UK EU referendum

[Hazir]

My prediction; the UK will get nothing of substance, and will vote to stay in the EU.

[Steely Glint]

My prediction: what ever the UK does get, you will retroactively declare it to be "nothing of substance".

[Aimless]

What's on the table?

[Hazir]

My prediction: what ever the UK does get, you will retroactively declare it to be "nothing of substance".

Let me be more precise; nothing will be given that needs a treaty change or that the UK couldn't have achieved by national legislation.

[Hazir]

Of course one has to take into account that the government's own people have come to the conclusion that there aren't all that many competences that should be repatriated, and that in the case of 'services' it would actually be in the interest of the UK if the EC would get more power rather than less.

[RandBlade]

My prediction: we will get minor improvements that suit both Merkel and Cameron. These will be wrapped in a neat presentational package. Probably mainly along the lines of limiting benefits to migrants who've not paid in etc.

I will vote and campaign to stay In. Cameron will lead the In vote campaign and will win it by a margin of about two to one.

Cameron will then retire after 13 years leading the Tory party, having won two elections, an overall majority and the first PM in 30 years to increase his parties seats at an election; as well as having won three referendum - rejecting electoral reform, Scottish independence and exiting the EU. Not a bad record really!

UKIP will struggle to win even five MPs in 2020 and may not even keep their only one.

Is there anyone on this forum who wants an Out or is uncertain?

[Hazir]

The funny thing is that you can - without violating EU rules - already legislate nationally that newcomers do not have any rights to benefits that aren't non-contributive. As a matter of fact the ECJ has ruled already that a EU citizen from another country does not have a free right of living in another EU country per se. To have the right to live in another EU country you have to have the purpose of working in gainful employment or earn a living self-employed.

[RandBlade]

Which is why Cameron and Merkel will be able to reach a deal. They both want the same thing and it requires some changes in implementation, not treaties. Cameron requires enough to come back and say "these things will get better, now do you want to stay in?"

Clarifying precisely where the limits are and then moving to those limits is a success of sorts. A breakthrough on the impasse on the long running case of the ECJ wanting us to give prisoners the vote is another issue I suspect, that one could be harder to achieve but I think where there's a will there's a way. Also on issue would have been the ECJ wanting us to ban whole life tariffs, but the ECJ has already reversed its ruling there so that's no longer an issue. The UK is simply not going to give prisoners the vote and the issue has been kicked into the long grass time and again without any action taken on either side, I don't know how it can be resolved but it needs to be.

[Steely Glint]

Cameron needs to worry more about the hargle bargle wing of the Tories making his life hell if the deal he comes back doesn't satisfy them (spoilers: it won't) than he does about doing the actual deal.

[RandBlade]

I'm really not sure that's right. There are a hardcore of Bill Cash style of MPs who want to leave the EU but what they've always wanted is an EU referendum. Once that referendum has been done, I don't see where the agitators go from there. Unless the referendum is incredibly close in which case they'll keep agitating for one step more.

Plus once this has been dealt with, there is still the law that any future European treaties will also be subject to referendum. It is the lack of a referendum over Maastricht especially but also all other treaties in the last 40 years that have created the anger amongst the Eurosceptics. We're now in a position where realistically Euro membership is off the table for good, a referendum will have been just held and they know that any future changes will get another referendum. So I think win or lose the arguments will be over one way or another. Until the next treaty change, which gets its own referendum automatically.

If done right there is an opportunity here to fix some of the problems with Europe and finally close the rift in the Party.

PS I know UKIPers online who wanted the Tories to lose the election as they didn't want a referendum . They fully expect to lose the referendum and so wanted the Tories to lose and an anti-Europe Tory leader elected to pledge to leave the EU without a vote. Which would never happen.

[RandBlade]

Off the topic of the referendum slightly, I think party-management wise so long as Cameron doesn't screw something up royally I think he's in a strong position. The Party remembers what divisions in the nineties caused and doesn't want a repeat of that. Plus there's a honeymoon period now for Cameron who's won a lot of political capital and respect from his unexpectedly big victory in the election ... and he has the power of patronage now to grant all the Lib-Dem held jobs of office to more MPs of the party ... and a pretty united desire to get through to the referendum in 2017.

