lot worse in time to come. Damien you continue to raise the 50% trade argument but as Chris said that figure is diminishing and has been for quite a few years. Trade is the biggest argument to stay in the eu but here's the thing are we better staying in the eu with that trade or breaking away now and developing more longterm lucrative trade with the wider and larger global market. I think the uk's future lies in the wider global market then the eu market.

We also cannot ignore the fact that the eu basically benefits Germany who have done very well out of the eu and France to a lesser degree and they are the one's who determine the direction of the eu using economics to direct the other member states. In the future Germany and France want closer integration and a greater degree of federalism that many people do not want. The vote in the seventies no longer validates the uk's membership as the organisation they voted for bears no resemblance to the organisation that exists today or will exist in future.

Personally I think the only way to have an eu that we could all live with is for all member states to have in/out referendums with national general elections so that Brussels does have to both listen and act in the best interests of the people rather then to some utopian political blueprint.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I am in the get out soon as camp there may be benefits to being in the the eu but there are also large downsides that might get a lot worse in time to come. Damien you continue to raise the 50% trade argument but as Chris said that figure is diminishing and has been for quite a few years. Trade is the biggest argument to stay in the eu but here's the thing are we better staying in the eu with that trade or breaking away now and developing more longterm lucrative trade with the wider and larger global market. I think the uk's future lies in the wider global market then the eu market.

And I haven't even started on the "Rotterdam Effect" yet. Hands up who's aware that when compiling export statistics, goods are counted as having been exported to whichever country has the 'port of first discharge'.

A lot of our worldwide exports go to Rotterdam (Netherlands) or Antwerp (Belgium) because these ports have excellent onward connections for places we sell goods to - anywhere else in the world you could name. But because our goods are counted as having been exported to the Netherlands or Belgium, rather than, say, Singapore or India, the result is to inflate our apparent trade with those countries at the expense of our trade figures with the rest of the world. And because both the Netherlands and Belgium are in the EU, the end result is to tip our export figure towards the EU and away from the rest of the world.

The truth is, nobody knows exactly what the real figures are. However, when you look at the amount we export to the other major economies of the EU you can do a little extrapolation. Our apparent exports to Belgium and the Netherlands, per capita, are 3-4 times higher than those to France and Germany (which don't host major international ports through which British exporters habitually send their goods). Reverse the percentages and it's reasonable to postulate that our exports to the EU, far from being somewhere around 47%, are actually nearer 37%.

In short, even if there were any substance to the scare-story that leaving the EU would shut our exporters out of the continent, the impact would be far, far lower than claimed.

[Pierre]

Chris is a beacon of light, sound mind and judgement amongst some of the detritus that is posted on this forum.

God bless him. Long may he continue.

The 50% issue keeps assuming that Europe will just continue to decline as an export market. It's declining but today's Europe is hardly indicative given the amount of turmoil in the Eurozone over the last few years. It's not going to go away and become less insignificant. I think when using the fact it's been declining that has to be accompanied by the caveat that this is not a normal situation in Europe at the moment.

I also disagree with the suggestion that this concern is scaremongering. It may not come to fruition but it isn't simply without merit and it's going to remain a concern unless there is a credible alternative. We won't suddenly lose 37%-50% of our exports overnight, no, but we are talking about fundamentally altering our relationship with the countries who take those exports and leaving one of the largest trading blocks in the world.

Some of the largest car companies (Ford, Honda, BMW) are also concerned. This is from some of the largest car producers in the UK, whose managing directors have also expressed that concern.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ic-speech.html

Ford:

"All countries should have their sovereignty, but don't discuss leaving a trading partner where 50pc of your exports go," said Stephen Odell, chief executive of Ford in Europe. "That would be devastating for the UK economy."

BMW:

"The UK not only has to be part of Europe. It has to be a fundamentally active part of Europe," said Ian Robertson, global head of sales at BMW and a member of the board of the German company. "To think about the UK being outside of Europe doesn't make sense."

Honda:

Britain exported a record number of cars last year, and a senior executive from Honda revealed to The Daily Telegraph last week that leaving the EU would damage the UK economy's emerging position as an export hub for the industry.

