A Plebiscite on the EU in the UK?

Do Norway and Switzerland enjoy a lower standard of living than the UK?

I don't think so.

I could be happy with a similar relationship that they have/enjoy with europe, and sit as a gateway state for the rest of world into europe.

I am also not entirely comfortable with the loss of self determination that being part of the EU has brought to the UK, but that is probably just me.

The second spin off question could be does the EU need the UK in it's gang?

Jono

I am no political expert, and there are obviously advantages and disadvantages to being part of the EU.

What I do strongly believe though is that Britain should have the right, through the normal processes of democracy, to determine what happens within these shores entirely on its own, without legally having to satisfy any stipulations made from outside. Outside advice or guidance is one thing and can be good, but I believe that Britain should have the exclusive right to govern itself. This is of course against the general spirit of the EU - but then nobody is claiming that the EU is a perfect system. On the other hand can Britain afford to isolate itself, and what implications would that have for our future?

Peter

Pjl2,

    How do you comments of self rule sit with the "great British empire" where parts of the world are controlled from Westminster?

The world is much smaller now, and the age of the global village is here and now.

European union is vital with such current migration and lifestyle patterns.

Britain cannot continue to sit on the fence

The UK is an accident of geography. Why should democracy be based on those borders?

It looks like the people of Scotland will get a vote and hopefully will choose independence.

The level of Naim ownership is lower here in Switzerland than in the UK. There is also more suicide. Coincidence?

BH,

    Suicide by burndy?

I'm very much in favor of a plebiscit. Either the people vote in favor or against the EU. In any case it's a clear decision then. I'm unnerved by the indecisiveness of the Brits and whether they want to be member of the EU or not, or better be the 51st state of the US or not, or supreme ruler of the Commonwealth or not.

I think UK's place is in Europe and the EU and if the british people vote in favor of the EU, it's fine by me. And I agree that not everything has to be dealt with in Brussels and the EU don't need an 8 percent budget increase either.

However, if not, there will not be much of a difference: Naim won't suddenly put lead and asbeste into their products if they want to sell them to the EU. And so like all other manufacturers on the british isles they will still have to comply to all EU laws plus yet-to-come special british laws like a union jack imprinted on every product.

What I don't know is if Scotland also wants to leave the EU. I could imagine some reasoning along the lines "Oh no, not alone with the Englishmen again!". If so they could leave the UK and take over some british seats in the EU in a single, elegant move.

KR

Jochen

What 'great British empire'? Is there still one?! I was under the impression that it crumbled many years ago.

I agree though that the world is indeed getting smaller and we must integrate ourselves properly. 'Properly' though is the operative word. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the notion of a committee located elsewhere making decisions that directly affect the everyday lives of people in Britain, and us having no say in it.

Some kind of union is desirable for sure, but to my mind each country must retain the right to ultimately govern itself and retain its identity. I'm not sure that Europe can successfully become a true 'global village' at present. It will get there, but there is much to develop and mature before that can become a reality IMO.

Peter

I disagree.  Migration cannot go on like it is,  OK if you've got a job arranged, fine.  But coming to another country as a "financial" migrant is not on.  The risk is so many people who have not made any contributions to this country arrive & take the benefits - & yes they do, NHS is at bursting point in some places & that is just one example.    

Please note I did not use the soft touch & des-res terms that UK obviously is,  & I also accept that many Brits go to EU,  but the vast majority do so to work in pre-arranged jobs or to retire in there own properties & living off UK bought pensions.

Final point is UK is not in the Euro & probably never will be, so how is it sitting on the fence. The Euro (IMO) is unsustainable & unless those in that group become completely integrated into a federal Europe system it will never work.  

Those not wishing to do that, UK, Norway, Switzerland  now it seems Sweden & Czech are also thinking the same way,  it is perfectly feasible to set up an officially recognized satellite group, as the European Common Market was intended to be. 

Mike,

   Agree on the benefits front. If the people have not worked and contributes to the state, they should not gain from the benefits

My problem with nearly all referendums (?referenda) is that they are conducted on the basis of uninformed choice.

I regard myself as reasonably long in the took and politically well briefed - but I personally really have no idea on whether we would be better off in or out of the EU.  It is really a very complicated area.

