Languish.org

A headline from any point over the last 20 years. It's madness.

QuoteEU referendum: cabinet crisis for David Cameron as ministers break ranks
Michael Gove and Philip Hammond say they would vote to leave European Union
Nicholas Watt and Rajeev Syal
The Guardian, Sunday 12 May 2013 20.39 BST

David Cameron is struggling to maintain Tory discipline over Europe after cabinet loyalists Michael Gove and Philip Hammond said on Sunday that they would vote to leave the European Union if a referendum were to be held now.

Gove, the education minister, confirmed for the first time that he believes that leaving the EU would have "certain advantages", while Hammond, the defence secretary, later said that he too would vote to leave if he was asked to endorse the EU "exactly as it is today".

The remarks, which follow similar calls by Lord Lawson and Michael Portillo last week for Britain to leave Europe, are particularly significant because they are the first cabinet ministers to say they would vote to quit if an immediate referendum were held.

Dozens of Tory MPs are preparing to vote in favour of a backbench amendment to the motion welcoming the Queen's speech, which is expected on Wednesday, regretting the absence of an in/out referendum on Britain's EU membership.

The remarks by Gove, described as "unhelpful" by party officials, went slightly further than Hammond, who said that it was "defeatist" to argue in favour of withdrawal because the prime minister will negotiate a better deal for Britain.

Gove told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 that he would abstain in the vote after No 10 said ministers would be free to take the rare step of declining to offer wholehearted support for the Queen's speech. No 10 is offering backbenchers a free vote and ministers the right to abstain.

The prime minister says that, if elected with a majority in 2015, he would hold a referendum by 2017. This would take place after a renegotiation of Britain's membership terms.

Friends of Gove told the Mail on Sunday last year that Britain should leave the EU unless substantial powers were repatriated. Asked whether he stood by those private remarks, he said: "Yes, I'm not happy with our position in the EU."

Gove said he supported the prime minister's plan to renegotiate the terms of Britain's EU membership after the election. But he then added that life outside the EU could have benefits. He said: "My preference is for a change in Britain's relationship with the European Union. My ideal is exactly what the majority of the British public's ideal is, which is to recognise the current situation is no good, to say that life outside would be perfectly tolerable, we could contemplate it, there would be certain advantages.

"But the best deal for Europe, and for Britain, would be if Britain were to lead the change that Europe needs." Explaining his abstention, he said: "I'm going to abstain ... it's an exercise in letting off steam."

Hammond, interviewed for Pienaar's Politics on BBC radio, later said: "If the choice is between a European Union written exactly as it is today and not being a part of that then I have to say that I'm on the side of the argument that Michael Gove has put forward."

Theresa May, the home secretary, said she too would abstain. But she declined to say whether she would vote to leave the EU if a referendum were held now. The prime minister will be in the US when the Commons vote is held.

Ministers have been excluded from a free vote granted to Tory backbenchers to support the rebel amendment – with about 100 MPs expected to take the rare step of formally criticising their own government's legislative programme. At least two parliamentary private secretaries are expected to vote for the amendment.

Supporters of the amendment believe that the party must take on board traditional Tory voters' views after large numbers voted UKIP in this month's local elections.

Weirdly until this government gave us fixed term parliaments (:bleeding:) an amendment to the Queen's Speech would require the PM to resign as a vote of no confidence. It still seems mad though. And I don't remember the nineties well enough to understand just how weird the Tories get over Europe :blink: :bleeding:

Edit: Also it looks very likely that whoever succeeds Cameron as Tory leader will be a better-off-outer.

Sounds like the Tory's are the British equivalent of the Tea Party.  :hmm:

Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 05:18:54 PM
Sounds like the Tory's are the British equivalent of the Tea Party.  :hmm:

Don't be silly.  For one thing, they're not racist hillbilly retards.  For another thing, it's debatable whether the EU is a good thing.  It is not debatable that the 19th century is over and so thing like taxes, gun control and black people voting are a part of reality.

Quotetaxes, gun control and black people voting are a part of reality.

Unsure of your point. We have taxes, sane gun control, black people can vote, and we have a black president. Only thing left this Teh Gays and they'll get their due.

QuoteDon't be silly.  For one thing, they're not racist hillbilly retards.

Cultured hillbilly's. 

QuoteFor another thing, it's debatable whether the EU is a good thing. 

Well duh. Those knobs over there have never gotten it together. Nice attempt, but it will fail in the end.

I say the UK should pull out.

Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 05:37:27 PM
Unsure of your point. We have taxes, sane gun control, black people can vote, and we have a black president. Only thing left this Teh Gays and they'll get their due.

The point of the Tea Party is to get rid of taxes, eliminate restrictions on guns, and to keep uppity blacks in their place.

QuoteWell duh. Those knobs over there have never gotten it together. Nice attempt, but it will fail in the end.

I say the UK should pull out.

Hard to say.  At least when they're in there, they're acting to restrict anything that the French or the Germans might try to pull.  Those two peoples tend to get pretty much everything wrong, so somebody needs to babysit them.

Sheilbh, presumably the purpose of putting forward a referendum date of 2017 and one contingent on winning a majority in the next election is twofold: a) get support in the next election from skeptic voters, and b) present a credible walkout scenario to Europe to strengthen Cameron's hands in negotiations.

Since Cameron is on record supporting the EU, the party actually needs serious backbench (and even cabinent) contention on the issue if they are to be credible with such a strategy.

The other thing is that he wouldn't have the support of the Lib Dems in legislating for a referendum in this Parliament and he probably doesn't want the two years in the run-up to an election spent negotiating with Merkel.

The intention of putting forward a referendum at all was to calm down the restive Tory right and stop the party from 'banging on about Europe' as they used to in the 90s. It's been a limited success :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 06:42:15 PM
The other thing is that he wouldn't have the support of the Lib Dems in legislating for a referendum in this Parliament and he probably doesn't want the two years in the run-up to an election spent negotiating with Merkel.

The intention of putting forward a referendum at all was to calm down the restive Tory right and stop the party from 'banging on about Europe' as they used to in the 90s. It's been a limited success :lol:

These aren't the best days for the EU. Symbolic steps "banging on about Europe" are probably healthy considering how out of touch the conservatives would seem if everyone stuck to pro EU party lines.

This is one of those places that having the Lib Dems in a coalition is probably helpful for Cameron. 

Instead of pulling out of the EU we should just nuke Russia and wait for them to shoot back. The effects won't be that much worse. It would be suicide to pull out.

I just hope despite the frequent rhetoric that the general population would vote sensibly.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2013, 06:49:18 PM
These aren't the best days for the EU. Symbolic steps "banging on about Europe" are probably healthy considering how out of touch the conservatives would seem if everyone stuck to pro EU party lines.

I disagree. Most people don't care about Europe but it's all the Tories talk about and what they fight over. It's not healthy. If they were fighting about economic policy at least it would be relevant to most voters. This is the tail wagging the dog.

Official Tory policy isn't even that pro-EU. At the last election they ran on renegotiating our membership and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. Now Cameron's moved them to still leaving the ECHR and renegotiating but after the negotiations there'll be an in-out referendum. When he fails to win the next election I imagine his successor will ditch the renegotiation and go straight for a referendum.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2013, 06:22:01 PM...present a credible walkout scenario to Europe to strengthen Cameron's hands in negotiations.

A walkout from the Common Market would completely obliterate the City and much of the remaining industry (and contrary to popular belief the UK still has sizable manufacturing).
Only the most delusional of people think the Tories have any leverage to negotiate a better deal, on either EU or EFTA.

Just read this very good piece in the Telegraph:

QuoteAn EU referendum is the political mouse that roared
David Cameron's promise of a new deal has won few friends. To too many eyes, it looks like compromise
By Matthew d'Ancona4:51PM BST 11 May 2013335 Comments

Political absurdity is often the face of deep-rooted complexity; especially so in the case of a coalition. This week, it is probable that an amendment regretting the absence of an EU referendum Bill from the Queen's Speech will be called, and force a most peculiar outcome.

As things stand, Tory backbenchers will be granted a free vote on the motion tabled by two of their number, John Baron and Peter Bone, while members of the Government will abstain. However, as The Sunday Telegraph reveals today, some Lib Dem ministers are now expected to complicate matters further by voting against, as their pro-EU convictions dictate.

This is not the first time that the dynamics of Coalition have spawned psychedelic, multi-dimensional politics. In December 2010, as tuition fees gave the Lib Dems their first bitter taste of government's moral quandaries, Vince Cable came close to commending the reform to the House – and then abstaining on it. As John Denham, then shadow business secretary, asked: "When was the last time that a minister – a secretary of state and a member of the Cabinet – came to the House to defend a policy that he drew up, on the same day on which he told the BBC that he might not even vote for it?"

