MY PRINT column this week considers the political implications in Britain of the deepening euro crisis:
DAVID CAMERON does not want Britain to leave the European Union, though he finds it exasperating and fears euro-zone meltdown could cost him re-election. His Liberal Democrat coalition partner, Nick Clegg, is a pro-European. Nor does the Labour opposition leader, Ed Miliband, want out. Mr Miliband is a European social democrat by instinct (his relatives were refugees from the Holocaust) and by judgment, seeing the EU as a way of delivering public goods such as action on climate change.
Yet the chances of Britain leaving the EU in the next few years are higher than they have ever been. A Brixit looms for several reasons. For one thing, the British never fell in love with Europe, instead weighing costs against economic benefits. Right now the EU is seen as a basket case (though British finances are hardly in great shape).
For another, if euro-zone members overcome their differences and integrate much more deeply, they would arguably be leaving Britain, especially if their integration fragments the single market that is the bedrock of British membership. Mr Cameron and his chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, may talk of the euro's “remorseless logic” compelling richer members to stand behind the weak. But there are paths of European integration down which no government led by Mr Cameron (or for that matter Mr Miliband) could follow. At the top of the Conservative and Labour parties, economic debate is dominated by those who saw the euro as a disaster and think they are being proved right. The public agrees, though their certainty has less to do with economics than misanthropy: the British do not like southern Europeans enough to offer them a subsidy union, and have never believed that other rich northerners, deep down, felt differently.
British politicians can be forgiven a degree of passivity, then. Yet if Britain is closer to the exits than before, politicians do bear the blame in one important way. A worrying number of MPs seem to believe that—as a happy result of this crisis—Britain can blackmail its way to more favourable terms of membership.
As Conservative Party leader in 1998, the current foreign secretary William Hague predicted that the single currency would turn into a “burning building with no exits” (in a speech mostly written by a young aide called George Osborne, as it happens). Now that the euro is ablaze, some Tory Eurosceptics want to park in front of the fire station, blocking treaty changes aimed at shoring up the currency unless the EU returns swathes of powers to British control. Their vehicle for such blackmail would be a “referendum lock” that became British law last year, guaranteeing a national vote on any future transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels. Technically, euro-zone rescue plans could be crafted to avoid transfers of sovereignty from Britain. But some Tories, including—it is reported—some cabinet ministers, have told Mr Cameron that deep euro-zone integration would so alter Britain's relations with Europe that a referendum should be held anyway.
Tory leaders think they can win that argument. In parallel they also think that they can fend off calls from other Eurosceptics for a straight in-out referendum, calling such a vote the wrong question at a time of rapid change to Europe's structures.
Such arguments are relatively easy to win. Most Tory MPs do not favour outright withdrawal. They want a looser relationship with Europe, involving single-market membership without the bits they dislike such as environmental and employment rules, or big budget contributions. Most Tory MPs also realise that a block-the-fire-station blackmail strategy, unleashed at the height of a global economic crisis, is risky.
Instead, a supposedly safer wheeze is generating enthusiasm: to head into the next general election promising a formal renegotiation of British ties with Europe, with the results to be put to a “validating referendum”. The problem is that a negotiate-then-validate strategy is just a prettified form of blackmail. It amounts to a bet that other EU members will grant big concessions, knowing that otherwise British voters would reject the deal.
Nobody is going to pay Britain to stay
Germany—seen by Mr Cameron as the dominant force in a fast-changing Europe—has clearly signalled that Chancellor Angela Merkel will not be blackmailed into British opt-outs or special treatment. Germany accepts that in the event of treaty changes to create new euro-zone institutions, Mr Cameron would need concessions to get such changes endorsed by Parliament. Perhaps certain narrow powers could return to the national level for all EU members, Britain has been told. But push too hard and euro-zone integration will be pursued outside EU structures.
Germany may be bluffing a bit, but not wholly. Nor is it easy to see why MPs think a referendum to validate new terms of membership is safer than an in-out vote. Draw a map of possible outcomes, and to avoid defeat the future government would need to secure a renegotiation, win hefty concessions, convince the public that they were hefty and then persuade voters to answer the question on the ballot paper rather than generally vent spleen. A single wrong turn would lead to the EU exits.
Yet within Parliament and Whitehall, a startling number of senior figures think that one of the big parties will pledge an EU referendum before the next general election, forcing the others to follow. Labour, it is said, might call a referendum to split the Tory Party. The Conservatives might call one to shore up their core vote. Both might be bounced by rising support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, which favours withdrawal.
None of the party leaders want to leave the EU, but it could happen. All have much to lose from an EU referendum, yet such a vote is starting to feel almost inevitable. How this ends is unknowable, and only partly in Britain's hands.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
"Most Tory MPs also realise that a block-the-fire-station blackmail strategy,........"
