EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Cameron takes gamble with in/out EU referendum pledge

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 23 January 2013, updated 25 January 2013

UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised today (23 January) to offer Britons a simple ‘in/out’ referendum choice on whether to stay in the European Union if he wins the next election, scheduled for 2015. EurActiv brings you the highlights and the main reactions.

In his speech, given in London, Cameron said the Conservative party would campaign in the 2015 election with a pledge to renegotiate Britain's EU membership and then put the resulting deal to a referendum, possibly in 2017.

“It will be an in-out referendum," Cameron explained, saying that he would seek repatriation of several EU laws, and enshrine those in a new treaty to be negotiated with Britain's EU partners.

The referendum will depend on Cameron winning the next election at a time when the Conservative leader is currently trailing the opposition Labour party in opinion polls, and governing through a fractious coalition with the pro-European Liberal Democrats.

Cameron said he supported Britain remaining in a looser EU, centred around the single market for goods and services, which British companies want to safeguard.

Eurozone debt crisis as an opportunity

Cameron said efforts to forge closer integration among eurozone countries, prompted by the debt crisis, gives Britain a window of opportunity to renegotiate its terms with the EU in a new treaty.

"The European Union that emerges from the eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the eurozone," he said.

“Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes,” said Cameron, adding: “By the same token, the members of the eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all member states, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy.”

"Those who want to go further, faster," should be free to do so, Cameron stressed, "without being held back by the others" like Britain.

Putting the pressure on his European counterparts, he added that Britain's future in Europe - in or out - would depend on the results of a renegotiation of the UK’s position in the EU.

This will be a tall order for Britain, which is not alone in setting the EU's agenda. And there is little appetite among other EU countries to offer Cameron retrospective cherry-picking of existing rules.

"He can control neither the timing nor the outcome of the negotiations and in so doing is raising false expectations that can never be met," said Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament. "Cameron is playing with fire."

Cameron acknowledged that he was taking a gamble, saying: "My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain." But he also added: "If there is no appetite for a new treaty for us all, then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners."

Cameron would campaign to stay in EU, if conditions met

The UK Conservative leader dismissed suggestions that an in/out referendum on Europe threatened to create business uncertainty, ignoring US warnings over Britain's role in the European Union.

>> Read: US tells Britain to stay in the European Union

Cameron brushed aside those critics, saying "the question mark" about Britain's position in Europe "is already there and ignoring it won’t make it go away."

"It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time for us to settle this question about Britain and Europe," Cameron said.

He said resentment at the democratic deficit was angering the UK public, where “democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer thin”. Further delaying a referendum, he warned, “is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put – and at some stage it will have to be – it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.”

When the referendum comes, Cameron said he would campaign for it “with all my heart and soul if we can negotiate such an arrangement”.

“I believe something very deeply. That Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it,” he said, calling on his European partners to accommodate his proposals.

A new EU must be built upon five principles, Cameron said: competitiveness, flexibility, power flowing back to - not just away from - member states, democratic accountability and fairness.

Positions: 

-- ACROSS EUROPE --

In Europe, Cameron's speech met with a lukewarm response.

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius quipped that France stood ready to "roll out the red carpet" for British companies wanting to leave Britain. Even the UK's traditional allies like Sweden, and Denmark, which are not members of the eurozone distanced themselves from Cameron's position on Europe, saying they did not share the same objectives.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was a lone voice in defending the UK's position, saying: "Germany, and I personally, want Britain to be an important part and an active member of the European Union.”

According to Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland is likely to take Britain's place in the EU. “The perspective of a decade where Poland will join the group of “co-deciders”, which the UK has just abandoned, is feasible."

>> Read: UK allies turn cold shoulder on Cameron

-- IN BRITAIN --

Lord Mandelson, the former EU commissioner and Labour MP, was dismissive of Cameron's promises. "On the other hand, he's saying that Britain's membership of Europe is a sort-of blank sheet of paper, which has to be completely renegotiated, and if Britain doesn't get what it wants then we're leaving and heading out through the exit door,” said

"I don't think that is an approach that is going to find a very positive response from our partners in Europe... They do not regard the European Union as a sort-of cafeteria service, in which you bring your own tray and then leave with what you want," said Mandelson.

Business for New Europe (BNE), a coalition of pro-European British business leaders, said it welcomed the Prime Ministers suggestions to reform of the European Union and "opening the debate on how it can be made more competitive."

But it warned that Cameron had also "also introduced considerable uncertainty into the UK economy by placing a question mark over Britain’s EU membership."

“The overall vision is good," said BNE Chairman Roland Rudd. “However, to call for a new treaty for these changes, on the premise that other member states want treaty change is risky, because it is far from clear there is any appetite for this from others."

"The uncertainty caused by an in/out referendum with a date set for end of negotiations could be hugely damaging to Britain's economy, as foreign companies may postpone or divert investment.”

GMB, a British trade union, warned that it would refuse to sign up to a new British settlement on Europe that translates in fewer rights for workers.

“Millions of UK workers bought into the EU ideal on the balance of a free business market for jobs that had a social dimension for equality, employment rights, health and safety protections, access to justice and for the free movement not the exploitation of labour," said Paul Kenny, GMB General Secretary.

"Let Cameron, the Tories and business be warned that if they succeed in getting a deal to take away these social benefits that workers will not vote in the referendum to stay in the EU," GMB said in a statement.

Open Europe, a Eurosceptic think-tank close to the Conservative Party, hailed Cameron's speech saying opinion polls have "consistently shown that the British electorate want a better, looser relationship with the EU."

However, it also acknowledged that other European countries might not want to sign up to the "strict timetable" that Cameron has imposed, as the UK's "new settlement" with Europe should be negotiated in time for the UK general election in 2015.

Mats Persson, Open Europe Director, asked: "If he doesn't get concessions, is he willing to recommend ‘Out’ in a referendum in 2017?”

-- IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT --

Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, said: "This was an inward looking speech that does not reflect European reality and will not impress many of the UK's European partners. The speech was more about domestic politics reflecting concerns of Eurosceptic elements of the Conservative Party,” said Schulz, a German MEP.

“I suspect that Prime Minister Cameron with his referendum announcement is playing a dangerous game for tactical, domestic reasons. I believe him when he says that he wants the UK to remain a member of the EU.  But Prime Minister Cameron increasingly resembles the sorcerer’s apprentice, who cannot tame the forces that he has conjured – forces that want to leave the EU for ideological reasons, to the detriment of the British people,” concluded Schulz.

Martin Callanan, a senior British MEP who chairs the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR), said Cameron has set out a "positive" agenda for "a more flexible and outward-looking EU".

"The euro crisis has brought an end to the notion of business as usual in the EU where the only direction of travel is 'ever-closer union'. The UK has many allies across Europe who want to see the EU become a more competitive and flexible organisation that respects the diversity of the Continent," Callanan said in a statement.

"The British people should have their opportunity to finally have their say," Callanan continued adding: "The EU needs to start trusting the people, otherwise the people will not trust the EU."

Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament, warned Cameron was "playing with fire" on European issues by promising an in or out referendum to the British people on the "new settlement" that he promises.

"He can control neither the timing nor the outcome of the negotiations and in so doing is raising false expectations that can never be met."

Verhofstadt also pointed to "inconsistencies" in Cameron's speech, saying he "claims to want a common set of rules for the Single market at the same time as wanting exceptions for Britain."

On opt-outs, Verhofstadt sent a clear warning: "There can be no question of individual renegotiation or opt out by a single Member State from agreed policies. To do so, would precipitate the unravelling of the Internal Market as other countries seek their own concessions in return. Cameron will not succeed if he attempts to hold his European partners to ransom."

"The one positive effect of today's speech is the genuine debate that is finally taking place about the EU and Britain's place in it," Verhofstadt concluded.

