politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest EU referendum polling suggests that the outcome would be far from a foregone conclusion
It is a long time since I’ve looked at EU referendum polling and today’s numbers from YouGov rather surprised me. The gap between EXIT and STAY is getting closer and the party splits are not quite as you’d imagine.
I'd agree with surbiton's 2:1 assessment in favour of REMAIN if a referendum is ever held. The polling is in large part a reflection of the public's lack of enthusiasm for the EU. That's a very different thing from their willingness to leave it, after mature reflection.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
Undemocratic elitist EdM doesn't seem to share your confidence.
There are reasons for opposing an EU referendum beyond just fearing the wrong outcome. The obvious one is the period of uncertainty for inbound investors (for example). Plus, from Labour's point of view, the enjoyable spectacle and electoral advantage arising from the Tories taking chunks out of each other as long as the question of a referendum remains open.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
I assumed it was because he still has to think of some.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Europe will completely tear the Tories apart at some stage. It's just a matter of when.
TBH I swither about EU membership. I feel absolutely none of the allegience that will have me voting no in the Scottish referendum. To me the EU is just a business proposition.
I don't believe any of the rubbish about the EU preventing wars. I don't believe for a moment that there would be major disruption of our trade to and from the EU if we left, at least in the short term. I am concerned about the EZ becoming a dominant bloc making our say less relevant. The gross inefficiency of the EU and their CAP bugs me.
OTOH it is a big cold world out there and there is some uncertainty about what terms we would get with other large blocs negotiating on our own. There is clearly a risk about inward investment and tariffs in the medium term. There is a liklihood that over time the EU would develop rules not to our liking and over which we will have no influence.
I want us to be safe from EZ dominance. I want subsidiarity to actually be applied instead of being talked about. I have real reservations about the utility of the European Parliament and would prefer power to stay in the Council of Nations where the UK is a big beast (Scotland would be an irrelevant minnow of course but that is another story). I do not want EU membership to cost any more and ideally less.
A lot depends on whether Cameron wins the election and then delivers a package that sort of meets most of these shopping lists and points. If Miliband wins and we start the "being at the heart of Europe" nonsense again I will vote for out if the chance comes.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
I am a committed don't know at this point. The arguments made for staying are scare-mongering twaddle. The supposed benefits of leaving massively overplayed.
I hate the notion of five more decades of rampant corruption though.
I hate the notion of a small clique of the self-appointed great and the good in a handful of European capitals determinedly making a nation of Europe, whilst excluding any meaningful democratic debate.
I hate that those of us who were skeptical about the Euro (for the very reasons it would ultimately become a mill-stone) were pooh-poohed at the time - and have not had so much as a mumbled "sorry..." from those same strident advocates.
Ideal world, I would like the real threat of our withdrawing to provoke proper, visible change towards a more democratic, less corrupt association of states.
But this is not an ideal world. Which is why we have nukes. Let's tell Germany what we want and when we want it (before May 2015) - or else, boom goes Berlin. How do you like dem apples, Mrs Merkel?
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
I don't mind Cameron not revealing his red lines. It's the fact he won't even reveal his aims that's a joke. That's because he doesn't have any aims because he's the British Mitt Romney. He'll just see what crumbs from the table Angela Merkel will throw him, and then claim those were his aims all along.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
I think there would be a majority to remain, at present, but more like 55/45. The world has moved on since people voted in accordance with the wishes of their "betters."
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Europe will completely tear the Tories apart at some stage. It's just a matter of when.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Europe will completely tear the Tories apart at some stage. It's just a matter of when.
Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
You mean the reactionaries who support a protectionist bloc based on a 1950s vision of the future, which spends half its budget on agricultural subsidies and requires its members put up trade barriers to join? I can't see Labour or the TUC disagreeing with them...
All good points below. However another key point has to be aired - that nobody gives a flying fox under cherry tree. The EU is an issue that exercises a loose collaboration of political nerds and malcontents like Morris Dancer and Bob Crow, and precious few others. There will be no referendum, and no-one normal will give a toffee.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
I assumed it was because he still has to think of some.
I imagine it's more a case of having to think of a way of packaging them so that they appear radical and bold. When it's going to boil down to reducing employee rights and a few other things the other member states do not mind seeing dealt with at a national level that's quite a challenge.
All good points below. However another key point has to be aired - that nobody gives a flying fox under cherry tree. The EU is an issue that exercises a loose collaboration of political nerds and malcontents like Morris Dancer and Bob Crow, and precious few others. There will be no referendum, and no-one normal will give a toffee.
Must be why immigration, of which half is under EU tenets, has consistently been the top two issues for ages.
And don't think the Eurozone crisis is over yet. There's only so long places like Greece and Spain can sustain unemployment of 15%+ before the civil unrest turns nasty.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Europe will completely tear the Tories apart at some stage. It's just a matter of when.
So says the BBC since 1987 - 27 years later....
Well, the last time they won an election was 22 years ago, and it's far from clear they will ever win one again (in large part to Europe) so the BBC are doing OK on that one based on evidence to date.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Europe will completely tear the Tories apart at some stage. It's just a matter of when.
Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
Let's wait to see what those red lines are. That's when the civil war will begin in earnest. The Tory right will realise they have been played for fools by a PM who never had the slightest intention of seriously renegotiating the terms of UK membership but was instead looking for some breathing space to get him past the 2015 GE.
If we could tweak the EU a little, I could easily vote to stay in, and I think a referendum would be won and clear the air. Although the EU bureaucrats would need to be gagged - they're the best advert for a 'No' vote.
I understand Labour's position, though; why risking losing when you can keep the uncertainty and discomfort the Conservatives. Not so good for the country, but good for the party.
The Little Englanders would lose around 60/40 an EU in/Out referendum just as the Little Scotlanders will lose their referendum by a similar margin . People will vote with their heads sometimes against what their hearts may tell them .
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
Excluding the Will Not Votes the figures would seem to be:
Exit 42% Stay 39% Don't Know 19%
So Exit unchanged from a year ago with a couple of points going from Don't Know to Stay. Still it's close. OGH really should explain his methodology when he manipulates the figures for presentational purposes.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
Europe will completely tear the Tories apart at some stage. It's just a matter of when.
Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
Let's wait to see what those red lines are. That's when the civil war will begin in earnest. The Tory right will realise they have been played for fools by a PM who never had the slightest intention of seriously renegotiating the terms of UK membership but was instead looking for some breathing space to get him past the 2015 GE.