This kind of comment may look racy and clever. In fact it is obfuscating.
If Mr Cameron cannot communicate with Mrs Merkel and talk about how his country (and ours) can work together with Germany, then, frankly, the situation is really desperate. Leaving is one option. Negotiating a new position is another option. Remaining as we are in a time when the EU is changing rapidly - as it constantly says, More Europe!" - is not an option.
Please will you stop using the silly word "blackmail"? It is not suitable or helpful. Blackmail means revealing a crime unless you are paid money to conceal it.
In no way is this what anyone is doing here.
There are some real challenges facing the government - of whatever stripe - and we need precision, not journalese to deal with them.
Really - blackmail only means revealing a crime - so how does that fit with "emotional blackmail"? Where is the crime to be revealed there?
Wikipedia defines this as, among other definitions, "In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail - so it is appropriate here
O, please, leave, leave the EU!!!
Why don't you? It is a great idea!
We would offer you FTA status, no doubt about it, and continue cooperating in many fundamental areas. We like you, at the end of the day.
But please, please, leave us for good and stop this boring melodrama of quitting or staying!
It would be good for the Tories to remember that the E.U. doesn't need the U.K. in order to survive but that the U.K. will probably need the E.U. if it wants to arrest it's decline.
As a British Citizen, living in Austria with an Irish girlfriend, I would hate to think that the painstakingly negotiated right to live and work within the EU, which I enjoy in full faith of it's being honored, could be broken as the result of electoral opportunism.
Can anyone list which powers have to be repatriated for the UK to remain in the EU?
The blackmail option is a complete delusion. Quite honestly I think Merkel, Hollande and co are probably fairly fed up with Britain's prima donna posturing and will concede little or nothing to make life politically easier for British politicians. The central dilemma here is the same as it's always been. You can't be a member of a club and try to pretend that the membership rules don't broadly apply to you. You can attempt to modify the rules but if this fails the only option is to drop your membership. Since in the case of the EU this would be economically suicidal the leaderships of all three parties are desperate to avoid facing up to the implications of this basic reality. We're either in or we're out we can't have it both ways.
For me, this is just patriotic populism. The deluded idea that England, Britain, whatever, can do better on its own than in co-operation with its neighbours. Rule Britannia and all that.
Those heady days are in the past. For good.
Starting from first principles: Britain is a European country. To suggest otherwise is to suggest Tasmania isn't part of Australia, or Sicily isn't part of Italy. And European history suggests that nation states at loggerheads with each other is counterproductive.
In 1975, two thirds of the population more or less agreed with this view.
Of the 27 member states, I suggest it would be wrong to suggest that Britain is somehow a special case, the odd one out. Evidence suggests that there is not much not much appetite among the European public for something called a "United States of Europe". It's not just Britain that's proud of its history and independence.
What we do have, and I think this was rightly pointed out on Newsnight this week, is a long history of democracy. It's probably correct to say that Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and the former Communist bloc countries view it as a safeguard against a return to dictatorship. In this respect, it has to be admitted it's been a success.
However, I think it's fair to say that other countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have similar long democratic traditions, and certainly in Scandinavia there seems to be as much resistance to the idea of a United States of Europe as in the UK.
So in my view, a United States of Europe, along the lines of the USA, could simply never happen. There's too much history, linguistic and cultural diversity. Whatever the technocrats might say, the European public wouldn't wear it.
Another problem is, of course, the free movement of labour. In theory this is a great idea, because it enhances the ecomnomies of all the member states, by creating a single market.
Of course, though, it became skewed after the entry of the former Eastern bloc countries, because there was a mass movement of workers from east to west. It all happened too quickly.
The Eurozone was badly put together. Clearly some countries were not economically in a position to join. The idea of bigger countries telling others how to run their economies can only lead to tears. What seemed a good idea at first has clearly caused a lot of problems.
But that's no reason for Britain pull up the drawbridge to leave Europe completely. I can't see how this could really be beneficial after 40 years. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
As I said at the start, Britain will always be a European country. We will always be affected by what goes on across the Channel. To think we could turn our back on one of the world's largest trading blocs, that brought rising living standards across Europe in the second half of the 20th century, and still be a world power, is, in my view, deluded and fanciful.
Some say the rising powers of the world are India (though that's slipped back a bit), Communist China, Portuguese-speaking Brazil, or Putin's Russia. So they're all queuing up to do business with a declining imperial power that doesn't produce half what it once did? Really reliable trading partners aren't they? Will London still be the international financial centre it has been, rather than Frankfurt, if we were no longer part of the single market?