EurActiv Poland reports that Janusz Wojciechowski from the European Reformist and Conservatives group believes that the announced referendum is "a gesture of protest against the increasingly strong domination of Germany in the EU."

"If Germany and France want to keep Britain in the EU, they will have to stop their aspirations of domination. I think, therefore, that London's attitude will create a good outcome for the EU."

President of the group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Hannes Swoboda told EurActiv:

"The tragicomic speech delivered by David Cameron yesterday fell far below any expectations, right or left, British or continental. He should have spent less time scouting locations for his speech and more time looking at the ways EU membership benefits the UK."

Morten Messerschmidt, a Danish MEP from the eurosceptic Europe of freedom and democracy Group said that he thinks Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt should fly to London, embrace Cameron and help him with the negotiations.

Next steps: 
  • 27-28 June 2013: EU summit to adopt roadmap for new treaty to deepen economic and political integration in the eurozone.
  • May 2014: European elections
  • May 2015: UK election
EurActiv.com

COMMENTS

  • Are brits stupid? "Renegotiation with EU" does not mean negotiations with some fat, ugly, greedy, bloodthirsty eurobureaucrats from Mars who want to enslave and eat poor brit workers and stock traders.

    Negotiation with EU means dealing with other member states, i.e. basically, saying - Germany should pay in the EU budget more, UK less and receive more from Germans, Eastern European countries should get their workers out of UK, French farmers should get less subsidies, etc.

    Therefore brits should have a referendum now and, afterwards, either work together with other countries for the common good or get the f***k out as fast as possible!

    By :
    Axel
    - Posted on :
    23/01/2013
  • From a domestic perspective I think that it was brilliant. Who would oppose a referendum or negotiating a new agreement with the EU? Even Mandelson would find it hard to disagree.
    From a European perspective it is also quite good: everyone in Brussels and in Berlin is terrified at the idea of losing Britain.
    Merkel is a tough negotiator, so Cameron is classically starting with a very tough set of demands.
    Furthermore, Cameron knows very well that the EU and the eurozone cannot afford not to reopen treaties for five whole years. It is one thing to wait for Mrs Merkel to be reelected, and another to wait until 2017 to redraft the bloc's institutional framework.
    It is clearly blackmail, but it is very well conceived.
    I have no doubt that Mr Cameron and Mrs Merkel will come to a very good compromise that the anti-european British people will gladly accept.
    As always, the only country that can save the EU is the one that created it: France.
    France should call for immediate negotiations to be initiated on the creation of a European federal state with a fully representative and a fully functional parliament and with large and well budgeted competencies in social areas. The French would also hold a referendum on it, and would probably adopt it. The English would get their referendum and get out of the EU, and the Germans would forever stop trying to dominate it from behind the scenes.

    By :
    Charles
    - Posted on :
    23/01/2013
  • Here we are finally with Cameron's long awaited proposals for the UK's relation to Europe. Being first known as a Europhile Conservative the guy has kept saying all the bad he could about the EU since he started candidating for Downing street. He got then elected but never came clear about what he intended to propose or do. And now after promissing an ever vaguer "fresh consent" for years, having postponed his awaited speech, finally what do we get?

    Only after the next election (in case he's elected of course) there could be a referundum in which he'd call for staying, if he'd have convinced every other member state to agree to make "less Europe", but apparently also in case he wouldn't manage to do that: he stressed leaving Europe would be bad for Britain's business, infuence and relationship with the USA. So in the end he'll call (maybe) for a referendum and campaign for staying, hoping all Europe will be backing his "propositions" (less Europe)?

    Or maybe the guy unsurprisingly changes his mind once again and explains eventually that his referendum couldn't be held for unfortunate reasons before the next election again! Although every eurosceptic must have been in tears in front of Cameron, screaming all together "Hourra" and that a new era has come. Cameron, as a politician is probably right in feeding his voting cattle with the same type of cheap thrilling promises they believe everytime.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a0253242-6545-11e2-a3db-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2IsKxqPgU

    Cameron is not the first PM who tries to hold his party together. Nothing wrong with that. Nor with giving the country a referendum on UK membership of the EU. But how long can he remain silent about the specifics he wants to re-negotiate with his EU partners? He will not get away in the UK with a bogus negotiation on opt-outs already secured (working time, justice and home affairs) or on the obvious need for rules keeping members and non-members of the Eurozone together within the internal market. He will not even get a negotiation going with EU partners on undoing parts of the internal market, such as the free movement of people. Not to mention Tory manifesto ideas on dismantling regional or fisheries policies. Therefore, one can safely predict several successive rows about the issues, the course and the outcome of the negotiations, if any. Each of which will challenge Tory cohesion, the chances of returning to power with an overall majority in 2015, let alone winning a referendum in 2017. For all that to succeed, Labour and Libdems must be even more helpless than Cameron seems to be in handling the UK's relationship with the EU.

    By :
    Nikolaus van der Pas
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Cameron is not the first PM who tries to hold his party together. Nothing wrong with that. Nor with giving the country a referendum on UK membership of the EU. But how long can he remain silent about the specifics he wants to re-negotiate with his EU partners? He will not get away in the UK with a bogus negotiation on opt-outs already secured (working time, justice and home affairs) or on the obvious need for rules keeping members and non-members of the Eurozone together within the internal market. He will not even get a negotiation going with EU partners on undoing parts of the internal market, such as the free movement of people. Not to mention Tory manifesto ideas on dismantling regional or fisheries policies. Therefore, one can safely predict several successive rows about the issues, the course and the outcome of the negotiations, if any. Each of which will challenge Tory cohesion, the chances of returning to power with an overall majority in 2015, let alone winning a referendum in 2017. For all that to succeed, Labour and Libdems must be even more helpless than Cameron seems to be in handling the UK's relationship with the EU.

    By :
    Nikolaus van der Pas
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Who wan't Camerun and the Britts anyway?

    By :
    gigi
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I think nobody... Mr Cameron, please let your country leave the EU - unless the Scottish want to become independent and to remain!

    By :
    Hubert
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • Ever since the British appeared on the scene it's just trouble and nothing else. They don't wanna be a part of any common progress but do wanna enyoj the fruit of it, It's time to kick them out

    By :
    frank
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I am staggered by Cameron's about turn. Not long ago he was saying that he was against a referendum and now he is for it! He is running scared of the Tory right wing and UKIP, so this is a strategy which he thinks will save his own political bacon and win him the next election. He is taking a huge risk. The driving force behind UKIP is a right wing group who feel their power and wealth is threatened by the EU. They want the UK out so that they can continue ruling the roost and preserve their privileges. They filter myths to the tabloids such as the Express (dreadful rag) to win over the general population most of whom do not have an understanding of the real issues. If there is a referendum it will be decided by the press and if that is the case I fear for the worst. People will vote without being properly informed having swallowed the propaganda about bent bananas etc. Leaving the EU would be a disaster for this country and if it happens, even as a pensioner, I will leave and go elsewhere.

    By :
    Pablo
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • As Europe is back on the agenda...and the Leader of the Conservative Party has delivered his Amsterdam Speech in London, giving the best eurosceptic media event for years, our friends and you in England have been vociferous in adding to the the debate which is getting more interesting than usual.

    Are we aware of Article 50 in the TEU? It makes fascinating reading as it sets out the rule and procedures for negotiations for countries to leave the Union. It is silent, however, on "repatriating or renegotiating powers" it just shows that the exit door out of the EU is fully open to such countries that wish to leave. This allows only for a full withdrawal. Let us not be illuded into believing that we can somehow be able to access the single market on special terms! The Swiss have taken over 20 years to get the access but have to comply with the terms set by the member states and have to accept open borders free movement of migrants etc etc. And so has Norway who contribute to the EU budget and also have to implement the rules as agreed by the European EU stares through the EU machinery, with no say in the matter.
    I am not aware that UKIP has been honest enough to tell us fully and publicly how they can square the circle - trading with the rest of the world is simply a cop out from admitting that the UK would be outside its trading partners single market where on their figures we only trade 42%. Beside they would only obtain a mandate in Britain by bullying their conservative fellow travellers in trying to win a hypothetical referendum. Why? Because they will never obtain a mandate from a Westminster election.