When indeed? To its latest dilemma, No 10's response has been Confucian in form: "When you see a mouse come in to a room, you can either say 'there's a mouse', or you can jump on a table, screaming." Safe to say, I think, that the mouse in this kung-fu riddle is the EU referendum, or perhaps the amendment itself, and that the screaming is all the fuss that the political and media class is making.

The Prime Minister's distaste for panic has undoubtedly served him well over the years, not least in the mind-numbing maze of bipartisan Government. The Cameroons are right to complain that some in their party act as if the Tories were not in coalition, or the Lib Dems could be safely ignored. That arrogance cost the party the boundary review and perhaps the next election (the constituency reorganisation would have been worth about 20 seats to the Conservatives). What should worry Cameron is the resilient lack of trust between himself and a significant core of Tory MPs. When they demand a draft referendum bill, they are saying: we take all your points about Clegg and the Lib Dems and what you can and can't do, but even so – sorry, mate – we still want it in writing.

Considered in this context, it is remarkable that the PM's speech on Britain's relationship with the EU in January – promising the first referendum on our membership since 1975 – made so little impact upon the debate it was meant to calm, or upon the rise of the UK Independence Party. According to one loyalist member of the Government: "The fact is that people don't trust us."

What Alastair Campbell once called "this huge stuff about trust" is the binding force in all of this, at every level. The perception that Cameron broke his own "cast-iron guarantee" to hold a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty compounded the ugly legacy of MPs' expenses, Iraq, spin, sleaze, "Back to Basics" and much else besides. This is an era of institutional frailty: Parliament, the press, the financial sector, the BBC, all have been traumatised by scandal and deceit. And never before have politicians been subject to such relentless scrutiny: the tools of the digital revolution have the paradoxical effect of forcing honesty upon those who govern, while reducing trust among the governed.

Against this backdrop, the sleek élites of the late 20th and early 21st centuries already look dated. Those who point at Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage and say they don't look like men of government are only bolstering their credentials and their voter appeal. The Mayor of London and the Ukip leader prosper precisely because they have the scuffed honesty of amateurs – real human beings who have not been bred in laboratories, and speak their mind rather than parrot the "line to take".

In reality, of course, both men are politicians to their finger-tips; Boris is the second-term mayor of a global city which last year hosted the Olympics, while Farage is masterminding a deft electoral guerrilla strategy that suggests he has talents that transcend saloon-bar charm and Barbour chic. But they understand that a deeply suspicious electorate values "authenticity" more than anything else.

Alongside the historic collapse of trust, Cameron has to confront a no less dramatic shift in the foundations and fortunes of the EU. As the late Hugo Young argued in his magisterial account of Britain's relationship with Europe, This Blessed Plot, Eurosceptics were always open to the charge of "lack of realism". Writing in 1998, Young observed: "The world they defended seemed, in the end, to be nostalgic and narrow: assailed by demons, racked by existential confusion."

But, 15 years on, their world and the EU's look very different. The Continent is racked by the eurozone crisis, and it is no longer as easy to argue that Britain outside the EU would suffer economically. As Lord Lawson wrote last week in his Times article calling for exit: "The heart of the matter is that the relevant economic context nowadays is not Europe but globalisation, including global free trade, with the World Trade Organisation as its monitor."

Lawson is close to George Osborne, and his article reflects views that, it is safe to assume, he has already discussed with senior Tories in the Coalition. Michael Portillo's piece in the same newspaper was angrier, more overtly hostile to Cameron's position and, in Latin style, scornful of today's Conservative leadership: "They whinge about Europe, but don't have the self-confidence to pull out." Portillo accused the political class of "defeatism" and invited the reader to imagine "Margaret Thatcher approaching the issue in such an insincere and political way".

At such moments, one recalls that Portillo is not only the father of Tory modernisation – too rarely recognised as such by its beneficiaries – but was also a close disciple of the Iron Lady. In arguing that there is a "fundamental mismatch" between Britain's ambitions and those of the EU, one that cannot be "resolved by a little renegotiation", he spoke, I suspect, for the majority of Tory MPs and for a growing percentage of the population. Cameron's best line is that Britain is in a "global race". It is getting harder with each passing month to argue that our membership of the EU is a help, rather than a hindrance to our performance in that contest.

To his under-acknowledged credit, this PM has offered the public a referendum on British membership. But his promise of a new deal, a fresh beginning worth waiting for before we decide, has gained little traction and won few friends. To too many eyes, it looks like compromise rather than half of the logic. This week's amendment is only one of the many interventions, ploys and stunts he can expect, intended to push him further, faster, on this central question of the nation's identity. In politics, the mouse sometimes roars.

Quote from: Iormlund on May 12, 2013, 07:02:19 PM
A walkout from the Common Market would completely obliterate the City and much of the remaining industry (and contrary to popular belief the UK still has sizable manufacturing).

I don't think it'd necessarily be disastrous. I probably wouldn't support leaving the EU but I'm not convinced it'd be the end of the British economy :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 06:56:36 PM

I disagree. Most people don't care about Europe but it's all the Tories talk about and what they fight over. It's not healthy. If they were fighting about economic policy at least it would be relevant to most voters. This is the tail wagging the dog.

I can't speak to the volume of rhetoric--if it is dominating it I agree with you (I don't follow UK politics enough to get a sense of that).

Quote
Official Tory policy isn't even that pro-EU. At the last election they ran on renegotiating our membership and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. Now Cameron's moved them to still leaving the ECHR and renegotiating but after the negotiations there'll be an in-out referendum. When he fails to win the next election I imagine his successor will ditch the renegotiation and go straight for a referendum.

On the balance, I am strongly pro EU. However, there are obviously problems with the way things are going--and that is arguably the most important economic issue in Europe right now. A renegotiation would probably be healthy.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 07:04:02 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on May 12, 2013, 07:02:19 PM
A walkout from the Common Market would completely obliterate the City and much of the remaining industry (and contrary to popular belief the UK still has sizable manufacturing).

I don't think it'd necessarily be disastrous. I probably wouldn't support leaving the EU but I'm not convinced it'd be the end of the British economy :mellow:

It wouldn't be the end of the British economy - we'd stay a rich country - but I don't see how withdrawal would do much good either. I suspect a lot of the EU regulatory costs would remain in some form or another, and the loss of labour mobility would not be beneficial to certain key sectors.

Never did I expect that my Croatian nationality, of all things, would potentially be my key to easy movement around the EU one day  :lol:

Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 05:37:27 PM
We have taxes, sane gun control, black people can vote, and we have a black president.

Lulz, which of these are facts and which is an opinion pulled out of your ass?

I would be very surprised to see any willingness in Europe to renegotiate the treaties or accommodate the UK's position. The EU is deeply annoyed with the UK and would not agree to renegotiate even if, objectively, it was in the EU's interest, imo.

Also, this thread would be much better without Neil's trolling.

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 05:36:31 AM
I would be very surprised to see any willingness in Europe to renegotiate the treaties or accommodate the UK's position. The EU is deeply annoyed with the UK and would not agree to renegotiate even if, objectively, it was in the EU's interest, imo.

There is no "EU" position on the UK, there are the opinions of different political constituencies within the twenty-seven other member states. I suspect Merkel would rather do what is reasonably possible to the keep the UK inside rather than have it drift out and have no counterweight against the French vision.

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 05:47:14 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 05:36:31 AM
I would be very surprised to see any willingness in Europe to renegotiate the treaties or accommodate the UK's position. The EU is deeply annoyed with the UK and would not agree to renegotiate even if, objectively, it was in the EU's interest, imo.

There is no "EU" position on the UK, there are the opinions of different political constituencies within the twenty-seven other member states. I suspect Merkel would rather do what is reasonably possible to the keep the UK inside rather than have it drift out and have no counterweight against the French vision.

I disagree. Letting the UK get away with treaty renegotiations will open flood gates for similar demands from other member states and Merkel knows that. And I find it laughable that Merkel would want to build a common position with Cameron against France - she can find allies elsewhere, e.g. in Poland.

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 05:51:08 AM

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 05:47:14 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 05:36:31 AM
I would be very surprised to see any willingness in Europe to renegotiate the treaties or accommodate the UK's position. The EU is deeply annoyed with the UK and would not agree to renegotiate even if, objectively, it was in the EU's interest, imo.

There is no "EU" position on the UK, there are the opinions of different political constituencies within the twenty-seven other member states. I suspect Merkel would rather do what is reasonably possible to the keep the UK inside rather than have it drift out and have no counterweight against the French vision.

I disagree. Letting the UK get away with treaty renegotiations will open flood gates for similar demands from other member states and Merkel knows that. And I find it laughable that Merkel would want to build a common position with Cameron against France - she can find allies elsewhere, e.g. in Poland.

It's not laughable: Merkel and Cameron have already suggested they have a common position. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9991994/David-Cameron-and-Angela-Merkel-call-for-urgent-European-reform.html

Merkel and Cameron are much, much closer on EU issues than with Hollande.

