Posted on 07/02/2012 11:47:02 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Under increasing domestic pressure as the eurozone considers major integrative steps, Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK may have a referendum on the EU, but his couched statement does not go far enough for increasingly restive Conservative euroskeptics.
"The two words “Europe” and “referendum” can go together, particularly if we really are proposing a change in how our country is governed," Cameron wrote in the Sunday Telegraph.
But he cautioned against an in/out referendum. "Leaving would not be in our country’s best interests", while a British vote to stay in the union would mean that subsequent attempts to change London's relations with Brussels would run into cries that the "British people had already spoken."
"What I believe the vast majority of the British people want is to make changes to our relationship."
Elaborating on Cameron's statements, which British media have interpreted as change in tone if not in policy, foreign secretary William Hague said: “What the Prime Minister is saying is that the time to decide on a referendum or a general election on our relationship with Europe is when we know how Europe is going to develop over the coming months and years to the eurozone crisis, and when we know whether we can get that better relationship."
But Cameron's latest wait-and-see statement has riled his backbench euroskeptics, who see the eurozone's steps to create a political and fiscal union as the perfect reason for the UK to take a harder line. …
(Excerpt) Read more at euobserver.com ...
Great, another beggar looking for handouts from Germany.
In the first place, the UK is a representative democracy. We don't need to have referendums. They are not mandatory for the system. If we start to decide things by referendum eventually people will demand referendums for anything and everything.
Now people often say "but isn't a referendum fairer? Isn't it the 'voice of the people'". Theoretically yes, but in practice, the only reason politicians ever allow a referendum is because they think the point of view they are pushing for is going to win. For example, the Scottish Nationalists have been lobbying for "independence" for years - it is certainly their ultimate objective. Now they won the last election in Scotland, in the sense that they got the most votes and won the most seats, but that &$£^%£$ Alex Salmond won't call the referendum on independence he has been demanding, and the only reason is because he knows he will lost it.
Don’t know what you mean by that.
This would hardly be a trivial referendum. Some background.
The UK was promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty by the Labour party as part of their election platform. However Gordon ‘the Leper’ Brown reneged on this promise, gave no referendum and signed the treaty anyway.
Now Cameron is coming under pressure (from the success of UKIP and from his own backbenchers) to finally let the British people express their opinion of the treaty and of what the EU has become.
The choice will indeed be either IN or OUT of the EU’s repressive customs- and debt-union.
It’s already customs/debt/political union at this point. That’s what Germany keeps pushing the other member states for. I do not regard that as a reasonable demand.
“Don’t know what you mean by that.”
Me neither - perhaps Berlin_freeper could elucidate?
The majority of the British do want out of the EU but that doesn’t mean leaving AND protecting our interests is a simple thing.
It has been obvious for a long time that the EU is merely a German attempt to achieve with international socialism what they failed to achieve with national socialism - control of europe.
The problem we in the UK face by leaving is that the eurozone is very jealous of the international financial strength of London. Whilst we’re in there is little they can do to curtail it’s power. When we’re gone with no veto and no longer filling their coffers, all sorts of restrictions can be placed.
I’m all for leaving, but not naive enough to believe it will be a clean break.
Yes - that's why we want to get out. A customs union is not what the British people originally understood by the term 'Common Market'. This is why a referendum is sorely needed: we want off the Raft of the Medusa.
The EU has become an arid mercantile customs union; and it is planning to become a European Soviet. We (however) want free trade; we want no more interference from Brussels and we don't want to send any more money to the EU political class.
This isn’t like a healthcare bill or some other fairly trivial matter, these (Scottish independence, EU membership) are major constitutional issues that are about WHO governs us, these matters are absolutely the kinds of issues that require a referendum, and politicians have absolutely no right whatsoever to change the body which governs us without consulting the people. We should have had referendums each time the EU tried to take more power from Westminster, but it didn’t happen...
No, we’ve got control over our own interest rates thanks, so we won’t need to prostrate ourselves before the fatherland in order to pay the crippling costs of staying within the Euro. Thank God we didn’t join..
I’d agree that Tory backbenchers are doing what they should by pressuring Cameron but I’m not sure I’d agree that UKIP is much of a factor. UKIP seems more like a single issue, circular firing squad than a credible political party.
I’m also not that confident that a referendum would change much. The last poll I saw (for The Times, I think) showed 48% for pulling out, 35% for staying in and the remainder as ‘not sure’.
Whilst that looks promising, I think the staying in figures would rise as pro-EU campaigners focussed heavily on the feat factor of losing trade and jobs.
There is also another issue which is always overlooked in this debate; there are a million UK citizens permanently resident in other EU countries. Not only are these people not included in many poll figures but I’d imagine that they’d vote massively in favor of staying in and their participation rate would be much higher than UK based citizens.
In the end, I think the UK is too far down the road with the EU to do much more than slow their integration.
Referendums become necessary when the 2 parties become one of the same and are working together against the people. I wist the US would hold a referendum on the UN.
Calling for referendums is essentially a tool whereby proponents of populist policies can beat up the powers that be. Not that that isn't a desirable thing to do sometimes.
Please understand I'm not advocating referendums for any of these issues, I'm just trying to show how allowing one referendum might be the thin edge of a wedge that could lead to referendums happening all the time. We would be on the road to a type of participatory rather than representative democracy.
Actually, I do think we ought to have a referendum on the reform of the House of Lords.
Boundary changes for constituencies are trivial and happen quite regularly based on the population size of any given constituency. The Boundaries Commission is simply an impartial body there to prevent the rise of ‘rotten boroughs’ like Old Sarum happening again, and constituency changes do not happen for political reasons. Holding a referendum every time there is a population shift would be ridiculous...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.