    So if they cannot manage to appeal to the electorate and win a majority of seats at Westminster? And the Referendum can pnly be a ploy to get the public (whom they suppose to be ignorant of the real issues involved) in the Country to force the Westminster Parliament to go to the Exit without overriding the overwhelming majority of MPs that would take the pragmatic view the UK should remain in the EU and play a full part in the interests of England and Europe as a whole.

    Presumably the Conservative MPs at risk from their own electors have calculated that a switch by a small number of their electors to the UKIP would lose them seats to the Labour or Lib Dems? In addition the impact of a Scots referendum may well alter the UK position if a separate Scotland emerges. So is anything realistic being proposed by Cameron in line with the UK's future? Yes I believe he is sahooting the UKIP fox by promising "jam tomorrow" as Conservative Party Leader.

    Does our Conservative Party Leader really intend to go down this tortuous (and very clear) exit route if he is again in charge after a Tory victory after the next General Election, is this his wishful thinking or is he trying to keep the Tories from losing more seats to the intervention of competing UKIP candidates with no chance?

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • As Europe is back on the agenda...and the Leader of the Conservative Party has delivered his Amsterdam Speech in London, giving the best eurosceptic media event for years, our friends and you in England have been vociferous in adding to the the debate which is getting more interesting than usual.

    Are we aware of Article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty of EU ? It makes fascinating reading as it sets out the rule and the procedures for negotiations for countries to leave the Union. It is silent, however, on "repatriating or renegotiating powers" it just shows that the exit door out of the EU is fully open to such countries that wish to leave. This allows only for a full withdrawal. Let us not be illuded into believing that we will somehow be able to access the single market on special terms!

    The Swiss have taken over 20 years to get the access they now have; but have to comply with all the terms set by the EU member states (UK included) and have to accept open borders, free movement of migrants etc etc. And so has Norway, who contribute to the EU budget and also have to implement the rules as agreed by the European EU states through the EU machinery, with no say in negotiating these matters: "We agree; you implement!"

    I am not aware that UKIP has been honest enough to tell us fully and publicly how they can square the circle - trading with the rest of the world is simply a cop out from admitting that the UK would be outside its trading partners' single market, where on their figures "we only trade 42%". Besides, they would only obtain a mandate in Britain by bullying their conservative fellow travellers in trying to win a hypothetical referendum. Why? Because they will never obtain a mandate from a Westminster election by campaigning on this issue alone.

    So if they cannot manage to appeal to the electorate and win a majority of seats at Westminster to pull out of Europe, what? Well the Referendum can only be a ploy to get the public (whom they suppose to be ignorant of the real issues involved) in the Country to force the Westminster Parliament to go to the Exit door without having to override the overwhelming majority of MPs that would take the pragmatic view the UK should remain in the EU and play a full part in the interests of England, and Europe as a whole.

    Presumably the Conservative MPs at risk from their own electors have calculated that a switch by a small number of their electors to the UKIP would lose them seats to the Labour or Lib Dems? In addition the impact of a Scots referendum may well alter the UK position if a separate Scotland emerges. So is anything realistic being proposed by Cameron in line with the UK's future? Yes I believe he is sahooting the UKIP fox by promising "jam tomorrow" as Conservative Party Leader. This is not a renegotiation through blackmail; it's a case of Russian Roulette! We do not like this approach at all...

    Does our Conservative Party Leader really intend to go down this tortuous (and very clear) exit route if he is again in charge after a presumed Tory victory after the next General Election, when he is unlikely to win outright and is now the PM of a coalition government? Is this his wishful thinking or is he trying to keep the Tories from losing more seats to the intervention of competing UKIP candidates with no chance? Time will tell...

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I just hope that when time comes to the UK leave EU that the European Parlament be strong enough to withdraw all the privilliges from them that the member states have. And hopefuly Companies allready begin to surch after new partners because of the import taxes going to be higher for UK products.

    By :
    menesdorfer
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • UK OUT! SCOTLAND IN!!

    By :
    david tarbuck
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I think it's going to happen as the Germans invested billions of Euro in England. Parhaps many of those going to consider to move out from country to the mainland.

    By :
    gigi
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • David you know what that means? The end of their Union and I wonder how the new flag would look like. :-) I wonder who gonna be the next one Wales? We welcome both don't we?

    By :
    frank
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I note a few people getting quite upset by the prospect of David Cameron trying to renegotiate terms of engagement with the EU .
    I do not believe that Cameron can win a general election on the promise of renegotiating Britain's membership , followed by a referendum .
    France , Germany and the other member states may say NO , Britain remains as the the EU is , or leaves , no discussion .
    Cameron is doing a balancing act , between Banking , Financial Services ,Corporations on the one side and the people on the other .
    I believe that Cameron is naively thinking , that if he was able to repatriate a lot of EU laws the British people don't like , the people will vote in a referendum to stay in the EU .
    The British people never wanted to be members of the EU ; no matter what Cameron is able to renegotiate , the result of an IN/OUT Referendum is going to be OUT .
    If David Cameron wants to keep the conservatives in power after the next general election , he needs to hold the referendum now , or simultaneously with the 2015 general election .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Charles
    "French would also hold a referendum on it, and would probably adopt it. The English would get their referendum and get out of the EU, and the Germans would forever stop trying to dominate it from behind the scenes."

    Remember , the French voted against the constution .
    The Germans will always dominate , based on their superior economic strength .

    Nikolaus Van De Pas

    People only look at the parliamentary political angle , not at the voting public at large .
    All the political parties are suffering uncertain times . The conservatives face defeat at the next general election , in favour of labour who have nothing to offer . Lib/Dems face considerable diminution . UKIP , may take a lot of votes from the conservatives , with not much to show for it .

    People argue that the newspapers feed the people anti EU propaganda . No , very few people read newspapers now . In fact it is the other way round , the People are strongly anti EU regardless ; the newspapers print what they rightly think people want to read , in order to sell newspapers .

    Roberto
    You write a very well reasoned assessment of the situation .

    Since the referendum on the Constitution , when the French and Dutch voted against it , the EU is rightly terrified of referenda . Perhaps there should be a referendum for and against the EU in every member state . Politicians talk about 500ml members of the EU , what if a large majority voted againsy the EU ?
    British people do not want to be homogenised Europeans and neither do the people of other EU states .

    It is arguable and never very clear the trade balance Britain has with the EU . Over the years , generally I have read that Britain trades about 40% with the EU .
    Most often Mainland member states sell more to Britain than vice versa . So who will be the loser if Britain leaves the EU , or who would pay more tariffs .

    There is no doubt that Britain's leaving the EU , will create a major economic setback ; I believe that it would be a spur to everyone to make a superlative effort , to all pull together . Britain would keep in hand her substantial contribution to the EU .
    I believe Britain's leaving the EU would leave a massive hole , that would be extremely destabilising and could even cause it to fall apart .

    David Cameron's speech does not make completely clear whether he is just seeking repatriation of laws ; or whether he is trying to promote a complete overhaul of the EU , to exterminate many of its excesses and year to year failures .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • David
    The French allready roll out the red carpet for companies who want to move out of England. The Hungarians wouldn't mind to receive investors in their country as I heard they even offering citizenship for investors so most probobly when England is out than some of the English companies going to surch after new ground in the mainland of Europe.