There really shouldn't be space for the UK to renegotiate. I agree it would set a horrific prescedent.
There should however be reforms of the EU as a whole.

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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 05:51:08 AM

I disagree. Letting the UK get away with treaty renegotiations will open flood gates for similar demands from other member states and Merkel knows that. And I find it laughable that Merkel would want to build a common position with Cameron against France - she can find allies elsewhere, e.g. in Poland.

It really depends what "treaty renegotiations" refers to. The UK getting special breaks to contribute less money and/or get more money is one thing. General reform of some institutions that are arguably not working and are generally unpopular is another.

I think it is worth keeping in mind that there are only three large EU countries that are doing well right now--the UK, France, and Germany. The model has been for them to an extent carry some of the weight of less developed members former communist countries. For one of them to walk away is very bad for the EU, even if the UK has been less engaged than the other two.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 06:08:40 AM
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?

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 09:13:40 AMI think it is worth keeping in mind that there are only three large EU countries that are doing well right now--the UK, France, and Germany.

You forgot Poland. :contract:

In fact the way you are saying this, it is as if there were tons of large countries in the EU and only three (or in fact four) were doing well. The fact that out of six large countries in Europe, four are doing well is, imo, quite a success.

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 11:41:19 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 09:13:40 AMI think it is worth keeping in mind that there are only three large EU countries that are doing well right now--the UK, France, and Germany.

You forgot Poland. :contract:

In fact the way you are saying this, it is as if there were tons of large countries in the EU and only three (or in fact four) were doing well. The fact that out of six large countries in Europe, four are doing well is, imo, quite a success.

I didn't forget Poland. Poland is doing well relative to where it was 20 years ago, but it still doesn't have a highly developed economy and I would assume is a net drain on EU funds.

Maybe I should have specified what I meant a bit more.

Let's say the UK exits.  Then what?

If they want to keep access to the internal market, they have to join the EEA.  But that just subjects them to all the EU market rules while severely downgrading their ability to be involved in their development.  True the UK would thereby escape the full fiscal apparatus of the EU but they are insulated from the potential negative effects of that already by the Rebate.

The alternative would be to stay outside the EEA as well but that would leave them outside their biggest market.  In theory the UK could negotiate its own bespoke trade and investment treaties, but it would have to get on line with the likes of the US, China, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, etc.  From the EU's POV the UK (standing alone) would not necessarily be viewed as a much higher priority then those other relationships.

I don't see the upside from the exit.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 11:47:49 AM
Let's say the UK exits.  Then what?

If they want to keep access to the internal market, they have to join the EEA.  But that just subjects them to all the EU market rules while severely downgrading their ability to be involved in their development.  True the UK would thereby escape the full fiscal apparatus of the EU but they are insulated from the potential negative effects of that already by the Rebate.

The alternative would be to stay outside the EEA as well but that would leave them outside their biggest market.  In theory the UK could negotiate its own bespoke trade and investment treaties, but it would have to get on line with the likes of the US, China, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, etc.  From the EU's POV the UK (standing alone) would not necessarily be viewed as a much higher priority then those other relationships.

I don't see the upside from the exit.

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).

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PMGovernmentally, 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.

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 02:45:39 PMI 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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 01:32:17 PM

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PMGovernmentally, 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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 02:47:20 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 02:45:39 PMI 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.

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?

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 02:53:40 PMI 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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 03:08:27 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 02:53:40 PMI 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. :blush:

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 :bleeding:

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.' :wub:

QuoteCameron 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.

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 11:39:23 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 06:08:40 AM
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.

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 05:56:58 AM
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.

QuoteHowever, 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? :blink:

QuoteDoes 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.

QuoteI 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.

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 ? 

Quote from: Tyr on May 13, 2013, 06:58:59 PM
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?

Quote from: mongers on May 13, 2013, 07:06:40 PM
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 ?

Of course the Eurosceptic argument would be that it wouldn't be splendid isolation but that instead of mainly having our economic relationship with the EU (and then defence with the US) we'd be a bit of a whore and work with anyone. As I say it's got its attractions, but I think that seems a bit optimistic.

Edit: Here's a piece from the Spectator's blog on this, mainly for the rather cutting Lib Dem perspective:

QuoteTory leadership publishes draft EU referendum bill in a panic, and fails to convince backbenchers
Isabel Hardman 13 May 2013 23:13

David Cameron was trying to work out how on earth to deal with the latest Europe row in his party. He heard them demanding legislation in this parliament for a referendum in the next, and this evening, after nearly a year of letter-writing and speeches, he announced that the Tory party will publish a draft bill doing just that. They still can't get it through Parliament through the government channels, so they'll be putting it up for any willing backbencher (of which there are many) to adopt in the Private Member's Bill ballot.

Figures close to the Prime Minister were hinting to Tory MPs this evening there would be a move for legislation, but they were taken by surprise when, just a few hours later, the announcement was made that the draft bill will be published tomorrow.

So is this it? Is the Conservative party falling on its knees with gratitude? Unsurprisingly, MPs are not doing anything of the sort. I've spoken to John Baron who has been leading the charge from the backbenches. He now thinks that this is a sign that the whole Tory party should support his amendment to the Queen's Speech on Wednesday. He says:

'The leadership should have initiative and courage and support our amendment on Wednesday, which would force Labour and the Lib Dems to decide where they stand, and it would give them a mandate to introduce the legislation through the normal channels.'

The Lib Dems I've spoken to this evening strongly dispute that this would offer any sort of mandate for a government bill. One says:

'Call me cynical, but I think parliament might have better things to do than have a paving bill for a referendum based on a general election result we have not had, following a negotiation that has not started.'

There are two big problems with this. The first is that the PM now appears well and truly behind his party. He has resisted introducing draft legislation, and didn't mention it in negotiations about the Queen's Speech. And now, less than 48 hours before a vote on a motion that doesn't make any difference, he publishes a bill. The message is panic, not planning here, especially as it seems the draft bill has been circulating within the upper echelons of the party for some time. And the leadership failed to consult Baron and Co on the idea, meaning they've developed their own response, which is to demand more.

The second is that this just reinforces the impression that backbenchers are psychic. Why give up on a pet quest when you're just campaigning for something the leadership will eventually give in to? This has happened time and time again: the backbencher who recently joked to Coffee House that they just vote 'two or three weeks ahead' of their party rather than really rebelling was right. There are technically just under 24 months left of the Coalition: this won't be the last psychic demand Tory MPs make. Conversely, why on earth should any Tory bother being loyal or trying to peddle the party line any more? It could change at any minute.

Edit: Also how weird that three years into the coalition I think the Lib Dems look like the responsible party of government while the Tories look divided and fringe, not just over this either :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 13, 2013, 07:43:14 PM
Of course the Eurosceptic argument would be that it wouldn't be splendid isolation but that instead of mainly having our economic relationship with the EU (and then defence with the US) we'd be a bit of a whore and work with anyone. As I say it's got its attractions, but I think that seems a bit optimistic.

Not to mention that other markets will also require you to adhere to certain standards. And if engineering is any guide, those will be more often than not copied from Euro/US guidelines. :lol:

Cameron has made the classic error of pandering to a fringe of his party. It is how British political parties put themselves in the electoral wilderness. The last big time this happened was the 1980s when the Labour party actually advanced a socialist agenda and discovered that, while it was popular with party activists, it only had about 25% support from the electorate. A lesser example might be the electoral reform recently proposed by the libdems, important to them but a resounding "meh" from the voters.

People like to grumble in the UK, it is the main feature of political discourse here. Not endearing, but probably better than the alternatives. We have a hard core of maybe 25% who despise the EU, dislike immigrants etc etc. The most important group though is the pragmatic centre (a silent majority  ;) ), who will not stick up for the EU down the pub but will vote to stay in if a referendum takes place. I have no doubt that if/when a referendum takes place it will result in us staying in, assuming that a disaster doesn't take place (eg fascists in government in Greece).

I'm beginning to think it would be best to have the referendum sooner rather than later and get this nonsense dismissed for a generation. Then the British PM can go to Germany with a reasonable hand of cards and chat with Merkel about the reform that the EU undoubtedly needs.

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2013, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
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.

Does the "argument" go further to say that if the UK left the EU all these regulations would be abolished? Because frankly I don't see this happening.  :huh:

Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 01:32:17 PM

Quote from: Warspite on May 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PMGovernmentally, 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.

Yeah it's funny when anti-EU idiots use this argument - the EU regulations are there so that there are no separate local regulations for every single member state.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 02:55:50 PM
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?

I think Scotland has already made it clear that it will reapply to the EU if the UK exited - not sure how the rest of the EU would feel about it though. :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 02:55:50 PM
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?

This is an interesting question and one I have considered elsewhere.

