if only there was some way of protesting against this to make sure the 'privileged few' don't get their own way. what we need is every 4/5 years a, oh what shall we call it, an election or something where the oppressed masses can finally free themselves of the shackles that hold them. a chance for every adult to decide the fate of the country. i know, it's a crazy idea, but we have to dream.

Just the sort of smart-a[ir[/ise comment I'd expect from someone with little comprehension of how these things work. The problem is, once something has been broken up, sold for scrap and the money spent, there's little that can be done to repair it again. As Labour will discover when they try to repair the damage to the NHS, or as has already been discovered with the selling off of utilities, rail & bus transport, North Sea oil & gas, council house building etc...

governments can do pretty much whatever they like. if they want to nationalise anything they can, and indeed have done in the past. why would labour want to repair the nhs when they're the ones who kicked to door in to the private sector getting involved? capita? take your time on that one.
oh, you forgot the gold sell off too.
still you keep fighting this mythical class war. get your donkey jacket on a light a brazier or something.

who said

He might have shot himself in the foot here. I don't know of a single owner of a business involved in any way in international trade that wants us out of the EU. It's economic suicide and they know it. Many of these people are large contributors to the Conservative party.

He may end up with a happy back bench but no money to run a campaign.


I find myself seriously considering voting Green. Which is pretty worrying TBH.

So, are you saying that employment law is not necessary?
At least, I think that is what that rabid outburst was meant to convey.

I wouldn't let the vast majority of MP decide whether I should empty my cat's litter tray never mind something of this significance. The majority of MPs have little life experience outside of politics and if they were of a higher calibre they would not even be in politics.

Let's face what work experiences and specialised knowledge have any of the main party leaders got that put them in a better position to decide than the likes of Alan Sugar?

rabid outburst?
the only people who are having those think we're off back to the poorhouses/slavery if, heaven forbid, the tories give us a vote on something in 4 years. still, i'm sure there's plenty of people lining up to be the next tolpuddle martyrs.

Its like political tourettes.

That being the case, you're not actually in favour of parliamentary democracy.

As most people don't have a clue about the EU, and can't be @rsed to find out the facts, I don't see how a referendum would be much use except as a political stunt for Cameron to fob-off the UKIP tendency in his party.

Our entire constitution (monarchy, commons, lords, supreme court, etc, etc) has come about over centuries without any referenda, so why is this issue any different?

Personally, this is my main worry about this whole thing....We are putting, arguably, the most important decision in this country's future, in the hands of a huge amount of people who haven't the first clue about what they are expected to vote on.

Worryingly, for the vast majority, their decision will be hugely influenced by the likes of The Sun and The Mail - Its almost inevitable that this whole thing will turn into race/immigration issue, with the little Englanders being swayed with xenophobic rhetoric - I'm expecting plenty of anti-German, anti-French, anti-AnybodyButOurselves stuff from the majority of our popular media and I'm afraid it will become increasingly distasteful.

This is nothing about Europe. It is about politics to win the next election.

It cuts the UKIP off at the knees.

It gives the Tories the chance to appeal to nationalism and to those who believe the cause of Britains woes are Europe.

It gives them clear water from the Lib Dems.

The Tories win the election and the Lib Dems are wiped out.

Cameron then negotiates with the EU who say no we will not let you be in our club but give you vetoes etc which give you economic advantages.

Cameron then goes to the country with a referendum saying i tried to negoatiate but got nowhere but we have to stay in Europe as it will be disastrous for the UK economy to leave ( he has already said he wants to negotiate powers back but that we should not withdraw from Europe).

All the major parties then say stay in Europe he either wins the vote or lose it and we withdraw from Europe.

Either way he is playing Russian Roulette with the British Economy. But as it is about winning elections who cares.

What is wrong with giving the voters a say on such an important issue? After all the last time the British public voted to stay in or leave what was the EEC which was then just an economic trading club.

So much has changed since then. The EEC has become the EU with the accent more on politics and bureaucracy than trade. An undemocratic commission having such a say in legislation on issues that were previously made in our own parliament is a reasonable concern. The single currency which became the disaster many had forecast. To overhaul the inherent flaws in the Euro the EU leaders are demanding changes that will affect all 27 members and not just the 17 members who adopted the Euro.

The EU (EEC) is continually changing and so it is not unreasonable for the PM to seek to change some of the terms of our membership as indeed others are doing with regard to the single currency. The EU needs to change and give some urgent priority to solving its loss of competitiveness.