Germany has no problem trading with these countries whilst at the centre of the EU. So it's not either/or. Germany's at the heart of a huge single market of consumers. Britain, outside the EU, wouldn't be. We might be more akin to Iceland.
Britain had its reasons for applying to join the EEC in the 1960s before being admitted in 1972. Might we not regret leaving if we were to do so? Would the return of import duties and the end of British passport holders' rights to work elsewhere in Europe be welcome? Would the scrapping of the minimum wage, maximum working week, guaranteed paid holidays, etc, guaranteed by the Social Chapter be a price worth paying? Of course the British Government would then be "free" to enact whatever employment legislation it wished, along the lines of the USA. And of course it could be argued that lower wages and fewer holidays makes us more "competitive". In short, are we perhaps not just a touch deluded about just how important our proud island nation still is?
The opposite of "patriotic populism" can only be treacherous propaganda.
I have read nothing about the UK turning its back on the continent, but of returning powers and signing a FTA, the likes of which the €U has with India.
If Frankfurt could rival the City, it would have done so by now. As is the City is second to none on its own merits. Your take on India is quite disgraceful, given that they have been dependable allies past, and an insult to those that fought and died for this country in the two world wars.
"Your take on India is disgraceful". What I said was that it has slipped back a bit, meaning that its economic growth of recent times appears to have either slowed or gone into reverse in the last year, as a result of the world economic downturn. The same is also true of China to some extent. My point was that, to suggest that if we left the European free trade area, we could replace our lost markets by establishing links with these emerging powers is, I suspect, slightly fanciful. There are plenty of other countries they could trade with. Why should Britain be top of their list? We're hardly a great player on the world stage any more, especially if we were to leave the EU.
I am in no doubt that Indian and other Commonwealth soldiers played a valiant part in defeating the enemy during World War 2, but that doesn't mean the Commonwealth can possibly constitute an alternative trading bloc. Even if it did, Britain wouldn't be at the centre of it. Not any more. The populations of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand combined are only about the same as the UK, and logistically, it hardly makes sense to ship goods thousands of miles across the world when you could buy and sell similar ones in your own back yard. As for the rest of the Commonwealth, it comprises sub-Saharan African countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique, that were never even in the British Empire. Do they hold any special affection for the UK? Are these potentially more desirable trading partners than Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy?
Let's get real about where we really are in the 21st century.
For Britain the best trading-partners only can be its old allies and members of the commonwealth.
Britain only can o back to its roots and that means clear isolation.
The EU is a lost case.
So from its history Britain can only continue its important role it had over many centuries.
Germany never can be a partner for Britain.
So Britain would itself and the rest of Europe do nothing but the biggest favour if they would leave the EU and let the continent alone by itself.
The old order in the last centuries has been good and so Europe will have no chance but returning to its old conditions.
No country in Europe ever can be a model for another country.
We should start to respect our differences and rifts.
Warm, cordial, positive comments coming from a German ambassador.
What do you consider to be Britain's "old allies"?
I understand one of the oldest is actually Portugal.
What are Britain's "roots", exactly? For most of the UK population, it's certainly not in the third world or in some faraway territory. How can "clear isolation" be playing "an important role"?
The Commonwealth was never intended to be a trading bloc. It was the relic of an Empire that was obviously formed for Britain's benefit. But it doesn't exist for our benefit now. No county is forced to be a member, so they only join it for their own interests. I've mentained several times that the Commonwealth includes sub-Saharan African countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique, that were never British colonies. Is the German view that we should do most of our trade with them?
Useful advice, at any rate.
You say "Germany can never be a partner for Britain". Given that we currently do more trade with Germany than any other contry except, possibly, the USA, simply because Germany has a strong industrial base (unlike much of the Commonwealth), then this is very interesting.
As for the old order in the last centuries being good, well the Germans will be quite aware of how good it been. The European Communities were set up to prevent Europe "returning to its old conditions". In terms of "respecting differences and rifts......."
Whenever Britain and Germany have been allies?
Anyway I think Germany would not have a problem because Germany is used to be open-minded and pragmatic.
If Germany was able to settle its problems with France, Poland, the Czechs and even the Russians, I think Germany has no problem with the UK because on the German side there never a problem existed.
But I have my deep doubts if anybody in Britain (except Scotland) could ever imagine having Germany as their ally.
Looking at the public polls and the public opinion in the UK I think the opinion is deeply anti-German and nobody would support such a development.
Mr. Cameron started a very little attempt in this direction but he had to stop immediately after the reactions in his country.
Meanwhile he takes care of the opinion of his voters and plays also the anti-German card.
Germany and Britain can have trade and economic relationship but I don't think that they can become allies as you propose.
The old order from 19th century we can not overcome.
In the East it was possible as we see at the example of Poland and Russia.
In the West I have my doubts.
They were allies against Napoleonic France, although Germany as you describe it did not exist then in the form of a unified state.
I think we're talking about 2 different things here, though. If you mean military allies, then I tend to agree with you. I've never even suggested otherwise. Postwar Germany has been reluctant to become involved in international conflicts, whilst Britain has continued to play a role even as recently as in Libya.
If you are talking about natural military allies for Britain, then I'd tend to agree with you in terms of Australia and Canada, although both Germany and the UK are in NATO.
But I don't think it necessarily follows that your principal trading partners have to be your closest military allies. This isn't wartime. And short of any further conflagration in Europe, I don't foresee a time when the trading relationship between Britain and Germany will be anything other than very significant.
And talking of Germany, who exactly are its most obvious allies?
The majority of Europe is only too well aware of how Germany has tended to settle its problems with neighbouring countries.
Well the Prussians were the allies of the British.
But the Prussians are not Germany.
There are Bavarians, Suebians and a lot of other different people in Germany and in Germany we have different dialects and also contrasts.
I just remind of the contrast between Scotland and English.
But in fact there is no need of a military alliance between Germany and the UK.
Apart from that Germany is going strictly the way of a pacifist country which is excluding military engagement outside of Germany.
Of course the trading relationship between Britain and Germany will probably always stay significant.
Well allies of Germany in Europe? I do not see many:)
Germany seems to me quite isolated by the rest of Europe.
But as long as Germany can get along with its neighbour countries, I think it is okay.
If Germany thinks it block a return of powers to Westminister they must be be given a demonstration that the British people are determined to get these powers back by all means necessary. Only the past weakness of British politicians has led German politicians to believe they can say 'nein' and we will meekly accept it. Those times are over. We must be prepared to leave the Germans and French in no doubt whatsoever that the power to decide the law in Britain is the right of the British people alone and we do not accept that anyone in Berlin or Brussels ever be allowed to deny us that right.
Oh, dear. Blank patriotism with no thought of the consequences. We've had enough wars, thank you.
So... I think the fatal flaw in the EU concept is that it ignores hundreds of years of history where Europe fought against French and/or German political domination. Seriously, for this to work, the rest of Europe has to trust the Germans to restrain themselves when they feel the need to impose German solutions on the rest of Europe. Tell me if I am wrong about that. But... if I am right, the rest of Europe cannot use Germans as a crutch without allowing the Germans to call the shots.
The best solution is to design a gradual dissolution of the union. Keep the common market, but lose the euro, and any joint political decision making.
Germans and French have nothing but best interest of Europeans at heart.Well being and success of Europeans is wealth and success of French-Germans.Sadly the same cant be said about english.They and their over the ocean cousins seem to only profit from European misfortunes.United Europe is too powerful for anglos to take on hence the hate.Try to invade us now.We've got a couple of nukes with your name written on them.
Go talk to the Greeks about the Germans having their best interests at heart! I guess Germany never invaded anyone in the past either...get real.
You said 'try to invade us now' as if the past invasion was a bad thing. Don't you think it was good that the UK helped end the Holocaust and Hitler's imperial designs?
Mr Miliband is a European social democrat by instinct (his relatives were refugees from the Holocaust)
That statement sums up the Economist's one eyed pro-euro myopia. What on earth does being a holocaust refugee have to do with being a social democrat? Michael Howard has exactly the same background. Remember the old joke about Thatcher's cabinet having more Estonians than Etonians?
Milliband may want to reflect on the role played by the gold standard in the Continent's mid 20th century slide into Fascism, and the eerie parallels to current casual overthrow of elected governments which don't tow the Euro-line.
"Mr Miliband is a European social democrat"
Key word, European. Think you might want to have an eye-test before you accuse others of myopia.
Once you're done frothing, of course.
Keep frothing please, I still don't see the connection.
As usual most commenters on here haven't failed in surprising me. That they read the Economist at all is a mystery. But anyway, I think with regard to Europe, Conservative MPs are being very big headed but small minded. They act like the whole EU is focusing on what the UK is doing but at the same time want the UK to having nothing to do with the EU. They need to grow up and make an absolute decision (or gain one from the public) as to what the relationship between the UK and the EU is, rather than this constant onslaught of anti-EU rhetoric but no action.
They need to grow up and do something, anything!
They have done something, a very British something, they have passed a Referendum Lock into law. From now on the EU will have to win British public support for treaty change that hands power from the UK to the EU. The implications here are etched on the German Chancellor's face each time she looks at Cameron, they go further than an actual transfer of power. If changes between other EU members do not directly affect the UK but do change the balance of power between the EU and the UK then power has been transfered and there must be a vote. The law may not say that but no British politician would survive any other interpretation. It is going to be very hard for the EU to do any treaty change of any substance without a "yes" vote from the UK. This is an old British wheeze, its called "walking backwards into things".
