PM to give the Europe vote

[Thedelldays]

I think a vote on this is welcome... For those who want in and those who want out

 

About time a party made a big, ballsy decision like this

 

Yet those who are ingrained to be against Tory will never see this as a good, ballsy move, for no other reason than their own tribal party politics

[solentstars]

Yes, something that all major parties hid behind.

 

The net result was broadly the same, except instead of having a clean break that the constitution would have provided, legislators ended up grafting Lisbon onto existing labyrinthine legislation.

 

Thing is, Europe makes a lot of sense under certain systems of government. It's a good size for a self-sufficient planned economy.

 

What we have is a gigantic capitalist market, which facilitates British companies to say "hallo, we'll move these good jobs to Poland" and Eastern Europeans to say "hello, we'll take those spare jobs in the UK". No harm to the Eastern Europeans - if I was in their position I'd do exactly the same. The executives that are literally moving our futures overseas? No time for them at all.

 

The EU wasn't a bad idea in principle; a fraternity of old foes finding common cause to avoid future conflicts. These days, just seems like a handy mechanism for divide and rule across a continent and making sure everyone goes along with the financial scam.

lot of sense in that pap the power of global capitalism and to many politicians who line there pockets to do there masters bidding.

[bridge too far]

I think a vote on this is welcome... For those who want in and those who want out

 

About time a party made a big, ballsy decision like this

 

Yet those who are ingrained to be against Tory will never see this as a good, ballsy move, for no other reason than their own tribal party politics

 

But his stance IS all about tribal party politics - within his own party. He's trying to keep all sides of the divide within the Conservative party on board and, at the same time, trying to pull back the disaffected that are swaying towards UKIP.

 

He's said he wants to stay in Europe - thats politics speak for 'I want to stay in power'. He doesn't give a flying **** what you and I think.

[solentstars]

I see a lot of the Eurpean politicians are moaning about Camerons speech.

 

Is it because they need the UK to keep pumping the lions share of money into europe. with france and Germany they are moaning. They would not like to lose that amount of money as it would mean they would have to contribute more.

we would still have to pay even if we left....

Let’s leave the EU and join the EEA or EFTA – Norway and Switzerland are doing fine without EU membership!” It’s a perennial argument of a surprisingly large number of anti-EU types, and I’ve been meaning to do a proper post on it for (literally) years. It is, needless to say, a nonsense argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Norwegian/Swiss relations with the EU. Norway has oil. Switzerland’s a tax haven. Both have far, far smaller populations than the UK, accounting for their far higher GDPs per capita (and hence relative prosperity). They are not comparable with Britain.

Even if they were – both also have to pay in to the EU budget proportionate to their economies. Norway currently pays c.340 million euros per annum. This is more than many EU member states – especially when you consider the fact that actual members get money back, reducing their net contributions.

In fact, judging from this chart of net contributions, Norway would – if included in the chart – be about the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget, despite not being a member.

Rough maths tells us that, all things being equal, as the UK’s GDP is approximately 5.7 times that of Norway’s, the UK would still need to contribute around 2 billion euros a year to the EU budget if part of the EEA/EFTA. While having no say in what EU laws and regulations we’d still have to follow.

Because both Norway and Switzerland also – without having any say in their formulation – have to abide by 80-90% of EU rules and regulations in order to be part of the Common Market.

[Orange]

See Ed Milliband has got himself into a bit of a pickle. At PMQ, he ruled out an In/OUT referendum, however afterwards, labour aides are scrabbling around saying that he meant "ruled out an in / out refendum NOW."

 

The Labour party really needs to sort out their position on this quickly, otherwise the other parties will beat them up repeatly about it. I am not sure how they are going to get out of this one. Either they say OK we support it, which means they look stupid from all the posturing over the topic to date, or they say we rule it out thus potentially alienating a big chunk of the electorate, or worse still, they dither and they will look and sound ridiculous as they have in the above example.

 

Fact is, the current crop of labour are Europhiles and always will be whatever the cost.

[hypochondriac]

But his stance IS all about tribal party politics - within his own party. He's trying to keep all sides of the divide within the Conservative party on board and, at the same time, trying to pull back the disaffected that are swaying towards UKIP.

 

He's said he wants to stay in Europe - thats politics speak for 'I want to stay in power'. He doesn't give a flying **** what you and I think.

 

And Labour does?

[St Marco]

I think having a vote on it is the right thing to do. Times are different now from when they last had a vote.