In commiting to a future referendum on this important issue it should open up some serious debate and bring forth the real facts as to the pluses and minuses so we are all better informed.

I suspect that the Labour party now will follow the Conservatives and include a referendum pledge in their manifesto.

The EU has been splendid for career politicians and bureaucrats. It has also been very good for large companies and multi-nationals who have the funds and legals teams to overcome the hurdles. (coincidentally these same politicians and large companies would have had us join the Euro so no suprise that they don't want a referendum)

But for the large number of SME's that form the backbone of the UK it has been not so good.

I have a feeling too that our bigger companies found EU trade easier than working at the emerging markets so became complacent. Which may be an answer to our dismal export performance to the BRIC market

Well firstly of course it is about politics. This is a political issue.

You seem to be critical of a PM for being aware of the public's concern regarding the EU.

Are you against the PM trying to return some of the lost powers to our parliament?

If you read his speech he is obviously commited to remaining in the EU. But he is not shirking the very difficult job of trying to renegotiate lost powers. This may or may not be successful. But come the next election the public will know if he was successful and if he or the EU were being unreasonable and they can vote accordingley.

If he were to win the next election my guess is that all three main parties will campaign to stay in and the public will also then vote also to stay in.

Another senario is that this stategy brings out the real facts regarding our membership and it may show that leaving the EU is not the disaster that the Europhiles keep predicting.

eg Our huge trade deficit with the EU together with the cost of membership produces an unconvincing argument for staying in. (46bn GBP deficit with EU in 2011 ...17.1bn surplus with rest of world)

Indeed there could well be further trouble for the Euro before the election with more costly bailouts required.

My own view is to try and win back some powers that give some benefit to our trade but I am at present open minded as to staying in or leaving. I would like to see the full facts.

However my guess is that the real economic plus or minus to our membership is very small (UK exports to the EU are equivalent to less than 8.7% of UK GDP much less than the rest of the world (10%)) and talk of an economic disaster if we leave are just scare stories. Under Article 50, the EU is legally required to negotiate "free and fair trade" with non-EU countries, so we would continue to have access to the EU markets, just like other countries. The EU would not want a trade war with the UK, if we were outside the single market as they have much more to lose than we.

So why propose a referendum?

Maybe I was mistaken but did we not have a referendum re the EEC before?

What are we going to have about independence in Scotland?

I would suggest some issues are bigger than letting a skewed parliament make up decide.

You are not going to have anything

Ignoring your erroneous stats, you are saying that because we have a trade deficit we should cut off (or, at the very least, create massive tariff problems with and hugely reduce trade with) our largest customer?
You have also ignored the fact that the UK has run a balance of trade deficit in goods for decades now ... should we therefore withdraw from the world as well as the EU? Of course not.


We need the EU to address the regulation of trade in services ... as it did so successfully with the regulations around trade in goods.
This is vital for the UK, otherwise we will see Frankfurt becoming the first-choice supplier of financial and other services for the Eurozone, taking business from the City of London.
If the UK is not at the heart of that transformation, the UK will be much worse-off over time.

CAP needs to be addressed, yet again,
Also, there may be areas of EU law where subsidiarity needs to be considered instead (see the other thread about federalism and subsidiarity).
But these are ongoing business, none are reasons for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Most of the facts are out there, freely available, no-one is stopping you finding them.
Mind you, I haven't noticed your confessed lack of factual knowledge stopping you from having a vociferous opinion.


The EU (the world's largest economy) negotiates with nations and trade areas and has vastly far more clout with them than the UK alone could have.
The UKs trade with the rest of the world will be significantly affected by this, whether we like it or not, and whether we remain in or opt-out of the EU, simply as a result of the EUs power.
You have taken a very simplistic view of trade in goods, for example ignoring the tariffs that would be imposed upon the UK's goods exports into the EU.
You have also ignored the massive impact on the UKs trade in financial and other services that would (not "could" but "would" occure) if the UK was outside the EU.
You state that the EU has more to lose than we have ... this is a skewed view ... we would risk nearly half our exports (e.g. we are nowadays net exporters of cars ... where are the jobs going to come from to replace that trade?), whereas the loss to the EU would be borne collectively by 26 states with no individual state having to bear more than a fraction of the impact that we would suffer.
The repercussions would take many, many decades to overcome, if indeed they ever could be.
Not only that, but we must not ignore the enormous elephant in the room ... i.e. the huge loss of geopolitical clout that the UK would sustain if it left the EU ... just as an example, the UN security council is already starting to shift inexorably to the BRICs and, if we are not in the EU (which can retain influence there), we will be reduced to the level of a puppet state dancing on US strings.