    I'm talking about England because your union the UK is in danger to. The Scotts want's out and would seek mebership in the EU which would lead to the end of the Pound as you know it. This would even effect Camerons England in other arias as border control in Scottland and so on.
    And if you think that the Union over you might just get dissapointed because irt's started once upon a time and the federal Europe is just a natural development. Both the US and Japan likesit as the business climate is much easier and smooter than before.
    Eurocrises yes but there are many currency crises arond and was trhouout the history like a Dollar crises and it's still around.
    In one thing I'm sure England can't just eat the cake and have it left.
    And the nother thing is that the mainland of Europe is not your colony so you can't dictate as you want.

    By :
    frank
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • One more lines about the hostile comments on Germany.
    You people shouldn't forgot about that Germany is the Eropean economic powerhouse and with out it Europe would die.

    There was some comment on Englands export and import to, now England not manufacture much nowadays and I must say that some of it's products not even any high standard and what is high quality can't nourish a population of 60 millions.

    By :
    frank
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Actualy I would like to se a one Eu citizen one vote at the same day all around Europe there we can all decide about our future.
    The question should be "do we stay together in the Federal Europe or should we blow this thing up"
    That would be fun.

    By :
    gigi
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • @David
    The French voted against the "Constitution" because it excluded any social safeguards and/or denied any social progress at the federal level, and because they were denied the chance of voting on the enlargement to countries with low wages and no social system. The French would likely approve a real Constitution that would give the EU a real mandate in the social area, as opposed to a mandate to destroy social the wellbeing of EU citizens. But the project submitted to referendum had already been watered down by Blair, who was himself a euroskeptic in the best British diplomatic tradition.
    The EU was always a political project before being a coal and steel accord or a free trade area. The UK has always opposed it for political reasons, and only accepted to stay inside for the sake of vetoing it. Cameron's single market arguments are a miserable excuse that should fool no one: his intention is to continue to blackmail the EU and to block progress towards political integration, eg the creation of a federal state.
    But with a German chancellor who is a catastrophe for the EU, because she systematically uses euroskeptics to leverage and consolidate her personal power in the EU (the CSU in Germany and now the UK) at the detriment of the very purpose of the EU project, the only way to save the EU project is to 1) reject British blackmail entirely 2) deny Britain the possibility of ever blackmailing the EU again in the future 3) consequently, to block any rapprochement between the UK and Germany.
    I am a French federalist, which is not very common, and I believe that the only way for France to defend its interests is to embrace federalism, and I also believe that the only way for the EU's federal institutions to defend their interests is to have France on their side. Therefore, I think France should veto the upcoming German-UK budget "compromise", and the upcoming German-UK repatriation "compromise", knowing that the Commission will be on its side as well as the majority of net-debtor states.

    By :
    Charles
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Why waiting for new opt-outs which will not come ?
    It is obvious that the Single Market as dreamed by the British cannot survive if other exceptions are made : they won't be allowed. Cameron should go ahead without waiting... And I feel his speach as blackmail !
    UK tried already in the past and created EFTA to compete the Single Market. This association had all the criteria the British want.
    It did not work : step by step, countries left the EFTA and move to the EU, soon followed by UK...What is left of EFTA just follows the EU rules !!!
    British should ask themselves the reasons of this fealure.
    As I understand it, UK failed and , if out of EU, UK will fail again, because in a deal there are always two partners and if one of them (UK) does not play with fair rules (EU) no deal can occuer.

    By :
    EU lover
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • This may help the Tories to win the next election (UKIP supporters will vote for them to keep the referendum). Then the Tories will loose the referendum (= 50+ % will vote the UK out which clearly is not what C wants) That is bad for the UK and the EU as well, and the UK --> EEA option will not work well. Norway is rich and economically - financially selfsufficient enough (oil - water power, well educated population) to stay out and apply the necessary EEA rules without really participating in the EU decision making. The UK is not. Then what can EU do to get out of the catch 26 dilemma of the the UK renegotiating blackmail: give in too much to the demand of diluting the EU substance (to assure the UK stays in) or give in too little (to make the UK leaving) ?

    By :
    Peter Sluiter
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Please do not wait for the next election; GO NOW!!

    By :
    david tarbuck
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • David, just a comment I do believe that the UK held a full referendum in 1975 on the IN or OUT question. Perhaps it was a mistake to allow the public to vote as it did the Eurosceptic coalition of Empire loyalists and Left Wing Socialists no good at all. The last thing these wanted to have was a resounding YES vote. The will never accept the People's versict ...until it goes their way that is then they may have to do some serious negotiations to invoke and implement the EXIT in Article 50 TEU. I have heard the mith that the 1975 referendum was about a Common Market simply as a "trading arrangement".

    Having fought that campaign with many others for the Tories at that time what do I think?

    It was very clearly stated by the NO campaign that this was a plot of the Common Market to take away POLITICAL decision making from England.

    The Wilson approach appeared to let the 'argomento' develop to encompass the whole impacts of the CM.

    These points are even more important to England now. Membership dialectic may be fully repeated; and if so I doubt if the result would be any different from 1975 next time round.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • Frank

    I shall be surprised if the Scots vote to leave the UK. I believe those who seek independence fall far short of the majority .

    Charles

    I have taken time to read several acounts of why the French voted against the EU constitution .
    Of course I had to smile , because the British people were going to vote against it anyway . As it was we didn't have to be the only ones who did. Britain shared many of the same objections as France .

    I do not think the British are Blackmailing EU member states ; anymore than the EU is Blackmailing sovereign governments to stay in line . Join the club and obey the rules .
    At the time of the 1975 British referendum , to stay in or leave the EEC , the British people knew nothing of what they were being committed to . John Major should have held another referendum before signing Maastricht .
    No matter which party is in power , they have a general public behind them who want Britain out of the EU , who oppose all EU rulings . As little by little Brussels supercedes the powers of national governments , parliament is facing a greater and greater opposition from the people .

    It doesn't matter what Cameron agrees with Germany , Brussels or anywhere else in a referendum , in or out the peoples vote will be OUT . Cameron is trying to do a very delicate balancing act , between financial services , the EU and the British people .
    Cameron is in an increasingly difficult position . If he doesn't heed the British people he will be out at the next election , Labour have nothing to offer , there would likely be another hung parliament and perhaps a coalition with UKIP . There are many reasonable arguments why Britain should remain in the EU , but the people want out regardless . it may seem as if Cameron is trying to blackmail , but he is not , he is trying to keep Britain in the EU , gain the support of the people to do so . the people don't give a toss what he negotiates the referendum will vote OUT

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • well David, wonders do happens and you might just get supprised.

    By :
    Frank
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • well Cameron and his party would love to get more power to exploit the British workers keep your wages down and not letting the EU parlament "dictating" any roles.
    That would be perfect for tham.

    By :
    Frank
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • gigi

    I would stand behind yoer idea because it's not bad at all I would just modify it a bit.
    A one day one vote all around Europe is brilliant because you wont see which country voted what but, than all the citizen in all member state should respekt the outcome icluding the British.

    By :
    Frank
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • Roberto

    I am not Empire or in any sense a clinger to the past.
    I have always opposed Britain's entry into the EEC . I voted for Britain to leave .
    When you speak of left wing socialists , I am a middle to right wing conservative. Hearing the Oxford Union debate , I fully supported the views of Peter Shaw and Anthony Wedgewood-Benn , to my thinking , even to this day , they were right . The pro EEC side launched a huge campaign aided by Brussels, which the anti side were unable to match . I have spoken to many people who voted to remain in the EEC , who said , If they had known what it was leading to they would have voted to leave .

    "It was very clearly stated by the NO campaign that this was a plot of the Common Market to take away POLITICAL decision making from England."

    Yes , but the No campaign was not heeded as it should have been . Many people's attitude was simply , now we're in we better stay there , with really no consideration of the pros and cons .

    Time will tell , if there is a referendum on leaving the EU or not . There would certainly be a massive campaign to persuade the people to stay , more of Charles's blackmail .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    27/01/2013
  • Scotland and Wales in, England - out!