 

However I think Cameron using it as a blackmail tool will seriously backfire against him and the torries. He promised it before the last election and didn't honor it so why would he do so next time? He will get another term and then find a way to back out of it, then dangle it in front of the people once more at the following election.

 

If Labour had any balls (not that one) they would come out and say they will offer the vote within 12 months of being in power and Conservatives would then be in deep ****.

 

Sooner this guy is gone the better

[Lord Duckhunter]

We wont get an in/out referendum until the Europhiles are 100% certain that we'll vote the "correct" way.

 

All 3 major parties have lied to the British people, remember this was an Economic community that we joined, they said there would be no loss of sovereignty to worry about.

 

Labour have always been all over the place on Europe, from putting leaving in their manifesto to the implantation of anything our Brussels masters decree. So there's always a chance they'll follow the electorate and the votes like they did last time they were so out of touch on this issue, but I doubt it.

 

The Torys and the Europhiles are going to pull the wool over the eyes of the British electorate again on Europe, and the other European "partners" are going to be complicit in the deception.It's clear what's going to happen, our Euro "partners" are going to allow some tinkering around the edges, allow Cameron to come back saying "vast" amounts of Sovereignty have been won back. In reality nothing of any substance will have changed, but the French and German approach and words at the moment are designed to add to this con. Basically the more they protest now, the more Cameron can look like he's negotiated a great deal when they throw him the scraps. Then he'll put this "great deal" to the British public, last time it was ONLY a common Market, this time it'll be ONLY a single market. All 3 parties will swing behind the Single Market and the mark will be conned again. It will give them another 40 years to move the project further down the road, before the British people start demanding a vote again.

 

Make no mistake, this is not about anything other than "managing" British public opinion and getting the public to butt out of interfering with the Project.

 

There is one man who I believe can throw a spanner in the whole establishment plan, and the funny thing is that man is a committed Europhile. Step forward Mr Salmond, more than Farage, Salmond is the man that can bust open the dam. If the Jocks vote to go it alone, basically the English will decide the fate of the project and there is more chance of an out vote then.

[hypochondriac]

We wont get an in/out referendum until the Europhiles are 100% certain that we'll vote the "correct" way.

 

All 3 major parties have lied to the British people, remember this was an Economic community that we joined, they said there would be no loss of sovereignty to worry about.

 

Labour have always been all over the place on Europe, from putting leaving in their manifesto to the implantation of anything our Brussels masters decree. So there's always a chance they'll follow the electorate and the votes like they did last time they were so out of touch on this issue, but I doubt it.

 

The Torys and the Europhiles are going to pull the wool over the eyes of the British electorate again on Europe, and the other European "partners" are going to be complicit in the deception.It's clear what's going to happen, our Euro "partners" are going to allow some tinkering around the edges, allow Cameron to come back saying "vast" amounts of Sovereignty have been won back. In reality nothing of any substance will have changed, but the French and German approach and words at the moment are designed to add to this con. Basically the more they protest now, the more Cameron can look like he's negotiated a great deal when they throw him the scraps. Then he'll put this "great deal" to the British public, last time it was ONLY a common Market, this time it'll be ONLY a single market. All 3 parties will swing behind the Single Market and the mark will be conned again. It will give them another 40 years to move the project further down the road, before the British people start demanding a vote again.

 

Make no mistake, this is not about anything other than "managing" British public opinion and getting the public to butt out of interfering with the Project.

 

There is one man who I believe can throw a spanner in the whole establishment plan, and the funny thing is that man is a committed Europhile. Step forward Mr Salmond, more than Farage, Salmond is the man that can bust open the dam. If the Jocks vote to go it alone, basically the English will decide the fate of the project and there is more chance of an out vote then.

 

Great post and one I totally agree with. They will ensure there is a yes vote and then use it as an excuse for further integration for another generation.

Edited 23 January, 2013 by hypochondriac

[Colinjb]

I think having a vote on it is the right thing to do. Times are different now from when they last had a vote.

 

However I think Cameron using it as a blackmail tool will seriously backfire against him and the torries. He promised it before the last election and didn't honor it so why would he do so next time? He will get another term and then find a way to back out of it, then dangle it in front of the people once more at the following election.

 

If Labour had any balls (not that one) they would come out and say they will offer the vote within 12 months of being in power and Conservatives would then be in deep ****.

 

Sooner this guy is gone the better

 

He couldn't honour it due to being in Coalition.

