El Barbudo wrote: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.

DaveO wrote: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.

Lord Elpers wrote:If you think that there are only about 90 MP's who have serious doubts about the EU then why are you so scared of a referendum?

You say the DC has not said what terms he wants to repatriate yet you make employment laws the central plank of your case against him! You have made your decision before hearing the evidence.

The PM has stated that there will be a straight In or Out vote in the referendum which is what you say "is the only valid referendum".......so what's the problem?

A referendum gives the British people the final say on what is such an important decision. If you are so confident that everyone is happy with the EU then why have so little faith in democracy.

SmokeyTA wrote:Maybe we will have one next on the legalisation of drugs. Im sure the conservatives and the right wing press will be in favour of that.

Lord Elpers wrote:So you fully understand EU and non EU trading do you?

Kosh wrote: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.

Sal Paradise wrote:You will still get a referendum on Europe.

Sal Paradise wrote:... nothing Labour did towards the end of last their term suggests they will be any better ...

Mintball wrote:Look, I am not the greatest fan of Labour by a very long chalk, but what are you on about?

By 2010, unemployment had stabilised – and there was growth in the economy.

Under the circumstances caused by the 2008 global financial crisis, which was not caused by the UK government of the day, what do you think would have been so much better – not least given the fact that Gideon and this mob actually took that situation and turned it into a double dip and probably now a triple dip, and all without cutting the deficit as they pledged, but increasing it?