EU Referendum date set ....

[peterb]

There is another side to the debate of course, and that is the effect of Brexit on the remaining 26 EU nations. Greece were unhappy at the way they were treated by the Central Bank, and In the first referendum held in Ireland, the vote was against the Lisbon Treaty. Other EU nations (given a referendum) made it clear that not all were in favour. So a Brexit would certainly shake up the EU although the long term impact is difficult to determine. In on case, it could accelerate the break up of the EU, or at least accelerate the reform, and perhaps put a break on the political integration.

That would have little immediate effect on the UK in the short term, but longer term may be beneficial to all the EU nations.

[HalloweenJack]

apparently a YES to leaving would not the be end of it - apparently Cameron would have to invoke article 50 and that might force a second round of voting......

[The Hand]

apparently a YES to leaving would not the be end of it - apparently Cameron would have to invoke article 50 and that might force a second round of voting......

..And there are rumblings that the European Commission secretly have more concessions/powers lined up in case the UK votes to leave. IF so we could just vote "Leave" regardless and get a better deal or decide to leave anyway. Cameron is against another referendum, since he knows he's probably toast if he loses the first one.

[zyz]

Nice to finally have a date for the vote after months of talks for it to happen

[peterb]

apparently a YES to leaving would not the be end of it - apparently Cameron would have to invoke article 50 and that might force a second round of voting......

Yes, but it isn't onerous, it's a simple procedure

http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/leaving%20eu.html

..And there are rumblings that the European Commission secretly have more concessions/powers lined up in case the UK votes to leave. IF so we could just vote "Leave" regardless and get a better deal or decide to leave anyway. Cameron is against another referendum, since he knows he's probably toast if he loses the first one.

If that is the case, I suspect they will be trotted out before the vote, depending on the mood of the U.K.

Scenario would be that in six weeks or so, if the 'No' campaign is gaining momentum, there will be another summit at which more concessions are made...

Of course, if the reverse is the case, the Heads of State rub there hands in relief that they didn't give too much away.

[Galant]

Here's an interesting Twitter account - AfricansForBritain - who are pro-exit. Lots of retweets from other pro-exit groups and related articles.

A quick sample:

AfricansForBritain ‏@Africa4Britain 32 mins32 minutes ago
Why should #Africans support #Brexit? CAP: 3 letters which have robbed British and African farmers of their prosperity #VoteLeave #Votetrade

AfricansForBritain Retweeted
Swedes for Brexit ‏@swedesforbrexit Jan 29
There are more European headquarters in the UK than any other place in Europe. Obviously there is an interest not only bound to the EU.

AfricansForBritain Retweeted
Sam ‏@SamW2015 31 mins31 minutes ago
The regressive EU impose high trade tariffs on Africa and therefore help to keep a whole continent in poverty #voteleave @Africa4Britain

AfricansForBritain Retweeted
Tim Montgomerie ن ‏@montie 2 hrs2 hours ago
In balanced OpEd, @EdConwaySky debunks the Fear tactics of both #euref campaigns http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinio...cle4696842.ece …

AfricansForBritain Retweeted
Hani Mustafa ‏@_hanimustafa 3 hrs3 hours ago
Cabinet rebel directly contradicts Cameron on the legality of EU deal http://dailym.ai/1LCGGyh via @MailOnline PMs deal isn't legally binding


ASIDE - Do the Hexus forums have tags to allow the posting/embedding of Tweets?

[Galant]

And here's another Guardian piece - this one from Suzanne Moore - who says "My instinct is pro-Brexit (and it’s nothing to do with Boris)"

[peterb]

ASIDE - Do the Hexus forums have tags to allow the posting/embedding of Tweets?

Personally, I hope not because:

A. I wouldn't want to see forum posts consisting of re-tweets, which by their very nature restrict debate to one liners, and do not allow the exploring of more complex issues

B. They might reflect the views of the re-tweeter, but the debate then revolves around the original writer, not the re-tweeter.

And that would make (IMHO) the forums rather sterile. Of course they could be used to support an argument as a citation, but tweets are ephemeral and less suited to that.

But back to the body of your post,

Interesting that those are pressure groups though, and are more interested in the effect on other nations rather than on the UK itself, and therefore of questionable value (again IMHO)

[kalniel]

Also they seem to miss the point that just because the UK leaves it wouldn't necessarily mean the rest of the EU (a far larger body than the UK alone) would change for the better. In fact surely their needs are better served by us being in the EU and changing it for the better?

[peterb]

Also they seem to miss the point that just because the UK leaves it wouldn't necessarily mean the rest of the EU (a far larger body than the UK alone) would change for the better. In fact surely their needs are better served by us being in the EU and changing it for the better?

