Tory wars over Europe

[Warspite]

I agree with you.

However, the Little Englander view is that the UK could depart from the EU and would still be better off for two reasons: first, the UK would be able to better pursue exports to higher-growth markets (ie Asia, Africa and Latin America); second, that the costs of EU contributions and regulatory frameworks outweigh the benefits of the single market. In other words, they reject your argument that these would be economically bad for the UK.

I think I have heard mention that outside of the EU, the UK could unilaterally dissolve all tariffs and basically go it alone on free trade (think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute advocate this).

From what I understand, the UK contributions to the EU are not very substantial.

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

[Jacob]

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

That's not going to change much if they want to market their products and services to Europe. In fact, they'll probably go up if they want to do that since they'll have to conform to two presumably different regulatory schemes - the UK one and the EU one.

[alfred russel]

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

I suspect that if you asked most firms, they would be opposed to leaving the EU.

I think the real reasons people want to leave the EU come from nationalistic issues, migration issues, and general fustration regarding EU bureaucracy.

[Jacob]

I think the real reasons people want to leave the EU come from nationalistic issues, migration issues, and general fustration regarding EU bureaucracy.

I'd wager that any frustration over "EU bureaucracy" is primarily derived by political posturing in and by the press rather than any personal experience.

[crazy canuck]

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

That's not going to change much if they want to market their products and services to Europe. In fact, they'll probably go up if they want to do that since they'll have to conform to two presumably different regulatory schemes - the UK one and the EU one.

Depends.  For smaller firms who do most of their business in Britain it would be a savings.  For the bigger firms who do trade on the continent you are correct.  And it is those bigger firms that probably carry the bulk of the regulatory expense in any event.  So, I dont really see the argument for leaving either.

[alfred russel]

I think the real reasons people want to leave the EU come from nationalistic issues, migration issues, and general fustration regarding EU bureaucracy.

I'd wager that any frustration over "EU bureaucracy" is primarily derived by political posturing in and by the press rather than any personal experience.

I think there may be something to the idea that the ECB has been a major source of the problems in the eurozone and the crisis in the eurozone periphery.

[The Minsky Moment]

Another question:
Does a UK exit increase the probability of Scotland breaking away on the theory that Britexit forces the Scots to choose between their connection with England vs. their connection with the rest of Europe?

[Jacob]

I think there may be something to the idea that the ECB has been a major source of the problems in the eurozone and the crisis in the eurozone periphery.

Quite possibly, but I don't think that's what people banging on about "EU bureaucracy" are talking about.

[alfred russel]

I think there may be something to the idea that the ECB has been a major source of the problems in the eurozone and the crisis in the eurozone periphery.

Quite possibly, but I don't think that's what people banging on about "EU bureaucracy" are talking about.

It is with me.

[Sheilbh]

Remember in the list of voters priorities Europe comes 10th with 6% saying it's a priority.

Cameron surrendered. Apparently the Tory backbench rebels are saying it's not enough because he can't pass the referendum bill and no Parliament can bind its successor. So a symbolic but damaging amendment to the Queen's Speech is the way to go

It reminds me of the dog days of Major, alas Miliband's no Blair. You couldn't imagine him saying 'I lead my party. He follows his. Weak, weak, weak.'

Cameron Gives Way to Tory Rebels in Backing EU-Referendum Bill
By Thomas Penny & Robert Hutton - May 14, 2013 12:01 AM GMT

British Prime Minister David Cameron ceded to the rebellion in his own Conservative Party, offering to support a bill authorizing a referendum by 2017 on the U.K.'s continued membership in the European Union.

The prime minister's visit to the U.S., where he has been talking about the conflict in Syria and his agenda for next month's Group of Eight summit, has been overshadowed by a growing number of Conservative lawmakers saying they planned a Parliamentary vote against his legislative program to protest his failure to deliver such a bill.

The Conservative Party will today "publish a draft bill to legislate for an in-out referendum by the end of 2017," according to a party statement late yesterday. "We will examine all options to bring this bill before Parliament, including as a private member's bill."

The move is Cameron's second in four months to try to satisfy his party, which has pressed him to take a more hostile line to the EU. In January, he promised to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership to reduce the bloc's influence and put the result to voters by 2017.

While rank-and-file Conservatives initially praised the plan, they reacted to a setback in local elections this month and gains by the anti-EU U.K. Independence Party by saying voters didn't believe Cameron was serious about pushing the bill if he won the 2015 general election. They demanded he publish legislation sooner.

About 60 members of his party have put their names to a parliamentary amendment expressing "regret" that no provision paving the way for a vote was included in the legislative program outlined last week. Academics said it may be the first time since 1946 that a significant number of members of a governing party have done so. If the amendment is selected for a vote by House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, it will come before the chamber by May 15.

Cameron's Opposition

The referendum bill would face a series of obstacles to becoming law. Because Cameron is in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who don't support his plan, the government can't sponsor the bill. A Tory lawmaker will have to be found to do so instead. The bill will then have to pass a second reading vote in the House of Commons. The Conservatives are outnumbered by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, who also opposes announcing a referendum four years in advance.

Should the bill pass second reading, it will need Parliamentary time, which again requires a vote. "Bringing it before Parliament is the easy bit," said Philip Cowley, professor of politics at Nottingham University. "How do you give it time without a majority supporting it?"

'Very Strange'

Cameron began his trip yesterday attacking Conservatives, including former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, who said his bid to negotiate meaningful changes would fall short and that the U.K. should leave the EU. The prime minister said their position was "very, very strange."