    By :
    Otto
    - Posted on :
    02/02/2013
  • Many who voted in the last referundum probably remember the press always gave it for mounths lost by every opinion polls (like now), but the result yet happened to be quite clearly more than 67% YES.

    It seems the british know at the end of the day, what's in the interests of their country, even though they may (as many other members) fancy claiming, at every opportunity, their dislike of the EU's political influence (but not once it directly involves their mortgages and bank accounts, in which case they suddently seem much more aware of the advantages of membership).

    The UK is actually the only country which already had a referendum on whether to stay-in or move-out (only some of the other members have had a referendum on EU membership, yet always before joining). So the holding of another referendum while being already a member, would double the record Britain already has today.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    03/02/2013
  • This is not an in/out referendum since we are already IN since 1973 and were confirmed as such in 1975 by the then overwhelming 2:1 referndum result. From memory, the only constituency that voted OUT was Orkney and Zetland (will they be the only ones again to vote NO?).

    This is an OUT - and OUT only referendum ; called because, if the outcome were still to stay in, the disgruntled minority made out of nationalists, old imperialists, right wing tory dreamers, left wing believers in Stalin type socialism, romantics - ably egged on by that "nice Mr Farrago" and the chattering media including the BBC - will demand another, then another, etc.

    Untill they get their way (or so they think) this will not lie. Their proposition is a no brainer whatever for us sane electors who have bothered to find out what the issues are for the UK and Europe.

    In a less than ideal world. It's not just over jobs and money, but on social support, safety, crime, study research, environment, food supplies and our culture that we should pull together on and stand up for!

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    03/02/2013
  • I am fed up hearing the British Governments recommendations being mis quoted. The Text of the Pamphlet put out by the British Government in 1975 with hyperlink in case the text is too long for Euractiv:

    http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#back

    [Front Page]
    BRITAIN'S NEW
    DEAL IN EUROPE
    'Her Majesty's Government have decided to recommend to the British people to vote for staying in the Community'
    HAROLD WILSON, PRIME MINISTER
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Page 2]
    DEAR VOTER
    This pamphlet is being sent by the Government to every household in Britain. We hope that it will help you to decide how to cast your vote in the coming Referendum on the European Community (Common Market).
    Please read it. Please discuss it with your family and your friends.
    We have tried here to answer some of the important questions you may be asking, with natural anxiety, about the historic choice that now faces all of us.
    We explain why the Government, after long, hard negotiations, are recommending to the British people that we should remain a member of the European Community.
    We do not pretend, and never have pretended, that we got everything we wanted in these negotiations. But we did get big and significant improvements on the previous terms.
    We confidently believe that these better terms can give Britain a New Deal in Europe. A Deal that will help us, help the Commonwealth, and help our partners in Europe.
    That is why we are asking you to vote in favour of remaining in the Community.
    I ask you again to read and discuss this pamphlet.
    Above all, I ask you to use your vote.
    For it is your vote that will now decide. The Government will accept your verdict.
    [Signed:]
    Harold Wilson
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Pages 3 & 4]
    YOUR RIGHT
    TO CHOOSE
    The coming Referendum fulfils a pledge made to the British electorate in the general election of February 1974.
    The Labour Party manifesto in the election made it clear that Labour rejected the terms under which Britain's entry in to the Common Market had been negotiated, and promised that, if returned to power, they would set out to get better terms.
    The British people were promised the right to decide through the ballot box whether or not we should stay in the Common Market on new terms.
    And that the Government would abide by the result.
    That is why the Referendum is to be held. Everyone who has a vote for a Parliamentary - that is, everyone on the Parliamentary election register which came into force in February 1975 - will be entitled to vote.
    Polling will be in the normal way, at your local polling station, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Your poll card will remind you of the date and give other details.) You will get a ballot paper, and be asked to mark the ballot paper in one of two clearly marked places, in order to record a Yes or No vote about Britain's continued membership of the European Community (Common Market).
    The Government have recommended that Britain should stay in on the new terms which have been agreed with the other members of the Common Market.
    But you have the right to choose.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Page 5]
    OUR PARTNERS
    IN EUROPE
    With Britain, there are nine other members of the Common Market. The others are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands.
    Their combined population is over 250 million.
    The Market is one of the biggest concentrations of industrial and trading power in the world. Its has vast resources of skill, experience and inventiveness.
    The aims of the Common Market are:
    To bring together the peoples of Europe.
    To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
    To promote growth and boost world trade.
    To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
    To help maintain peace and freedom.

    [Pages 6 & 7]
    The European Community
    and its world-wide links
    [Illustration: map marking "Countries which have special trading links", with an alphabetical list]
     [Link to the table of contents]

    [Pages 8 & 9]
    THE NEW DEAL
    The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.
    These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.
    On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:
    'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'
    What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS.

    FOOD
    Britain had to ensure that shoppers could get secure supplies of food at fair prices.
    As a result of these negotiations the Common Agricultural policy (known as CAP) now works more flexibly to the benefit of both housewives and farmers in Britain. The special arrangements made for sugar and beef are a good example.
    At the same time many food prices in the rest of the world have shot up, and our food prices are now no higher because Britain is in the Market than if we were outside.
    The Government also won a better deal on food imports from countries outside the Common Market, particularly for Commonwealth sugar and for New Zealand dairy products. These will continue to be on sale in our shops.
    This is not the end of improvements in the Market's food policy. There will be further reviews. Britain, as a member, will be able to seek further changes to our advantage. And we shall be more sure of our supplies when food is scarce in the world.

    MONEY AND JOBS
    Under the previous terms, Britain's contribution to the Common Market budget imposed too heavy a burden on us. The new terms ensure that Britain will pay a fairer share. We now stand, under the Dublin agreement, to get back from Market funds up to £125 million a year.
    There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.
    Britain will not have to put VAT on necessities like food.
    We have also maintained our freedom to pursue our own policies on taxation and on industry, and to develop Scotland and Wales and the Regions where unemployment is high.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Page 10]
    HELPING THE
    COMMONWEALTH
    It has been said that the Commonwealth countries would like to see us come out.
    This is not so. The reverse is true.
    Commonwealth Governments want Britain to stay in the Community.
    The new Market terms include a better deal for our Commonwealth partners as well as for Britain. Twenty-two members of the Commonwealth are among the 46 countries who signed a new trade and aid agreement with the Market earlier this year.
    Britain is insisting that Market aid for the poorer areas of the world must go to those in most need.
    Here is what Commonwealth leaders have said about Britain's role in the Market:
    Mr. Gough Whitlam
    Prime Minister of Australia, speaking in Brussels on December 18, 1974:
    I do not want to give any impression that the present Australian Government sees any advantages for Australia, for Europe or for the world in Britain leaving the Community.
    Mr. Wallace Rowling
    Prime Minister of New Zealand, said in Paris on February 22, 1975, that it would not be in the long-term interest of the New Zealand economy if Britain were to withdraw from the Common Market.
    Mr. Donald Owen Mills
    Jamaican Ambassador to the U.N., New York, February 28, 1975, talking about the Lomé Convention for trade and aid between the Common Market, including Britain, and 46 developing countries:
    The Convention is a major move towards the establishment of a new international economic order and demonstrates the considerable scope which exists for the creation of a more just and equitable world.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Pages 11 & 12]
    WILL PARLIAMENT
    LOSE ITS POWER?
    Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.
    What are the facts?
    Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
    A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.
    Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
    Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.
    Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.
    Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
    The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.
    It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
    All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.
    Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."
    Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.
    The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.
    Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170 in favour of staying in on the new terms.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Page 13]
    IF WE SAY 'NO'
    What would be the effect on Britain if we gave up membership of the Common Market? In the Government's view, the effect could only be damaging.
    Inevitably, there would be a period of uncertainty.
    Businessmen who had made plans for investment and development on the basis of membership would have to start afresh.
    Foreign firms might hesitate to continue investment in Britain. Foreign loans to help finance our trade deficit might be harder to get.
    We would have to try to negotiate some special free trade arrangement, a new Treaty. We would be bound by that Treaty. Its conditions might be harsh. But unless and until it was in force, Britain's exports to the Common Market would be seriously handicapped.
    We would no longer be inside the Common Market tariff wall - but outside.
    For a time at least, there would be a risk of making unemployment and inflation worse.
    Other countries have made these special arrangements with the Community. They might find Community decisions irksome, even an interference with their affairs.
    But they have no part in making those decisions.
    The Common Market will not go away if we say 'No'.
    The countries of the Common Market would still be our nearest neighbours and our largest customers. Their policies would still be important to us. But Britain would no longer have a close and direct influence on those policies.
    More than that, decisions taken in Brussels - in which Britain would have no voice - would affect British trade and therefore British jobs.
    Britain would no longer have any say in the future economic and political development of the Common Market. Nor on its relations with the rest of the world - particularly on the help to be given to the poorer nations of the world.
    We would just be outsiders looking in.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Page 14]
    IF WE SAY 'YES'
    Let us be clear about one thing: In or out of the Common Market, it will be tough going for Britain over the next few years.
    In or out, we would still have been hit by the oil crisis, by rocketing world prices for food and raw materials.
    But we will be in a much stronger position to face the future if we stay inside the Market than if we try to go it alone.