The Tory right, by which I assume you mean the sizeable BOO contingent, won't be happy with anything Cameron might produce (and my own belief is that he'll get sufficient to be credible). But that's fine; they will campaign vigorously for a no vote and will be able to do so without pressure/threats from the leadership. Where's the problem?
And forget not that the very fact that Cameron would have 'won' in 2015, as majority, minority or in coalition, will have earned him huge kudos from Tory supporters, bearing in mind the seemingly universal consensus (my good self almost excepted) here that he'll be toast at the election.
I have a suspicion that most people would like the result of such a referendum to be a Yes vote with 50.1%, so we stay in but with Brussels knowing that if they mess us about we might leave in the future.
The Little Englanders would lose around 60/40 an EU in/Out referendum just as the Little Scotlanders will lose their referendum by a similar margin . People will vote with their heads sometimes against what their hearts may tell them .
And as Ever the 'Little Europeans' have nothing better to say than sling around childish insults.....
Not surprising. You'd probably find roughly 7% of LD voters in favour of capital punishment, or 7% of Labour supporters wanting to re-legalise fox hunting.
The Little Englanders would lose around 60/40 an EU in/Out referendum just as the Little Scotlanders will lose their referendum by a similar margin . People will vote with their heads sometimes against what their hearts may tell them .
I do hope so. It would be great to make us an economically reformist, free-trading country that is confident to compete in the world again, rather than the Little Englander vision of us as a supplicant region of a European superstate, maintaining the 1970s economic model.
I have a suspicion that most people would like the result of such a referendum to be a Yes vote with 50.1%, so we stay in but with Brussels knowing that if they mess us about we might leave in the future.
I would like that to be the result, because then we would have another referendum in very short order, with more betting opportunities.
I have a suspicion that most people would like the result of such a referendum to be a Yes vote with 50.1%, so we stay in but with Brussels knowing that if they mess us about we might leave in the future.
The issue with that is - do Brussels really care? If we leave, they can get on with creating the Euro Super-State without the petulant child constantly whinging in the corner.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
I'm not a libertarian: I strongly believe in the existence of the state to do good. I just support basic liberal democratic norms we've had in this country for centuries, and that have been abandoned by authoritarians like Cameron and Blair. Apparently that puts me out on the fringe these days. A right to privacy? Security services requiring warrants? But TERRORISM!
The floods can't wash away the continuing good news
This time the British Retail Consortium, confirming the Visa UK Consumer Expenditure Index, by reporting that Like-for-Like Retail Sales grew by 3.9% on a Jan 2014 over Jan 2013 basis. Total sales were up 5.4%, against a previous year's (Jan 2013 on Jan 2012) growth rate of 1.9%. The figures evidence the strongest growth rate since March 2010.
Like Visa, the figures hide some wide differences in sectoral performance. Food and Drink sales (food retailers traditionally accounting for around 40% of total sales) fell by 1.9%. Strong competition between the main supermarkets saw food price rises fall to an annual rate of 1.5%, boding well for continued low inflation outcomes.
Overall growth came instead from non-food products whose sales leapt 19.2%, with furniture, flooring and home accessories also recording double digit growth. This switch in share of spend appears to correlate with recent strong growth in new housing completions and general growth in the sales market for residential housing market. High ticket purchases are also indicators of increased consumer confidence in expectations for their household finances.
Kantar, the retail sector research company, have also put some figures to well reported trends within the retail sector. We know the winners in the Christmas season were the top end of the market (Waitrose & John Lewis generally, Sainsburys relatively) and the new market entrant discounters at the bottom end (Aldi and Lidl).
The losers were the 'squeezed middle' (Tesco, Morrisons and Asda). Kantar's market share figures confirm the trend: Waitrose growing 5.6% with a share of 4.9%; Sainsbury up 2.7% gaining 0.1% in market share now 17.1%. Tesco, the market leader, saw sales fall by 0.4%. Biggest gainers in market share were Aldi and Lidl, both of whom enjoyed double digit growth, with their share of the market rising 1.3% to 7.3%.
Some words of caution though are necessary, In January, the overall retail market grew by 2.4% on an annual basis, a slightly slower rate of growth than recorded in December (Kantar). Barclaycard, using similar input data to Visa & Markit, also reported a slowing in consumer spend into the new year: 2.2% in January down from 2.6% in December and 3% in November.
UK figures remain strong and top of the table when compared to our major global competitors, but there is no doubt a slight slowing in the pace of growth from last year: a trend also visible in most comparable international statistics.
@Life_in_a_market_town has been known to make the odd rude comment about the barbarisms of Scots law. It does not help when our highest court gives him such ample ammunition.
Don't think the LibDems will have too much trouble agreeing to the EU vote. They generally want one - clear the air finally type of argument.
I think that's on the money. As OGH says, there is no deal without one. But the price will be high. My price would be a referendum on Trident replacement alongside, but a full Mansion Tax, Lords reform, or removal of pensioner benefits with ring-fencing working poor benefits would be the sort of level the Tories would have to offer. If Cameron doesn't pay the price, he's toast.
I have a suspicion that most people would like the result of such a referendum to be a Yes vote with 50.1%, so we stay in but with Brussels knowing that if they mess us about we might leave in the future.
The issue with that is - do Brussels really care? If we leave, they can get on with creating the Euro Super-State without the petulant child constantly whinging in the corner.
The UK is one of the few countries that pay for the EU.
I have a suspicion that most people would like the result of such a referendum to be a Yes vote with 50.1%, so we stay in but with Brussels knowing that if they mess us about we might leave in the future.
The issue with that is - do Brussels really care? If we leave, they can get on with creating the Euro Super-State without the petulant child constantly whinging in the corner.
They seem quite happy to put up with French petulance on a constant basis. They're just Anglophobic, and remain so whether we bend over for them like Blair did, or pretend to be eurosceptic but with a wink and a nod like Cameron does. They just have an inherent distaste for the British common man, and always will do.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
With luck, it will be taken out of his hands ! Even if the Tories win an absolute majority, such a referendum bill probably will not pass Parliament. There are a sizeable number of Tories [ including here in PB who keep their heads low ] who are opposed to leaving the EU. The "coalition" of staying in is far larger than coming out. Only fruitcakes wants to come out of the EU.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
On economics, I'm centre-left during recessions and centre-right the rest of the time.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
I'm not a libertarian: I strongly believe in the existence of the state to do good. I just support basic liberal democratic norms we've had in this country for centuries, and that have been abandoned by authoritarians like Cameron and Blair. Apparently that puts me out on the fringe these days. A right to privacy? Security services requiring warrants? But TERRORISM!