The problem in working out whether this is true is that the EU referendum is planned for the next UK parliament in 2017, but the Scottish referendum is next year.

Scots are broadly more pro-European than the English, so the potential of British exit could skew the 2014 independence referendum vote.

It is difficult to tell if this will happen. But the problem Cameron faces is that in pandering to his own party, he might inadvertently set up a choice for Scots that is not between the Union and independence, but between Little England and Europe -- or at least the perception that this is the choice.

The pro-Europeaness of Scots has always baffled me. Northern England is pretty culturally and politically similar (only we just have labour and no opposition in the shape of the SNP) and attitudes there are pretty anti-Europe.

Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2013, 06:06:04 AM
The pro-Europeaness of Scots has always baffled me. Northern England is pretty culturally and politically similar (only we just have labour and no opposition in the shape of the SNP) and attitudes there are pretty anti-Europe.

The Auld Alliance.

In the 1975 referendum Scotland was far less pro-Europe than England :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 04:13:08 AM
Does the "argument" go further to say that if the UK left the EU all these regulations would be abolished? Because frankly I don't see this happening.  :huh:

I think they generally mean the social Europe regulations and that sort of thing.

QuoteCameron has made the classic error of pandering to a fringe of his party. It is how British political parties put themselves in the electoral wilderness. The last big time this happened was the 1980s when the Labour party actually advanced a socialist agenda and discovered that, while it was popular with party activists, it only had about 25% support from the electorate. A lesser example might be the electoral reform recently proposed by the libdems, important to them but a resounding "meh" from the voters.

Matthew Parris said today that you don't need a commentator to talk about the Tory party at the minute, you need a psychiatrist :lol:

QuoteThe pro-Europeaness of Scots has always baffled me. Northern England is pretty culturally and politically similar (only we just have labour and no opposition in the shape of the SNP) and attitudes there are pretty anti-Europe.

Because they're not English and overly anti-EU views like Thatcherism and the Tory Party are generally seen as afflictions of the English. I think it's the similar sort of quite shallow EU support from people my age. Being pro-EU is a way of saying 'I'm not Tory'.

QuoteIn the 1975 referendum Scotland was far less pro-Europe than England :

Now about 50% of English say they'd leave, 55% of Scots want to stay.

It is rather amusing to think that Cameron, if he wins the 2015 election (the Tories are a lot stronger electorally if Scotland secedes), could conceivably be the prime minister who lost both Scotland and Europe.

Quote from: Warspite on May 14, 2013, 06:48:42 AM
It is rather amusing to think that Cameron, if he wins the 2015 election (the Tories are a lot stronger electorally if Scotland secedes), could conceivably be the prime minister who lost both Scotland and Europe.

Maybe political power is worth that to him ?   :hmm:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 14, 2013, 02:17:18 AM
People like to grumble in the UK, it is the main feature of political discourse here. Not endearing, but probably better than the alternatives. We have a hard core of maybe 25% who despise the EU, dislike immigrants etc etc.

That's more than a tad insulting - lumping anti-EU and anti-immigration attitudes under the same umbrella. While I'm certainly in the former camp I'm most definitely not in the latter. In fact, I find the current Tory contortions on the issue of immigration and how they're "clamping down" on it to be laughable at best and (since the easiest group to clamp down on are students or non-EU skilled workers) at worst actually damaging to the country.

-----------------

As for the thread and various things.


I don't think anybody in the UK, regardless of which side of the argument they are on, believes that Merkel is doing anything other than humouring Cameron. To genuinely renegotiate the treaties would require Germany to break with France which is something no post-war chancellor will do. It will also set a terrible precedent as has been noted unless it is done as part of a genuine reform of the EU, something for which there seems to be insufficent support for on the continent.


As for Scotland and Europe? Given Alex Salmond's (who is normally a very realistic and hard-nosed politician) mixture of cloud cuckooland and downright lies on the issue I'm not certain anyone can tell how the Scots feel on Europe or how it will affect the vote. For example, Salmond thinks that Scotland can keep the pound while  being an independent member of the EU (er, no, no-one's getting away with Sweden's trick or new exceptions as more recent accession treaties have shown) or that the UK's EU membership carries through to an independent Scotland (er, no, Scotland would have to negotiate its' own accession treaty as the Commission has pointed out.)

In fact, if Scotland votes "yes" to independence there's a good chance that it would have to apply for membership, a multi-year process. So those 55% of Scots who support the EU could very easily be voting to leave it (albeit temporarily) by voting for independence!

I must admit that I don't have a clue which way the Scots will vote given all the complications involved. But that's pretty normal with me regarding how the Scots think since I've never been able to reconcile "Scottish independence" and "membership of the EU" before now. For example, the way things are going in the Eurozone all Scotland will be doing is swapping the Bank of England for the ECB as one of the major controllers of their fiscal policy.


As for EU regulation there's certainly a thread among the Eurosceptics who are somewhat blase about the issue. However, there's also a certain degree of truth to the fact that in some areas EU regulations are not (or were not) as strict as British regulations so the whole argument is something of a red herring since both sides misrepresent the issue. What is interesting is the evidence that's been presented that British businesses find it easier to open new subsidiaries in most places outside Europe than they do inside the EU itself when for the EU to be worthwhile to Britain the reverse should be true.

As for the comment that "the City will be destroyed" by leaving Europe the balance of actual evidence from the last forty years suggests that it is in more danger from being within Europe. I'm not convinced that the choice is "fast death" outside Europe or "slow death" within Europe for the City since so much of the City's interests are global.


And finally, on the Tory party? I do recall the infighting of the Nineties, and it's not sunk to that level yet. However, the situation isn't all sweetness and roses for the Tory leadership either. For one thing, the total number of potential rebels is higher. In the Nineties there was a hard core who would vote against the government on Europe no matter how much Major placated them, and a more amorphous anti-European group who made noises but who constantly stepped back from actually joining the rebels. Cameron has a larger group of MPs who are more willing to be placated but who will, since they seem to be more committedly Euro-Sceptic, revolt en-masse if they lose their remaining faith in him.

Which is the second thing. It's not just the general public who distrust the party leaderships when the word "referendum" is bandied around, it's the backbenchers too. Part of it is constitutional, of course. The current parliament cannot bind the actions of a subsequent parliament, that's absolutely correct. But the other part of it is the same issue a large proportion of the general public have in that it appears that we've been promised referendums before "should certain things occur" and then have been told that we don't need to hold a referendum because "even though it looks like they did happen certain things didn't actually occur". Within the letter of their words the people saying this have been right, of course - but that's not what the perception has been, and I think that this feeling of being lied too is being felt by voters on both sides of the argument...which is reflected in parliament by the attitude of a number of MPs.


----------------

Anyway, the whole thing is moot anyway. The twin blows of the loss of boundary reform and the rise of UKIP have guaranteed a Labour victory in the next general election. The Lib-Dems are heading for a wipeout because at least half their support consists of voters too stupid to understand the realities of a coalition government and who feel somehow betrayed by the Lib-Dems actually living up to their principles ("we want electoral reform, electoral reform will lead to more coalitions, we have to show that coalitions work, sometimes election results and the good of the country leave only one choice of partner."*) The Tories and UKIP look like splitting the rightwing vote nationwide for the near to medium future.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next election didn't result in another landslide on the scale of 1997 for Labour. Not because they have the support, but because the opposition is so fractured. :(


*I've said this before but I'll say it again. I never expected to feel sympathy for the Lib-Dems, a party whose policies are generally anathema to me, but a large group of the British Electorate have actually made this happen. :Embarrass:

Age, you are right that a lot of Salmond's policies are not thought through. But the fact is that polling over the last five years or so has consistently shown a much more pro-European attitude in Scotland than in England. So the risk is that voters nervous about Scottish independence are driven to vote for it because of the worry that, actually, they're going to be worse off in a UK outside the EU.

It's not a certainty, but it is a risk for the unionist position.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 06:38:08 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 04:13:08 AM
Does the "argument" go further to say that if the UK left the EU all these regulations would be abolished? Because frankly I don't see this happening.  :huh:

I think they generally mean the social Europe regulations and that sort of thing.

They mainly apply to largest businesses, though, which are net beneficiaries of the common market. Mom and pop businesses do not need to set up work council...

Besides, you guys have this weird attitude about EU regulations in that you actually try to observe them rather than finding ways to evade them, like most of us do. Perhaps you anti-EU sentiments come from your lack of creativity? :P

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 08:56:48 AM
Besides, you guys have this weird attitude about EU regulations in that you actually try to observe them rather than finding ways to evade them, like most of us do. Perhaps you anti-EU sentiments come from your lack of creativity? :P

Yes, the whole nod-and-a-wink attitude to the EU's own rules worked really well with Greece, didn't it?