The alternatives, e.g. whether, if we leave, we would inevitably be even more under the sway of a very politically dysfunctional country (I refer to the USA of course) need contemplation.  For this reason alone I would rather be one of the united states of Europe than a further state of America. But I do not understand the fuller long term economic implications of staying in.

In all these matters - as the politicians know to well - simply asking the people what they want to do by a simple act of apparent democracy is very unreliable.

What we really need is what we seek in other areas of our lives, e.g. surgery.    We employ knowledgeable, reliable, honest specialists who get on with the job and know what they are doing.

It is a shame there are so few consistent and reliable people in Westminster of any political persuasion.

Don  slightly sunny downtown York.

Referendums. Referendums. Referendums.

And Forums. Forums. Forums. Not Fecking "Fora". Which is just an ill-educated - and recent - affectation.

These words passed into English generations ago and their plurals were/are/should be similarly anglicised. In fact "fora" to a Roman would be like saying "sheeps", it's just wrong. 

If people don't pay insurance premia, then they should stop trying to show off that they 'know' that Latin words ending '-um' were made plural with '-a'. Maybe they were, but unless we stole their plurals as well (generally words like 'data', which are more useful as plurals in the first place), then in English, they're not.

Rant over.

Agree with Don that asking the public to make a decision without knowing all the details or consequences is as likely to produce a 'wrong' result as asking a jury to give a verdict based only on the defendant's name, skin colour, and dress-sense.

I agree very strongly with this. The problem is that if Britain, or any other country for that matter, allows people in to live there that have not got pre-arranged jobs, then that country is in effect agreeing to support those people until they can get employment. They will gain from the benefits system without having made any contribution whatsoever. Very unfair IMO, and a substantial drain on the economy. The alternative of course is to impose much stricter conditions on immigration. For some reason, in the case of Britain at least, this seems to be unthinkable. All are welcome, no matter what. Very humanitarian no doubt, but what of the impact on those already living here? This seems to me to elude the polititions.

Peter

I think Don puts his finger on the key issue here.  

The substance of the UK's membership of the EU has become progressively more complicated and wide-ranging since accession in 1974.  The biggest expansion was probably completion of the Single Market in 1992,  and rather curiously that was a decision taken by the very Euro-sceptic Margaret Thatcher.   Professionally, I have had quite a bit of experience of dealing with EU institutions in past years so I'm probably better informed than the majority of people who will be asked to vote yet even I find the issues involved very complex and many arguments finely balanced. 

I can't help but feel that the PM's commitment to a referendum no later than 2017 has a strong flavour of domestic political opportunism because of difficulty it creates for both the Opposition and Coalition parters.  I'm struggling to see how this commitment represents the best interests of the UK.  Explaining the arguments in sufficiently simple terms for the average voter to make an informed judgement about whether the UK should be in or out will be immensely difficult.  It seems to me far more likely that for the majority of the populace the battle for hearts and minds will be played out in the popular Press, a prospect that I find depressing when I think about the likely French/German/foreigner-bashing rhetoric that is usually spewed out by the Daily Mail and Sun. I fear the decision will be made on the most simplistic of arguments or even prejudices, and those arguments naturally point to an 'Out' vote. But the UK is not like Norway or Switzerland and never will be so the comparisons to those countries are valueless. Nor can we ever go back to the 'days of empire' and it would be irresponsible of any newspaper or politician to imply that we can (even if it improves circulation figures or votes).  This referendum, if it ever happens, will be a real test of the maturity of the UK's political and corporate leadership and the Press.  I sincerely hope they can rise to the challenge.   

MDS     

I have never been convinced that such issues should be put into the hands of experts to decide without reference to the general population. 

After all each expert has the perfect right to vote with equal weight with everyone else.

I am minded of an old saying my old electronics lecturer used to come out with in respect of The Expert - a former drip under pressure.

Going on how well the Experts come up with crazy ideas like the Euro, then I see no reason to weigh their opinions any more significant then those of The Man On The Clapham Omnibus.

If an expert wants to sway public opinion then he or she is free to make public statements which can be taken or left as their persuasiveness demands ...

As it is I am fairly sure that the EU would be rejected today, and for very good reason. Ever closer political union does not have a very popular appeal. If the other members of the EU want us to remain in - which I happen to believe would be a good thing myself - they are going to have to accommodate us quite a lot, and the Chancellor of Germany seems already to concede this. 