I guess our terminology differs but I'd say that a classical libertarian would share exactly those views, i.e. the right of the individual to get on with their life unhindered by pointless state intrusion. The suspicion of the very role of the state is more neo-liberal, where the libertarian emphasis on individual freedom is deliberately subverted in order to argue that individual liberty is definitionally incompatible with any exercise of state power whatsoever, even where the state is doing good that enables individuals to benefit from collective action or be protected from other, more powerful actors.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
Of course we can also point to the fact that most of those you list also claimed that if we didn't join the Single Currency it would be a disaster for the country.
They can only cry wolf so many times before people get wise to their lies.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
With luck, it will be taken out of his hands ! Even if the Tories win an absolute majority, such a referendum bill probably will not pass Parliament. There are a sizeable number of Tories [ including here in PB who keep their heads low ] who are opposed to leaving the EU. The "coalition" of staying in is far larger than coming out. Only fruitcakes wants to come out of the EU.
You're so confident in your case then, that you hope it will never be put before the voters?
"Not so good for the country, but good for the party."
That wasn't meant to be a compliment.
Currently, I'd join the fruitcakes and vote to leave unless we had changes; there's a lot wrong at the moment. I used to go to Brussels for EU meetings (albeit on the scientific side), and can't say I was impressed with the professional politicians.But as we were "on tap" rather than "on top", it's probably a biased view.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
So a fine chance for the public to kick the establishment up the backside.
What's missing from the above equation is the media. Pretty much every major newspaper would be Out, with only the FT, Indy/i (if still going) and Guardian would definately be In. The Beeb would tend towards In in their worldview way with Sky more genuinely neutral.
Ultimately, the swing vote would be the Tory one, and that would depend very much on (1) what (if anything) Cameron is able to win back, and (2) how the internal Conservative balance pans out in terms of who recommends what. If the general Tory line was Out, that would win.
"Those who warned that the first steps were being taken towards the political unification of Western Europe, and the degrading of the United Kingdom to a European province, were laughed to scorn. "
FPT, AndyJS said: "Maybe we should be building a few more reservoirs to store all this excess water in preparation for the next drought, whenever it happens. "
There's good news from the restoration of natural reservoirs in the form of peat bogs on Exmoor
This is the sort of thing those pesky environmentalists go on about. Restore some natural environment to hold water in the hills and you even out the water flow, reducing the severity of both floods and droughts.
Does the law absolutely require us to have a referendum to leave? We got as far we have with 'ever closer' and no referendum since the 1970s. As a people I believe we have only given consent to joining the EEC. So a genuine question - what could a sceptic PM do without a referendum? Leave the CAP? Leave the ECHR? Deratify Lisbon (signed without a referendum). What?
Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
Spot-on. Which is one reason why this is the only chance in a generation to get either renegotiation or an exit. UKIP are working hard to get us neither, i.e. ever-closer union, and the unmitigated disaster of PM Miliband while they are about it.
Was there ever a madder project in modern UK political history? I guess the nearest equivalent is the split on the left in the 1980s, but that at least was a split with a purpose: the loony left wanted something not on offer. UKIP seem to be miffed precisely because they are being offered what they want.
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
So a fine chance for the public to kick the establishment up the backside.
What's missing from the above equation is the media. Pretty much every major newspaper would be Out, with only the FT, Indy/i (if still going) and Guardian would definately be In. The Beeb would tend towards In in their worldview way with Sky more genuinely neutral.
Ultimately, the swing vote would be the Tory one, and that would depend very much on (1) what (if anything) Cameron is able to win back, and (2) how the internal Conservative balance pans out in terms of who recommends what. If the general Tory line was Out, that would win.
Surely the Mirror would be In.
The only newspaper I would be certain would be Out at present is the Express. The Mail and the Sun in particular might well end up In if they decided that they wanted to be on the winning side and could see the current flowing that way.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
No, they wouldn't want one, but they'd probably accept it for meaningful reform elsewhere. Specifically, one or more of:
- PR for the Lords (with enhanced powers) - PR for local elections - Voting reform for the Commons.
I'm pretty sure the Tories wouldn't accept that last one but either of the other two should be acceptable (or both in return for cast-iron boundary reform).
It's got to be odds on that the British people will eventually be given some kind of say on their membership of the EU seeing as most of them havent had any say at all and none have had a say on the significant changes to the union since they first signed up.
In anticipation of some kind of vote I think the advocates of staying in would be better off sharpening their arguments beyond "only fruitcakes want us to leave". I cant see that one working very well.
So a genuine question - what could a sceptic PM do without a referendum?
The UK parliament can decide to leave if it wants. There is no requirement to hold a referendum and noone for the other side to appeal to if there isnt a referendum. But I think most people accept a referendum is the best way to do it.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
No, they wouldn't want one, but they'd probably accept it for meaningful reform elsewhere. Specifically, one or more of:
- PR for the Lords (with enhanced powers) - PR for local elections - Voting reform for the Commons.
I'm pretty sure the Tories wouldn't accept that last one but either of the other two should be acceptable (or both in return for cast-iron boundary reform).
You are assuming the Tories will have a bargaining hand if they want to be in government in such a situation. The LDs have learnt since the boundary commission decision that they may have 57 seats, effectively they are equal since nothing can take place without their agreement.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a fruit loop? I understand a fruitcake, but as I intend to vote Ukip for the first time at the Euros, I ought to understand the terminology.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
Yes, this widely-held idea that Cameron could wriggle out of a referendum even if he wanted to (which he doesn't) is completely mad. He'd be chucked out within days - and rightly so.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
Party hierarchies have a tendancy to ignore things when it doesn't suit, Camron had his chance to lance the issue in 2009 and fluffed it.
Scotland's referendum will make for a useful case study. Not all the SNP voters want independence but Salmond always intimates a close relationship between the two. The advantage is that some SNP voters will be encouraged to change their minds out of party allegience, with the risk others will be scared away from the party completely. If the Tories did win in 2015, which is obviously a big if, then Cameron might face the same problem. Win the referendum but risk losing the next "referendum" in Westminster in 2020.
Once the Tory right discover just what Dave's red lines are, the chances of carnage are pretty high well before 2020. There is a reason why he is not revealing them before 2015.
With luck, it will be taken out of his hands ! Even if the Tories win an absolute majority, such a referendum bill probably will not pass Parliament. There are a sizeable number of Tories [ including here in PB who keep their heads low ] who are opposed to leaving the EU. The "coalition" of staying in is far larger than coming out. Only fruitcakes wants to come out of the EU.
So based on the polling Mike lists above, 39% of the electorate (or 52% of those who say they will actually vote) are 'fruitcakes'.
An up and coming boxer can have the ambition to be the World Champion and still refuse a fight with the current Champ if he feels he will have better chances to achieve his ambition later, and a loss at this stage might mean he never gets the chance again.
The champ tries to get the fight on his terms when he feels he has best chance of retaining his title, and taunts the challenger for not accepting there and then.
So it is with UKIP and the Tory offer of a referendum held by Election majority winning Europhile PM Cameron
Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
Spot-on. Which is one reason why this is the only chance in a generation to get either renegotiation or an exit. UKIP are working hard to get us neither, i.e. ever-closer union, and the unmitigated disaster of PM Miliband while they are about it.
Was there ever a madder project in modern UK political history? I guess the nearest equivalent is the split on the left in the 1980s, but that at least was a split with a purpose: the loony left wanted somethign not on offer. UKIP seem to be miffed precisely because they are being offered what they want.
Whether or not we have a referendum is not up to UKIP, at present. Assume for the sake of argument that UKIP didn't exist. It's certainly not the case that 12% or so of the voters would suddenly switch over to the Conservatives. And, if they did, what incentive would there be for there to be any sort of referendum on the EU?
If you think that UKIP should offer an electoral pact to the Conservatives, tell us where you think the Conservatives should stand down in favour of UKIP candidates, in return for UKIP not running candidates against Conservatives.
The sensible course of action for UKIP is to maximise support, and electoral representation.
Does the law absolutely require us to have a referendum to leave? We got as far we have with 'ever closer' and no referendum since the 1970s. As a people I believe we have only given consent to joining the EEC. So a genuine question - what could a sceptic PM do without a referendum? Leave the CAP? Leave the ECHR? Deratify Lisbon (signed without a referendum). What?
No, there's no need for a referendum constitutionally but political practicalities would make it desirable in pretty much any realistic scenario.
Posts like that from @Socrates below make me realise that rightwingers dislike Cameron much more than Lefties.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
I must be one of those pro-drug legalisation, gay marriage-backing, republican, Edward Snowden-supporting rightwingers.
That makes you sound libertarian rather than authoritarian but doesn't say a lot about whether you're on the left or the right (I won't presume to attribute either of those to you as I don't know what your views are, but one could be forgiven for having come to the view that you aren't one of PB's more socialist posters).
I'm not a libertarian: I strongly believe in the existence of the state to do good. I just support basic liberal democratic norms we've had in this country for centuries, and that have been abandoned by authoritarians like Cameron and Blair. Apparently that puts me out on the fringe these days. A right to privacy? Security services requiring warrants? But TERRORISM!
I guess our terminology differs but I'd say that a classical libertarian would share exactly those views, i.e. the right of the individual to get on with their life unhindered by pointless state intrusion. The suspicion of the very role of the state is more neo-liberal, where the libertarian emphasis on individual freedom is deliberately subverted in order to argue that individual liberty is definitionally incompatible with any exercise of state power whatsoever, even where the state is doing good that enables individuals to benefit from collective action or be protected from other, more powerful actors.
Agree entirely. Libertarians do not want 'no state'. That would make us anarchists. What we want is the minimum state possible to allow people to get on with their lives. Now clearly that definition means many things to many people but it certainly doesn't mean no state at all.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
No, they wouldn't want one, but they'd probably accept it for meaningful reform elsewhere. Specifically, one or more of:
- PR for the Lords (with enhanced powers) - PR for local elections - Voting reform for the Commons.
I'm pretty sure the Tories wouldn't accept that last one but either of the other two should be acceptable (or both in return for cast-iron boundary reform).
David - we're on the same lines, but I wouldn't accept your second option - PR for local elections. This isn't a high enough price. I think we'd get it as part of the deal but we'd trade it for something much lighter in return, such as another go at boundary reform. If the Tories really think they'll only have to offer local PR, I think they'll be disappointed.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
If Cameron were to win an overall majority, I'm sure he could ditch it. Yes, 100 or so of his MPs would create merry hell about it, but that's not a majority in the Commons.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
No, they wouldn't want one, but they'd probably accept it for meaningful reform elsewhere. Specifically, one or more of:
- PR for the Lords (with enhanced powers) - PR for local elections - Voting reform for the Commons.
I'm pretty sure the Tories wouldn't accept that last one but either of the other two should be acceptable (or both in return for cast-iron boundary reform).
You are assuming the Tories will have a bargaining hand if they want to be in government in such a situation. The LDs have learnt since the boundary commission decision that they may have 57 seats, effectively they are equal since nothing can take place without their agreement.
I assumed the premise of the original question was that there was again a hung parliament in which Con+LD could form a majority, in which case, yes, the Tories would very much have a bargaining hand themselves. Labour might have too but that's what post-election negotiations are for.
FPT, AndyJS said: "Maybe we should be building a few more reservoirs to store all this excess water in preparation for the next drought, whenever it happens. "
There's good news from the restoration of natural reservoirs in the form of peat bogs on Exmoor
This is the sort of thing those pesky environmentalists go on about. Restore some natural environment to hold water in the hills and you even out the water flow, reducing the severity of both floods and droughts.
Very true. This also applies to some of the fine work being done to try and reinstate salt marshes, dunes and water meadows all of which are far more effective at preventing or mitigating flooding than man made immovable structures.
It was also interesting seeing the comments prior to these floods that an acre of trees retains 90 times more rain water than an acre of grass and of course an acre of concrete retains none at all.
Working with nature to solve these problems has to be the way forward.
If Cameron were to win an overall majority, I'm sure he could ditch it. Yes, 100 or so of his MPs would create merry hell about it, but that's not a majority in the Commons.
100 MPs is more than enough to call a confidence vote! You couldnt see him surviving long as party leader / PM so why would he try it?
Does the law absolutely require us to have a referendum to leave? We got as far we have with 'ever closer' and no referendum since the 1970s. As a people I believe we have only given consent to joining the EEC. So a genuine question - what could a sceptic PM do without a referendum? Leave the CAP? Leave the ECHR? Deratify Lisbon (signed without a referendum). What?
The law does not require a referendum but I, and I think most other people on all sides of the argument, would be uncomfortable with such a huge constitutional change without specifically consulting the people.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
If Cameron were to win an overall majority, I'm sure he could ditch it. Yes, 100 or so of his MPs would create merry hell about it, but that's not a majority in the Commons.
Does the law absolutely require us to have a referendum to leave? We got as far we have with 'ever closer' and no referendum since the 1970s. As a people I believe we have only given consent to joining the EEC. So a genuine question - what could a sceptic PM do without a referendum? Leave the CAP? Leave the ECHR? Deratify Lisbon (signed without a referendum). What?
I have always said that the most likely way for the UK to leave the EU is by UKIP gaining an overall majority on a manifesto promise of leaving the EU - no need for a referendum.
This might require a reverse takeover of the Conservatives by UKIP - perhaps creating the Conservative and Independence Party? - but it seems to be a more sure way to leave the EU then holding a referendum. What happens if a BOO PM becomes unpopular for unrelated reasons? A referendum could easily be lost because voters were annoyed about the flooding of Bridgwater...
While I think we've been over the pro-/anti- EU things about a gazillion times on here, I would like to point out that being a member of the European Economic Area is a massive boon for my small asset management firm.
That's because under the "European Financial Services Passport" basically allows any EU firm to sell financial services to any person in the EU under common regulation. If we want to sell asset management products (basically, a mutual fund) to a person in Switzerland (outside the EEA), then we need to use a local agent who takes around 60% of the fees. The same is true in Canada or Australia. (And in the US, it is more like 75% of the fees, which explains why we have no US clients...)
While larger asset managers like Schroders, Blackrock or Goldman Sachs would be largely unaffected (they have offices in every country already); if we were to leave the European Economic Area, it would be an absolute disaster for our business as only about a third of clients are UK based. We would need to open satellite offices in Europe, or accept half the current level of fees. My wife has pushed for a third option, which would be to relocate to somewhere sunnier in continental Europe. But I'm not sure that would fly :-)
Of course, if we were to leave the EU, but stay in the EEA, then it would be fine (and would save about €5bn/year). But it is worth remembering that the flip side of that is that we would basically be required to adhere to EU legislation (as well as the famous Four Freedoms), without having any say on it.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a fruit loop? I understand a fruitcake, but as I intend to vote Ukip for the first time at the Euros, I ought to understand the terminology.
As anyone who has watched Big Bang Theory will know, Fruit Loops are an American breakfast cereal.
I have always said that the most likely way for the UK to leave the EU is by UKIP gaining an overall majority on a manifesto promise of leaving the EU - no need for a referendum.
UKIP would have to change its policy to hold a referendum on the issue.
Why should it? If the referendum is held in 2017 under a Tory led government, I would expect Wilson's 1975 precedent to be emulated almost in its entireity, namely Tory parliamentarians, including Ministers, would be free to speak, campaign and vote with no collective responsibility. And the result, almost certainly a stay in, would be respected - the people having spoken.
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
Spot-on. Which is one reason why this is the only chance in a generation to get either renegotiation or an exit. UKIP are working hard to get us neither, i.e. ever-closer union, and the unmitigated disaster of PM Miliband while they are about it.
Was there ever a madder project in modern UK political history? I guess the nearest equivalent is the split on the left in the 1980s, but that at least was a split with a purpose: the loony left wanted somethign not on offer. UKIP seem to be miffed precisely because they are being offered what they want.
Whether or not we have a referendum is not up to UKIP, at present. Assume for the sake of argument that UKIP didn't exist. It's certainly not the case that 12% or so of the voters would suddenly switch over to the Conservatives. And, if they did, what incentive would there be for there to be any sort of referendum on the EU?
If you think that UKIP should offer an electoral pact to the Conservatives, tell us where you think the Conservatives should stand down in favour of UKIP candidates, in return for UKIP not running candidates against Conservatives.
The sensible course of action for UKIP is to maximise support, and electoral representation.
As somebody who comes from a working class Conservative family, I can confirm that the family now supports Ukip (those of us who vote) and we now loathe the Tory Party on the same level as we do with the Labour Party.
Now that our eyes have been opened to the useless Tories, there's no going back. If Ukip didn't stand in elections - and I am very politically aware and interested - then I simply would not vote. I will NOT be expected to go to the polls to vote for three main parties which are identical in policy.
Whether or not we have a referendum is not up to UKIP, at present. Assume for the sake of argument that UKIP didn't exist. It's certainly not the case that 12% or so of the voters would suddenly switch over to the Conservatives. And, if they did, what incentive would there be for there to be any sort of referendum on the EU?
If you think that UKIP should offer an electoral pact to the Conservatives, tell us where you think the Conservatives should stand down in favour of UKIP candidates, in return for UKIP not running candidates against Conservatives.
The sensible course of action for UKIP is to maximise support, and electoral representation.
If we assume that UKIP do actually want us to leave the EU (I have to say the evidence suggests otherwise), then there are three steps to achieving that:
1) Elect a government which will hold an In/Out referendum. That couldn't be easier: vote Conservative, there's no other way, and it's 100% guaranteed to succeed if there is a Conservative government.
2) Put together a coherent case for what exit would mean in practice. For example, agree once and for all a sensible answer on whether we would remain in the EEA (and if the answer is No, which is what I would recommend since remaining in the EEA but not the EU is the worse of both worlds - sorry Smithson Jnr!), stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models. The Out side would have the great advantage of a free hand in defining what model they wanted, whereas the In side would be conflicted and also unable to specify what the renegotiation would bring.
3) Win the referendum by building a really good campaign, taking full advantage of people like Dan Hannan, who is very persuasive.
That is the only strategy which could work in any less than a timescale of decades. I think the likelihood is that it wouldn't work, but that's because the Out side have not made a coherent case to voters, and because the status quo is hard to shift. On the other hand, even if it doesn't work, there would be likely to be some disengagement as part of renegotiation, so it's a 'Head we win, tail we get a bit back' stategy.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
If Cameron were to win an overall majority, I'm sure he could ditch it. Yes, 100 or so of his MPs would create merry hell about it, but that's not a majority in the Commons.
I'm with David Herdson on this one. The Tories would put any coalition deal to a vote of the parliamentary party, and it would be defeated if it didn't contain an EU referendum. Even if it was passed (slim chance) then Cameron would face an immediate no confidence vote as there are enough MPs who would see red about it. Would he fight that? Would he survive it? I think he would be toast one way or another. Which puts the Lib Dems in a remarkably strong position, as the Tories have idolised a policy above all else.
Of course, if the right-wing Tories were a little less thick and a little more strategic, they'd refer to the 2011 Act which implemented the Lib Dem 2010 manifesto commitment of an in-out referendum at the time of the next treaty transferring powers to Brussels, and instead push for an EU treaty that all paperclip regulation governance should now be done at EU level.....
Does the law absolutely require us to have a referendum to leave? We got as far we have with 'ever closer' and no referendum since the 1970s. As a people I believe we have only given consent to joining the EEC. So a genuine question - what could a sceptic PM do without a referendum? Leave the CAP? Leave the ECHR? Deratify Lisbon (signed without a referendum). What?
I have always said that the most likely way for the UK to leave the EU is by UKIP gaining an overall majority on a manifesto promise of leaving the EU - no need for a referendum.
This might require a reverse takeover of the Conservatives by UKIP - perhaps creating the Conservative and Independence Party? - but it seems to be a more sure way to leave the EU then holding a referendum. What happens if a BOO PM becomes unpopular for unrelated reasons? A referendum could easily be lost because voters were annoyed about the flooding of Bridgwater...
I think it's more likely that other countries will leave the EU before the UK electorate has the opportunity to vote on it. Very few MPs seem to be in favour of a referendum.
Would the LDs agree to a referendum on Dave's terms? If they do, the choice would be between leaving the EU or staying on the terms that Dave has negotiated. For an LD, that may be not much of a choice at all. At the very least, I suspect that the LDs would want significant concession elsewhere in order to give Dave a free hand on Europe.
The Lib Dems wouldn't go into a coalition based on Cameron's renegotiation plans, let alone accept a referendum on leaving. Which is why Cameron will sell out the eurosceptics to join the Lib Dems in another coalition. And the sycophants in the PCP will go along with it in order to keep their shot at ministerial office: it will be justified at the time as "What would you prefer? Labour in power?" That's why UKIP need to maintain their momentum.
No, if he tried that, he'd be No Confidenced by the parliamentary party. It really is a Red Line for too many for it to be swept aside. 1922 and all that.
If Cameron were to win an overall majority, I'm sure he could ditch it. Yes, 100 or so of his MPs would create merry hell about it, but that's not a majority in the Commons.
Of course, if the right-wing Tories were a little less thick and a little more strategic, they'd refer to the 2011 Act which implemented the Lib Dem 2010 manifesto commitment of an in-out referendum at the time of the next treaty transferring powers to Brussels, and instead push for an EU treaty that all paperclip regulation governance should now be done at EU level.....
As I understand it, it's left up to government ministers to decide if the transfer of powers is significant enough to require a referendum. There's no automatic trigger.
I'd be loath to predict what would happen if we had a referendum in 2017. The dynamics are just to complex. Firstly Cameron would have to decisively win an election. I don't believe a Libdem leader would agree to a Coalition referendum (especially after what happened to Clegg during the AV referendum).
So for a Tory majority to occur either a) Scotland votes for independence or b) the miracle occurs. Either way what would Cameron be like with a Tory majority and how would his majority treat him? Could Cameron survive as leader whilst remaining committed to lead the Stay campaign or even committed to stay in at any cost? Could he actually survive as leader until 2017 (especially if he has lost Scotland with all that the subsequent negotiations entail).
Then comes the negotiation with all the machinations that will be going on alongside it (and possibly it occurring in tandem with the Scottish independence negotiation). Exactly what will Cameron deliver on immigration, on the ECJ, ECHR, CAP CFP, financial freedom, contributions, the social chapter, environment and climate change, aid, business regulation etc etc? It will be an enormous task to put together a package sufficient to carry the majority. That is particularly so given that repeated polling suggests a large majority of people actually when it comes down to it, favour a position (a trading zone only) that would currently demand we withdraw from the EU. Such detailed examination of our relationship with the EU is almost certain to highlight such a reality to the vast majority of the electorate.
However, even if he manages to get to the referendum campaign unscathed with his views in tact imagine the campaign? Imagine Cameron and Miliband (with whoever is leading the Libdems by them trailing along behind) attempting to share the same platform. Talk about an odd couple.
Who would they be up against? Farage almost certainly but who would be the leaders of the Tory Eurosceptic group Hannan? Callanan (if he survives)? Redwood? Carswell? Jenkin? Which ministers would join the Exit campaign? For Cameron and the Tories the campaign is fraught with risk especially if it is decided in certain circles to take Cameron out (much as Clegg was in the AV campaign). Whatever way it is not likely to be pretty for the Tories. I would expect a lot of pent up frustration with Cameron in certain quarters to be vented.
I really have no idea how a referendum might turnout in 2017
Comments
CBI, TU, Labour, Lib Dems, most CEO's on the one side. The Reactionaries on the other.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2013-07-05&number=45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2013
I don't believe any of the rubbish about the EU preventing wars.
I don't believe for a moment that there would be major disruption of our trade to and from the EU if we left, at least in the short term.
I am concerned about the EZ becoming a dominant bloc making our say less relevant.
The gross inefficiency of the EU and their CAP bugs me.
OTOH it is a big cold world out there and there is some uncertainty about what terms we would get with other large blocs negotiating on our own.
There is clearly a risk about inward investment and tariffs in the medium term.
There is a liklihood that over time the EU would develop rules not to our liking and over which we will have no influence.
I want us to be safe from EZ dominance.
I want subsidiarity to actually be applied instead of being talked about.
I have real reservations about the utility of the European Parliament and would prefer power to stay in the Council of Nations where the UK is a big beast (Scotland would be an irrelevant minnow of course but that is another story).
I do not want EU membership to cost any more and ideally less.
A lot depends on whether Cameron wins the election and then delivers a package that sort of meets most of these shopping lists and points. If Miliband wins and we start the "being at the heart of Europe" nonsense again I will vote for out if the chance comes.