So until 2017 we'll be fairly united. Afterwards it depends upon the results. If we lose the vote and have to leave the EU Cameron would resign immediately and we're opening Pandora's box. If we win it, he'll again have a lot of political capital from that and start heading to his retirement. The party will then be looking to select Cameron's successor probably in 2018 or 2019 by which point the successor will then have a honeymoon period of his or her own. Afterwards we're heading into the next election, so we again need to be united.

Obviously if he screws something up then all bets are off. But there's enough mini deadlines in-between to keep people united that I don't see a timescale for civil war. Unless the referendum is either lost or ludicrously close. Worst case scenario is England narrowly votes for Out, Scotland overwhelmingly votes In and the overall result is In but the English wanted Out. Then we're well down the rabbit hole.

[Hazir]

Which is why Cameron and Merkel will be able to reach a deal. They both want the same thing and it requires some changes in implementation, not treaties. Cameron requires enough to come back and say "these things will get better, now do you want to stay in?"

Clarifying precisely where the limits are and then moving to those limits is a success of sorts. A breakthrough on the impasse on the long running case of the ECJ wanting us to give prisoners the vote is another issue I suspect, that one could be harder to achieve but I think where there's a will there's a way. Also on issue would have been the ECJ wanting us to ban whole life tariffs, but the ECJ has already reversed its ruling there so that's no longer an issue. The UK is simply not going to give prisoners the vote and the issue has been kicked into the long grass time and again without any action taken on either side, I don't know how it can be resolved but it needs to be.

The EU will not re-negotiate the right to vote of prisoners or the lack thereof since that is outside the remit of the EU. If the UK wants to change that the ECHR has to be renegotiated in the Council of Europe, which is not a EU body. Same is true for life-sentencing.

[RandBlade]

The EU will not re-negotiate the right to vote of prisoners or the lack thereof since that is outside the remit of the EU. If the UK wants to change that the ECHR has to be renegotiated in the Council of Europe, which is not a EU body. Same is true for life-sentencing.

The ECJ has already reversed its ruling on life sentencing. That issues resolved already.

I expect a compromise to be found that will satisfy everyone. I'm not sure how, but I think it will happen. The ECJ over-reached and the Council of Europe have repeatedly kicked this into the long grass despite setting deadlines. Something will be reached I think to get a face-saving compromise.

[Hazir]

The ECJ has already reversed its ruling on life sentencing. That issues resolved already.

I expect a compromise to be found that will satisfy everyone. I'm not sure how, but I think it will happen. The ECJ over-reached and the Council of Europe have repeatedly kicked this into the long grass despite setting deadlines. Something will be reached I think to get a face-saving compromise.

But do you understand that this is not something you can re-negotiate with the EU? From the fact that you use the abbreviation of ECJ on a matter that is clearly in the remit of the ECHR it seems that you don't.

[RandBlade]

But do you understand that this is not something you can re-negotiate with the EU? From the fact that you use the abbreviation of ECJ on a matter that is clearly in the remit of the ECHR it seems that you don't.

Yes I do. The fact I used the wrong acronym is neither here nor there, I expect the bulk of negotiations to be made with Merkel in mind not the EU anyway. So most re-negotiations aren't actually being done with the EU. You are aware of that, aren't you? You don't seriously think Juncker is going to be more important than Merkel in these negotiations do you? Any reference to the EU is a catch-all reference to the related parties involved.

Diplomats, lawyers and interested bodies on all sides will reach a face-saving compromise.

[RandBlade]

Its worth remembering in this discussion that the UK is the second most important nation in the EU now after Germany. We have the second biggest market and Germany have no interest in losing that, we're also far closer economically to Germany than France is and provide some important balance in Europe. Cameron now along with Merkel is one of the only European leaders to have won re-election since 2008. Neither Merkel nor Cameron want the UK to leave and now that Cameron has won a mandate I'm sure agreements will be reached where they can.

EDIT: Hazir how do you want this to go? Do you want the vote to be for In or Out? I'm clear I want an In vote.

[Hazir]

Yes I do. The fact I used the wrong acronym is neither here nor there, I expect the bulk of negotiations to be made with Merkel in mind not the EU anyway. So most re-negotiations aren't actually being done with the EU. You are aware of that, aren't you? You don't seriously think Juncker is going to be more important than Merkel in these negotiations do you? Any reference to the EU is a catch-all reference to the related parties involved.

Diplomats, lawyers and interested bodies on all sides will reach a face-saving compromise.

Neither Merkel nor Juncker will be able to negotiate in any way binding the Council of Europe. If you want to talk issues that are NOT of the EU then it is no use to talk with anybody in any capacity representing the EU.

Also, given the fact that the chances of any treaty change being completed before the end of 2017 are zero, the European Commission (and thus Juncker) will be a significant party to the negotiations as the EC has the right of initiative in any legislation needed to give the UK any result to show for at all. It would be nice if the British start to understand that it actually matters who you talk with if you want to achieve something.

Unless of course you want to go the Greek way and achieve nothing by showing yourself tough enough to bang your head against a brick wall incessantly just because you don't think you should talk to the opposite party but somebody entirely different.

[Hazir]

Its worth remembering in this discussion that the UK is the second most important nation in the EU now after Germany. We have the second biggest market and Germany have no interest in losing that, we're also far closer economically to Germany than France is and provide some important balance in Europe. Cameron now along with Merkel is one of the only European leaders to have won re-election since 2008. Neither Merkel nor Cameron want the UK to leave and now that Cameron has won a mandate I'm sure agreements will be reached where they can.

EDIT: Hazir how do you want this to go? Do you want the vote to be for In or Out? I'm clear I want an In vote.

You are absolutely not the 'second most important nation in the EU'. You are the country that the Union can do without, if need be. That is the result of 20 years of obstruction and 5 years of placing the Conservative Party in the MEP outside of the center of power.

The first task of your PM will be to re-build the bridges he's burnt over the last 5 years, just in order for other members to see it's worth the effort to keep you in. It's blatantly clear to everybody that even if you want to get out, you'll still gonna try to keep the deal you have right now as some sort of associated member so the most we'll lose it a member that forces uneasy compromises on the rest of the Union. We're not going to lose the UK as a market or a place where EU citizens can work as they please. In a worst case scenario, you're going to lose the ability to shape your own legislation wrt the single market.

So that's my answer to your question; I don't care too much if the answer is IN or OUT. You on the other hand should have a care, because IN means you keep a say in European matters, and OUT means that you don't.

[RandBlade]

You're not listening. I'm not saying we'll only talk to one person, I'm saying there'll be wide-ranging discussions with all the relevant people. That's not just Juncker, or not just Merkel, or not just anyone else. Its a well-rounded discussion. However as the de facto (though not de jure) leader of Europe it will be Merkel who is the most important person to talk to. This depends upon which issues we're talking about.

For the issue of votes I think its primarily lawyers who will end up reaching a compromise behind the scenes and away from the public gaze that then somehow goes before the ECHR; but I wouldn't want to prejudge that its just my own personal expectation. Neither the Council of Europe nor the UK want this dragging on forever so I suspect realpolitik will play itself out, as it already has done both with the issues of whole life tariffs and blocking the deportation of terrorists (which was another thorn that was constantly getting held up but isn't now). I don't think the ECHR will be unduly obstinate which is why I think a face-saving compromise will be reached. PS this isn't an issue that Cameron or others have spoken about as one they want negotiating, but its an open wound currently that could cause problems during a referendum, so I simply suspect a bandage will be found to cover it up to end this issue before the referendum. For a few years we kept bumping heads with the ECHR but there's been a lot more common sense in recent years and this is the last issue left to resolve that I can think of. Once this is dealt with, I can't think of any other crises to resolve.

For the primary issues of negotiation I think that if Merkel and Cameron can be on the same page on the key issues, then the rest of Europe will follow. If Merkel doesn't agree, I don't think Cameron has a hope in hell of getting Europe to agree without her. So I expect the key is to primarily reach agreements with Merkel and then to further reach agreements with everyone else. Its worth noting that both Merkel and Juncker have shown a willingness to try and reach an agreement. Now that its got a democratic mandate, I don't see anyone significant whose interests are served by blocking an agreement being made.

[RandBlade]

You are absolutely not the 'second most important nation in the EU'. You are the country that the Union can do without, if need be. That is the result of 20 years of obstruction and 5 years of placing the Conservative Party in the MEP outside of the center of power.