    Inside, on the improved terms, we remain part of the world's most powerful trading bloc. We can help to fix the terms of world trade.

    Inside, we can count on more secure supplies of food if world harvests turn out to be bad. And we can help to hold down Market food prices - as we have done since we joined in 1973.

    Inside the Market we can work to get more European Community money spent inside Britain:
    More from the Social Fund for retraining workers in new jobs. Since we joined we have benefited from this Fund to the tune of over £20 million a year.
    More from the Community's new Regional Fund, which already stands to bring us £60 million in the next three years.
    More from the Farm Fund when world prices are high. For instance, up to now we have obtained £40 million from this Fund to bring down the price of sugar in the shops.
    More from the Coal & Steel funds and the European Investment Bank. Since we joined, arrangements have already been make for loans and grants of over £250 million.

    The long period of negotiation between Britain and the other Market countries has proved that the Market is not a rigid organisation.
    It is flexible. It is ready and able to adapt to changing world conditions.
    It can, and does, respond to the differing needs of member states.
    The Market is aware of the need to help the poorer nations of the world outside Europe.
    Whether we are in the Market or not, Common Market policies are going to affect the lives of every family in the country.
    Inside the Market, we can play a major part in deciding these policies.
    Outside, we are on our own.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Page 15]
    AND NOW - THE
    TIME FOR YOU
    TO DECIDE
    When the Government came to power in February 1974 they promised that you, the British voter, should have the right to decide - FOR continued membership of the European Community (Common Market) or AGAINST.
    It is possibly the most important choice that the British people have ever been asked to make.
    Your vote will not only affect you life and you neighbours' lives. It will affect your children's lives. It will chart - for better or for worse - Britain's future.
    We are only at the start of our relationship with the Community. If we stay inside we can play a full part in helping it to develop the way we want it to develop. Already Britain's influence has produced changes for the better. That process can go on. The Common Market can be made better still.
    The Government have made THEIR choice. They believe that the new terms of membership are good enough for us to carry on INSIDE the Community. Their advice is to vote for staying in.
    Now the time has come for you to decide. The Government will accept your decision - whichever way it goes.
    The choice is up to YOU. It is YOUR decision.
    [Link to the table of contents]

    [Back Page]
    YOUR VOTE
    COUNTS -
    USE IT
    This booklet is being distributed to all households by the Post Office. Extra copies will be available in main Post Offices during the days immediately before the Referendum.
    Issued by HM Government

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    03/02/2013
  • Yes it looks good, surprising it was so phrased,
    particularly as Harold Wilson's government was pulling in opposite directions. I enjoyed the then referendum campaign and Edward Heath's impassioned contribution to the Yes campaign. To the jibes of the usual opponents it did emerge that it was not just a common market but a fully functional political construct we were voting for. Lots of matters have changed since and the world has become a more challenging place. We now have more effective political control particularly through a fully functioning and representative European Parliament. But the policy decisions are still basically in the hands of the Council of Ministers. And Article 50 is open to any government minded to leave the Union...Who would write the Wilson equivalent pamphlet fot the hypothetical 2017 Referendum? What happens when the Scots vote to leave the UK?

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    04/02/2013
  • In 1975 I voted to leave the Common Market . Many people I have spoken to since , who voted to stay in , have said that if only they had known what it was leading to , they would have voted to leave . Reading the pamphlet today , with present knowledge is quite different from the Common Market understanding of 1975.
    George Mc , were you voting at that time ?

    I doubt that the Scots will vote to leave the UK .

    On David Cameron's offering of negotiating to re-patriate many laws from Brussels to Westminster followed by a referendum in say 2017 ;I do not believe he will win the 2015 general election .
    So it will be British Euroscepticism as usual .

    I believe I am not alone in thinking that the EU has been ruined by the Euro - Eurozone , that has insurmountable debts , that will be a drain on all resourses beyond the forseeable future . With the current austerity measures throughout the EU , there is little prospect of growth and without growth the indebted countries will maintain the status quo . A group of bankrupt countries is not a marketplace .

    Roberto
    "In a less than ideal world. It's not just over jobs and money, but on social support, safety, crime, study research, environment, food supplies and our culture that we should pull together on and stand up for!"

    You need to take this sentence and analyse each point . Many countries have social support that they cannot afford ,Health and safety regulations make work like construction prohibitively expensive , scaffolding as an example . What about crime ? Huge sums of money are wasted on research . We ate perfectly well before the EU and I believe we pay more for food as a result of EU price control .
    Culture is my biggest complaint ! I see the culture of individual countries being destroyed by EU homogenisation and immigration on a large scale from countries with less advanced culture .

    Never mind David Cameron and his endeavour to get MPs and the people to support him . Part of what he is saying , is that the EU needs to unravel and rethink itself on different lines . The present EU is over centralized . There is a need to break it down , repatriate many laws , return powers to sovereign states and give democracy back to the people .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    04/02/2013
  • @ David Barneby

    David, I was able to vote then, but to be honest I cannot remember whether I did or didn't.

    If I had of voted then it would probably have been a NO vote, if for no other reason than Wilson was recommending it.
    You will remember that we were just getting over the effects of the 3 day week 73/74 petrol rationing and the Trade Unions totally out of control. God Bell Maggie!

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    05/02/2013
  • God Bless Maggie (again)

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    05/02/2013
  • @ Roberto

    "To the jibes of the usual opponents it did emerge that it was not just a common market but a fully functional political construct we were voting for."

    Having read the leaflet I don't believe that you could construe that at all. It was very much tongue in cheek, we are in charge, we can leave at any time we like.

    It is the subsequent treaties that have done the damage.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    05/02/2013
  • @ Roberto

    "To the jibes of the usual opponents it did emerge that it was not just a common market but a fully functional political construct we were voting for."

    Having read the leaflet I don't believe that you could construe that at all. It was very much tongue in cheek, we are in charge, we can leave at any time we like.

    It is the subsequent treaties that have done the damage.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    05/02/2013
  • Perhaps at the risk of boring myself I reread the various Treaties and found nothing in them and in the areas of competence of governance at European level that is in any way objectionable. I paricularly recommend the Lisbon Treaty and article 50 to our sceptic friends.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    05/02/2013
  • @ Roberto

    You would not have read them that quickly or indeed understood the Euro-babble that masquerades as English. Not unless you are super intelligent (and have a couple of Lawyers living with you) in which case I doubt if you would be bothering to post on here.