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 08:56:48 AM
Besides, you guys have this weird attitude about EU regulations in that you actually try to observe them rather than finding ways to evade them, like most of us do. Perhaps you anti-EU sentiments come from your lack of creativity? :P

I think it's called "respect for the rule of law" or something like that; there's a few of the continental members of the EU who'd be a lot better off now if they'd followed the same principle. See Greece and chronic tax evasion (swimming pools being a notorious case) or Spain and evasion of the planning regulations as two obvious examples.

.
..
...
....

And yes, you're absolutely correct - part of the problem is that we do both implement, observe and enforce the rules that come out of the EU here on our tiny island yet the overall impression we get fed from the press and other sources is that we're virtually alone in doing this. Personally, I've always thought that that's somewhat unfair on our fellow EU members - after all, despite my own views I'm quite aware of the streak of jingoism in the British press...at least, that is, during the times when I'm not reading posts from a respectable member of Polish society suggesting we should be better at evading laws and regulations instead of observing them. :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 13, 2013, 07:43:14 PM
Of course the Eurosceptic argument would be that it wouldn't be splendid isolation but that instead of mainly having our economic relationship with the EU (and then defence with the US) we'd be a bit of a whore and work with anyone. As I say it's got its attractions, but I think that seems a bit optimistic.

A bit optimistic is an understatement.  It doesn't seem like the proponents have thought through the practicalities of what "being a whore" would involve.  It means a lot of work and a lot of piecemeal compromises.  that's assuming the UK succeeds in getting on the busy agendas of its key counterparties, all of whom have lots of other fish to fry.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2013, 11:05:01 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 13, 2013, 07:43:14 PM
Of course the Eurosceptic argument would be that it wouldn't be splendid isolation but that instead of mainly having our economic relationship with the EU (and then defence with the US) we'd be a bit of a whore and work with anyone. As I say it's got its attractions, but I think that seems a bit optimistic.

A bit optimistic is an understatement.  It doesn't seem like the proponents have thought through the practicalities of what "being a whore" would involve.  It means a lot of work and a lot of piecemeal compromises.  that's assuming the UK succeeds in getting on the busy agendas of its key counterparties, all of whom have lots of other fish to fry.

Rubbish, we have the imperial preference system.  :bowler:

Oh wait, wrong century, failed idea.  :blush:

"er, no, Scotland would have to negotiate its' own accession treaty as the Commission has pointed out"

-> we'll see when it actually happens. Might as well be that the Commission spoke before it's turn.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 14, 2013, 02:20:19 PM
"er, no, Scotland would have to negotiate its' own accession treaty as the Commission has pointed out"

-> we'll see when it actually happens. Might as well be that the Commission spoke before it's turn.

Lettowists always stick up for each other <_<

The whole tory/UKIP/BNP thing going on in Britain right now is quickly eroding whatever is left of my Anglophile tendencies. And to think I was gushing about this country like 10 years ago. Now I prefer France and Germany much more. Hell I am even considering picking up French and German lessons.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 14, 2013, 02:20:19 PM
"er, no, Scotland would have to negotiate its' own accession treaty as the Commission has pointed out"

-> we'll see when it actually happens. Might as well be that the Commission spoke before it's turn.

France and Spain cannot tolerate setting a precedent here. There'll have to be an accession process, though it could of course be fast-tracked.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 02:43:16 PM
The whole tory/UKIP/BNP thing going on in Britain right now is quickly eroding whatever is left of my Anglophile tendencies. And to think I was gushing about this country like 10 years ago. Now I prefer France and Germany much more. Hell I am even considering picking up French and German lessons.

The SNP, the BNP, the UKIP, Plaid Cymru...just so many British parties to hate.  I hardly have any left for the Tories.

Quote from: Iormlund on May 14, 2013, 02:49:27 PM
France and Spain cannot tolerate setting a precedent here. There'll have to be an accession process, though it could of course be fast-tracked.

It better not be.  What exactly have the Scots done to deserve that?

For fast-tracking their application? Well, being formerly part of the Union it stands to reason they'd already fulfill all the requirements, so all that would be left would be negotiating contributions and voting.

Quote from: Iormlund on May 14, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
For fast-tracking their application? Well, being formerly part of the Union it stands to reason they'd already fulfill all the requirements, so all that would be left would be negotiating contributions and voting.

Surely not every region of every member of the EU meets all the requirements.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:55:53 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on May 14, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
For fast-tracking their application? Well, being formerly part of the Union it stands to reason they'd already fulfill all the requirements, so all that would be left would be negotiating contributions and voting.

Surely not every region of every member of the EU meets all the requirements.

Romania met the requirements. I don't know what the requirements are, but if they make any sense Scotland would meet them.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:55:53 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on May 14, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
For fast-tracking their application? Well, being formerly part of the Union it stands to reason they'd already fulfill all the requirements, so all that would be left would be negotiating contributions and voting.

Surely not every region of every member of the EU meets all the requirements.

They'd meet every legal requiriment, in case they've already implemented all EU legislation, it'd be the economic requiriments the ones that would have to be checked. I guess that, in that scenario, they'd still be fast-tracked and some stuff could be implemented earlier, but it'd still take a few years for full EU membership.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 02:43:16 PM
The whole tory/UKIP/BNP thing going on in Britain right now is quickly eroding whatever is left of my Anglophile tendencies. And to think I was gushing about this country like 10 years ago. Now I prefer France and Germany much more. Hell I am even considering picking up French and German lessons.

Guys we dodged the bullet there, I think it was worth all the effort. :bowler:

Educate me. Are UKIP and BNP really that comparable with each other? Marty lumped them together, but I thought they were not very similar.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 03:14:28 PM
Educate me. Are UKIP and BNP really that comparable with each other? Marty lumped them together, but I thought they were not very similar.

THe UKIP is specifically Euro-skeptic but otherwise not too nutty.  The BNP is the British version of the French Front National.

I would say that they are not. The BNP is a tiny but properly racist party. UKIP are a right-wing party that garner protest votes but are not innately objectionable even though some of their members may be. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to wear tweed jackets, drink lots of real ale, leave the EU, reduce immigration and smoke in pubs..........though one suspects that they will never get anywhere near government.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 03:15:33 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 03:14:28 PM
Educate me. Are UKIP and BNP really that comparable with each other? Marty lumped them together, but I thought they were not very similar.

THe UKIP is specifically Euro-skeptic but otherwise not too nutty.  The BNP is the British version of the French Front National.

You've not spoken to many UKIP people, have you; hint an acquaintance of mine used to shag Nigel F. the party leader. 

I never thought I would ever see the phrase 'properly racist'.

Quote from: The Larch on May 14, 2013, 02:59:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:55:53 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on May 14, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
For fast-tracking their application? Well, being formerly part of the Union it stands to reason they'd already fulfill all the requirements, so all that would be left would be negotiating contributions and voting.

Surely not every region of every member of the EU meets all the requirements.

They'd meet every legal requiriment, in case they've already implemented all EU legislation, it'd be the economic requiriments the ones that would have to be checked. I guess that, in that scenario, they'd still be fast-tracked and some stuff could be implemented earlier, but it'd still take a few years for full EU membership.

I certainly understand why the EU would say "well EU membership isn't guaranteed" for an independent Scotland - there are many separatist movements throughout Europe, and all of the EU member-states would want to discourage separatism.

But if a Yes vote actually happened, I can't imagine there would be any fuss.  Scotland has been a part of the EU (though not as a ember-state) for 40 years.  They're not going to kick the Scots out, only to re-invite them in again in a few years.

Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2013, 03:22:48 PM
I certainly understand why the EU would say "well EU membership isn't guaranteed" for an independent Scotland - there are many separatist movements throughout Europe, and all of the EU member-states would want to discourage separatism.

But if a Yes vote actually happened, I can't imagine there would be any fuss.  Scotland has been a part of the EU (though not as a ember-state) for 40 years.  They're not going to kick the Scots out, only to re-invite them in again in a few years.

Um...you do not think there would be any fuss about giving a green light to every nationalist asshole on the continent?  If there is a fuse in Europe that could blow the whole thing it is that one.

Quote from: mongers on May 14, 2013, 03:22:30 PM
You've not spoken to many UKIP people, have you; hint an acquaintance of mine used to shag Nigel F. the party leader. 

I meant not too nutty relative to other right wing nutters :P.  The BNP is really off the reservation, beyond the pale, out in left field, etc...

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 03:15:33 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 03:14:28 PM
Educate me. Are UKIP and BNP really that comparable with each other? Marty lumped them together, but I thought they were not very similar.

THe UKIP is specifically Euro-skeptic but otherwise not too nutty.  The BNP is the British version of the French Front National.

The UKIP is very nutty. They are virulently homophobic and anti-immigration.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
The UKIP is very nutty. They are virulently homophobic and racist. I just follow more British news outlets.