 

It was one of the compromises made to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

Edited 23 January, 2013 by Colinjb

[St Marco]

He couldn't honour it due to being in Coalition.

 

It was one of the compromises made to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

 

But you see my point. You can't offer something you can only offer if certain conditions are met. What is to say the same thing happens next time and they have to have Lib Dems to get into power again? Obviously they wouldn't want the vote so again it would be scrapped. Those who voted Conservative might have only done so based on getting the EU vote. This is what angers me about politics today. They just make up a whole list of stuff to offer to the people that sounds great and then won't do any of it when they get in power. There needs to be a better way to hold these people accountable.

[trousers]

But you see my point. You can't offer something you can only offer if certain conditions are met. What is to say the same thing happens next time and they have to have Lib Dems to get into power again? Obviously they wouldn't want the vote so again it would be scrapped. Those who voted Conservative might have only done so based on getting the EU vote. This is what angers me about politics today. They just make up a whole list of stuff to offer to the people that sounds great and then won't do any of it when they get in power. There needs to be a better way to hold these people accountable.

 

A manifesto is a list of aspirations should you get into power with an overall majority. A manifesto is never a commitment to deliver, especially when the outcome results on a coalition. Something those accusing Clegg of 'breaking' a pledge (aspiration) on tuition feed should have drummed into them.

[Colinjb]

But you see my point. You can't offer something you can only offer if certain conditions are met. What is to say the same thing happens next time and they have to have Lib Dems to get into power again? Obviously they wouldn't want the vote so again it would be scrapped. Those who voted Conservative might have only done so based on getting the EU vote. This is what angers me about politics today. They just make up a whole list of stuff to offer to the people that sounds great and then won't do any of it when they get in power. There needs to be a better way to hold these people accountable.

 

I understand what you mean, but equally it's a quirk of our political system that any party can say what they will do in the manifesto, yet it will only be do-able if they rule in majority government. And as past elections have shown, any party that gets into power can go back on the manifesto after they finally get a chance to see the 'state of play.' Any manifesto from a point of opposition will only ever be at best educated guesses on what could be achieved.

 

They cannot say what they will do if they need to go into Coalition because they will never be able to certainly predict the proportion of influence they will hold within a government formed in that way. This will devastate the Liberal Democrats in the next election after the farce over raised tuition fees, despite the fact that for the first time in recent history a liberal party has had chance to influence any kind of policy..... just on a minority basis.

 

It's a problem with the rules for me, not the players.

[Lord Duckhunter]

He couldn't honour it due to being in Coalition.

 

It was one of the compromises made to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

 

The Lib/dems had exactly the same commitment as the Torys, their manifesto said "The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU".

 

The Torys never promised a straight in/out vote. Cameron's "cast iron guarantee" was a con job, it was over the Lisbon treaty, which as he knew full well would already implemented when he came to power.

 

Both parties wanted the public to think they'd promised an in/out vote but in reality they promised a vote only after another treaty change, knowing full well there wont be a treaty for a number of years. The project will pause to take breath, slow down and then sneak another treaty through, when it's politically expedient to do so.

[Colinjb]

The Lib/dems had exactly the same commitment as the Torys, their manifesto said "The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU".

 

The Torys never promised a straight in/out vote. Cameron's "cast iron guarantee" was a con job, it was over the Lisbon treaty, which as he knew full well would already implemented when he came to power.

 

Both parties wanted the public to think they'd promised an in/out vote but in reality they promised a vote only after another treaty change, knowing full well there wont be a treaty for a number of years. The project will pause to take breath, slow down and then sneak another treaty through, when it's politically expedient to do so.

 

Interesting.

[bridge too far]

The Lib/dems had exactly the same commitment as the Torys, their manifesto said "The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU".

 

The Torys never promised a straight in/out vote. Cameron's "cast iron guarantee" was a con job, it was over the Lisbon treaty, which as he knew full well would already implemented when he came to power.

 

Both parties wanted the public to think they'd promised an in/out vote but in reality they promised a vote only after another treaty change, knowing full well there wont be a treaty for a number of years. The project will pause to take breath, slow down and then sneak another treaty through, when it's politically expedient to do so.

 

And he voted with the then government against a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

[JustMike]

...but not until 2017! what a load of ****e. grow a pair and do it now!

[Thedelldays]

...but not until 2017! what a load of ****e. grow a pair and do it now!

cant...clegg and co wont have it

[pap]

No one in the establishment will have it, as Lord D points out.