    Unless you are new to the Euractiv blog you will know that many of us have been recommending Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to Mr Cameron.

    I for one had not realised until Julian Assange was arrested, the scope of the European Arrest Warrant. Surely even Europhiles would agree that it is outrageous that British Citizens can be deported to countries like Bulgaria where there system of Justice is only a little better than medieval, on the say so of a Bulgarian policeman or Judge. This of course happens without a shred of evidence being presented to a UK court. I do hope the Government use their right of veto on the Home Affairs and Justice part of the Lisbon treaty.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    05/02/2013
  • I believe it is no good arguing the minutii of what is past . As things stand the British people will go on bellyaching about the EU ad infinitum , to the extreme annoyance of Brussels and europhiles in other member states .
    The original concept of the EU does not fit the enlargement that has been achieved to date . The EU compares to a railway train , a long way down the tracks on the wrong line and now finds itself up against the buffers .
    To make another comparison ; " They say that creaking gates last the longest ".
    By that I mean that the indebtedness to the point of effective bankruptcy is unlikely to be overcome in the foreseeable future . I would not be optimistic , even if there were an amnesty , debt forgiveness , a clean slate . The area in which Democracy remains , is that the people demmand social programmes and avoid paying tax if they can . States find themselves with an outlay that exceeds income .
    I have already expressed my doubts about David Cameron's gamble to win the next election . I cannot see him getting agreement with other member states by 2017 or 2020 . The good part of his speach that has real meaning , is suggesting the need for the EU to shake itself out of the present impasse .
    The problem is that Brussels is an establishment in itself . Dismantling the present EU leadership and bureaucracy would be nigh impossible ; that is what in reality the EU has become , a bureaucratic nightmare without end .
    Roberto and other europhiles speak optimistically about the future of the EU , as if " Good Times Are Just Around The Corner " Britain must stay with the EU to enjoy the good times to come .
    Unless extremely drastic changes are made , to forget ever closer union , ending the single currency , repatriating laws and financial controls to member states , the EU is on course for eventual collapse , however long it takes .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • yes, you are right; but don't expect the railway train to stop to let you off, or derail - just because you want to get off...most of us are sensible people and will not act like lemmings because someone has put it about that we are uncompetitive and our politicians are not fit (or we do not want them to) to take decisions in common within the European framework.

    The world is not about minutiae or personal nationalist sentiment; but about real problems like international crime, the environmental degradation, global worming, trade and maintaining standards, food supplies, energy, transport policy, social support and enforcing the people's wish not to be exploited by unscrupulous employers and states. In fact most of the decision making and areas of joint competence covered by the treaties make absolute sense.

    That's the only benefit of having a referendum because we will have an opportunity to demonstrate that the "pier end" antics of some nationalist politicians throughout Europe and in the UK too, and they are just that! Before that we will have the European Parliamentary elections next year and I just wonder how many of the wider issues will be argued there, or is it to be a campaign led by money focussed from rich individuals and fanfared by the few with an escapist agenda similar to that we had last time round? A mature nation and its citizens deserve better.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • @ David Barnaby,
    not arguing the past, you speak as if 100 % of British people today would agree with you (very democratic indeed of you).
    Complaining about the current state of EU versus the original concept just shows how blind you want to be. All big decisions within the EU are made by the STATES UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission just follows orders. Please do not minimize the responsibility of the British government in this process.
    This is one of the reasons I want the UK out : the original concept (more integration) has always been fought back by UK.
    States are responsible of their debts, not EU, nor euro : how would you explain the UK recession and high level of your own debt since you are not part of the Eurozone ?
    You put the blame on Brussels about things which still belongs to states : financial controls cannot be made without a closer union which does not exist yet (my regret !) and the freedom you request for the City is very dangerous for all (the financial crisis started from there)
    I think you will be disappointed for a long time : EU is not going to collapse ! The E.Paliament is going to take over, step by step, against the will of states which cannot resist because of their debts : this is where democracy is going to increase.
    I hope FOR YOU your P.M. won't have any success in his attempt (up to you).
    But you are right on one point : this will force our states to review their selfish point of view and accept more integration.

    By :
    EU lover
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • @ George Mc
    There is no need for the UK government to follow the European Arrest Warrant when they deport some British citizens the the United States of America, where they risk death penalty...
    And for sure the UK government did not follow the European Arrest Warrant when they let Pinochet (a dictator) fly away...
    Bulgaria is maybe medieval (I do agree) but the European Union is exerting high pressure on these new EU countries for them to improve all their systems...
    Alas, another victory of UK which prefered enlargement against consolidation...

    By :
    EU lover
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • Roberto
    Had John Major heeded his politicians or held a referendum before the Maastricht Treaty , Britain might not have ever joined the present EU . A train that is against the Buffers can only go in one direction , backwards . With Britain or without the EU is currently stationary, it may be wriggling , but it is not going forward .

    "The world is not about minutiae or personal nationalist sentiment; but about real problems like international crime, the environmental degradation, global worming, trade and maintaining standards, food supplies, energy, transport policy, social support and enforcing the people's wish not to be exploited by unscrupulous employers and states. In fact most of the decision making and areas of joint competence covered by the treaties make absolute sense."

    As I see it this statement is "Pie in the Sky" . Even if the treaty makes sense , the EU only pays lip service to it , does not have the competence to globally activate it .

    In Britain I think people take the same attitude as me for the European Parliamentary elections . We scarcely know who our representative is or what he or she stand for and are completely oblivious to any campaign .
    I used to vote Green as a wasted vote , today I would vote UKIP . The UKIP were second to the conservatives last time , who knows they might come first next time .

    EU lover
    I think that 60 - 65% of British people might agree with me.
    With regard to decision making , I believe the commission proposes the subject for discussion and approval , then the individual states will vote on it .
    I do not minimalise the part of the British government at all , unfortunately British wisdom is not often listened to .
    The EP is not the spearhead of democtracy that you are implying . I feel that you are assuming that the people of other states are all wildy pro EU , that only the British are anti EU . I have lived a number of years in Italy , my daughter lives in Berlin , Germany , her husband works at the foreign ministry .
    I can tell you that many people in other EU states feel the same as the British about the EU .
    I do not defend the City , though our politicians are very concerned for its well being . I am aware that British and foreign banks use London, as a not sufficiently regulated place in which they can conduct illegal transactions . It is shameful that Britain no longer has the big manufacturing industries she once had .
    I doubt that Cameron will have success negotiating repatriation of laws . I doubt too that he will win the next general election on that , so there may be little chance of a referendum .
    Do you really think that political integration to a single federal state will take place , without ever asking the people of individual states ?
    Try as they might , I do not see the kind of integration dreamed of being achieved in the foreseeable future .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • As for Justice an Home Affairs, there seems to be widespread agreement that opting out of existing measures would have a negative effect on the UK’s ability to protect its own citizens.

    EU co-operation in criminal justice and policing produces well documented benefits and allows law enforcement services of all member states to work more effectively across borders in tackling cross-border crime.

    If there is room for reform and improvement it is in certain elements of EU criminal and policing law – in particular the European Arrest Warrant. Nonetheless, the overarching consensus among those whose business is to deal with legal issues of this kind (except possibly for those inclined to allow some to move about in the Common Market without much fear of being pursued like happens apparently with some forms transnational fraud etc)is that reform is possible within the EU structures and it is not a sufficient reason for the UK to opt-out, as the perceived advantage of national sovereignty would ultimately be outweighed by the disadvantages such a move would bring for the UK’s national security, and more widely across Europe.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • @ EU lover

    I am not really sure what your point is, but I will give it an honest go.

    European Arrest Warrant/USA deportation and death penalty/Pinochet.

