[Update] Cameron promises EU referendum by October 2017

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, the EEA was created mostly as a waiting room for States whose governments anticipated full EU membership would follow. That's why it carries a heavy regulatory burden, a la Norway, where despite many years of fierce campaigning the political class has never persuaded the citizens to vote 'yes' in a referendum. The Norwegian government has always enthusiatsically implemented EU directives because it has always believed that it would soon enough be a full member and would have to implement the directives anyway. Unfortunately for the Norwegian government, the democratic voice of the Norwegian people keeps getting in the way. The Norwegian people deserve better than the grubby political consensus that exists ove there, which is still pro-EU even though there is now a growing realisation that accession is a more distant prospect than ever.

There is no reason - absolutely no reason whatsoever - to presume that Britiain outside the EU would have to deal with the EU on EEA or Norwegian terms. This is simply yet more Europhile scaremongering.

So what will the agreement be? The EEA is the best example we have of a country not being part of the EU but being part of the free trade agreements. Maybe Switzerland as well. There is no example of a country doing what we propose to do, leaving the EU but keeping all the trade advantages. It is not Europhile scaremongering to therefore look at the closest example there is.

I don't think the concerns are scaremongering. I think they're valid. Rather than scaremongering it could be that there are actual ramifications to consider on this issue and two sides to the debate.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Political grandstanding and rhetoric aside, I bet the EU would be a lot less worried about the UK leaving if we had a trade surplus with them and were net beneficiaries. At the moment the only thing keeping the Eurozone afloat is the German economy and, IIRC, that shows signs of stalling.

These numbers are temporary. We're not talking about the next year or the next 5 years. We're talking about a change that could affect us, for better or worse, over the next 10, 20, 50 years. Do we see Europe being a key market as we go forward? Europe is obviously a basketcase right now but I don't see it stagnating and falling over the next few decades. Conversely we might be fundamentally unable to be apart of it if it become more united....

Damien, you simply cannot evaluate a treaty or an arrangement like the EEA without due regard for the context in which it was created. To do so is to invite misunderstanding. You claim it's a valid study due to lack of other examples but that's like saying you can describe a dodo by studying a chicken.

The EEA was created as a framework for non-EU states that expected to apply to become EU states. That is the context in which you must understand it. If you get that key fact straight first, then all other questions as to the applicability of the EEA model to a State wishing to leave, or loosen its ties with, the EU, become easier to answer.

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, you simply cannot evaluate a treaty or an arrangement like the EEA without due regard for the context in which it was created. To do so is to invite misunderstanding. You claim it's a valid study due to lack of other examples but that's like saying you can describe a dodo by studying a chicken.

The EEA was created as a framework for non-EU states that expected to apply to become EU states. That is the context in which you must understand it. If you get that key fact straight first, then all other questions as to the applicability of the EEA model to a State wishing to leave, or loosen its ties with, the EU, become easier to answer.

The reason I feel Norway is applicable is because it's relationship with the EU is actually similar to what people are advocating. We want to continue to be part of the trading bloc but not part of the larger EU.

I am not saying we'll get exactly the same deal but we can look to it for an idea of under what terms the EU might consider such an arrangement. Yes, the fact they want Norway to become part of the EU eventually probably does mean the deal wouldn't be the same, they might care less about preparing the groundwork for example.

However it's worth looking at how you would cook a chicken if you found a dodo (and, errr, wanted to eat it ). If you have an example of how the type of relationship you want with Europe there then you might as well consider how it works even if the implementation will be different in practise.

In otherwords I concede Norway is far from a perfect example, and we won't have the same deal. However it's the only real example we can look too at the moment.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

So what will the agreement be? The EEA is the best example we have of a country not being part of the EU but being part of the free trade agreements. Maybe Switzerland as well. There is no example of a country doing what we propose to do, leaving the EU but keeping all the trade advantages. It is not Europhile scaremongering to therefore look at the closest example there is.

I don't think the concerns are scaremongering. I think they're valid. Rather than scaremongering it could be that there are actual ramifications to consider on this issue and two sides to the debate.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------



These numbers are temporary. We're not talking about the next year or the next 5 years. We're talking about a change that could affect us, for better or worse, over the next 10, 20, 50 years. Do we see Europe being a key market as we go forward? Europe is obviously a basketcase right now but I don't see it stagnating and falling over the next few decades. Conversely we might be fundamentally unable to be apart of it if it become more united....

Well of course they are but they're what we have right now and things aren't looking as though they're going to get better any time soon. After all this time when things have inexorably moved in a direction most of us don't want, do we have to wait another 20 years before having the chance to say yes or no? I'd suggest that if we were still in the EU by that time, there'd be no way out at that point because more and more binding decisions will have been forced upon us and powers taken away.

The EU has grown too big too fast and yes we're in grave danger from the fallout whatever we do. However, the Eurocrats have shown themselves to be as singleminded in their approach to Europe's future as they are out of touch with economic reality and it should be for the people of the UK to decide whether we want more of the same or go our own way and accept the consequences f so doing. In the absence of any crystal balls that's all we can do isn't it?