As for this being a political stunt. Well if it is then it will back-fire on the man behind it, but with luck a genuine and thorough debate will ensue, and this will strengthen our hand in Europe  The basis of the European Union should be that it is never possible to start another War in Europe, and as such the best basis is that of Trade. I am all for a European Common Market between diverse states, whose internal political and monetary business remains theirs, and not that of some faceless bureaucracy in Brussels.

Industrial standards and so forth are obviously the underpinning of such a Trade arrangement, and indeed these apply to Norway and Switzerland because these two Nations make the greater part of their Trade with the EU. But they have the usual autonomy to create their own Laws where in domestic, and other ways, entirely free of Brussels. And good for them on that.

If the UK electorate were vote to leave the EU in the proposed plebiscite, then no doubt we would get what most expect that the Government will negotiate from our partners in the EU, or else they general population will reject it, and we shall be free of it anyway. Our partners are on notice that things cannot go on just as they have for the last forty years, over-riding what the UK wants and needs. 

ATB from George

Apparently Tina Turner thinks it's a good place...she is dumping her American citizenship in exchange for Swiss.

Which makes the one billionth instance where she is smarter than Michelle Bachman, who bowing to BS nationalistic (veiled as "patriotic" - what hogwash) public and media pressure ditched her Swiss passport, which is one of the very best travel documents you can have.  Of course someone as insipid as she is gave up the dual citizenship - if she had any brains (which she has aptly demonstrated on numerous occasions that she is lacking) she would have told the uninformed "Clovers" to go jump in the lake.

Back to Tina - I applaud her move; she has shown the ability to get rid of the negatives from her life; first Ike, now Uncle Sam.  Rock on, Tina!

Hello George

from your 1st post on this subject you appear to be an honest,level headed sort of person(thats 2 beers you owe me) To me however things are nearly always Black or White with very little middle ground.

As far as the EU goes i would like us out,first thing in the morning would be nice.

Dave C in my opinion is one of the best PMs we have had for a long time. On the other hand George(give me a hot pasty) Osborne is a total plank.

I do not wish to support the likes of Greece etc.

Within 18 months the floodgates are about to open to god knows how many Eastern Europeans into Great Britain,the vast majority of which will go strait on the Rock n Roll.

The EU is a gravy train for those running it and for the dross that have been allowed to join.

Some of these 3rd world countries that are now in the EU remind me of the guy who goes to a bottle party,takes along 2 cans of Light Ale,then start drinking the hosts Brandy all nite.

Mista h

-1

This has been a fascinating read for me.

Really it shows a case for mass participation in the plebiscite! Each of us has an equal voice, and that is good!

ATB from George

I owe you a response, George, and let me begin by saying that I agree with much of your argument here which is both logical and principled.  

But, if I may, let me describe what I see as the likely expectations of the various parties involved, namely a conservative UK government, the rest of the EU, and the ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’, as you put it, who will be casting their vote.

The other governments and the EU Commission will not want the UK to leave the EU because, for example:

• the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget and so its leaving would be costly
• the UK is a very large economy and is a net importer of goods within the EU
• the UK makes a very significant contribution to the administration of the EU through its skills in law-making, administration and conducting foreign affairs (the UK is very well respected for its professionalism in these fields) 
• the UK relationship with the USA is something OMS will want within the EU, not outside, 
• similarly the UK's position as a permanent member of the security council of the UN gives the EU more 'clout' than it would otherwise have  
• most OMS governments and the EU commission fear plebiscites because they often give the result they don't want and the UK having one will likely create pressure in OMS to have one too (do you think the German people would vote to retain the Euro?)

So there will be some willingness to compromise.

However, while the PM has been careful to avoid describing the concessions he is seeking, I think it likely to be in three areas (a) the social chapter (b) free movement of people (ie immigration) and (c) freedom to continue to have a light-touch regulatory regime on the city (ie the banks).  

On (a) it is fairly common knowledge that many members of the Conservative party would like to trim back on the Working Time Directive; minimum wage; rights to sick, maternity, and paternity pay; the protection for accrued pension rights; protection from unjust dismissal etc; and reducing the burden on employers in such areas as health & safety.  All in the name of making the UK more competitive, of course.  I don’t really need to unpack the implications or motivations behind (b) or (c).  