    I think you are a little mixed up and confused with this as the European Arrest Warrant has nothing to do with our agreement with the USA (obviously). That agreement is something which was agreed between Mr Blair and George W Bush after 9/11. It was a particularly bad agreement which disadvantaged UK citizens and which should be reviewed soonest. Don't take my word for it just look at “Liberty (liberty-human-rights.org.uk)” for good human rights reasons. The good part of the agreement is that no one can be extradited to the USA if the death penalty can be applied. So in short the Americans have to agree to that in advance of any extradition.

    Not quite sure where you are going with General Pinochet as I think you will find that he died before the EAW came into force. It certainly was not around when Spain wanted to extradite him.

    Unlike Euro-philes religious defence of the EU and its actions, I will admit that the UK has made mistakes (who hasn't) and as you say our quest for enlargement may have brought some countries who should not be there (or not quite ready). However it was not the UK who ran the rule over the economy and democratic practices of some member states before they joined, that was the Commission.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • @ Roberto

    "If there is room for reform and improvement it is in certain elements of EU criminal and policing law – in particular the European Arrest Warrant."

    We are not a million miles apart on the above. You must however realise that we have been told by many in the Commission and the odd faceless Bureaucrat that it is a take it or leave it situation and if we opt out then we cannot then opt back in to the more sensible parts of the Justice and Home Affairs treaty. That is the sort of nonsense that turns people against your case for the EU. You say that change might be able to be negotiated rather than a full opt out and that is really what is at the root of my Euroscepticism. If they had just tried a bit harder to get it right in the first place, perhaps we would not be facing problems with countries who should never have been allowed to join - Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus.

    If the European arrest warrant had been nailed down better then our police would not be out looking for a Pole for allegedly stealing a pig, and keeping him in jail until he can be repatriated (all at our cost)

    We would not be trying to fix a badly thought out currency and all the problems that has brought upon the whole EU.

    What I am really saying Roberto is with the EU's track record who would want to trust them further. Clearly you would, but please forgive the rest of us who are sceptical.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    06/02/2013
  • Funny how eurosceptics, a bit like those predicting the apocalypse, seem to always find the oddest figures to demonstrate the most improbable facts, and everytime come up with their impressions, feelings and whatever they sense or guess to support their "analyses". Unsurprisingly these impressions always happen to meet their "observations"...

    Examples from a same poster from this page:
    "I think that 60 - 65% of British people might agree with me"
    "I believe I am not alone in thinking that the EU has been ruined by the Euro"
    "I do not see the kind of integration dreamed of being achieved in the foreseeable future"
    "I doubt that the Scots will vote to leave the UK"
    "Many people I have spoken to since [the referendum], who voted to stay in , have said that if only they had known what it was leading to , they would have voted to leave."

    Each time this same poster has an impression about Europe it always happens to fit fully his open wishes and dreams: What a perfect world! Basically everybody in Britain wants and always has wanted to leave the EU, maybe there is even no need to hold a (second) referendum in fact, apparently the EU's bankruptcy has already come about, as he senses it's already collapsing and strangely all because of this single currency, that the UK doesn't happen to have, so it will therefore be spared (never mind britain's current enormous difficulties)... Is God's residence also in London at the moment?

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    07/02/2013
  • @David Barneby

    I thought I would share this very balanced and thoughtful article from Spiegel with you.
    There are not always full answers to our questions but this will go part way to shooting some Foxs on this blog.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/analysis-of-economic-benefits-of-britain-s-eu-membership-a-881813.html

    Cheers
    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    07/02/2013
  • uk-sceptic

    You may snear at my opinions and observations if you like . But I note that you are not able to refute my reasoning or give statement to prove me wrong .
    The EU is in the mire up to its neck and nobody knows how to get it back on track .
    Why don't you try analysing the options .
    One might argue that the best option is jump into the single federal state , with single economy , where all countries pool their resourses , where the haves pay for the have nots , a transfer economy . Economic growth is minimal even in the wealthier states . Which country is not running on a deficit account ? As I understand even Germany is .
    Perhaps you can suggest a better solution .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    07/02/2013
  • Uk sceptic. Do not panic Rome was not built in a day and it took William the Conqueror many years to subdue the Angles...There are problems sure. Closing our front door and locking it, will not stop the postie delivering letters asking us to pay the electric, gas, water, insurance, council tax, Income Tax bills et al! The fact remains that we live in a world where problems do exist, yes in Europe (including the UK with Scotland or without) and we need to work together to deal with them and not to panic, or get someone else to do the problem solving and hope we will not be called to pay our part! In or Out in these terms is quite acceptable. On your own?

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    07/02/2013
  • David Barnaby, "You may snear at my opinions and observations if you like . But I note that you are not able to refute my reasoning or give statement to prove me wrong". You may say that the apocalyse is soon to come in the EU, I couldn't prove you wrong. I'm not refering to your opinions but to your "feelings and predictions". It isn't an opinion to know what the Scots will be voting (how do you know?), what 2/3rd of the British people agree with or not, whether you are "alone" or not in thinking Europe's "ruin" is due to the Euro as a currency, (in the 30's each country had his own, it didn't help much) or even what the result of the previous referendum in 1973 actually would have been (instead of 67% for staying) «if only people had known" what the EU has since become...?

    These are highly hypothetical problematics you are probably the only one "able" to answer. Such speculation, tells of your own personal feelings (wishes and frustrations) more than the accuracy of your assessments. Interesting as an individual emotional picture but by itself hard trust for what it talks about, without even questioning whether it's true.. So the natural enthusiasm with which you almost naively share what you call your "opinions and reasonings" (mixed with family stories), may be interesting as a testimony, but it doesn't demonstrate by itself any common trend in society . I'm sure even astrologists learn how to discriminate among their first impressions, not to appear biaised in their "demonstrations" by some personal beliefs or wishes which have nothing to do with the problem at hand... I think you should note that one as well!

    "The EU is in the mire up to its neck and nobody knows how to get it back on track [...]. Which country is not running on a deficit account ?". What about the UK which has doubled its defecit in the last 5 years, achieved lower growth than all northern European countries, with sterling approaching euro-parity... Should they change the UK? What about the USA's deficits (at least twice bigger than european ones, should they also dismantle it? My better suggestion: always favour unity and compromise over sterile division and in so doing bring back growth on the whole continent, which is the only way today for each of us to possibly manage for himself. Just an idea for anyone really interested in contemporary european economics.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    09/02/2013
  • @Roberto, «it took William the Conqueror many years to subdue the Angles». Actually, after Edward the Confessor's death in 1066 it took not even a year for the French to be marching through London after having claimed the thrown of England and defeated Harold II at Hastings (he had been strangely over-preoccupied up-north with the Norwegians again)... William's reign over England for several decades and the norman expansion in various places around Europe changed England's society, culture and politics, in a way that it still visible today with the french vocabulary of the English language, its social hierarchy as well as the many castles and gothic cathedrals build by william the Conquerer's successors. Maybe you confuse with a century later, when the English had become so french, they even started claiming for themselves the French crown (and fought therefore a war for 130 years without success). Let's see what happens in a couple of decades and if Britain doesn't campaign in Brussels for backing Elisabeth II's successors as Queens and Kings of Europe! I don't know how much this bet is worth but after David Barnaby's predictions about imminent Euro-apocalypse legitimising decades of British European resistance, I guess anything seems possible at this level.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    09/02/2013
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron drinks from a glass of water as he delivers a speech on the European Union and Britain's role within it, in central London January 23, 2013 (Photo: Reuters)
Background: 

A potential British exit from the European Union came to the top of the political agenda after Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain must use the upheaval created by the eurozone crisis to forge a new relationship with the European Union.

Britain has negotiated a number of opt-outs from key EU policy areas since its accession in 1973. The country is not part of the eurozone and has not signed the free-border Schengen Treaty and does not want to abide by a number of EU police and judicial cooperation rules.

 

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Video General Promoted 2

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising