Well the first point is you don't need a referendum in the UK to do this bit "..."to seek changes for the good of the whole EU.." do you.

As it's our governments job to protect our interests just what is it he thinks is against our interest in the EU at the moment that cold not be dealt with by "..seek(ing) changes for the good of the whole EU..."?

As to improving the UK's terms he hasn't said what he means so you seem to have a lot of blind faith in Cameron and his referendum.

We can however safely assume one of the key ones he and big business want to see is this one I mentioned earlier in the thread:

• A complete repatriation of social and employment laws such as the working time directive which imposes a 48-hour working week. Britain already has an opt-out from that aspect of the directive.

Now personally I feel the majority in this country are far better of due to EU social and employment laws and therefore what I would be being asked to vote on is this (in part):

Do I want to stay in the EU if Cameron can get those laws repatriated and makes it possible for my employer to demand I work long hours and have the ability to sack me on the spot?

Or, do I want to leave the EU if Cameron can't secure an opt out I am not in favour of?

That is apparently all that is on offer and if we leave they will rip up the social and employment laws anyway.

So at the moment as I see it I will be presented with two choices neither of of which I want to vote for.

And before anyone says abstain, abstentions don't count "for" anything and would not prevent one of the two options winning the vote.

So those who see a referendum as a very democratic way of doing things totally miss the point with this one. The nature of the questions likely to be asked make it extremely undemocratic for the reasons explained.

It will be like being asked would I like to be hanged or shot.

Therefore the only valid referendum on EU membership is a straight in/out one in the same way that Scotland has a straightforward question for remaining part of the UK.

Cameron won't go that route because he doesn't want us to leave and calculates his fudge will buy off enough voters for the UK to remain in, will give him a better chance to win the UK election in 2015 and will kick the can down the road as far as pacifying his Eurosceptic MP's goes.

He has proven a hostage to about 90 MP's and what we have ended up with is our parliamentary democracy being circumvented by that minority of MP's who see a chance to get their minority view enacted.

If they claim they represent a majority view of the people despite being a minority in parliament then what they should do is join UKIP and go to the polls in 2015 on an EU exit ticket not circumvent our democratic process by winning a referendum based on inadequate questions.

I'm sorry but just gainsaying what I post does not constitute a reasoned argument.
You could begin with a little bit of research, you could start with countries like Norway, Turkey or Switzerland.
You'll find very quickly that our economy is unlike that of any of these countries and that their positions vis-a-vis the EU could not be good for us, you'll find that Norway has had to implement various laws (e.g. Social and Employment, one of the areas that Cameron wants out of ... and also policing, another area that Cameron wants out of) and has adopted 75% of EU laws (some by choice, some because they simply had to) without the benefit of being able to vote on these laws to begin with.
Switzerland has had to negotiate more than a hundred individual bilateral agreements, spread over decades, to avoid various individual tariffs ... do we want to start our own all over again?
Again, Switzerland has to accept many laws in whose formulation they have no say and no vote.
Most importantly, Switzerland is not allowed to sell non-insurance financial services into the EU ... not a great idea for the UK whose fincial and services sector is huge. Switzerland is thinking of maybe adopting EU rules for its insurance services as a way of accessing EU markets. Oh, and by the way, Switzerland has paid about 4 bn Euros so far for the privilege plus it has built a railway through the Alps (15bn Euros), losing the money from road transport, because the EU wanted that connection through Switzerland.
Turkey isn't a great example, as it onbly exports goods and no services to the EU and has pragmatically accepted many EU demands in order to further its own bid for membership.... hence it is not a model for a UK leaving the EU.

There will not be a referendum because Cameron will not be PM in 2015.

Hopefully

If he goes into that election as the only party leader offering a referendum on the EU, with the largely rabidly anti-EU media banging away about it, I wouldn't bet against him TBH.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the electorate.

I think he will be PM after the election but will stand down / be removed to avoid the referendum. In my opinion, it's just a cynical ploy to stop the drift of supporters to UKIP, appease back-benchers and differentiate themselves from Labour.

No chance, if he wins the election, there will be no coup.


But I agree with that bit.

Same here.

Mind, it smacks of desperation, given that the next scheduled general election is more than two years away, to already be trying to bribe a portion of the electorate.

It's interesting seeing that business is split between those who see the long-term risks as outlined by yourself in this thread, whereas others are presumably so short-sighted that all they're thinking about is being able to exploit their workforce ever more.

One wonders if the latter are from the same group that begged Gideon to cut and cut and then cut some more, promising that they would create absolutely millions of new jobs.

Business is spolit on a self-interest basis. Big business likes it because more "red tape" prevents smaller businesses competing with them as small businesses do not have the staff, wealth or infra-structure to deal with compliance. Smaller buinesses (except those niche players who already have strong export business within the EU) don't like it for the same reason.

So you fully understand EU and non EU trading do you? mmm....

1. Consider that "90% of British exports would not face tariffs and even for those that do, average tariff levels are now generally low. They are charged only on trade in goods and not on services or income.

2. Our trade in goods is below 50% of our total trade and the cost of collecting these low tariffs on goods is more than the cost of tariff collected overall. Some notable sectors could in theory be subject to significant tariffs (eg. cars at around 8%) but reciprocal tariffs would damage EU exporters too, so the incentive for the mutual amelioration of tariffs is strong. This does however depend on negotiating a new positive relationship with the EU" which is what the PM is setting out to do.

Since the time we joined the EEC and after several General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) tariffs are now generally much lower. Many are negligible, or have been eliminated altogether. So today, customs unions are becoming less and less relevant. There are no substantial customs unions anywhere in the developed world except for the EU, which in global terms looks more and more anachronistic. It is interesting to note that neither ASEAN nor NAFTA are customs unions.



Honda recently announced it is making 800 redundancies at its Swindon plant. A Honda spokesman said, "sustained conditions of low demand in European markets make it necessary to realign Honda's business structure."

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have forecast business to remain flat in 2013. Paul Everitt, the chief executive of the SMM&T said "There are difficulties in Europe, there is no doubt about it. But the market in the UK has held up reasonably well."

In contrast to this position (the Single Market) then, one might look to Jaguar Land Rover, who only two days after the Honda announcement stated that they will be creating 800 new jobs at its factory in Solihull. Why? Because demand for its luxury vehicles from countries such as China, the US and Russia is now so strong, it needed to recruit those additional staff. So, irrespective of the UK’s car-buying activity – which seemed to perform well last year, at least – a focus on the Single Market means job losses; the orientation to the rest of the world means job creation.



Yes it is just scare stuff and none of it based on facts.

Consider: Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for a member state to withdraw from the EU, is explicit that “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

Such agreements must conform to the principles set out in Article 3(5) which includes “free and fair trade”. This is why Jacques Delors referred to “a free-trade agreement” as an option for a new UK-EU relationship in his comments in December.