There's another old British wheeze that you're engaging in, and it's called "talking bollocks".
'A very british thing.. referendum lock'. God you people will get patriotic about anything.
'The implications here are etched on the German Chancellor's face each time she looks at Cameron, they go further than an actual transfer of power.' And there you go, exactly what the commentator said, you act like they care if the UK leaves.
Those who want the UK to stay in the EU on the current terms would prefer not to have a vote at all. But if there is to be one they will push for an IN/OUT question. Why? Because membership in the EU will be presented as the status quo option and the more the pressure is piled on the more voters will stick with the devil they know. British culture tends to prefer the status quo to sudden, lurching change. Eurospectics who also want an IN/OUT vote may find themselves disappointed. But the question is genuinely disingenuous. Because the EU is about ever-closer union the terms of membership are in constant flux. When it comes to the EU there is no such thing as a status quo. An “IN” vote is a false choice because the very next day the goal posts move again. As soon as the terms change the debate begins again. The “IN” vote settles nothing. The IN/OUT question is also not the one the British people want (see YouGov Cambridge comprehensive poll PDF here: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0e9q69eu6v... ). The British do want a relationship with Europe, they just want a much loser one based upon trade without the loss of sovereignty. An IN/OUT question does not allow for what is wanted. To properly frame the debate we need to find a question and a process that captures our desire to rework the relationship from first principles. It needs to be simple and clear. How about: “Do you believe the UK should A) continue toward ever closer union within the EU, or, B) negotiate a loser relationship with the EU based upon free trade and the return of sovereignty?” To make it work Government would have to committee to a time scale to any renegotiation, say 18 months, and it should commit itself to carrying that process out in good faith with as wider consultation as possible. Preferably it would be a national effort. This is not impossible. If the leaders of the main parties should get beyond trying to get one over each other they would soon find that there is broad agreement among the British people as far as the relationship with the EU goes. In fact opinion is pretty settled. The British people have also made it clear that while renegotiation is their first choice should this be impossible, say because our partners in the EU refuse, they would prefer to be out. At the end of the process we should then have a vote based upon a new treaty if successful or on the current treaties if unsuccessful.
Referenda are not democratic processes. Look at the french ones: everytime the people do not answer the question, but claim thaey are not in agreement with the government on another subject.
De Gaulle went when the French refused his proposal for decentralization. Five years later it was adopted without batting an eyelid. When they said no to Europe it was a support for the opposition party at the time and the usual French debate thing must change (but not for me). Uk has a democracy because alternance warrants some sort of moderation. But a government should be able to decide on behalf of its citizens, and for long term policies.
In/Out is a selection between two somewhat concrete choices. At least the In choice is concrete. By the time of a referendum, we hope we would know what "Out" means - join Norway and Iceland in the waiting room of EEA or linking up with Ukraine et al on the outer orbit.
“Do you believe the UK should A) continue toward ever closer union within the EU, or, B) negotiate a loser relationship with the EU based upon free trade and the return of sovereignty?” is a hypothetical question. Not a single other country wants an "a looser relationship with the EU based upon free trade and the return of sovereignty".
Having - probably - failed to negotiate this, then what? I am not saying it's a bad idea. I am saying it's not on offer. So then we do end up next to Ukraine or Norway - hence the In/Out question.
There is an argument by Parliamentary Sovereignty supports that our democratic process must and should be exclusively through Parliament or you risk undermining its sovereignty. There is something in this. There can be only one law and introducing multiple ways of making law undermines the legitimacy of each law making part, or so the argument goes. Except we already have a long tradition of Common Law in the UK, much of it made in the courts or through contract. Further, Parliament has done a rather good job of shrugging off its sovereign responsibilities, devolving decision making to quangos and to Europe. We have an accountable Government, but it is less responsible than it once was. The buck no longer stops here. The reason Parliament cannot be allowed to make these decisions on behalf of the people is two fold. First, Parliament should not have carte blanche to change the terms of its own employment, for that is what constitutional change is. The terms of employment must rest with the people. Secondly, this is an issue that cuts across party lines, so it is better to put it to the people. Then there is a third possible answer here, that Parliament has already divested itself of so much responsibility that it may no longer have the authority to make such as decision AND have that decision be respected by the people. That is dangerous constitutional ground. It is made worse by the idea that somehow referenda are undemocratic. This is positively Orwellian. Worthy of the Ministry of Truth: “Peace is War” “Referenda are not Democratic”. This is your mistake. In a democracy there is only so long that a political class can collude against the will of the people. That is Bagehot’s mistake.