I say you're wrong on that. Greece is the nation that can be done without, like a hole in the head. We on the other hand have the second largest market, the second most significant leader and pay the second highest amount towards the EU budget. We also have the best economic situation in Europe currently, being the fastest growing major nation and we've been putting on more jobs than the rest of the EU combined while France, Spain and other big or medium sized nations are struggling. And as we all know now more than ever, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Germany pays and we pay. The Netherlands and other small nations pay too, but aren't as big as us.

Hollande crashing the French economy has ensured that France has lost the negotiating power it used to have.

The first task of your PM will be to re-build the bridges he's burnt over the last 5 years, just in order for other members to see it's worth the effort to keep you in. It's blatantly clear to everybody that even if you want to get out, you'll still gonna try to keep the deal you have right now as some sort of associated member so the most we'll lose it a member that forces uneasy compromises on the rest of the Union. We're not going to lose the UK as a market or a place where EU citizens can work as they please. In a worst case scenario, you're going to lose the ability to shape your own legislation wrt the single market.

Don't believe media hype, the bridges are there already. Cameron has a working relationship with Merkel and others already. I suspect initial groundwork negotiations have been going on for years now laying the groundwork out in case the election deemed it necessary. Which it now has.

If we vote Out then unfortunately the first thing that goes is the right to work in the UK. Immigration is the number one thing pissing off the racists in this country. As it is the rising racist movements across Europe.

So that's my answer to your question; I don't care too much if the answer is IN or OUT. You on the other hand should have a care, because IN means you keep a say in European matters, and OUT means that you don't.

If we're out then we don't need a say in European matters since they'll no longer apply to us. We'll negotiate tariff-free trade with the EU (as other nations have) and probably sign TIPP along with the EU and USA and will continue to be members of the WTO. I don't want that to happen but if we lose the vote and its Out then that would be the future.

[LittleFuzzy]

My prediction: what ever the UK does get, you will retroactively declare it to be "nothing of substance".

Wow, your prediction has already proven to be spot-on Steely.

[Steely Glint]

Ah, if only I'd predicted "Randblade and Hazir will go off on one for like 20 pages". Why, you'd all think I was psychic.

[RandBlade]

The funny thing is I'm like you on the side of wanting to stay in Europe, Hazir so far hasn't committed to wanting that. Funny that.

[Hazir]

The funny thing is I'm like you on the side of wanting to stay in Europe, Hazir so far hasn't committed to wanting that. Funny that.

Why should I care if it doesn't really affect me? The UK isn't going to be tugged away from where it is right now, and it's not going to remove itself from the single market either. You people decide on whether on not you want to be relevant to the way that single market is regulated. And that makes you the country that can be done without. For the simple reason that your being in or out isn't going to make a real difference in the way you do business with the rest of us; and that's not just because we would be inclined to impose such a non-change on you, but because you will consider it to be in your own interest, and will demand it once you decide to go OUT. We could call it something new, or bilaterals, or even EFTA in the end you will be doing business by the rules of the EU.

As for the 'not listening' part; I am listening very carefully. You immediately start with a discourse about your own Human Rights Act, which has got nothing to do with the EU whatsoever. I can understand that to a certain extent, for the simple reason that your own government wants you to believe that it is about the HRA, but the fact of the matter is that nobody in the EU, (commission or leaders of member states) has anything to offer to you with regards to the human rights act. You're literally barking up the wrong tree. So every time you start yapping about prisoner rights, I will point out that those are not a matter the EU has any say in.

In my more cynical moment it appears to me that your leaders say they want a re-negotiated relationship, but what they really want is a game of smoke and mirrors to make their voters believe their best efforts to change nothing really, was putting up a fight against 'the usurping bureaucracy in Brussels'

[RandBlade]

I never said a word about any Human Rights Act. I was quite positive I thought actually saying I expected common sense to rule and a face saving compromise to be reached to end a long running impasse. As happened already over whole life sentences and I gave credit to the court for seeing sense and reversing its decision. I'm happy to give credit where it's due. Unlike you I don't think reasonable people on any side want a total falling out so I think resolutions will be found.

The reason I, not the government or media, brought up the issue with prisoner votes is that unless I'm mistaken being a member of the Council of Europe and obeying the ECHR ruling is a prerequisite of being a member of the EU. If it weren't for the EU we could say no you're being absurd to the ECHR and quit it, but as EU members that is impossible. So without that being resolved it's a bugbear for those who want out. Fix the problem and it loses it's salience that is just common sense.

