The British EU Referendum: In or Out

[removeduser_487563287433]

Creating a more Scottish referendum style thread to discuss this over the coming years.

As the Conservatives have faced increased (but far from catastrophic) bleeding from UKIP and perennial grumbles from their own back-bench-dinosaurs an in/out EU referendum has been a feature of Conservative manifestos for the past three or four general elections. But the Conservatives, an essentially pro-EU (at leadership level) Parliamentary Party has never enacted this until now out of virtue of either being thrashed by Labour (nobody gave a shite about Howard's Save the Pound transparent fear-mongering), not winning a full majority, or basically just kicking the can down the road (no Government launches a referendum they think they're going to lose unless they've already lost a war or otherwise have no choice).

The landscape is now changed. Cameron now leads the first Conservative majority Government in 18 years, and has left Britain's first post-war coalition Government. His backbenchers now expect Conservative representation, and the worst of it: Europhobia barely veiled as euroscepticism. There's no escaping this, Cameron's majority is so slim any half hearted revolt could end his Premiership. On the popular front UKIP grew its vote in the polls, but utterly failed to make any break through. Winning their first, but only, general election seat, and running a campaign that turned off as many people as it won with frequent "gaffes" that ranged all over the racist, sexist and general Little England spectrum. Most importantly UKIP hurt Labour as much as they hurt the Conservatives and that gave the Tories enough of an edge.

And most importantly: we have record popular support for the UK staying in the EU last month:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/24...m-record-lead/

The campaign is already gearing up rapidly, although no date has been confirmed. Cameron has just completed a flash tour of the key EU capitals - Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin and Warsaw. Germany and the Netherlands are typical allies for the UK within the EU, much more open to free-market operations and cutting regulation, Poland is the EU's growing power, with strong links to the UK but will oppose any capping of abolition of migrant benefits, and Paris - a common dissenting voice against the UK in the EU, and the main opponent of the UK's rebate and beneficiary of the EU's CAP, but an unavoidable power if the UK wants the reforms it is seeking. And... so far, so good. Merkel surprised Europe by saying "when there is a desire, there is a way".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32925582

If Cameron can go to Europe and return with meaningful reform, that is fortifying what is already a surprisingly strong position for the pro-EU UK campaign.

The great and the good are already weighing in. Boris, Cameron's rival in waiting, has said the UK must be ready to leave the EU (and is muddying the waters by being pro-EU, clearly jostling for position in the end result, whatever it is), Junker, European Commission Chief, in a display of stunning ignorance of UK sentiment, politics and sheer unhelpfulness has said that the UK will vote to stay and that Cameron is using the referendum to tie the UK permanently to Europe. Norway's foreign minister, a country not in the EU but one that passes all EU legislation (that it has zero say on) anyway, in order to access the free market, has said that the UK should stay in order to maintain its influence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-Juncker.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32957134
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32967582

Personally, I am pro-EU membership for the UK. It would be foolish to say that we do not live in a world that is globalising and it is essential that the UK does not stagnate or revert to reactionism. To date - I personally haven't seen a strong enough argument for leaving the EU that would offset us losing access to the common market, losing the strength internationally from being a part of that market of 500 million people, losing the influence over EU legislation that we, like Norway, would have to adopt anyway to access that common market, losing our travel and work benefits in the entire continent, and potentially losing thousands of jobs and businesses - Hyundai and Goldman Sachs, massive UK employers, have both already stated they would consider removing their organisations from the UK.

[Kraut and Tea]

I mentioned before that there is alot of German buisness in the UK. If you want alist you can look here:

http://www.bccg.de/members

This is an organisation of cooperation to ensure a fluent and efficiant market between the UK and Germany. You will notice that almoust all buisnesses listed are German buisnesses in the UK. The only exception really is the list of banks and financial services where there is a list of banks that operate in Germany. So Britain leaving the EU could have the effect of various different buisnesses from BMW to Bosch packing up and leaving for places like Romania. Take for example BMW, it is in the UK for building the mini for which it bought the licenses after the collapse and privatisation of the UK car industry. There are no "essential" machine parts that are produced only in the UK and therefor having the mini made in a country like Romania could be more efficiant through the available cheap labour and that governments willingness to bring in new investment.
But German foreign policy is "We dont care who you are, where you are and what you do as long as you buy our cars". So it doesnt depend on what the Germans say. The Germans wont care if the UK is outside or inside of the EU as long as the buisness can continue. So it`s the French, who might see the non-EU UK as nothing but a big tax heaven and US airbase, or the Poles, who might see the non-EU UK as a xenophobic and uncooperative nation of ... (what is phobia of slavic peoples called?), who could block UK access to the comon market and impose tolls and custom tariffs.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I mentioned before that there is alot of German buisness in the UK. If you want alist you can look here:

http://www.bccg.de/members

This is an organisation of cooperation to ensure a fluent and efficiant market between the UK and Germany. You will notice that almoust all buisnesses listed are German buisnesses in the UK. The only exception really is the list of banks and financial services where there is a list of banks that operate in Germany. So Britain leaving the EU could have the effect of various different buisnesses from BMW to Bosch packing up and leaving for places like Romania. Take for example BMW, it is in the UK for building the mini for which it bought the licenses after the collapse and privatisation of the UK car industry. There are no "essential" machine parts that are produced only in the UK and therefor having the mini made in a country like Romania could be more efficiant through the available cheap labour and that governments willingness to bring in new investment.
But German foreign policy is "We dont care who you are, where you are and what you do as long as you buy our cars". So it doesnt depend on what the Germans say. The Germans wont care if the UK is outside or inside of the EU as long as the buisness can continue. So it`s the French, who might see the non-EU UK as nothing but a big tax heaven and US airbase, or the Poles, who might see the non-EU UK as a xenophobic and uncooperative nation of ... (what is phobia of slavic peoples called?), who could block UK access to the comon market and impose tolls and custom tariffs.

This is directly contradictory to what Merkel has just said - that Germany wants the UK in the EU and is willing to reform the EU in order to keep the UK in it.

[DaniCatBurger]

The Norwegian argument seems right regarding the implications.* Yet, it is possitive to have a referendum, too, because it strengthen legitimacy.


*If you leave, you lose influence on the Union. If you stay, you can take part to shape the Union.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The Norwegian argument seems right regarding the implications.* Yet, it is possitive to have a referendum, too, because it strengthen legitimacy.


*If you leave, you lose influence on the Union. If you stay, you can take part to shape the Union.

Holding a referendum does not strengthen sovereignty of the UK, it asserts it. Under political theory sovereignty is indivisible and this is one of its defining characteristics.

[DaniCatBurger]

Holding a referendum does not strengthen sovereignty of the UK, it asserts it. Under political theory sovereignty is indivisible and this is one of its defining characteristics.

It's not UK's sovereignty that is strengthened but the legitimacy of the British standpoint in negotiations.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's not UK's sovereignty that is strengthened but the legitimacy of the British standpoint in negotiations.

How? If the UK votes to leave negotiations are over. If it votes to stay then it is assenting to what has already been agreed in negotiations.

Not sure you are fully aware of what you are talking about.

[DaniCatBurger]

If UK leaves, it will probably seek to regulate its relation with the EU in some way. The British government will then be able to say, the base of our relation to EU is the result of a referendum. On the other hand if UK remains within EU, the British government can say, our policy within the EU and in relation to it has a majority of the nation behind.

[removeduser_487563287433]

If UK leaves, it will probably seek to regulate its relation with the EU in some way. The British government will then be able to say, the base of our relation to EU is the result of a referendum. On the other hand if UK remains within EU, the British government can say, our policy within the EU and in relation to it has a majority of the nation behind.

Well, you vaguely know what a referendum is at least.

[alhoon]

Crap, I voted wrong...
I voted as "rest of the world" while I am (still) in the EU.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh well, at least your vote will be accurate when this referendum happens.

[Alastor]

I am all for further European integration. I want a EU that is strong and unified. Having the UK in the EU certainly makes it stronger. But more unified? I feel that the UK is acting towards the opposite direction. The impression I'm getting is that the UK is a disruptive force inside the EU, their goals not aligning with my vision in the least. Not to mention that I am getting increasingly irritated by what I perceive as a childish and self-centered attitude, the rather recent complaints about the Polish immigrants for instance.

In other words, judging from the UK's behaviour, as I perceive it, I should vote Out. But ideologically speaking I couldn't vote anything but In. So, for now, I will abstain.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I am all for further European integration. I want a EU that is strong and unified. Having the UK in the EU certainly makes it stronger. But more unified? I feel that the UK is acting towards the opposite direction. The impression I'm getting is that the UK is a disruptive force inside the EU, their goals not aligning with my vision in the least. Not to mention that I am getting increasingly irritated by what I perceive as a childish and self-centered attitude, the rather recent complaints about the Polish immigrants for instance.

So you're probably not aware that when Poland entered the EU, the UK was one of the only EU states allowed Polish people free movement and freedom to work. Germany and France in fact put massive restrictions on access to their own labour markets to Poles. The consequence was that the UK received about 10 times as many Polish (and other migrants from the 2004 enlargement) as was expected.

Given the fact that the UK sentiment to EU migration is partly due to other EU states not practicing what they preach on freedom of movement and work - do you still feel the UK's attitude to this and desire for reform is unreasonable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_en...ovement_issues

[Bethrezen]

I'm for UK in for many reasons.

