UK EU referendum?

It seems like Cameron might not be able to get all his ducks in line in the British Parliament about a vote on whether or not the UK voters should get a referendum in the continued membership of the UK in the EU.

They're supposed to get three options;

1. stay in
2. get out
3. get on the fence (renegotiate relationship)

It should be a bit of a laugh if the Brits push ahead with this referendum and it should be even funnier if they wind up with an 'out' outcome. It will make me giggle if they wind up with a Norwegian model, only to realise that just means that Brussels is going to tell the UK what new laws to implement rather than ask it to think about the laws while they are still on the drawing boards. Industries that will severely suffer from such a move would be the financial industry and car manufacturing. It will be good for ferry's since they could re-start their alki/tobacco taxfree shops.

I really regret this referendum will not take place. The EU can only become better from not having the UK as an unwilling member.

I don't get the sense the UK is really the biggest problem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I don't get the sense the UK is really the biggest problem...

---

Then your sense is off; it is universally acknowledged that the EU should have been more integrated in order to tackle or even prevent the kind of crisis we have now. Now have a wild guess which country is so hysterical about more integration that even the word federal is considered a four letter word.

On a semi related issue; foreign affairs we see a pattern evolving of the EU staying passive because of the UK rejecting collective action when the other 26 members would welcome such collective action.

If the vote goes 26:1 too often you have to wonder if the '1', should be in the club at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I really regret this referendum will not take place.

---

Cameron's first big test, and it looks as if he's pulled it off.

Is that a good thing?

Depends who you ask.

I fear that the UK may well vote against continued EU ties if it went to a referendum. Not good in my book.

Besides, I'm not a fan of referendums. I vote for a party to lead the country. Calling referendums is not leading.

And we nead Führers... err.. sorry.. leaders.

No, its a good point. The whole point of representative politics is that everyone cant know everything, so we gather together to pick one person to not be a mechanic or a plumber or a teacher and instead collectively pay them spend all their time thinking about politics in the hope that they make professional decisions and not the stupid, mobbish, short term decisions that large groups tend to make.

Think about it, the populace as a whole cant be trusted to vote properly on X-Factor. How the flip can you even consider letting them near big, serious decisions like EU Participation?

Have you even seen Youtube comments section? Thats exactly the people who have a say in referend...a

X-Factor is not a democratic vote, it's a census vote (you pay for each vote, and you can have multiple votes).

Quote:

---

Have you even seen Youtube comments section? Thats exactly the people who have a say in referend

---

I listened to parliamentarian discussions ;)

(BTW our parliamentarians aren't even professional, they have normal jobs and meet for 4 sessions a year.)

I wonder if that's related to you not allowing women to vote in federal elections until 40 years ago and quite blatantly discriminating against Muslims when it comes to gaining citizenship and building places of worship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Depends who you ask.

I fear that the UK may well vote against continued EU ties if it went to a referendum. Not good in my book.

Besides, I'm not a fan of referendums. I vote for a party to lead the country. Calling referendums is not leading.

---

It would be good for the EU though as two of your main parties pander to eurosceptics who they really should tell to take a hike with their nonsense. Let them vote for the UKIP and see how much good that does them. We'd never seen the disgrace of a constitution that Lisbon is if it weren't for the need to make it bearable (not even acceptable) to the eurosceptics in the UK. What we got is a monstrum that makes nobody happy. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I wonder if that's related to you not allowing women to vote in federal elections until 40 years ago and quite blatantly discriminating against Muslims when it comes to gaining citizenship and building places of worship.

---

Muslims are discriminated when it comes to gaining citizenship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Muslims are discriminated when it comes to gaining citizenship?

---

Am I incorrect that citizenship is granted on a local level (as long as certain requirements are met) and that Muslims have had their applications rejected a disproportionate amount of the time?

There has been a federal court ruling that each rejection has to be well justified and that courts can overrule any unjustified local level decision. After that ruling the SVP started an initiative ("Einbürgerundsintiative") that would have given the last word back to the local level (local level means people voting for small towns <= 10'000). The initiative was rejected by the 63,8% of the people and 25 of 26 cantons.

You know there is no ban on building places of warship by Muslims, there is a ban on minarets which is regrettable but minarets are not places of worship. While there are usually minarets near a mosque they are not essential to a mosque. The main function of a minaret is a call to prayer which is forbidden anyway and quite rightly so, because it would disturb the sleep of all the heathens in the area. Personally I think that they look good and there is no reason to ban them, also the question on the ballot was apparently very poorly worded and many people voted for the ban while thinking they were voting against.

Referendum in my opinion are a great tool, it gives the constituents a way to control that politician they elected and when he does something that enough people feel strongly about he can be overruled. It seems to function rather well in Switzerland. (although I am somewhat disappointed that we actually voted to raise value added tax, which was advertised as a temporary tax when it was introduced in the 90s and now we have seen it increased long past the time when it was supposed to have expired, the main motivation among the voters seemingly being hey its only .4% and it’s to helps finance the aid for the disabled, by my estimation we can buy houses on the lake for all the disabled for that price).

Earth they do still publish the names of people applying for citizenship in the communal paper and the residents of the commune can file opposition? Or has it been changed? I dont see it as descrimination why should not the people have some say as to who should share citizenship with them and if the there is a prejudice among the population against certain culture both sides are better of with the rejection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Earth they do still publish the names of people applying for citizenship in the communal paper and the residents of the commune can file opposition? Or has it been changed? I dont see it as descrimination why should not the people have some say as to who should share citizenship with them and if the there is a prejudice among the population against certain culture both sides are better of with the rejection.

---

They procedure is defined on local level as well. So I can't give you a general answer. I personally don't like it that the immigration differs so much between different parts of the country. It's much easier to become Swiss if you live in Lausanne than when you live in Muotathal. But as it is, you always have to become the citizen of a town to become a citizen of Switzerland. The ruling of the federal court was, that any rejection needs to be justified, and the reason for that is to avoid discrimination.

The problem was never if you were Muslim or not but rather if your name ended on "ic" or not.

well the differences are logical since technically you are not becoming a Swiss citizen but a citizen of the canton which is part of the Swiss confederation at least that’s what the guy explained to me when I became citizen of Geneva.
It is kind of stupid as having become citizen of Geneva the easiest canton to get nationality there is nothing stopping me from immediately moving on and inflicting my presence on another much stricter canton.

It's even worse, you get citizen of the commune of Geneva. Federalism at its best :( it's really stupid, as you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Then your sense is off; it is universally acknowledged that the EU should have been more integrated in order to tackle or even prevent the kind of crisis we have now. Now have a wild guess which country is so hysterical about more integration that even the word federal is considered a four letter word.

---

Come on, Hazir, that's a bit over the top. The UK had legitimate doubts about how a common currency would work. And now that many of those fears have proved legitimate, you're suggesting these problems are the fault of the UK because they sat-out the common currency?

If the UK sat out on the Euro, that left everyone else quite able to pursue the super-integrated currency you've always wanted. And yet it didn't happen. And here we are.

You're knowledge of this issue far exceeds mine, but I can't agree with the suggestion that the UK is to blame for the possible collapse of the currency it never adopted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

that even the word federal is considered a four letter word.

---

Well it is, and ought to be [at least as far as what federal means in the modern world].

One-size-fits-all rules don't even work well in individual countries, so being skeptical of that approach to bind a couple dozen widely different countries together isn't "hysterical," it's vestigial traces of intelligence. (Especially with the benefit of hindsight, and that whole 50% debt write-down for Greece... real EU success story, that. :bored:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Come on, Hazir, that's a bit over the top. The UK had legitimate doubts about how a common currency would work. And now that many of those fears have proved legitimate, you're suggesting these problems are the fault of the UK because they sat-out the common currency?

If the UK sat out on the Euro, that left everyone else quite able to pursue the super-integrated currency you've always wanted. And yet it didn't happen. And here we are.

You're knowledge of this issue far exceeds mine, but I can't agree with the suggestion that the UK is to blame for the possible collapse of the currency it never adopted.

---

Who is talking about the euro? I am talking about the EU and I sure as hell think the UK is to blame for the extremely slow process of decision making that we are burdened with in the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well it is, and ought to be [at least as far as what federal means in the modern world].

One-size-fits-all rules don't even work well in individual countries, so being skeptical of that approach to bind a couple dozen widely different countries together isn't "hysterical," it's vestigial traces of intelligence. (Especially with the benefit of hindsight, and that whole 50% debt write-down for Greece... real EU success story, that. :bored:)

---

Well, with a federal treasury the whole Greek problem wouldn't have happened for the simple reason that Greece would not have been able to overspend on the scale it did without that treasury hitting the brakes.

I must say I had a good laugh when I read reports today that Cameron is looking for support of the Commission to ensure that the interests of the '10' are not overruled by a 'caucus of the 17'. Sarkozy's outburst last week seems to have bitten quite a bit it seems :)

Not that there are really '10' outs in the way Cameron would like to make us believe; most of the outs will at some point join the EMU and will do so willingly.

Hmmm.. nobody else thinks the Brits should have the right to vote themselves into irrelevance?

Or maybe nobody else really cares a whole lot, whereas you have this fanatical obsession with all matters EU-related.

Except that this so-called obsession is just interest in what appears to be one of the biggest overhauls the EU has gone through from the day it came into existence and what is an ongoing crisis about its relationship with the EU in the country concerned. British newspapers currently write about the EU as an issue that could effectively destroy Cameron's leadership.

You can try to call that 'obsession', but I think it's rather important if the EU really turns into a federal state and loses the UK as a member in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Depends who you ask.

I fear that the UK may well vote against continued EU ties if it went to a referendum. Not good in my book.

Besides, I'm not a fan of referendums. I vote for a party to lead the country. Calling referendums is not leading.

---

I agree. Especially that the UK would probably vote in favour of pulling out.

Problem is, the pro EU camp need to do more. A lot more. I hear very little about the benefits of being in the EU, but the negative aspects of it are vocalised everywhere. I want to be a part of the EU, but I must admit that I sometimes find it hard to justify that decision without working quite hard to understand why.

What annoyed me most during this recent debate was not that the 3 main parties ordered their MPs to vote against a referendum, but that they didn't make an effort to reassure me that staying apart of the EU in it's current incarnation is the right thing to do. Unless I missed it, of course, but I read the news and listen to Radio 4 every morning so I'm not totally out of touch!

Do you really think this was the time to honour the desire of engaging in a debate whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU? I mean, I think it would be best for the EU if the UK would leave as your country is incapable of telling the anti-EU crowd to either show their colours by voting the only party that is for pulling out or to shut the fuck up and ignore their hostility towards the EU. What happens in stead is that main stream politicians start trying to win their votes by shifting into the 'sceptic' column.

If Cameron wasn't one of those politicians I think he was entirely right in telling the rebels to shut the fuck up. They have been spreading their poison long enough now and the damage is getting unbearable.

The UK has effectively been sidelined, not matter how much mr Cameron thinks to repatriate powers to Whitehall. Every 'success' in that field simply means abandoning power and influence. A process that could go as far as reducing the UK to a bigger version of Switzerland; entirely subject to EU rules, but having no say in what those rules are.

As soon as this financial crisis cools down I think indeed there should be a referendum in the UK about the EU, and I have little doubt that the 'out' campaign will have a much harder time finding funding than the 'in' campaign. For the simple reason that a huge chunk of your economy could be choked out of existence if the UK would no longer be inside the EU.

And really, why should the 'pro's' keep repeating the obvious to an audience that refuses to be informed ? Let me throw in the word 'cabotage'; it's one of the things that is made possible by the EU. It ended the practise of lorries having to return to their home base empty after making a delivery in another EU contry. It did make it possible for Ryanair to have flights between London and Barcelona. No EU means no EU wide cabotage.

Millions of people take these things for granted, certainly don't credit the EU for such conveniences, but have no problem dregging up that old cow about 'curvature of bananas'.

PEOPLE OF THE PAST

IT IS MY ASSIGNMENT TO GIVE TO YOU A WARNING

BE WARNED

DO NOT FUCKING DO IT

Also, you'll never guess who's Prime Minister right now.

Or who's president.

Honestly, your faces.