[RandBlade]

Rumours that the referendum could be brought forward to 2016. I doubt it, but matches my thoughts that the groundwork towards an agreement (or bridges as Hazir said) has already been started and not burnt.

[Hazir]

I never said a word about any Human Rights Act. I was quite positive I thought actually saying I expected common sense to rule and a face saving compromise to be reached to end a long running impasse. As happened already over whole life sentences and I gave credit to the court for seeing sense and reversing its decision. I'm happy to give credit where it's due. Unlike you I don't think reasonable people on any side want a total falling out so I think resolutions will be found.

The reason I, not the government or media, brought up the issue with prisoner votes is that unless I'm mistaken being a member of the Council of Europe and obeying the ECHR ruling is a prerequisite of being a member of the EU. If it weren't for the EU we could say no you're being absurd to the ECHR and quit it, but as EU members that is impossible. So without that being resolved it's a bugbear for those who want out. Fix the problem and it loses it's salience that is just common sense.

No, you didn't mention the HRA as such, but you referred to two issue that only have meaning in the framework of the HRA.

What is a prerequisite is respect for Human Rights, that is not the same as being a party to the Convention. If a British Bill of Rights is deemed satisfactory with regards to respecting Human Rights, the UK could leave the Council and still be a member of the EU. I wonder how popular such a move would be within the borders of the Kingdom, but that would be an entirely internal matter. Were I a subject of Elizabeth II, I would not be entirely comfortable with civil rights protection being dependent on the majority of the day. But again, since I don't have a horse in that race; not my business.

So again; you're barking up the wrong tree.

As for the IN or OUT question; given that there is no serious support in your isles for an OUT that goes any further than removing yourselves from the political framework of the EU, for the rest of us your IN or OUT becomes interesting only as the question as to why a big European country would seriously consider reducing itself to the status of a supplicant. We'll maybe start worrying once the real radicals have it and remove your country not only from the EU but also from the single market. But even the likes of you would not consider self-inflicting such a wound. One would have to be a lunatic to do so. With you not leaving the single market, we don't loose anything material.

Rumours that the referendum could be brought forward to 2016. I doubt it, but matches my thoughts that the groundwork towards an agreement (or bridges as Hazir said) has already been started and not burnt.

Talk of a referendum in 2016 only reinforces my idea of what will be achieved.

[RandBlade]

I was mistaken if that's the case then, I was sure membership of the Council of Europe and ECHR were a pre-requisite for being a member of the EU. If I was wrong, I hold my hands up. Either way, I expect a resolution to be found on this matter before the vote. I simply don't think Cameron or anyone else will want this coming up as a stinging issue during the referendum campaign.

We've led the world for centuries on civil rights, so I don't think we need to take lessons on it from elsewhere and are quite capable of setting our own rules on rights. Other similar nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand all enforce their own rights - is that something you're not comfortable with either?

If we go out, we'll no more be a supplicant than Canada is a supplicant of the USA. We'll trade freely with Europe, but write our own rules for our own matters. Not that I think we should or would go out.

[RandBlade]

Oh and I'm not sure what you mean by "the likes of you". I'm pro-European and would vote to stay In as I said, I'm just not an extreme Eurofederalist like you. Hard for anyone to be as extreme as you.

[Hazir]

I was mistaken if that's the case then, I was sure membership of the Council of Europe and ECHR were a pre-requisite for being a member of the EU. If I was wrong, I hold my hands up. Either way, I expect a resolution to be found on this matter before the vote. I simply don't think Cameron or anyone else will want this coming up as a stinging issue during the referendum campaign.

We've led the world for centuries on civil rights, so I don't think we need to take lessons on it from elsewhere and are quite capable of setting our own rules on rights. Other similar nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand all enforce their own rights - is that something you're not comfortable with either?

If we go out, we'll no more be a supplicant than Canada is a supplicant of the USA. We'll trade freely with Europe, but write our own rules for our own matters. Not that I think we should or would go out.

Funny that you would mention Canada. But of course you will write your own rules; the thing is 'we' will write the rules of the single market, which you do want to be part of.