We did, that one was a political trick, as is this one.
But as you sound to be in favour, can you say why we need another?
Shall we have one every time a constitutional change occurs?
e.g. Should we have had one in 2009 when the House of Lords ceased to be the highest court in the land?


My vote would be for a federal UK (see the Federalism vs Subsidiarity thread, esp. the bit about The West Lothian Question)


Judging by the comments I see and hear from the general public, those issues are not generally understood.

why not? if this is such a big deal which will mean the collapse of ukplc (i'm sure their was similar nonsense spouted by the tories when the spectre of the minimum wage raised it's head), plunging untold millions into despair while still lining the pockets of the 'privileged few', then surely asking us what we want is the least they can do.
every 4/5 years we allow members of society who are 1 step away from needing to be watered every day put a little x in a box to elect some shyster who thinks the public should pay for her husband to watch porn or have his moat cleaned. so, why not have a referendum and let the people speak?

"Why not?" is a bit feeble.
Which areas of decision would you have referenda for and which areas would you not have them for?

"why" is equally as feeble.
me? i couldn't care less if we have a referendum or not. i'd wager my life won't alter to any great extent with either outcome. it does seem odd that people don't want the public to have a say on something they claim has the potential to change the economic status of the country for the worse. for ever. i'd have thought it's just the sort of thing the people should have a say on. giving the masses the chance to vote. madness eh?

The masses get a chance to vote at least every 5 years.

I think there are certain big decisions where a referendum is the right thing to do, like with Scottish independence. But there are also certain big decisions which are simply too complicated to be put to a referendum. The EU is one of those in my opinion.

Are you saying you do not agreed with the stats and if so please state what you think they should be?

I did not say we should cut off from selling to the EU. Why do you see things as just black and white? There will not be massive tarriff problems this is pure scare stuff.



That we have run a trade deficit with the EU is hardly a good reason for accepting the status quo. We have a trade surplus with the rest of the world and do not have to pay a huge annual contribution for this trade as we do for the EU.



I am quite sure the full facts are not fully in the public domain yet. As you have also expressed a vociferous opinion, but on many more occassions than I, perhaps you could answer the following question. What is the net monetary benefit p.a. to the UK of current EU membership?




Indeed. But the EU's clout will also diminish considerably if we were to leave. I do not share your concerns that we cannot negotiate free trade terms on our own or through the WTO.



I would say you are taking a very unrealistic view with added scare stuff in suggesting we would incurr trade tarriffs with the EU were we to leave.



Again your are overstating these risks.



This is not a skewed view. We are one of the major net contributors to the EU and run very large trading deficit and our texports to the EU has been in decline for some time. It is arrant nonsense to suggest there would be any form of a trade war if we leave. They need access to our markets as much as we do to theirs.



Equally to could say the benefits of leaving could bring more positive for the UK than negative.



Sorry but this is also nonsense. We are on our own one of the worlds leading economies with enormous influence and proven ability.

I suggest you try and listen to all of Mr Cameron's speech and questions in Davros this morning and you will see his plans for the G8 this year.

His stated objective is to improve the UK's terms within the EU as the EU begins to make big changes because of the Euro problems. He has not made a case for leaving the EU. Treaties will be changed and our governments job is to protect our interests. If we can improve and preserve our position then there will be strong arguments to remain in. What is wrong with that? The PM has also stated his intention to seek changes for the good of the whole EU and so far has brought encouraging responses from other members.

It's clear from these two comments that you don't understand a fundamental aspect or trading within the EU compared to trading without.

Currently there is no duty paid on goods moved between the UK and any other EU nation. Should we leave the EU, this would no longer be the case - i.e. a duty [itariff[/i would apply to all goods entering and leaving the UK just as it does presently with all other non-EU countries. At a stroke this would add somewhere between 2 and 10% to the price of all these goods, with the obvious effect of increasing price inflation in the UK (increased cost of imports) and reducing the competitiveness of our exporters.

It would also complicate VAT to a lesser extent.

In addition to the direct effect on prices, the additional cost and complexity will be a disincentive to overseas companies who use the UK as their bridgehead into Europe. And as we have seen, other EU countries will be only too happy to welcome these companies instead.

None of this is 'scare stuff'. It's just factual information that anti-EU types are either ignorant of or, more likely, deliberately ignoring.