Additionally the City is concerned. I posted a link to The Economists article a while back but as I was quoting the above article I was also directed to this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...f-EU-exit.html

Now obviously there are businessmen that are not found of Europe (albeit warmer to the idea of the single market) but there are business leaders who are concerned with the prospect of us leaving the EU - car makers and bankerss for example - so I am not simply scaremongering when discussing these concerns.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

when i looked i found conflicting information ,i got confused ,my head exploded ,i stopped looking .How on earth anyone is supposed to keep track of this idiotically confusing system is beyond me





I don't see how you can avoid discussing immigration and benefits to foreign nationals in a referendum on leaving the EU thread as that is the first thing people who get to vote on the matter will be thinking of .
Imagine how many jobs would be available if foreign workers had not taken them ,imagine how reduced the benefits bill would be if we weren't supporting foreign workers on low wages ,Imagine how much the country would save if we weren't ploughing billions into the EU .Rightly or wrongly that is what joe bloggs will base their decision on so you can rest assured that every media outlet with an agenda will be pushing that agenda using immigration and asylum until the vote happens

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

And I haven't even started on the "Rotterdam Effect" yet. Hands up who's aware that when compiling export statistics, goods are counted as having been exported to whichever country has the 'port of first discharge'.

A lot of our worldwide exports go to Rotterdam (Netherlands) or Antwerp (Belgium) because these ports have excellent onward connections for places we sell goods to - anywhere else in the world you could name. But because our goods are counted as having been exported to the Netherlands or Belgium, rather than, say, Singapore or India, the result is to inflate our apparent trade with those countries at the expense of our trade figures with the rest of the world. And because both the Netherlands and Belgium are in the EU, the end result is to tip our export figure towards the EU and away from the rest of the world.

The truth is, nobody knows exactly what the real figures are. However, when you look at the amount we export to the other major economies of the EU you can do a little extrapolation. Our apparent exports to Belgium and the Netherlands, per capita, are 3-4 times higher than those to France and Germany (which don't host major international ports through which British exporters habitually send their goods). Reverse the percentages and it's reasonable to postulate that our exports to the EU, far from being somewhere around 47%, are actually nearer 37%.

In short, even if there were any substance to the scare-story that leaving the EU would shut our exporters out of the continent, the impact would be far, far lower than claimed.

I may be wrong but you seem to be suggesting that the official numbers aren't accurate. How outlandish! I dare say you'll soon be denying that, if we do leave the EU, the Eurozone countries will make us pay the price by cutting off their exports to the UK and forcing us to source alternatives from the rest of the world with all the economic doom that would entail...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

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



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

Bit harsh considering in the bit just after you highlighted he said he didn't vote Labour

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Bit harsh considering in the bit just after you highlighted he said he didn't vote Labour

Not really - Arthur said he is a "strong Labour voter" but would not vote for his Labour candidate for Westminster because "she is crap and she is from Hounslow". Now he appears to be using the fact that he has voted against his Labour MP, for personal rather than political reasons, as basis to claim he is not a Labour voter after all. It can't be both - either he is in principle a Labour supporter or he isn't. I think he is in sympathy with Labour but uses the convenient fact that he doesn't like his local MP to avoid having to actually defend Labour's policies when they are questioned in threads he is taking part in on this forum.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not really - Arthur said he is a "strong Labour voter" but would not vote for his Labour candidate for Westminster because "she is crap and she is from Hounslow". Now he appears to be using the fact that he has voted against his Labour MP, for personal rather than political reasons, as basis to claim he is not a Labour voter after all. It can't be both - either he is in principle a Labour supporter or he isn't. I think he is in sympathy with Labour but uses the convenient fact that he doesn't like his local MP to avoid having to actually defend Labour's policies when they are questioned in threads he is taking part in on this forum.

Interesting hypothesis but you'd have to be a moron with the memory of a goldfish to vote for this collection of spivs masquerading as the labour party or even be sympathetic to them.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Interesting hypothesis but you'd have to be a moron with the memory of a goldfish to vote for this collection of spivs masquerading as the labour party or even be sympathetic to them.

The problem is there will be lots of goldfish come election time

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Interesting hypothesis but you'd have to be a moron with the memory of a goldfish to vote for this collection of spivs masquerading as the labour party or even be sympathetic to them.

And your point being....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Sirius

The problem is there will be lots of goldfish come election time

And lots of people who just need a break from Dave.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Interesting hypothesis but you'd have to be a moron with the memory of a goldfish to vote for this collection of spivs masquerading as the labour party or even be sympathetic to them.

Something we agree on then ...

Although on current polling, that means a little over a third of the electorate have goldfish brains swilling around their skulls.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Gary L

And lots of people who just need a break from Dave.

Problem is none of the other are any better, all they want is an expenses system they can fiddle, the great unwashed just get in there way.