To FFScotaland – Is any referendum question “on offer”, as you put it? I would think there will be quite a lot of twisting and turning by fans of the EU to get out of any sort of vote. And if they are, to use Bagehot’s words, “bounced” into an election then it is the question that will be twisted and turned to get the “right” answer. So I understand you insistence on a straight IN/Out question. It seems simple and clean, decisive. It isn’t. You yourself point out the difficulty with knowing what “out” means. “Out” of what exactly? We would still trade with the EU, they would still trade with us. We would still be in the WTO, which imposes strict limits on tariffs and so on between members. But you miss the fact that the “IN” option is also ill defined. “IN” what? The EU is in a constant state of flux. Those who say we cannot renegotiate, that this is “not on offer”, miss the fact that British ministers are in Europe every month arguing new regulations. The truth is we are in a constant state of renegotiation with Europe. So renegotiation is not only on offer, it is expected. Bagehot calls standing up for what the British people want in Europe at this time “blackmail”, while what others stand for, their plans, their visions, the pursuit of their national interest is called a “rescue”. It shows how twisted the argument is, there is no possibility of renegotiation and yet our partners want a new treaty. No, change in the EU is constant and so too the terms of our membership are in constant flux. If you say, “Yes, I agree to be in the EU” today does that still mean anything tomorrow when the nature of the EU has changed? What is an “IN” vote worth? What does it mean? Unless there are settled terms one is voting for a moveable feast. One is signing more than a blank cheque, one is signing a blank piece of paper. An IN vote is meaningless and will not bind the nation. As soon as the EU changes again then the IN vote is void and the clamor for another vote will start once more. But I am not sure we can vote for “IN” anymore anyway. This is the power of the Referendum Lock the Government has passed into law. The one-way ratchet of EU negotiation will no longer work in the UK. If they want a new treaty the Europeans are going to have to offer something, or go off and do their new treaty outside the EU, which is essentially a giant opt out for the UK. Renegotiation many not yet be on offer but it is eventually unavoidable. You cannot get around it unless you are willing to go outside the EU. The Europeans we willing to set up their FU outside the EU. But there is no doubt they want to bring it in. The crunch point is coming and when it comes there will have to be a popular vote. We do not need a question that asks if we want to have a relationship with Europe or not because clearly we will have one if we want it or not. That is how the geography crumbles. What we want is a question that asks, given we will have some sort of relationship with Europe, what form will it take?
"What we want is a question that asks, given we will have some sort of relationship with Europe, what form will it take?"
With repect I strongly disagree with you. There is the EU and the EZ, both of them are clubs with their institutions, their rules and a changing nature due to the crisis and globalization. At some point a country has to formalize weither it accepts to play by these rules or not, to sign a treaty or not, to go toward further integration or not. This is not an "à la carte" choice, it is a package. Either you play by the rules of the group and you benefit from belonging to that group or you don't and you can't pretend to stay. It's actually very simple: you can't have your cake and eat it.
There is nothing in the rules that stipulates your position. If Britain refuses to sign, the rules do not change. If the others want to change the rules to suit them, they can always do so among themselves.
OK if you want to blow up the Channel Tunnel and leave the Europe completely, then vote UKIP at the next election. Only thing is, they haven't got any Parliamentary seats. Compare, for instance, the SNP in Scotland. They've got a democratic mandate for leaving the UK. UKIP might have picked up some protest votes when it didn't really matter, but it has no parliamentary seats. Probably still won't have in 2015.
I hope I'm right in thinking that the majority of the UK population are not xenophobic Europhobes, and believe Britain's place is in Europe, but not part of a United States of Europe or in a flawed single currency. I agree with your point about renegotiation but not on the basis that Britain is somehow a "special case", that can be a member on different terms to everyone else. It isn't, and I can't see that happening. What needs to happen is for a new European trading bloc to take shape, probably with fewer countries than now in the single currency, and more democratic accountability to allow for the fact that the EU is now much larger than when it was first formed. Once the dust from the Eurozone crisis has settled, and this new arrangement has taken shape, and if Parliament has approved the necessary treaty change, THEN there should be a referendum. At least the British public will know what they're being asked to decide on.
It matters not how many treaties are made outside the €U, that they are outside the €U means they cannot be enforced on all members, a huge opt out. It then becomes that much harder to ever make them parts of the €U legal system without them being watered down, and concessions made.
The veto was a 'win win' move for Cameron, forcing the others into a situation where the agreement that cannot be wholly enforced on a community level.
