Britain flirting with the edge of three-tier Europe: Stubb

Since Britain didn't join last year (as when the last "referendum on leaving" was held 40 years ago and everybody remembered Britain's economy had just suffered 10 years of lower growth outside the single market compared to continental economies within it), what kind of alternative strategy will the british today be proposed in order to convice a majority of them that leaving is better for their country's business and foreign policy interests?

US's docile poodle? Recolonisation of the british empire? Cuban-style (splendid) isolationism? Or simply shipping across oceans alone with yet-to-find, protectionist partners (as North America, China, Bresil or Russia) rather than the richest economy in the world, most free-market and at their doorstep?

Or more probably a non-member status similar to Norway Island or Switzerland, all in Schengen's agreements, implementing Brussels' regulation and contributing to its budget as Britain today, just without a say?

UK-sceptic,

There are other alternatives to the Norway / Switzerland model. One could for example look at the arrangements agreed with South Korea on the 1st July 2011, essentially trade and nothing else, just a thought.

Edward Blois

Under current legislation whenever there is a proposal to transfer power to Brussels the UK population must be offered a referendum. So as you say if a vote in 2017 gives a Yes to UK membership of the EU under renegotiated terms and the EU later wants to change, then yes another UK referendum will be necessary. That is the situation and short of removing this democratic safeguard it will remain.

I want out, like Bitain South Korea trades 55% of its imports / exports with its direct neighbours China and Japan. Even if they wanted this to change they couldn't.

So with Britain trading 50% with the EU and aspireing to a same status as South Korea (10% trade with the EU), it may be a shame for continental markets to have reduced relations with the Uk, but a serious headache for the british: how exactly are they going to "replace" the single market, given that they once begged to join it? I shouldn't think Seoul was ever complacent enough to compare its relations with China and Japan to the ones it has somewhere in the North Atlantic...

If Britain becomes a kind of South Korea for Europe, what's going to be the UK's China or Japan because everybody trades mostly within its continent today? I'm not sure you realise the amount of money involved in such speculations. It's like saying to the british people "oh vote out we'll take 50% of everything you buy or sell and reduce it to 10% and we'll find the rest with someone else (the EU is the closest and the richest partner the Uk can have).

"I was merely pointing out that the EU has entered into free trade agreement with another country without imposing all the social legislation "

The EU never had a social policy. As for defense, every attempts to create one, have failed. On the contrary, Europe is more often calling for the dismenteling of state intervention, Brussels generaly regarding it as a distortion of fair competition. At best the EU only took up the regulation already present in broader organisations (international labour organisation, Council of Europe...) and created minimum rules adjusted on the lowest-bidder member-state. Centralised european policies are only for foreign trade, argiculture, regional development and free market protection. All the rest (mainly police and justice cooperation) is negociated on the inter-governmental level, as any international agreement, with each member-state's approval required for most important sectors (social policies included).

"If you look at your history you will see the UK did not beg to join the single market, they are considered one of the principle architects."

What happened to EFTA? After the war, the UK could have taken the leadership in Europe, distributing Marshall's plan credits and structuring (west) european construction from London, neutralising the the possibility for Paris and Berlin to form an axe later together. It would have required for Britain a bit more anticipation of the post-colonial and globalised world, as well as a change in british historical european strategy of dividing the continent (a bit like the US, after the war turned their back to isolationist traditions and seize successfuly their opportunity in the world).

Instead Britain has pretended to be a kind of "South Korea" for Europe, steping back passivly from european reconstruction and political restructuration. Paris, though less glorious after the war, gathered instead the american condifance and credits (through the OECD in the late 40's) and distributing the money around europe (London pretended not to need so much), as well as taking the leadership to shape the continent's post war configuration, based from 1950 onwards on common steal and coal agreements between germany and france, joined by benelux and Italy 7 years later (treaty of Rome). It took 25 years for the UK to join, and the EU's architecture was therefore designed without Britain, too buisy with it's empire (collapsing) and proposing only EFTA as a european policy (failed).

UK-sceptic

Of course Cameron can only offer a referendum if he is in fact re-elected, although Labour have let it be known that they may also offer a referendum if the 2015 election looks to be a close thing.

If the rest of the EU refuse to re-negotiate, as is their right, Cameron is likely to find it extremely difficult to campaign to remain in the EU under the existing terms.

Of course politicians change their minds, but he has made a very big issue of this promised referendum and it is difficult to see how he could go back on it now. Even if he did, do you think this will somehow make the UK a better EU member?

Let’s not forget the steps we have taken in the last twelve – eighteen months.
• The UK does not need to hold a referendum
• We need to hold a referendum on the existing terms of membership
• We need to re-negotiate terms but no in / out option to be offered
• Finally we need to re-negotiate and then offer an in / out vote.

I make no secret of my personal wishes, I thought the ‘name’ I use sort of gave it away. But to be clear I want to see the UK trading amicable with the EU and the rest of the World from outside the EU. I want the people of the UK (and other countries if they so wish) to be consulted on their views on this critical matter with an absolute understanding that a vote to stay in the EU would mean membership of the euro, Schengen, common fiscal policy, single foreign policy etc., in short full membership of a fully federal Europe, which would be implemented in the near future not over the next 20 – 30 years. Once that is understood and the precise political implications of such a vote are understood then we can all stand back and listen to the people.

I see you have commented already on the posting today (18/02/13) showing that once again a clear majority of UK residents would vote to leave the EU. I suggest we will all have to wait to see how people actually vote, but I think anyone would be foolish to bet against such a vote never taking place.

Just as a matter of information, Cameron’s promise of a referendum is not based on a “yet unknown better deal for Britain within the EU” He has promised a referendum on the continued membership of the UK in the EU whether or not new terms are agreed. I have previous acknowledged many times that it is entirely up to the other states whether they are prepared to offer different terms to the UK.

If the terms remain as they currently are then Cameron (always assuming he is the PM) will have a hard job campaigning for continued UK membership of the EU.

If new terms are offered then he will be able to campaign positively but as recorded elsewhere on this and many other sites he will still face an uphill battle due to public distrust of politicians in general and the EU specifically.

If he were to put matters to the vote before the next general election it is highly likely the electorate would vote to leave the EU. Despite what you may think Cameron is a Europhile and wants to keep the UK in the EU, that is why he is delaying matters until he is in a position to claim a better deal more in keeping with the UK needs has been agreed.

As I mentioned before, but you seem to have missed it, Labour, which is the only other realistic party of government has said that while it is against a referendum at the moment it does not rule one out. Indeed immediately after Cameron’s speech they let it be known that in the run up to the next election if matters look close they will offer exactly the same referendum as Cameron.

I may well be naïve and foolish, but from where I am sitting the Conservatives have made so much of the promise and Labour have worked so hard to avoid ruling it out that I have difficulty seeing how either party could avoid the issue. But that is only my opinion.

Reflecting on our discussions over several topics and many months I seem to spend a great deal of time explaining (and evidencing with statistics, quotes, historical precedent etc) my position while you simply ask new questions and make declarations. Please could you for once just answer two simple questions.

Firstly, given the generally hostile view of the UK public to the EU over 40 years, what evidence do you have at all which suggests that a UK government could ever sign up to a fully integrated EU and accept the euro, Schengen etc. in the future ?

Secondly, given the inability of the UK government to move forwards with the EU project, why do you want a generally difficult UK to remain part of the EU ?