I also voted wrong: "I'm from Rest of the World: In"
It's like I don't really feel part of the EU. I wonder why...

[Alastor]

@Ferrets
First of all that was 11 years ago. I'm obviously talking about more recent times. Nevertheless the UK is and will remain a prime migration target for two simple reasons. A)They have an extensive services industry, B)their language is English. In other words with or without initial restrictions(for the standard 2 years) the UK would certainly receive a lot of migrants. Even where I live now lots of (very skilled) foreigners, think of re-emigrating to the UK because of the language.

Now regarding "not practicing what they preach" you mean exactly what? The initial restrictions? Nobody told the UK not to do the same. But after those initial restrictions have expired then that is it.

[Vilkas09]

Both hands out. And I hope they will send all these poles back to Poland where they belong.

[removeduser_487563287433]

@Ferrets
First of all that was 11 years ago. I'm obviously talking about more recent times.

Then you're going to have to be more specific - the 2004 enlargement is beyond anything the most responsible thing for UK views on Polish migrants (which it has to be said aren't especially negative). So if you're talking about something more recent - exactly what the Hell are you talking about?

Nevertheless the UK is and will remain a prime migration target for two simple reasons. A)They have an extensive services industry, B)their language is English. In other words with or without initial restrictions(for the standard 2 years) the UK would certainly receive a lot of migrants. Even where I live now lots of (very skilled) foreigners, think of re-emigrating to the UK because of the language.

Totally, 100% agreed. I personally feel that leaving the EU will not restrict migration a huge deal, and if we actually attempted to we would damage the economy. It is demonstrable that migrants to the EU provide more revenue than they take out to the tune of billions. It is also demonstrable that EU migrants are more productive than those from the rest of the world. Finally we have the example of Norway that experiences more migration per capita than the UK despite being outside the EU. We also have the absolute horror story example of Japan, where they do massively restrict migration, have a similarly aging native population, and as a consequence of their ballooning pension and medical costs have a deficit/debt of 200% GDP (totally off the top of my head figures).

Now regarding "not practicing what they preach" you mean exactly what? The initial restrictions? Nobody told the UK not to do the same. But after those initial restrictions have expired then that is it.

Yes, the initial restrictions on freedom of movement and work, that Germany has defined (quite rightly) as one of its red lines. As I said, in reality, only Sweden and the UK actually followed this ideology upon the 2004 enlargement, which is why the UK received such an overwhelming amount of migrants at this time and this directly altered perceptions in the UK.

Now you're vaguely referring to something more recent I'd like you to clarify.

[Alastor]

Now you're vaguely referring to something more recent I'd like you to clarify.

I mentioned the Poles because of news pieces such as this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493

Its like you said, EU migrants are a boon to the UK's economy. All the evidence I've seen point to that. Why then all this furor about trying to limit their welfare access, when they are paying taxes towards it, and in the end limit EU-immigration in general? Its this attitude that I find rather irritating.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I mentioned the Poles because of news pieces such as this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493

Its like you said, EU migrants are a boon to the UK's economy. All the evidence I've seen point to that. Why then all this furor about trying to limit their welfare access, when they are paying taxes towards it, and in the end limit EU-immigration in general? Its this attitude that I find rather irritating.

I think you're not seeing the forest because of the trees. In the UK, but I would say this applies everywhere, there's an understanding that you should only really draw benefits if you've put into them your life. That's reasonable on a common sense pub landlord level. There is a sense that if you're coming to the UK you should be an economic contributor to the country. I think that's also reasonable (with some fair exceptions - asylum, for example, or children). We also know that overall immigrants are massive contributors to UK HMRC.

There is also a completely unreasonable, completely baseless idea that is nonetheless massively inflamed by papers such as the Daily Mail that people migrate to the UK to not work and live of benefits. There's nothing to support this idea, but the Daily Mail is able to find individual horror stories here and there, and the Daily Mail is the paper of choice for a whole load of Tory backbench constituencies, bringing me back to my opening post. These perceptions exist, whether you like it or not, and Cameron is obliged to respond if the UK is to have a high chance of staying in the EU.

So really - Cameron's not asking for a huge amount here. The benefits curbs proposed are reasonable within the context of expecting contributors to the UK - i.e. in work benefits, or benefits where supply is extremely limited - i.e. social housing, or claiming benefits for people not even in the UK.

None of this is explicitly aimed at the Polish, so why bring them up?

[Alastor]

@Ferrets,
I mentioned the Poles, because Cameron mentioned the Poles. As stated in the article I linked. BTW that these perceptions exist, doesn't mean that Cameron needs to bow to them. If anything, as you said, these perceptions are erroneous. Why then let them affect policy? Instead curb those perceptions. Then I will have less of an issue with the UK's attitude towards the EU as well.