Hrm.  I guess my feeling was they were a more respectable and mainstream version of the BNP.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 03:28:00 PM

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
The UKIP is very nutty. They are virulently homophobic and racist. I just follow more British news outlets.

Hrm.  I guess my feeling was they were a more respectable and mainstream version of the BNP.

Yes, well, it still makes them a version of BNP.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
The UKIP is very nutty. They are virulently homophobic and anti-immigration.

How about you provide some evidence to back your contentions for once, eh? About the "nutty" and "homophobic" bits anyway since by your lights every party in the UK would be "anti-immigration" now (and yes, that does include the Labour party at the moment.)

Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2013, 03:22:48 PMI certainly understand why the EU would say "well EU membership isn't guaranteed" for an independent Scotland - there are many separatist movements throughout Europe, and all of the EU member-states would want to discourage separatism.

But if a Yes vote actually happened, I can't imagine there would be any fuss.  Scotland has been a part of the EU (though not as a ember-state) for 40 years.  They're not going to kick the Scots out, only to re-invite them in again in a few years.

The Spanish and French don't want to encourage their Basque and Catalonian regions to separate by making it look pain free, and I'm sure there are a few other countries with similar troublesome regions.

Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
The Spanish and French don't want to encourage their Basque and Catalonian regions to separate by making it look pain free, and I'm sure there are a few other countries with similar troublesome regions.

It is Europe.  I am sure all of them do...ok maybe not Luxembourg or Malta.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:41:32 PMIt is Europe.  I am sure all of them do...ok maybe not Luxembourg or Malta.

Scandinavia do not have any, to my knowledge.

Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2013, 04:45:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:41:32 PMIt is Europe.  I am sure all of them do...ok maybe not Luxembourg or Malta.

Scandinavia do not have any, to my knowledge.

Eh it seems like Denmark's numerous possessions are desperate to leave if only they were economically and politically viable.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:49:14 PM
Eh it seems like Denmark's numerous possessions are desperate to leave if only they were economically and politically viable.

Definitely. The difference is they're welcome to do so, if they're so inclined. This is different than the French and Spanish approaches to, say, the Basques.

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 03:28:00 PM
Hrm.  I guess my feeling was they were a more respectable and mainstream version of the BNP.

Not at all. They're a respectable party - about as extreme as a respectable party can get.

I'm not sure Marti was ever an Anglophile if he's doubting it having discovered that the English don't like continentals :lol:

Also why that'd make him start liking France is a bit odd, given the showing of the FN in every election.

Edit: Also I loved this from the Pew report on the EU as the sick man of Europe:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewglobal.org%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F05%2F2013-EU-12.png&hash=e79f294d2859151358a5ce628d5a8a8ae0cadddf)
Italy, France and Poland are particular favourites

The French are both the most and least arrogant.  :lol:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 08:47:30 PM
The French are both the most and least arrogant.  :lol:

I'm a bit perplexed by that one as well.  It's nice to see the Brits still despise the French, and the French really don't seem to care.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 08:47:30 PM
The French are both the most and least arrogant.  :lol:

The only country that thinks the French are the least arrogant is France. :contract:

Actually that whole list is mostly countries voting for themselves.

So is the Most Compassionate list.

Germany:  Most Trustworthy, Least Compassionate.

That's both disconcerting and historical.

Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2013, 05:39:05 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:49:14 PM
Eh it seems like Denmark's numerous possessions are desperate to leave if only they were economically and politically viable.

Definitely. The difference is they're welcome to do so, if they're so inclined. This is different than the French and Spanish approaches to, say, the Basques.

The smilarity is they are part of a perfectly fine country and desperately want to separate for no reason and in service of no other interest than nationalist douchebaggery.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 09:48:58 PM
Germany:  Most Trustworthy, Least Compassionate.

That's both disconcerting and historical.

You always know where you stand in Germany.

Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2013, 04:45:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:41:32 PMIt is Europe.  I am sure all of them do...ok maybe not Luxembourg or Malta.

Scandinavia do not have any, to my knowledge.

I remember a dude over at Paradox that was supporting separatism for some region of Sweden for the longest time...

Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 12:18:14 AMI remember a dude over at Paradox that was supporting separatism for some region of Sweden for the longest time...

A solitary lettowist does not make it a significant issue.

Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 12:18:14 AM

Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2013, 04:45:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:41:32 PMIt is Europe.  I am sure all of them do...ok maybe not Luxembourg or Malta.

Scandinavia do not have any, to my knowledge.

I remember a dude over at Paradox that was supporting separatism for some region of Sweden for the longest time...

If there is a place in Europe, someone wants it to be it's own country.  The ones you really have to watch out for is the ones that want to combine a bunch of countries.

Maybe this is them.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scania_Party  Sounds like a toothless bunch of crypto-Nazis.

115 Tory MPs backed the rebel amendment which was more than was expected. I'm still unsure whether it's more baffling that they're voting against their own Queen's speech or that they want a referendum to defend Parliamentary sovereignty :blink:

As is often the case I broadly agree with Clive Crook:

QuoteU.K. Exit From EU May Really Happen
By Clive Crook May 14, 2013 11:00 PM GMT

Visiting the U.K. over the past week, I realized for the first time that Britain might actually leave the European Union. Of course, it has talked about this eventuality, on and off, almost since it joined -- but for years the constant whining could be dismissed as so much background noise. Things have changed. Attitudes are hardening, and by promising an "in or out" referendum on EU membership after the next election, Prime Minister David Cameron may have put the country on a course that will force it to choose.

If the referendum Cameron promises for 2017 were put to voters tomorrow, the U.K. would probably leave. According to polling by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 26 percent of Britons think Europe's economic integration has helped the economy, and only 43 percent have a favorable opinion of the EU. Other recent polls show steady (though mostly slender) majorities in favor of exit.

Cameron will have to win another election to keep his referendum promise. His government is unpopular so that's no sure thing. But the opposition Labour Party will probably have to promise a referendum, too, once the 2015 election comes into view -- especially if the U.K. Independence Party, which is committed to an exit, keeps gathering strength. (UKIP already attracts more support than the pro-European Liberal Democrats.) It's hard to run on a platform of denying voters a choice.

Cameron isn't a Euro-skeptic: He's the pro-EU leader of a party that's long been bitterly divided on the issue. To hold the Conservatives together and keep the country in the EU, he wants to draft a new European treaty that is more to Britain's liking before a referendum occurs. The other EU leaders say they want nothing to do with this.

It's a point that British advocates of exit have seized on. In an article in the Times last week, Nigel Lawson, a former Tory chancellor of the exchequer (and no knee-jerk Little Englander), said he expected nothing from the renegotiation and would be voting for exit. Several other former ministers have said the same.

Here's the surprise: These interventions weren't greeted as reckless or sensational, as they once would have been. Suddenly, exit is on the political agenda. Much of the City has turned Euro-skeptic as a reaction to what many see as a vindictive regulatory assault from Brussels. U.K. businesses used to be strongly pro-EU, but that's no longer so. What once might have seemed an idle or even absurd threat has become a real possibility.

I think the question of whether the U.K. should remain part of the EU (EUGNEMUQ) is a closer call than either side wants to admit -- and, just as Cameron says, it all depends on the terms. If the EU responds to the economic crisis with new strides toward a United States of Europe, the costs for the U.K. will surely outweigh the benefits: Britain just doesn't want to be part of that enterprise. If EU membership will require eventual membership of the euro area -- and that's the prevailing model, as though the crisis had never happened -- Britain should again say no thanks.

As free trade becomes the global norm, the benefits of open access to Europe's markets are less and less confined to EU members. Cameron, visiting President Barack Obama in Washington this week, discussed the proposed U.S.-EU trade pact, among other things. The U.S. has signed free-trade agreements that span the globe. The U.K. could do the same.

At the very least, Britain's pro-EU forces need better arguments. They say Cameron shouldn't have raised the issue in the first place, implying it's better to deny voters a say. What are voters to make of that? Pro-EU politicians keep repeating that exit is unthinkable -- but never really say why. What makes Switzerland's relationship with the EU unthinkable? They think Britain should be leading Europe, that it maximizes its global influence that way. Well, that's just delusional. Why should Britain expect to lead a union of 27, soon to be 28, countries?

Let's take Canada as a thought experiment. It's a small economy next to a big economy. Its global influence is limited by its size, of course. Would it be better off as part of the U.S.? Would its influence in the world be greater? And wouldn't Canadians be giving up something they value very highly? The pro-EU cause should find some answers to these questions.

For Europe's sake, as much as it pains them, the other EU governments should acknowledge that Cameron is right about the need for a new constitutional settlement. The Pew survey shows that disaffection with the EU is by no means confined to the U.K. Grievances aren't concentrated in the south, either. Support for the union in France -- co-architect of the whole project -- is actually lower than in Britain.