But that is exactly what David Cameron was trying to achieve, and hasn't really got anywhere. And we are one voice against possibly 26 others. True, some other Nations wish to see reform too, but the underlying thrust of the EU is political integration, which ultimately means the ceding of more power to the European Parliament.

It may be that the UK can opt out of further integration, although it is hard to see how that would work in practice, but he has not managed to return any powers back to the UK.

Immigration policy is just one (high profile) aspect, but that is an illustration of the problem. The underlying fundamental issue is the lack of sovereignty and self-determination.

[kalniel]

But that is exactly what David Cameron was trying to achieve, and hasn't really got anywhere. And we are one voice against possibly 26 others.

Change doesn't happen overnight. It takes concerted, long term effort. It's not something you can speed up by putting a knife to your own throat or throwing a tantrum. If a reform is just and the benefit is demonstrable then it should ultimately win out because you should be able to convince everyone else of the benefit.

Of course, we could just elect UKIP members to the EP and have them sit there wasting expenses instead.

[peterb]

Change doesn't happen overnight. It takes concerted, long term effort. It's not something you can speed up by putting a knife to your own throat or throwing a tantrum. If a reform is just and the benefit is demonstrable then it should ultimately win out because you should be able to convince everyone else of the benefit.

Of course, we could just elect UKIP members to the EP and have them sit there wasting expenses instead.

But the problem remains that the interests of one nation might be contrary to the interests of others, and the abolition of qualified majority change far less likely.

And if we leave, we won't be sending any MEPs sitting there wasting money, although there will still be a diplomatic presence, as there is now.

Large bodies have far more inertia than smaller ones

[kalniel]

But the problem remains that the interests of one nation might be contrary to the interests of others, and the abolition of qualified majority change far less likely.

Absolutely, but then the case for change is less clear cut. Why should we as a nation put our own interests above another nation's? Are we *inherently* more deserving than another nation? Maybe you say 'of course', so you can take it further - is London a more deserving region than other regions in the UK? Is Richmond a more deserving borough than Putney? Is my street more deserving than someone else's? Is my house price more deserving of protection than someone else's?

No, instead of pursuing self-interest, perhaps we should be looking at what is mutually beneficial and not at the cost of someone else.

[peterb]

Absolutely, but then the case for change is less clear cut. Why should we as a nation put our own interests above another nations? Are we *inherently* more deserving than another nation?

Each nation puts its own interests first, which is why I suspect the EU as a concept is ultimately doomed to fail.

At least by withdrawing, the UK won't necessarily be imposing its will on the other Nations.

There is a fundamental difference in outlook and recent history of the UK and Europe.

While the UK was a major player in both world wars, we didn't have territorial occupancy, or suffer the civilian casualties that mainland Europe had. And that, I suggest fuels the political integration.

But the peace of the last 75 years has been achieved by military Union in the form of NATO. There have been attempts to form EU only military alliances, such as The European Defence Force, and the WEU, both of which were subsumed into the Common Security and Defence Policy by the Lisbon Treaty.

But defence is expensive, and the largest part is born by the USA and then the UK. US involvement is an anathema to some EU nations (at a political rather than a working level).

Leaving the EU doesn't mean leaving NATO, or supporting Europe militarily in other ways, so in that respect doesn't affect our (or Europe's) safety.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I am all for a free trading area, which is what the 1975 referendum addressed. At no point then was a political union suggested, but the British people have not been given a chance to express an opinion since then, either on trade or the creeping political integration.

[Galant]

Interesting that those are pressure groups though, and are more interested in the effect on other nations rather than on the UK itself, and therefore of questionable value (again IMHO)

Certainly. But I thought it brought in an interesting perspective on how a British exit from the EU could change the game elsewhere. I think it's very worthwhile people casting their eyes on a global scale and thinking more creatively, rather than narrowing things down to just Europe and the UK. In one way, a British exit would mean looking at Britain in a whole new way, with new freedom to pursue international relationships differently, I think it's worth pondering some of those possibilities.

[kalniel]

I'm not sure NATO is much good - barely any countries* meet the 2% defence spending target they agreed to. And if anyone gets in trouble it'll be down to political will to help out, not NATO signatures - if Russia decides to sting Turkey we're not going to poke it back.

Rather than not-imposing will on other countries, I think withdrawing makes it harder to co-operate and find mutually beneficial agreements. It's not impossible, but it's a hell of a lot of work - look at the issues Switzerland has having to set up numerous extra bureaucracy things and being shut out of things as simple as easy university exchanges. It's not *just* about trade co-operation, though that is undoubtedly a large part.

*estonia, greece, poland, UK and the USA only out of 28 as far as I can tell.