 

We've already had the US voice stern disapproval about our exit. The referendum will have a good chance of happening if the Tories win a majority, but no chance of actually succeeding. It's going ahead for the same reason the AV referendum was held. Put it out there, get it defeated and kick it into the long grass for another 40 years.

 

This has been an ongoing issue since Maastricht. We have had numerous Parliaments headed by governments of different colours in that time. None has properly addressed the demand for an EU referendum.

 

So now you have one. The only catch is that the Conservatives have to win the next General Election, and the referendum will most likely be rigged, even if the vote count is 100% correct. The powers that be don't want this, so you can't have this.

[Thedelldays]

see tony blair is having a pop at UKIP and their pressure for bringing this yes/no thing about......

 

I hate that man

[Viking Warrior]

There arguments for and against a referendum on Europe. I do believe there should be change, A lot of our customs and practices have changed not for the better due to euro politician decisions. I know not directly related but we do need to look at certain laws. ECHR rulings etc. Perhaps Cameron and Clegg will get on with setting out a UK Bill of Rights like Germanys Bill of Rights instead of relying on some of the decisions and precedents set by the ECHR.

 

What will be important if and when this happens is what the actual question/s will be.

Even Uncle Salmond has not got a clue about his question, if he has hes not saying anything and the Independance Referendum is next year.

[Viking Warrior]

I detest Blair but not for the yes / no thing but his decision to go to war in iraq. and making millions of pounds becuase he thinks hes some magical conference speaker. Since he has been a peace ambassador , there have been to many conflicts breaking out and I dont see any evidence of him achieving peace.

[pap]

I detest Blair but not for the yes / no thing but his decision to go to war in iraq. and making millions of pounds becuase he thinks hes some magical conference speaker. Since he has been a peace ambassador , there have been to many conflicts breaking out and I dont see any evidence of him achieving peace.

 

On one level, I really like Blair being a Middle East Peace ambassador. Has a real Ministry of Love feel about it.

[bridge too far]

There arguments for and against a referendum on Europe. I do believe there should be change, A lot of our customs and practices have changed not for the better due to euro politician decisions. I know not directly related but we do need to look at certain laws. ECHR rulings etc. Perhaps Cameron and Clegg will get on with setting out a UK Bill of Rights like Germanys Bill of Rights instead of relying on some of the decisions and precedents set by the ECHR.

 

What will be important if and when this happens is what the actual question/s will be.

Even Uncle Salmond has not got a clue about his question, if he has hes not saying anything and the Independance Referendum is next year.

 

I think this has been pointed out many times before - the ECHR is absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It is a sound strategy. Whatever anyone says now the Europeans need us. A trade war would end up with them worse off, we buy far more from them than they buy from us. Germany will be desperate to keep us in because we subsidise the whole project. Do they really want to lose us and be left with a lot of other countries that are effectively insolvent or who have underdeveloped economies. They have no option but to compromise.

[solentstars]

I think this has been pointed out many times before - the ECHR is absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

 

I think Viking is like alot of people very I'll informed about Europe and the echr needs to read up about history of echr..

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[solentstars]

It is a sound strategy. Whatever anyone says now the Europeans need us. A trade war would end up with them worse off, we buy far more from them than they buy from us. Germany will be desperate to keep us in because we subsidise the whole project. Do they really want to lose us and be left with a lot of other countries that are effectively insolvent or who have underdeveloped economies. They have no option but to compromise.

 

How do you know that or are you just making that up.glad your not in charge of policy making. So we subsidise the whole project is cloud cuckoo talk.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Thedelldays]

How do you know that or are you just making that up.glad your not in charge of policy making. So we subsidise the whole project is cloud cuckoo talk.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I remember ages ago that you (with BTF) were very pro euro and joining it.....that says it all where you stand.....

[bridge too far]

I remember ages ago that you (with BTF) were very pro euro and joining it.....that says it all where you stand.....

 

I can't speak for Solentstars obviously, but my view has always been that, had the conditions been right, then yes we should join. Those conditions were Gordon Brown's 5 Economic Tests.

 

He judged that the conditions weren't right and they're still not right.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

How do you know that or are you just making that up.glad your not in charge of policy making. So we subsidise the whole project is cloud cuckoo talk.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

Not really, look up the figures for yourself.

 

My interpreation of subsidising the project is that we pay more in than we get out - and yours?