Can it seriously be maintained that Europe's economic calamity raises no questions about the EU's constitutional direction, that the commitment to "ever closer union" enshrined in the founding documents can't ever be reviewed, and that the euro system, despite its recent difficulties, is fundamentally sound? That's what the EU's leaders are asking an increasingly dismayed European electorate to believe.

Cameron's critics say he's the trouble maker. I don't think so. The real threat to the EU is the other leaders' bizarre refusal to acknowledge what's happening.

I think it's going to happen. At the very least there will be a referendum.

The author is correct as well. Having been consistently, if mildly pro-EU,  I'm not sure how I would vote now.

I wonder what happens to support for the EU when you ask about the free movement of people. I suspect that younger voters would balk at the idea that, upon exit, they probably won't have the ability to live and work freely across the Europe. Even if only a limited number do in practice, the idea that one is free to do so is still quite appealing.

Brexit would also set up an almighty showdown between the immigration authorities and businesses, when the Home Office realises it can start getting somewhere close to the immigration target by getting rid of EU workers. They've already done this with non-EU workers through a variety of bureaucratic means (a good chum of mine had a visa renewal refused because the page number of one of his copied documents was obscured).

Were I in charge of the EU-In campaign, one of my main lines of attack would be to ask the Outers why they have confidence that, outside the EU, they can negotiate the access we would want, when there is no precedent of a big state doing this, never mind a big state that has left in acrimonious circumstances. And then ask them what happens if, once we have left the EU, we find that we still can't break into those magical growing foreign export markets, and it turns out our ability to match German, Italian and French achievements in this regard had nothing to do with EU regulation whatsoever.

And I would ask them why they believe Scotland is better off in a union, but the UK isn't. After all, Scotland has diverged politically from the rest of the UK to a great degree, and being in the union has meant it has had to accept very unpopular policies like being the home of the British nuclear deterrent.

Another question: which states would be keen to do bilateral trade deals with us without the weight of the rest of the EU market behind us; growth markets are keen to sell to us, yes, but ones rich enough to purchase our expensive specialised exports are probably also the sorts of countries eager to build their own industries producing these same products.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. But I really am sceptical that building advantageous access to foreign markets really is as simple as the Outers suggest.

Quote from: Warspite on May 17, 2013, 08:39:35 AM
I wonder what happens to support for the EU when you ask about the free movement of people. I suspect that younger voters would balk at the idea that, upon exit, they probably won't have the ability to live and work freely across the Europe. Even if only a limited number do in practice, the idea that one is free to do so is still quite appealing.

Brexit would also set up an almighty showdown between the immigration authorities and businesses, when the Home Office realises it can start getting somewhere close to the immigration target by getting rid of EU workers. They've already done this with non-EU workers through a variety of bureaucratic means (a good chum of mine had a visa renewal refused because the page number of one of his copied documents was obscured).

Were I in charge of the EU-In campaign, one of my main lines of attack would be to ask the Outers why they have confidence that, outside the EU, they can negotiate the access we would want, when there is no precedent of a big state doing this, never mind a big state that has left in acrimonious circumstances. And then ask them what happens if, once we have left the EU, we find that we still can't break into those magical growing foreign export markets, and it turns out our ability to match German, Italian and French achievements in this regard had nothing to do with EU regulation whatsoever.

And I would ask them why they believe Scotland is better off in a union, but the UK isn't. After all, Scotland has diverged politically from the rest of the UK to a great degree, and being in the union has meant it has had to accept very unpopular policies like being the home of the British nuclear deterrent.

Another question: which states would be keen to do bilateral trade deals with us without the weight of the rest of the EU market behind us; growth markets are keen to sell to us, yes, but ones rich enough to purchase our expensive specialised exports are probably also the sorts of countries eager to build their own industries producing these same products.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. But I really am sceptical that building advantageous access to foreign markets really is as simple as the Outers suggest.

There are non EU members that are part of the schengen area. I know the UK isn't schengen now, but free movement can happen without being in the EU. Whether that would happen in the UK's case is debatable, but the argument "we should be in the EU or they will retaliate against us and try to force us to stay on our island" may backfire.

I think you potentially underplay the extnet to which Britain is a big market for others.

I suspect a substantial portion of the antis woudl support disunion between the England and Scotland.

Free movement between EU states is all well and good for us metropolitan middle classes, less so for workers who see their wages driven downwards.  Pro-Europeans need to recognise this.

given the way things are going there are less and less pro-EUers on the continent too

Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2013, 08:58:39 AMI suspect a substantial portion of the antis woudl support disunion between the England and Scotland.

Yeah. UKIP's a bit like an English SNP in some ways.

QuoteFree movement between EU states is all well and good for us metropolitan middle classes, less so for workers who see their wages driven downwards.  Pro-Europeans need to recognise this.

Definitely and as with Scotland the argument for staying needs to be more than just how dangerous leaving would be.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 09:08:26 AM
Definitely and as with Scotland the argument for staying needs to be more than just how dangerous leaving would be.

Are England, Wales, and NI working on something to make Scotland want to stay?  Does Scotland have any particular grievences that could be addressed?

Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2013, 08:58:39 AM
I think you potentially underplay the extnet to which Britain is a big market for others.

I suspect a substantial portion of the antis woudl support disunion between the England and Scotland.

Free movement between EU states is all well and good for us metropolitan middle classes, less so for workers who see their wages driven downwards.  Pro-Europeans need to recognise this.

Given wage growth has been abysmal over the last 30 years in the US too (4% in real terms since 1978?) I would suggest we need to be careful about ascribing too much causation to the EU labour market.

You're possibly right about the Little Englanders, though I'd suggest there's a strong strand of unionism among a good subset of the EU-Outers.

Don't know about the market. You could be right. But equally, it will be protracted and I believe costly to set about setting up a whole host of bilateral trade agreements.

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 09:23:31 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 09:08:26 AM
Definitely and as with Scotland the argument for staying needs to be more than just how dangerous leaving would be.

Are England, Wales, and NI working on something to make Scotland want to stay?  Does Scotland have any particular grievences that could be addressed?

Personally don't see any reason to bribe them and I'd rather we went our separate ways now. They'd be mad to leave but it's up to them.

Quote from: Warspite on May 17, 2013, 09:24:30 AM
Given wage growth has been abysmal over the last 30 years in the US too (4% in real terms since 1978?) I would suggest we need to be careful about ascribing too much causation to the EU labour market.

I gather there has been some fuss about immiration in the US as well.

In a democracy it doesn't much matter what the real causes of working wage stasis is. The perception amongst those who are actually affected is that it is cheap labour flooding into the country. And they are probably right to be fair.

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
Are England, Wales, and NI working on something to make Scotland want to stay?  Does Scotland have any particular grievences that could be addressed?

I hope not and no. But just threatening and hectoring the Scots about how they'll fail on their own isn't that attractive a campaign - same goes for the EU and UK.

In fairness I think the Scottish campaign's got more positive since.

I suspect that if the English were to be consulted then Scottish independence would become more likely.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 09:34:17 AM
In fairness I think the Scottish campaign's got more positive since.

In what sense?

I was just wondering if Scotland really felt like they were getting screwed somehow.  I thought devolution was good so their were at least a few focuses of political power not in Westminster, which I always felt was a weakness.

Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2013, 09:33:28 AM
I gather there has been some fuss about immiration in the US as well.

The effect on wages is contested; my read of the studies is that there has been some impact but it is relatively marginal.

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 09:36:46 AM
In what sense?

The campaign name's 'better together' which is a better message. They're talking more about the benefits of the union and shared interests and claiming to speak for Scotland. Patriotic Scots talking like that also ruins the way the SNP tends to conflate Scottishness with pro-independence.

It's better than some sneering southern public schoolboy like Osborne just saying how Scotland would have to re-apply to join NATO and the EU, wouldn't keep sterling, would lose x amount of money and so on. It reduces the argument to threats and accounting which I don't think would get a good response from people. Also I think telling Scots or British people they'll be fucked if they leave the UK/EU isn't a message that'll work that well - and it's not necessarily true.

QuoteI was just wondering if Scotland really felt like they were getting screwed somehow.  I thought devolution was good so their were at least a few focuses of political power not in Westminster, which I always felt was a weakness.

I think we should go for 'devo-max'. Give the Scottish Parliament everything but foreign and defence policy.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 17, 2013, 09:41:00 AM

Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2013, 09:33:28 AM
I gather there has been some fuss about immiration in the US as well.

The effect on wages is contested; my read of the studies is that there has been some impact but it is relatively marginal.

Is the view that laws of supply and demand don't apply in the labour market?

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 09:46:29 AM
I think we should go for 'devo-max'. Give the Scottish Parliament everything but foreign and defence policy.

No that is ridiculous.  I think it should be like the US where most competences are split depending on whether or not they involve the other erm...kingdoms?  in the Union.

