EU Referendum date set ....

[Saracen]

So, David Cameron has fired the starting gun for the official campaign, setting the referendum date at a Downing Street press conference, following an unusually lengthy Cabinet meeting, lasting some 2 hours, at which the EU "deal" that concluded last night was discussed.

So, the moment we've all been waiting for ...... drum roll ..... is .....
.
.
.
....wait for it ....
.
.
.
June 23rd 2016.

In the best spirit of the EU .... Quelle suprise!



Brace yourselves folks. We've had months of journalists getting terribly excited about the "deal". Now, we get four more months of arguing about in or out. Get used to months of not being able to turn a TV or radio on without getting some over-excited commentator shoving a camera and/or microphone in the face of anyone with a scintilla of celebrity for their .... wisdom .... on the matter.

[Phage]

<shudder>
The interview with a man this motning...."Well, we're an island arn't we ? Don't want to be be Brussels lap dog !"

[kalniel]

Has he settled the Boris problem yet?

I note he's managed his first victory by getting public enemy Gove to campaign for brexit.

[HalloweenJack]

^^ well I thought ian Duncan bedroom tax smith was enemy #1


an awewful lot of noise regarding this `deal` can be thrown out at anytime - although merkel is really hot on the idea of using the `child benefit paid at your home country rate`. which means Syrians wont get anything.....

[kalniel]

^^ well I thought ian Duncan bedroom tax smith was enemy #1

He's also in the brexit campaign.. I spot a trend...

[The Hand]

Can you add a poll Saracen? I would be interested to see what Hexites think.

[Millennium]

I think it's telling how hard this initial reformation agenda took Mr Cameron. There were some good concessions though (watch the post conference speech by him - there's a lot more too it than a 7 year +4 benefits change for a few tens of thousands of working people).


Undecided overall though.

[kalniel]

There were some good concessions though

Can you give some examples?

[Millennium]

Sorry I saw the speech on BBC News last night, can't have been more than 10 mins, and I can't see it now due to the iplayer delay. It was more than the 'ever closer union' speech as usual. It was there or thereabouts.

If I find this interview again though I'll post it here for sure, though.

[Saracen]

Can you add a poll Saracen? I would be interested to see what Hexites think.

Sure. On what, though? The deal, or whether we should Leave/Remain on June 23rd?

[Zak33]

Pooh please,just make it the "Deal"....acceptable or not.

Let's do In or Out later in the year?

There's lots of water dye,under the bridge/through the English Channel first

[Saracen]

Has he settled the Boris problem yet?

....

Last I heard, not yet.

The story goes that BoJo is on the fence, a big deciding factor the supposed "UK supremacy of courts" issue, upon which Cameron is supposed to be announcing plans this weekend. So BoJo is believed to be waiting to see if they go far enough to justify joining the remain camp, or don't, and he joins the leave camp.

The question is whether the UK Supreme court csn be beefed up enough to give it supremacy over European courts, and even if it can, whether DCs proposals will go far enough towards doing it.

Or, the more cynical view is that BoJo, with one eye ever locked on his ambition to be PM, is keeping his powder dry until the last moment, and not showing his hand any earlier than he has to, and the above courts stuff is the hook to hang his ongoing silence on.

After all, if he backs DC and remain, and DC wins, then DC gets the glory. If he backs DC and leave wins, BoJo's ambitions may sink, at least with the majority that backed leave.

On the other hand, should he back leave, and remain wins, will the party, and/or country, accept a PM that was a leading light in the losing eurosceptic leave camp?

So the cynical view is that he's hoist himself on the horns of a particular nasty dilemma, and is prevaricating.

[peterb]

The problem is the fundamental tenet of the EU, that of closer political integration, which lies at the heart of of continental European countries, and is most evident in the free movement of people.

When the original referendum was held, it was about joining a Common Market, or a free trade area. And while that meant (to some extent) turning our backs on our Commonwealth trading partners, particularly Australia, New Zealand and some African States, the benefits seemed to outweigh those concerns, although in the event, we still trade with those countries, although perhaps to a lesser degree.

The Masstricht treaty effectively changed that, but we were denied a vote on that. The Lisbon treaty took things a stage further, and while many EU countries held referenda on that, again the UK was denied that. Both those treaties ceded more power away from the British Parliament to Brussels, and gave supremacy to the European Court.

The 'Deal' does not really address those, even though there is the 'opt out' clause for further integration. The other aspect is immigration, and again the 7 year break is only a temporary fix. It does not give the UK the long term right to determine who enters the country.

So while Mr Cameron has probably achieved the best he can, it was always going to be an uphill struggle, and the result has not really achieved what was needed, the right to self determination.

Had the government of the day offered a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, things might have been different, but the Labour government of the day felt (probably correctly) that the country would vote no, and that didn't fit in with Labour Party doctrine at the time.

But now the chickens have come home to roost.

I am all in favour of a common market as a trading area, but not a superstate.

[Saracen]

Pooh please,just make it the "Deal"....acceptable or not.

Let's do In or Out later in the year?

There's lots of water dye,under the bridge/through the English Channel first

My preference too.

But then, is it whether the deal is good or bad for UK? I.e. did DC do well?

Or is it whether the deal, regardless of good or bad, will affect how you vote?

Personally, if he'd sought and got the bulk of what he said he wanted, and got it locked down, it might have changed my view. But he actually asked for a pale shadow of what he said he wanted, didn't even get that, and what he did get is far from locked down.

So the deal will make no difference to my voting intention whatsoever. Nor will which way BoJo, or ANY other politician, celebrity, business leader or media talking head goes, or what "side" they join.

What might affect my vote will be the actual debate I hope we get. I'm inclined to leave, and it's for the remain camp to convince me with rational debate, of sufficient reason to change that, if they want me to. Otherwise, I'm for leaving. But I'll listen to both sides, if it's a rational debate, on the pro's and con's of the far wider picture that the "deal".

[The Hand]

Sure. On what, though? The deal, or whether we should Leave/Remain on June 23rd?

The Leave/Remain Referendum on June 23rd poll would be great. It might worth adding an "undecided", "don't care" and "can't vote" options too.

[SeriousSam]

I'm sure it has crossed a few minds already, but this picture sums up the real worth of the "deal" negotiated by the Prime Minister.