I hate the notion of five more decades of rampant corruption though.
I hate the notion of a small clique of the self-appointed great and the good in a handful of European capitals determinedly making a nation of Europe, whilst excluding any meaningful democratic debate.
I hate that those of us who were skeptical about the Euro (for the very reasons it would ultimately become a mill-stone) were pooh-poohed at the time - and have not had so much as a mumbled "sorry..." from those same strident advocates.
Ideal world, I would like the real threat of our withdrawing to provoke proper, visible change towards a more democratic, less corrupt association of states.
But this is not an ideal world. Which is why we have nukes. Let's tell Germany what we want and when we want it (before May 2015) - or else, boom goes Berlin. How do you like dem apples, Mrs Merkel?
I can't see many 'Bennites' (as in 1981/2) subsequently hijaking the party and forcing it to fight a general election on withdrawal without another referendum, can you?
If the Tories lose in 2015, then I agree it's an altogether different ball-game.
However another key point has to be aired - that nobody gives a flying fox under cherry tree.
The EU is an issue that exercises a loose collaboration of political nerds and malcontents like Morris Dancer and Bob Crow, and precious few others.
There will be no referendum, and no-one normal will give a toffee.
I quite like him - I doubt many Labourites would find that much to disagree with him on, unlike Europhobes, to whom he is the Devil Incarnate.
And don't think the Eurozone crisis is over yet. There's only so long places like Greece and Spain can sustain unemployment of 15%+ before the civil unrest turns nasty.
Polls say PM Ed, no referendum etc.
If we could tweak the EU a little, I could easily vote to stay in, and I think a referendum would be won and clear the air. Although the EU bureaucrats would need to be gagged - they're the best advert for a 'No' vote.
I understand Labour's position, though; why risking losing when you can keep the uncertainty and discomfort the Conservatives. Not so good for the country, but good for the party.
Exit 39 (down 4) Stay 36 (up 3) Don't Know 18 Would not Vote 7%
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/9wqnovujf1/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100214.pdf
Excluding the Will Not Votes the figures would seem to be:
Exit 42%
Stay 39%
Don't Know 19%
So Exit unchanged from a year ago with a couple of points going from Don't Know to Stay. Still it's close. OGH really should explain his methodology when he manipulates the figures for presentational purposes.
And forget not that the very fact that Cameron would have 'won' in 2015, as majority, minority or in coalition, will have earned him huge kudos from Tory supporters, bearing in mind the seemingly universal consensus (my good self almost excepted) here that he'll be toast at the election.
This time the British Retail Consortium, confirming the Visa UK Consumer Expenditure Index, by reporting that Like-for-Like Retail Sales grew by 3.9% on a Jan 2014 over Jan 2013 basis. Total sales were up 5.4%, against a previous year's (Jan 2013 on Jan 2012) growth rate of 1.9%. The figures evidence the strongest growth rate since March 2010.
Like Visa, the figures hide some wide differences in sectoral performance. Food and Drink sales (food retailers traditionally accounting for around 40% of total sales) fell by 1.9%. Strong competition between the main supermarkets saw food price rises fall to an annual rate of 1.5%, boding well for continued low inflation outcomes.
Overall growth came instead from non-food products whose sales leapt 19.2%, with furniture, flooring and home accessories also recording double digit growth. This switch in share of spend appears to correlate with recent strong growth in new housing completions and general growth in the sales market for residential housing market. High ticket purchases are also indicators of increased consumer confidence in expectations for their household finances.
Kantar, the retail sector research company, have also put some figures to well reported trends within the retail sector. We know the winners in the Christmas season were the top end of the market (Waitrose & John Lewis generally, Sainsburys relatively) and the new market entrant discounters at the bottom end (Aldi and Lidl).
The losers were the 'squeezed middle' (Tesco, Morrisons and Asda). Kantar's market share figures confirm the trend: Waitrose growing 5.6% with a share of 4.9%; Sainsbury up 2.7% gaining 0.1% in market share now 17.1%. Tesco, the market leader, saw sales fall by 0.4%. Biggest gainers in market share were Aldi and Lidl, both of whom enjoyed double digit growth, with their share of the market rising 1.3% to 7.3%.
Some words of caution though are necessary, In January, the overall retail market grew by 2.4% on an annual basis, a slightly slower rate of growth than recorded in December (Kantar). Barclaycard, using similar input data to Visa & Markit, also reported a slowing in consumer spend into the new year: 2.2% in January down from 2.6% in December and 3% in November.
UK figures remain strong and top of the table when compared to our major global competitors, but there is no doubt a slight slowing in the pace of growth from last year: a trend also visible in most comparable international statistics.
In HMA-v-Collins the High Court has today overturned a decision of a Sheriff that requiring a defence agent to give his fingerprint when he had a Law Society ID before he got to see his client in custody was illegal.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2014HCJAC11.html?utm_source=Newsletters&utm_campaign=28b946d94d-SLN_11_02_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1eedb22a32-28b946d94d-65388281
Sometimes I worry about our Judges, I really do.
You sound more like a Libertarian to me - but my general point stands
Have you asked Nabavi, Avery and Fitalass how they will vote ?
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
'Well, the last time they won an election was 22 years ago, and it's far from clear they will ever win one again'
How many times did we hear that nonsense when Labour didn't win an election for 23 years.
They can only cry wolf so many times before people get wise to their lies.
"Not so good for the country, but good for the party."
That wasn't meant to be a compliment.
Currently, I'd join the fruitcakes and vote to leave unless we had changes; there's a lot wrong at the moment. I used to go to Brussels for EU meetings (albeit on the scientific side), and can't say I was impressed with the professional politicians.But as we were "on tap" rather than "on top", it's probably a biased view.
What's missing from the above equation is the media. Pretty much every major newspaper would be Out, with only the FT, Indy/i (if still going) and Guardian would definately be In. The Beeb would tend towards In in their worldview way with Sky more genuinely neutral.
Ultimately, the swing vote would be the Tory one, and that would depend very much on (1) what (if anything) Cameron is able to win back, and (2) how the internal Conservative balance pans out in terms of who recommends what. If the general Tory line was Out, that would win.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ--Srz5yk0
There's good news from the restoration of natural reservoirs in the form of peat bogs on Exmoor
This is the sort of thing those pesky environmentalists go on about. Restore some natural environment to hold water in the hills and you even out the water flow, reducing the severity of both floods and droughts.