Originally Posted by Osem

Well of course they are but they're what we have right now and things aren't looking as though they're going to get better any time soon. After all this time when things have inexorably moved in a direction most of us don't want, do we have to wait another 20 years before having the chance to say yes or no? I'd suggest that if we were still in the EU by that time, there'd be no way out at that point because more and more binding decisions will have been forced upon us and powers taken away.

I didn't mean we need to re-evaluate in 20 years but we need to consider what the next 20 years have in store rather than using Europe's current economic situation as the basis for any decision. Europe probably will have moved closer to a direction we don't want by then, they'll probably still be a big customer base for our products as well.

The EU has grown too big too fast and yes we're in grave danger from the fallout whatever we do. However, the Eurocrats have shown themselves to be as singleminded in their approach to Europe's future as they are out of touch with economic reality and it should be for the people of the UK to decide whether we want more of the same or go our own way and accept the consequences f so doing. In the absence of any crystal balls that's all we can do isn't it?

Yes and I am just arguing for the other side of the argument. Europe obviously has it's bad points and there are more than enough people telling us what they are. There is little discussion of the good points and that's what I am banging on about.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I didn't mean we need to re-evaluate in 20 years but we need to consider what the next 20 years have in store rather than using Europe's current economic situation as the basis for any decision. Europe probably will have moved closer to a direction we don't want by then, they'll probably still be a big customer base for our products as well.



Yes and I am just arguing for the other side of the argument. Europe obviously has it's bad points and there are more than enough people telling us what they are. There is little discussion of the good points and that's what I am banging on about.

There'd probably be more discussion of the good points if the Eurocrats hadn't shown themselves to be so utterly intransigent and totally dismissive of anyone not sharing their views.

There are clearly pros and cons to being in the EU and I think most people would try to weigh those up before deciding how to vote. IMHO if the EU listened more and dictated less we'd all be a lot happier.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Osem

There'd probably be more discussion of the good points if the Eurocrats hadn't shown themselves to be so utterly intransigent and totally dismissive of anyone not sharing their views. .

You could just.as easily be talking about the euroskeptics, perhaps the solution is to bar anyone with a strong view either way from joining in the debate.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You could just.as easily be talking about the euroskeptics, perhaps the solution is to bar anyone with a strong view either way from joining in the debate.

So far as I'm concerned, it's for those running the show and making the rules to prove their worth to us not the other way around.

Update

David Cameron will promise an in/out referendum if the Conservatives win the next election when he makes his long-awaited speech on the EU later.

The prime minister wants to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU, before asking people to vote.

The British people can vote either to accept the result of the talks, or to leave the EU, Mr Cameron will say.

Labour's Ed Miliband said the speech showed the PM was "weak" and "driven by his party", not the national interest.

The referendum is thought likely to take place during the early part of the next parliament if the Conservatives win the election

In/out referendum within first half of the next Parliament if the Tories win the next election. Cameron now pointing out the benefits of the EU and warning that access to the free market without the EU is not that easy.

---------- Post added at 08:46 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------

Originally Posted by David Cameron

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle - it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.

The Swiss have to negotiate access to the Single Market sector by sector. Accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the Single Market, including in key sectors like financial services.

[Itshim]

The Swiss are such a poor, oppressed nation

Cameron will vote to stay in the EU if there are changes to it. Cameron is avoiding the question of what he will do if he doesn't get any changes.

Also worth pointing out that there will be "preparatory work" on a referendum bill this side of the election, but no Act of Parliament until afterwards, and therefore no guarantee of any referendum at all unless there is an outright Conservative victory at that next election.

Originally Posted by Chris

Also worth pointing out that there will be "preparatory work" on a referendum bill this side of the election, but no Act of Parliament until afterwards, and therefore no guarantee of any referendum at all unless there is an outright Conservative victory at that next election.

Yeah although it it may politically difficult for Labour to have the bill there, waiting, and not enacting upon it. They would have to explicitly reject to take it forward rather than simply avoiding the issue.

Labour and the Lib Dems could find themselves in a bit of a corner here, especially if things on the continent deteriorate over the next couple of years and create a general impression with the electorate that being shackled to a Euro-corpse is a bad thing. The Tories might actually be able to carry an election on a promise of being the only ones who can "sort out Europe".

Did anyone see/hear the BBC's interview with Guy Verhofstadt this morning? It fairly warmed my heart watching him choke on his croissants with Euro-rage. For anyone who doesn't know, he's the former PM of Belgium and now a MEP and leader of one of the parliament's political groupings. He is also a massive Anglophobe. He insists we can neither change the rules, nor leave the club. On the former, because he's an arch federalist, so loosening the Union is unthinkable. On the latter, I can only assume it has something to do with the UK being a chunky big net contributor to his expenses account the EU budget and therefore his Anglophobia doesn't restrain him from picking our pockets.