He went on to offer an implicit rebuke to Education Secretary Michael Gove and Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, who had both told the BBC that if there were a referendum tomorrow, they would vote to leave the bloc.

"There is a very good reason there is not going to be a referendum tomorrow and that is because it would give the British public an entirely false choice," Cameron said, standing in the White House alongside Barack Obama. "Everything I do in this area is guided by a very simple principle, which is what is in the national interest of Britain."

At the same event, Obama said leaving the EU risked diminishing Britain's international influence.

"The U.K.'s participation in the EU is an expression of its influence and its role in the world," Obama said. Cameron's strategy "makes some sense to me," he said. "You probably want to see if you can fix what is broken in a very important relationship before you break it off."

The headline went from 'Obama backs Cameron' to 'Cameron gives in to John Barron'.

Apparently a chunk of the shadow cabinet are going to try and get Labour to commit to an in-out referendum too. Like most decisions Miliband once toyed with it before retreating to ambiguity, but now it may happen anyway.

[Josquius]

I agree with you.

However, the Little Englander view is that the UK could depart from the EU and would still be better off for two reasons: first, the UK would be able to better pursue exports to higher-growth markets (ie Asia, Africa and Latin America); second, that the costs of EU contributions and regulatory frameworks outweigh the benefits of the single market. In other words, they reject your argument that these would be economically bad for the UK.

I think I have heard mention that outside of the EU, the UK could unilaterally dissolve all tariffs and basically go it alone on free trade (think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute advocate this).

From what I understand, the UK contributions to the EU are not very substantial.

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

This is one of the biggest annoyances in public-misconceptions about the EU; that it creates a lot of extra red tape. In fact things are quite the opposite, the EU removes the need for a zillion different pan-European groups standardising one of every little thing (The European Banana Association, the European Egg League, the European Widget Standardisation Group, etc....). It greatly reduces bureaucracy to a much more sensible level.
With Britain outside of the EU we would still have to conform to EU regulations if we want to do business with European countries. Only now we wouldn't get a say in what those regulations are.

[CountDeMoney]

I told you Brits never to surrender your sovereignty to that continental clusterfuck.  But noooo.

Now you can't get out, and renegotiation would definitely be a bad move, even if nothing came of it.  Sends the wrong message, and like Tyr says, sets a really bad precedent.

Why would Brits listen to an avid IRA sympathizer?

Because they're far too important a nation to have to prop up a dirt farm of a country like yours.

[Sheilbh]

It's not laughable: Merkel and Cameron have already suggested they have a common position.

I've always thought the issue is that Cameron's made it a domestic issue. It's about British renegotiation when he should've pitched it as European reform in which case he would have been able to work more easily with Merkel, Rutte, Reinfeld and others.

It's a shame because I think the treaties need to be reopened and we do need reform.

However, the Little Englander view is that the UK could depart from the EU and would still be better off for two reasons: first, the UK would be able to better pursue exports to higher-growth markets (ie Asia, Africa and Latin America); second, that the costs of EU contributions and regulatory frameworks outweigh the benefits of the single market. In other words, they reject your argument that these would be economically bad for the UK.

I think I have heard mention that outside of the EU, the UK could unilaterally dissolve all tariffs and basically go it alone on free trade (think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute advocate this).

Yep. I find that argument their most attractive. Dan Hannan's always saying how the Swiss signed 17 free trade agreements in the last year - they have them with the US and China - while the EU tends to move very slowly on that regard.

It is a core difference in the EU though. There are countries like the UK and the Netherlands that basically want to trade, want liberalisation, free trade deals and a single market in services. Then there are others, probably the majority, who almost want to use the EU to protect against globalisation and have that weird fear of China. I think if the UK left the EU would look a lot less hospitable for the more liberal countries and I think the EU would be worse off.

Of course the Tory idea is confused. They think we can somehow be this free trading global island with extremely strict immigration controls?

Does a UK exit increase the probability of Scotland breaking away on the theory that Britexit forces the Scots to choose between their connection with England vs. their connection with the rest of Europe?

No-one knows. The Scots have their referendum in 2014 while the earliest this would happen is 2017. But it is an interesting constitutional issue if the UK voted to leave the EU but there was only a majority in England.

I think the real reasons people want to leave the EU come from nationalistic issues, migration issues, and general fustration regarding EU bureaucracy.

Immigration matters a lot. But I think a lot of it's to do with anti-establishment, populist feeling. The Economist pointed out that UKIP aren't really that different from many other populist parties in Europe - from M5S, to the True Finns. What is different is the craven incompetence of the Tories.

Personally I have issues with the EU bureaucracy. I can imagine voting to leave if I thought the EU as a whole was heading in the wrong direction, because if we stay in after a referendum then we'll be stuck with what goes on for the next 20-30 years.

[mongers]

This is Cameron running scared of the frothing wing of the Tory party who see UKIP's 'policies' as general election winning material. 

On the wider issue, how exactly would a future UK not in the EU work; when was the last time a policy of splendid isolation work out well for us ? 

[MadImmortalMan]

This is one of the biggest annoyances in public-misconceptions about the EU; that it creates a lot of extra red tape. In fact things are quite the opposite, the EU removes the need for a zillion different pan-European groups standardising one of every little thing (The European Banana Association, the European Egg League, the European Widget Standardisation Group, etc....). It greatly reduces bureaucracy to a much more sensible level.
With Britain outside of the EU we would still have to conform to EU regulations if we want to do business with European countries. Only now we wouldn't get a say in what those regulations are.

That sounds like quangos to me. Are there less of them now that the EU is up and running? Say, since Lisbon?