Was there ever a madder project in modern UK political history? I guess the nearest equivalent is the split on the left in the 1980s, but that at least was a split with a purpose: the loony left wanted something not on offer. UKIP seem to be miffed precisely because they are being offered what they want.
The only newspaper I would be certain would be Out at present is the Express. The Mail and the Sun in particular might well end up In if they decided that they wanted to be on the winning side and could see the current flowing that way.
- PR for the Lords (with enhanced powers)
- PR for local elections
- Voting reform for the Commons.
I'm pretty sure the Tories wouldn't accept that last one but either of the other two should be acceptable (or both in return for cast-iron boundary reform).
In anticipation of some kind of vote I think the advocates of staying in would be better off sharpening their arguments beyond "only fruitcakes want us to leave". I cant see that one working very well.
Not sure that is a winning slogan for you.
The champ tries to get the fight on his terms when he feels he has best chance of retaining his title, and taunts the challenger for not accepting there and then.
So it is with UKIP and the Tory offer of a referendum held by Election majority winning Europhile PM Cameron
If you think that UKIP should offer an electoral pact to the Conservatives, tell us where you think the Conservatives should stand down in favour of UKIP candidates, in return for UKIP not running candidates against Conservatives.
The sensible course of action for UKIP is to maximise support, and electoral representation.
It was also interesting seeing the comments prior to these floods that an acre of trees retains 90 times more rain water than an acre of grass and of course an acre of concrete retains none at all.
Working with nature to solve these problems has to be the way forward.
This might require a reverse takeover of the Conservatives by UKIP - perhaps creating the Conservative and Independence Party? - but it seems to be a more sure way to leave the EU then holding a referendum. What happens if a BOO PM becomes unpopular for unrelated reasons? A referendum could easily be lost because voters were annoyed about the flooding of Bridgwater...
That's because under the "European Financial Services Passport" basically allows any EU firm to sell financial services to any person in the EU under common regulation. If we want to sell asset management products (basically, a mutual fund) to a person in Switzerland (outside the EEA), then we need to use a local agent who takes around 60% of the fees. The same is true in Canada or Australia. (And in the US, it is more like 75% of the fees, which explains why we have no US clients...)
While larger asset managers like Schroders, Blackrock or Goldman Sachs would be largely unaffected (they have offices in every country already); if we were to leave the European Economic Area, it would be an absolute disaster for our business as only about a third of clients are UK based. We would need to open satellite offices in Europe, or accept half the current level of fees. My wife has pushed for a third option, which would be to relocate to somewhere sunnier in continental Europe. But I'm not sure that would fly :-)
Of course, if we were to leave the EU, but stay in the EEA, then it would be fine (and would save about €5bn/year). But it is worth remembering that the flip side of that is that we would basically be required to adhere to EU legislation (as well as the famous Four Freedoms), without having any say on it.
Now that our eyes have been opened to the useless Tories, there's no going back. If Ukip didn't stand in elections - and I am very politically aware and interested - then I simply would not vote. I will NOT be expected to go to the polls to vote for three main parties which are identical in policy.
1) Elect a government which will hold an In/Out referendum. That couldn't be easier: vote Conservative, there's no other way, and it's 100% guaranteed to succeed if there is a Conservative government.
2) Put together a coherent case for what exit would mean in practice. For example, agree once and for all a sensible answer on whether we would remain in the EEA (and if the answer is No, which is what I would recommend since remaining in the EEA but not the EU is the worse of both worlds - sorry Smithson Jnr!), stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models. The Out side would have the great advantage of a free hand in defining what model they wanted, whereas the In side would be conflicted and also unable to specify what the renegotiation would bring.
3) Win the referendum by building a really good campaign, taking full advantage of people like Dan Hannan, who is very persuasive.
That is the only strategy which could work in any less than a timescale of decades. I think the likelihood is that it wouldn't work, but that's because the Out side have not made a coherent case to voters, and because the status quo is hard to shift. On the other hand, even if it doesn't work, there would be likely to be some disengagement as part of renegotiation, so it's a 'Head we win, tail we get a bit back' stategy.
I think he would be toast one way or another. Which puts the Lib Dems in a remarkably strong position, as the Tories have idolised a policy above all else.
Of course, if the right-wing Tories were a little less thick and a little more strategic, they'd refer to the 2011 Act which implemented the Lib Dem 2010 manifesto commitment of an in-out referendum at the time of the next treaty transferring powers to Brussels, and instead push for an EU treaty that all paperclip regulation governance should now be done at EU level.....
So for a Tory majority to occur either a) Scotland votes for independence or b) the miracle occurs. Either way what would Cameron be like with a Tory majority and how would his majority treat him? Could Cameron survive as leader whilst remaining committed to lead the Stay campaign or even committed to stay in at any cost? Could he actually survive as leader until 2017 (especially if he has lost Scotland with all that the subsequent negotiations entail).
Then comes the negotiation with all the machinations that will be going on alongside it (and possibly it occurring in tandem with the Scottish independence negotiation). Exactly what will Cameron deliver on immigration, on the ECJ, ECHR, CAP CFP, financial freedom, contributions, the social chapter, environment and climate change, aid, business regulation etc etc? It will be an enormous task to put together a package sufficient to carry the majority. That is particularly so given that repeated polling suggests a large majority of people actually when it comes down to it, favour a position (a trading zone only) that would currently demand we withdraw from the EU. Such detailed examination of our relationship with the EU is almost certain to highlight such a reality to the vast majority of the electorate.
However, even if he manages to get to the referendum campaign unscathed with his views in tact imagine the campaign? Imagine Cameron and Miliband (with whoever is leading the Libdems by them trailing along behind) attempting to share the same platform. Talk about an odd couple.
Who would they be up against? Farage almost certainly but who would be the leaders of the Tory Eurosceptic group Hannan? Callanan (if he survives)? Redwood? Carswell? Jenkin? Which ministers would join the Exit campaign? For Cameron and the Tories the campaign is fraught with risk especially if it is decided in certain circles to take Cameron out (much as Clegg was in the AV campaign). Whatever way it is not likely to be pretty for the Tories. I would expect a lot of pent up frustration with Cameron in certain quarters to be vented.
I really have no idea how a referendum might turnout in 2017