The members of the British Chambers of Commerce are not for closer union, they are for free trade, so an exit to the EFTA is definitely supported by businesses:http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/uk-businesses-want-more-free-trade-in-europe,-but-less-integration.html
However, there was never an economic reason for joining the €U (or EEC) other than a political one. The argument that the €U (EEC) was more prosperous and had a bigger market share globally withers under scrutiny:http://www.worldeconomics.com/papers/Commonwealth_Growth_Monitor_0e53b963-bce5-4ba1-9cab-333cedaab048.paper?PaperID=0E53B963-BCE5-4BA1-9CAB-333CEDAAB048
Of course David, despite being the political reporter of the UK for the Economist, fails to comment on any of this.
So you said it, Europe more integrated is not what the UK chamber of commerce wishes. That the long term interest of British citizens may be different does not even cross your mind. The British Commerce has always selfishly promoted trade instead of working together for something better for all. Larger CEE for trade but without concessions from UK, You cant have your cake and eat it.
If you look up public opinion in the UK towards the so called 'Europen'project, you will find that the majority are with the BCC.
The concession is access to the market, nothing more nothing less, anything else is packaging.
Cameron better get his act together, as come the next election if the Tories slip and slide on the promise of a EU referendum, then Labour could steal the initiative and offer one. Majority of ppl in UK just want to trade freely with the eurozone, we don;t want the strangling red tape and Brussels socialist ideology.
You sound like a moronic Republican, screaming "Socialism!!" everywhere.
Who's we? Who's the majority? I for one, would like some continental style labour protections and holidays so the bankers and bosses don't drive me into penury paying for their fat failure bonuses.
Why don't we ask the people of Britain if they want someone to stop employer exploitation (as our own government is unwilling and/or unable to do it) and see where the majority lies?
Britain owes to it to its 2.5 million citizens living in other EU countries, not to exit.
Britain owes to its exporting (and importing) businesses - overwhelmingly dependent for British competitiveness on the single market - not to exit.
Human freedom and economic prosperity matter more than whimsical far right wing/ anti-trade politics.
Nonsense, the members of the BCC are in majority for free trade and against more Brussels diktats. The EFTA is the place for that, not the €U.
Great Britain owes nothing to anyone other than itself, what the others owe to themselves is a matter of self-determination via plebiscite.
You seem to forget that those notions of "human freedom and economic prosperity" are baseless without the people it is suppose to represent. The way you have used it can be found in propaganda from both extremes of left wing ideology (Fascism and Communism).
You appear to forget about Britain's external debt. And democracy demands respect for the other opinions, even socialists, the methods of which, like you I abhorr.
They call for the to be decided by plebiscite has been going on for years, the ones ignoring such a call are those fanatics whose opinions are pro-€U.
The opinions of the BCC match those of the citizens of the UK if you look up any poll.
The polls are that way as a result of systematic Euro-bashing by British media (and politicians) for years. Presently as this article discusses, the various parties are pondering what and if they would gain locally by proposing or promising a referendum.
It's time a politician with conviction looks at the real long term interests of United Kingdom.
Winston Churchill long before the others was trying to avoid a conflict and trying to help Greece first (coïncidence, or because he wanted to get to the Balkans before Hitler) and he had seen the importance of a peaceful Europe for the long term sake of Britons.
Refusing to help, and quitting now would simply be another Munich, hoping absurbdly to stay away from trouble.
Now you really are having a laugh. The main broadcaster (BBC) is nothing less than pro-€U, as are a number of the British media (and politicians) including this publication. A referendum is on the cards either way, one that would almost definitely end with calls for it being in/out.
There is no war on, what the single currency is facing is a crisis it walked into with its eyes wide open, so your references to WW2 are completely absurd.
"It's time a politician with conviction looks at the real long term interests of United Kingdom." We had one, Thatcher, who was deposed by traitors in her party whose loyalty was to Brussels instead of the UK.
Quitting now is facing the inevitable.
Hmm.. “2.5 million citizens living in other EU countries”. If the leaders of the major parties all favour staying in the EU, they should make sure that these people, and others living abroad in non-EU countries, are included in the political process. The last time I checked, I found that expats lose the right to vote in British elections after ten years. I do not see why there should be any limit, and the expat community having its own MPs would be a good idea too. This is a group that understands that being able to settle in any EU country is an important personal freedom issue, and the possibility of loosing that right would cause them alarm. I certainly hope that we will be included in any referendum on leaving the EU if, heaven forbid, there is one.
If, and that is a big if, this crisis will lead to further European integration, the Brits will be out, because they don't want it and no British politician can sell it to them. Judging from the last time he tried, Cameron is not likely to get any special treatment for Britain.
"Brixit"? Please. Just because other people are coining ugly neologisms, it doesn't mean you have to. Just say "British exit". Five extra characters to type, it isn't hard.
Thank you for saying that! I quite agree, Brixit and Grexit sound like someone stepping on frogs.