[Viking Warrior]

Not ill informed bridge and co . I'm totally aware what ECHR is all about . I have to deal with much of the legislation that comes from there especially impact of employment legislation . They can give a ruling on say an employment issue in Spain . And then ultimately it sets the precedent in the uk. I would much prefer a uk bill of rights that enshrines the core HRA issues . Not interpretations given by the ECHR . I voted no first time round . Yes the EEC has been very beneficial . Degaulle said no to us entering the then common market . My opposition to the European Parliament is that it is too beurocratic and the world and his wife can get jobs there with out trying look at the kinnock family .

[Barry Sanchez]

People arguing about yes or no are completely missing the point, being given the vote on anything is a good thing.

[ecuk268]

Not really, look up the figures for yourself.

 

My interpreation of subsidising the project is that we pay more in than we get out - and yours?

 

Our net contribution is approx 50 billion Euros.

 

6 other states have higher net payments than the UK including Germany, France and Italy.

 

As a percentage of our Gross National Income, we pay the least of all countries.

[solentstars]

Our net contribution is approx 50 billion Euros.

 

6 other states have higher net payments than the UK including Germany, France and Italy.

 

Don't think he understand maths according to his post we pay the whole lot and more than Germany.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Barry Sanchez]

We are one of the few net contributers, thats the key point of the money, we put more in than we get out.

[ecuk268]

Don't think he understand maths according to his post we pay the whole lot and more than Germany.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

I think that my maths is better than yours as is my English.

 

I said that Germany, Italy and France pay higher net contributions than the UK so how did you interpret that to mean we pay more than Germany.

[ecuk268]

We are one of the few net contributers, thats the key point of the money, we put more in than we get out.

 

11 out of the 27 states are net contributors.

[solentstars]

I think that my maths is better than yours as is my English.

 

I said that Germany, Italy and France pay higher net contributions than the UK so how did you interpret that to mean we pay more than Germany.

 

Sorry I was commenting on sergios so called comments and maths not yours:)

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[ecuk268]

Sorry I was commenting on sergios so called comments and maths not yours:)

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

My apologies.

[Barry Sanchez]

11 out of the 27 states are net contributors.

 

How many are large net contributers I should of put, how many Countries get less than they put in?

[bridge too far]

How many are large net contributers I should of put, how many Countries get less than they put in?

 

This might answer your question. The tables can be queried on a number of criteria

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

[ecuk268]

How many are large net contributers I should of put, how many Countries get less than they put in?

 

Well, if 11 out of 27 are net contributors, that must mean that the other 16 are net beneficiaries.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Our net contribution is approx 50 billion Euros.

 

6 other states have higher net payments than the UK including Germany, France and Italy.

 

As a percentage of our Gross National Income, we pay the least of all countries.

 

It depends on your source but I would hazard a bet with you that we were the third biggest net contributor. Do you want to go onto Bailouts?

 

My point is that we subsidise this project and the EU will not want us to leave. Ask yourself;

 

 

Will they be out of pocket if we leave?

 

Do we buy more from them than they buy from us?

 

They will have to compromise or upset the British Public and risk losing any referendum. That is a sound strategy.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

This might answer your question. The tables can be queried on a number of criteria

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

 

Umm those numbers are based on 2007 figures. As it happens seeing as noone will ever sign off their budget I am reluctant to trust any figures coming out of Brussels.

[bridge too far]

Umm those numbers are based on 2007 figures. As it happens seeing as noone will ever sign off their budget I am reluctant to trust any figures coming out of Brussels.

 

Edit

 

Now I can see it says 2007! However, this is a bit more up to date

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#The_EU_budget_for_2014-2020

Edited 23 January, 2013 by bridge too far

[Barry Sanchez]

Well, if 11 out of 27 are net contributors, that must mean that the other 16 are net beneficiaries.

 

Large I said, I would imagine the largest contributers would be Italy, Germany, France and the UK, what do we get out of Europe that Switzerland does not?

[aintforever]

All the parties have promised a referendum and not delivered, why is this any different?

 

It's just the Tories way of getting re-elected.

[bridge too far]

All the parties have promised a referendum and not delivered, why is this any different?

 

It's just the Tories way of trying to be getting re-elected.

 

Edited for you

[mightysaints]

Out

[pap]

All the parties have promised a referendum and not delivered, why is this any different?

 

It's just the Tories way of getting re-elected.

 

Which on overall performance, they have no business doing.