Faced with UK demands for concessions in these areas other members states will be fearful that the UK will become a very low labour-cost economy and so create a large distortion in the workings of the single market  ie UK firms and exporters will be able to unfairly undercut their EU competitors. That is a very heavy price to pay to retain the positives I have outlined above and my guess is such concessions will not be given.

Meanwhile to what extent will the objectives of the man on Clapham omnibus align with their government’s objectives?  Well, my guess is that it will be on immigration only. The other areas of irritation for ‘Joe public’ are I suspect the long held perceptions of Brussels meddling in such things are metric measures, banning filament light bulbs etc.etc.  Our government will have no interest in pursuing those concession there, though it won’t stop some politicians playing to those fears in public. So I think the degree of alignment between the objectives of most voters and their government will be quite narrow. 

Moreover there might not be good transparency of that misalignment because it should be noted that the negotiations between the UK and the rest of the EU will take place wholly behind closed doors, with both sides briefing the media on progress.  So there’s plenty of room here for the man on the Clapham omnibus to be manipulated and duped into either accepting a renegotiated relationship with the EU which removes much protection they currently enjoy or (more likely) to be encouraged to vote for an exit when the UK government will have even more freedom to remove those rights.

I know this prognosis is gloomy and may came across as rather cynical.  It is certainly not intended to be a political statement (I know these views might be seen as those of a left-wing socialist and I can assure you I’m not) but I’m just fearful that this referendum will be dressed up as a great victory for democracy while the true motives of its architects are rather different.

MDS

Dear MDS, 

Thanks for your splendid post!

I agree with your assessment of the situation. Our partners in Europe have much to lose if we were not in, but may not want to move as far the British public hopes for, and so we may end up leaving in any case.

Britain has historically been a great trading nation, and the trade was never restricted to the European level alone. It may be that once again we broaden our horizons a bit. But I very much doubt that European trade would be too badly reduced if we left. If we have something to sell that Europeans want, then they will buy it, and no doubt we will continue to import from Europe as well. 

ATB from George

Yes, George. I agree that trade will go on for both parties. A free trade area was never a difficulty, though arguably the UK missed an opportunity many years ago to lead EFTA to a viable alternative to the original EU club, the latter always being more about political unity than just free trade.  But in so many other areas I think the UK and the rest of the EU will be poorer if we go our separate ways, even if it makes a few 'little-englanders' happy for a while.

Ah well, 2017 seems a long way off.

MDS  

Dear MDS,

I happen to think that the UK needs to moderate the EU rather than leave it. I suspect that I shall be mildly disappointed, as I have a gut feeling that we shall leave the Union, to the loss of the EU and the UK. But we shall all carry on in any case, whatever happens, and what happens should be a democratic rather than bureaucratic decision, IMO.

That is why I welcome the plebiscite.

I am half not UK in any case, though the other half is Norwegian, so I view this from a slightly different, and non-partisan perspective. If I lived in Norway, I would be part of the minority that still wants to be in the EU ...

What will be will be ...

ATB from George

 What ever happened to the common market, how did we get here?

To asnwer my own question, it looks like we were conned.

I don't like David Cameron and I consider him to be incompetent, arogant and untrustworthy. I'm not sure what he is up to with this referendum, (or the one for Scottish Independence), but it strikes me its an abdication of responsibility in the case of the EU.

If Scotland votes for independence, the government will have its hands full from 2015 onwards, trying to untangle the UK debt and assets between Scotland and the rest of the UK Union, nevermind trying to set out a clear and rational basis for renegotiating the constitution of the EU and setting out the facts so that the electorate can cast their 2017 EU vote knowingly and intelligently.

I can now see the posibility of Scotland desperately trying to join the EU whilst the rest of the UK is trying to leave. (*)

As others have indicatd above, the politicians and the press will focus on emotional issues, with the repective short term aims of staying in power and selling newspapers. If anybody thinks there will be a well presented, clear-cut case, for staying within Europe or leaving, they are sadly mistaken IMHO. For this reason I don't consider there to be a good case for a referendum, and I really do wonder what Cameron is up to.

Cheers

Don

(*) Its a possibility, but unlikely IMHO. Too many Scots that I know do not support Salmond and his desire for an independent Scotland.

Then will those Scots come over to England in the event of an independent Scotland? It could be to a ScotlandLite somewhere down below, or two new split nations: North Scotland (independent) and South Scotland (still with the U.K)