"Most Tory MPs (....) want a looser relationship with Europe, involving single-market membership without the bits they dislike such as environmental and employment rules, or big budget contributions."
Taking the bits you like and eschewing the rest has a name: free riding. Just because for some unfathomable reason it has been tolerated up to now by the other club members does not mean it can go on forever.
All those "blackmail" strategies rest on the very high value most Britons think their membership has in the eyes of Continentals. That certainly was true when Britain's Governments paid lip service to the idea of an authentic political Union, and the Continentals were eager to believe them. A fully committed Britain would have been a treasure for the EU, and could have provided much needed and balanced leadership. But as a grumpy stowaway, it is not needed nor very much wanted. Don't overplay the "hard to get" act, it might backfire and burn everybody's fingers badly.
'Taking the bits you like and eschewing the rest has a name: free riding.'
Yes, damn those Brits and their massive CAP fraud, refusal to open up energy markets, refusing to end the insanity of pointless EU infrastructure in the English city of Strasbourg and completely ignoring any legislation they don't like!
Britain has been providing much needed leadership since the 80s by pointing out repeatedly that the Euro was an economic disaster that could never work. Just a shame that no one was listening.
I don't know if many of us DO think that, I certainly didn't.
OK so you that call free riding. So what? Why should we be obliged to sign away such large chunks of our sovereignty in order to be a member of a free trade zone?
I'm not obliged to buy products I don't want in the supermarket, why should the EU be any different?
I might also observe that the UK has been in existence much longer than the EU and has a proven record of durability, so it ill behoves Brussels to take the attitude that "we will bury you".
The point is the EU is not and never has been just a Free Trade zone, the 6 set up the European Community, in 1957, talking about ever closer Union from the first day, they were discussing free movement of people and single currency from day one, they had been discussing a Defence Community with a single Army.
We set up EFTA European FREE TRADE Association as a much weaker free trade competition.
We then applied to join the EU TWICE and were vetoed by the French TWICE because they did not believe we were committed to the vision of an ever closer union, we argued no we really mean it we want to be a committed member of an ever closer union, and are signed up to a federal Europe and they let us in, unfortunately we were living through our teeth, we then lied again to our own population by telling them in the refferendum that it really was only a free trade agreement.
If we want to leave we should leave but please stop all this nonsese about the rest of the union wanting to keep us in, we had to apply 3 times before they let us in!!
You were not allowed in at the time because De Gaulle thought, rather rightly, that you were more committed to USA than to Europe and dont tell me he was wrong at the time. Then Mr Major attempted to link the pound to the currency"snake" on much too high a value, as The Economist pointed out at the time, and of course had to run for the exit a few months later. That was used once more by the media to call it a humiliation and not to forgive Europe, who was no culprit in all that rigamarole.
When did we become such capitalistic monsters? There is more to life than just capitalism, everything cannot be weighed against economic benefit.
Even so, you should read more about this issue. Norway is outside the EU and has to implement a large amount of EU laws without any representation in parliament. That means they just have to do what the EU says without any say themselves. With 50% of our exports going to other countries in the EU, we will be in the same boat. On top of that the EU opens us to 500 million other folks wanting to buy our products. 1 million british people live in south spain because of the european project, as many commentators here have been calling it, I suppose to lower it to the level of a children's project. If you can cross out 70 years of european integration and prosperity because of 2 years of economic crisis related to a larger crisis from north america, then you're being a little silly.
We are not some mighty nation like the US, we will be swayed by one bloc or the other. We've already seen americanization on our country. Look at the NHS being almost destroyed by the tory government, all because of american healthcare companies. It is better the devil you know, as the writer so nicely pointed out. At least in the EU we have a voice, we have human rights, we have working rights.
Maybe we can start acting like humans rather than people obsessed with GDP per capita.
I fail to see the connection with my comments and your replies, I'm not sure if you haven't confused me for someone else who wants Britain out of the EU.
Although I might observe that Britons had rights well before the EU was conceived of and Britain was historically more advanced than much of Europe in that regard. You seem to imply that the EU alone is the fount of all rights.
You suppose wrong if you only associate the word project with a schoolchild's project.
The NHS is not relevant to a discussion on Europe but it was still intact last time I looked.
I have lived in Norway and Andalucia so I don't need lectures thank you very much.
To sum up. It appears to me that you are mistaking wanting to talk about flaws in the the European project with wanting to abolish it. The EU will not progress, or even endure, without open discussion.
Can someone tell me why my first mail was removed? It was on the subject, neither aggresive or disrespectful to any body, so I really do not understand why it does not appear any more.
In addition I was expressing my admiration for the UK, what happened?
Too much European maybe?