Devo-max makes the West Lothian question even more pressing. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that deal with it.

The only way it works is if we had a UK Parlimanet and separate ones for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Which isn't going to happen.

Devo-max?  BB will be ecstatic!

Wait, wrong Devo.

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 09:58:00 AMNo that is ridiculous.  I think it should be like the US where most competences are split depending on whether or not they involve the other erm...kingdoms?  in the Union.

Why is it ridiculous?

The Scots already have their own legal system, their own education system and are in charge of the NHS in Scotland. In my view a problem with Scotland is that they've got no responsibility in the Parliament. They choose how to spend based on a budget set in Whitehall. In my view they should be given responsibility for altering taxes, having their own regulations and labour laws and paying for the state they want. I'd like to see events like the Scottish government's budget actually matters - they're deciding how to raise money and how to spend it.

Failing that at least move to a more federal system with say x amount of national tax and then the rest can be changed by the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh devolved governments.

QuoteDevo-max makes the West Lothian question even more pressing. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that deal with it.

Yeah. Unless you were to create an English Parliament which I think would be ridiculous. I think the only alternative would be for English MPs (and Welsh ones on things like the NHS) voting on their own in those areas which had been devolved to any regional government. Maybe have Parliament sit as a Committee (I think they do that for something already - edit: is it the budget, so the deputy speaker presides?) when voting on, say, reforms to the NHS.

Quote from: PDH on May 17, 2013, 10:03:15 AM
Devo-max?  BB will be ecstatic!

Wait, wrong Devo.

:(

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 10:09:31 AM
Why is it

QuoteDevo-max makes the West Lothian question even more pressing. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that deal with it.

Yeah. Unless you were to create an English Parliament which I think would be ridiculous. I think the only alternative would be for English MPs (and Welsh ones on things like the NHS) voting on their own in those areas which had been devolved to any regional government. Maybe have Parliament sit as a Committee (I think they do that for something already) when voting on, say, reforms to the NHS.

That couldn't possibly work. We could have one party forming a majority in the UK Parliament and a different one in the committee (with Parl. sitting a committe for 75% of its business). Who woudl form the Government?

That's not a hypothetical, it would be the case in the current Parl, where the Tories would have a majority of 52 if Scottish MPs were excluded but (obviously) can govern only in coalition for the UK.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 09:46:29 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 09:36:46 AM
In what sense?

The campaign name's 'better together' which is a better message. They're talking more about the benefits of the union and shared interests and claiming to speak for Scotland. Patriotic Scots talking like that also ruins the way the SNP tends to conflate Scottishness with pro-independence.

It's better than some sneering southern public schoolboy like Osborne just saying how Scotland would have to re-apply to join NATO and the EU, wouldn't keep sterling, would lose x amount of money and so on. It reduces the argument to threats and accounting which I don't think would get a good response from people. Also I think telling Scots or British people they'll be fucked if they leave the UK/EU isn't a message that'll work that well - and it's not necessarily true.

QuoteI was just wondering if Scotland really felt like they were getting screwed somehow.  I thought devolution was good so their were at least a few focuses of political power not in Westminster, which I always felt was a weakness.

I think we should go for 'devo-max'. Give the Scottish Parliament everything but foreign and defence policy.

It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 10:09:31 AM
Why is it ridiculous?

Everything you are saying here sounds sort of like what the States in the US do so sure why not?

I just do not think Scotland should be able to dictate immigration policy or have customs boundaries or anything as part of the UK.

Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

That was a pretty close call back in the 90s wasn't it?

Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2013, 10:18:12 AM
That couldn't possibly work. We could have one party forming a majority in the UK Parliament and a different one in the committee (with Parl. sitting a committe for 75% of its business). Who woudl form the Government?

That's not a hypothetical, it would be the case in the current Parl, where the Tories would have a majority of 52 if Scottish MPs were excluded but (obviously) can govern only in coalition for the UK.

Fair point and previously, I think on tuition fees, the Labour government depended on votes from Scottish MPs to pass an English reform. Which is a problem, that would only get worse with more devolution to Scotland. Presumably it used to go the other way and the UK Parliament could change things in Scotland even if all Scottish MPs opposed it? I know the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland was passed despite most NI MPs opposing it.

QuoteEverything you are saying here sounds sort of like what the States in the US do so sure why not?

I think the US goes too far, and it would depend on what people want, but I don't see why not. If there was a referendum and the Scots said they were happy with things as they are then that'd be great too.

QuoteIt is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

Chretien was over here a few days ago talking about the parallels of Scotland and Quebec. He made some very interesting points.

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 10:31:22 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
It is generally thought in Canada that one reason for the significant drop in support in Quebec for independence was because through the Clarity Act and other steps the federal government actually talked about what separation would entail.  No hollow threats, but calm discussion of what would happen.

That was a pretty close call back in the 90s wasn't it?

Aye.  The PQ presented a vague question which didn't include the word "independence" and the ultimate result was 49.5% voting "yes".  It was later revealed that if it had been 50.1% Quebec would have made a UDI which would have been recognized by France.

Support for independence is back to where it has historically been, in the 30s.

There was an argument over here about that. The SNP wanted to ask 'do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' Apparently questions that start 'do you think' or 'do you agree' tend to have higher positive responses so they were slapped down by the Electoral Commission. The actual question will be 'should Scotland be an independent country?'

Man it is going to nerve wracking next year as this thing gets closer.

If nothing else I would really miss the Union flag.

But we should probably get back to EU talk.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
There was an argument over here about that. The SNP wanted to ask 'do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' Apparently questions that start 'do you think' or 'do you agree' tend to have higher positive responses so they were slapped down by the Electoral Commission. The actual question will be 'should Scotland be an independent country?'

That's nothing.  Here's the 1995 question:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

The question should have been: 'Vive le Québec libre?' with a small picture of Charles De Gaulle beside it on the ballot.

Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2013, 10:46:06 AM
That's nothing.  Here's the 1995 question:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

Christ :bleeding:

QuoteThe question should have been: 'Vive le Québec libre?' with a small picture of Charles De Gaulle beside it on the ballot.

V for 'oui'.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 10:54:48 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2013, 10:46:06 AM
That's nothing.  Here's the 1995 question:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

Christ :bleeding:

QuoteThe question should have been: 'Vive le Québec libre?' with a small picture of Charles De Gaulle beside it on the ballot.

V for 'oui'.

In response the Feds passed the Clarity Act which stated that in order for any province to leave Confederation there needed to be a clear question, a clear majority (not 50%+1), and would have to be negotiated with Canada.

The only answer to west lothian is to devolve the English regions too.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
There was an argument over here about that. The SNP wanted to ask 'do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' Apparently questions that start 'do you think' or 'do you agree' tend to have higher positive responses so they were slapped down by the Electoral Commission. The actual question will be 'should Scotland be an independent country?'

Typical of the SNP to try and pull something like that. They love gaming the system.

QuoteUKIP just two points behind the Tories in new poll
Support for UKIP surges to a record high of 22 per cent in the latest Survation poll, with the Tories down five points to 24 per cent.
BY GEORGE EATON PUBLISHED 20 MAY 2013 19:35

It just gets worse for David Cameron. A new poll by Survation has put UKIP on 22 per cent (up six points since 1 May), the party's highest ever rating and just two points behind the Tories (down five to 24 per cent). Before adjusting for don't knows, the two parties are level pegging on 23 per cent.

One should always avoid drawing any conclusions from a single survey, but the significance of such polls lies less in the numbers themselves and more in the panic that they will induce on the Conservative right. It is no longer unthinkable that at some stage we will see a poll with UKIP ahead of the Tories. The likelihood remains that most Tory defectors will return to the Conservative fold before 2015, but the challenge for Cameron will be keeping control of his party in the meantime. The more the polls show UKIP eating into the Tories' vote share, the greater the temptation will be for Conservative MPs to follow Nadine Dorries's lead and seek to establish electoral pacts with the Faragists

Labour is on 35 per cent (down one), 11 points ahead of the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems on 11 per cent (down one), 11 points behind UKIP. If repeated at a general election on a uniform swing, those figures would give Labour a majority of 104 seats.

Survation also asked respondents how they would vote in next year's European elections. Labour leads on 31 per cent, but this is just a point ahead of UKIP, support for which has risen by eight points since January. The Tories are in third place on 20 per cent (down four points), with the Lib Dems in fourth place on 8 per cent (down three) and the Greens in fifth on 6 per cent (unchanged). With UKIP already neck-and-neck with Labour, anything less than first place for the party next May will now be viewed as a failure.

I can't see Cameron avoiding a vote of no confidence if there's a couple of months of polls anywhere near this bad.

Polling and pollsters are antithetical to good government.

In fairness, since they stabbed Thatcher in the back, so are the Tories.

I have no dog in that fight.  So long as you agree that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive I am happy.