EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[I1L2T3]

I'm aware of it.

 

As far as I can tell this is just a vague idea that's being floated. If not, which treaty is it in?

 

I seriously doubt that this will be anything other than a 2-speed Europe with both "tiers" headed for the same destination. Am I wrong? If so, when do they repeal the Nice treaty committing us to ever closer union?

 

I repeat, the pro-EU case is a con.

The plan is to get the UK people to vote to stay in the EU thinking that they won't get sucked into a single European state when in fact they almost certainly will. True or False?

 

It's not a con at all. Since 1992 it has been clear we would not adopt a single currency. As the single currency underpins fiscal and political integration then we cannot go much further with that.

 

IMO all that needs to be formalised is that concept. I think it'll happen in the next year or so. We can vote to stay in and just move on from all this nonsense.

[unbeliever]

It's not a con at all. Since 1992 it has been clear we would not adopt a single currency. As the single currency underpins fiscal and political integration then we cannot go much further with that.

 

IMO all that needs to be formalised is that concept. I think it'll happen in the next year or so. We can vote to stay in and just move on from all this nonsense.

 

The parliamentary committee responsible for preparing us for entry into the Euro was wound up in 2010, not 1992. In 1992 we arranged that we would not be forced to join on the central EU timetable. It would only take one term of a pro-Eu government in the UK to join the Euro and we'd have a hell of a time getting out as there is no legal mechanism to do so.

 

In 2001 we signed the Nice treaty which, yes I'm repeating myself, commits us to "ever closer union".

 

We're legally committed to "ever closer union".

How can you possibly say we're not going further with integration whilst "ever closer union" is the law.

 

We're committed to ever closer union

 

The pro-EU case is a con.

The plan is to get the UK people to vote to stay in the EU thinking that they won't get sucked into a single European state when in fact they almost certainly will. True or False?

Edited June 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

The parliamentary committee responsible for preparing us for entry into the Euro was wound up in 2010, not 1992. In 1992 we arranged that we would not be forced to join on the central EU timetable. It would only take one term of a pro-Eu government in the UK to join the Euro and we'd have a hell of a time getting out as there is no legal mechanism to do so.

 

In 2001 we signed the Nice treaty which, yes I'm repeating myself, commits us to "ever closer union".

 

We're legally committed to "ever closer union".

How can you possibly say we're not going further with integration whilst "ever closer union" is the law.

 

We're committed to ever closer union

 

The pro-EU case is a con.

The plan is to get the UK people to vote to stay in the EU thinking that they won't get sucked into a single European state when in fact they almost certainly will. True or False?

 

False.

 

If you accept we will never join the Euro you must implicitly accept that the fiscal/political union that terrifies you so much can never happen.

 

It just would not work but if you think it could please make the case.

 

The ever closer union thing is a woolly concept anyway. It hasn't dragged us any nearer to joining the Euro for example. In fact the events since 2008 place us ever further away from it.

 

So, how could it happen? Just explain.

[unbeliever]

False.

 

If you accept we will never join the Euro you must implicitly accept that the fiscal/political union that terrifies you so much can never happen.

 

It just would not work but if you think it could please make the case.

 

The ever closer union thing is a woolly concept anyway. It hasn't dragged us any nearer to joining the Euro for example. In fact the events since 2008 place us ever further away from it.

 

So, how could it happen? Just explain.

 

Being sucked into the EURO is inevitable as part of the commitment to ever closer union. One parliament can join and following parliaments will have no way out.

 

So there's really no need to comment on the rest of your post.

 

The Blair government wanted to join never quite managed to get it done.

Labour will most likely end up in government before too long, either solely in in coalition. They can sign up to the EURO at any time from that position.

 

The pro-EU case is a con.

 

I'll take my reading what's actually in the treaty over your vague impression of the political mood any day.

By the way, it's in the Rome and Lisbon treaties as well.

 

You can't really be asserting that we've not had further integration since Maastrict. If that was the case, what on earth were all these other treaties for?

Edited June 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

Being sucked into the EURO is inevitable as part of the commitment to ever closer union. One parliament can join and following parliaments will have no way out.

 

So there's really no need to comment on the rest of your post.

 

The Blair government wanted to join never quite managed to get it done.

Labour will most likely end up in government before too long, either solely in in coalition. They can sign up to the EURO at any time from that position.

 

The pro-EU case is a con.

 

If you are claiming us joining the Euro is inevitable and that is a major reason for leaving now then your argument is already a busted flush.

 

Besides, the precedent is now set for holding a referendum around major changes to our EU membership. Joining the Euro would be one such change.

 

The rest of your arguments are all about supporting a complete leap into the dark.

 

But anyway, all we have had for ten years is the Ukip and Eurosceptic Tory view on the EU, the shrill xenophobia based on misconceptions.

 

In the next 1-2 years you'll see a slick machine click into place to push forward the other side of the story, and you are going to look on disbelievingly as your precious right-wing media (in the pockets of big business and Tories) make the case for staying in.

 

Finally, just a little history lesson. In 1973 the Tories took us into the EU. In 1975 Labour held a referendum on whether we should leave - the 'No to leaving' campaign was fought vociferously by Margaret Thatcher!

[unbeliever]

If you are claiming us joining the Euro is inevitable and that is a major reason for leaving now then your argument is already a busted flush.

 

Besides, the precedent is now set for holding a referendum around major changes to our EU membership. Joining the Euro would be one such change.

 

The rest of your arguments are all about supporting a complete leap into the dark.

 

But anyway, all we have had for ten years is the Ukip and Eurosceptic Tory view on the EU, the shrill xenophobia based on misconceptions.

 

In the next 1-2 years you'll see a slick machine click into place to push forward the other side of the story, and you are going to look on disbelievingly as your precious right-wing media (in the pockets of big business and Tories) make the case for staying in.

 

Finally, just a little history lesson. In 1973 the Tories took us into the EU. In 1975 Labour held a referendum on whether we should leave - the 'No to leaving' campaign was fought vociferously by Margaret Thatcher!

 

Yes. Thatcher got that one wrong. What's your point?

 

Up until 2008, it was considered by our political leaders that it was only a matter of time before we joined the EURO. They're just waiting for us to forget about the riots, the poverty and mayhem that it's caused before bringing it back.

If this were not the case, why did the government expend so much energy preparing for it?

 

There might be a referendum on joining the EURO. It's also quite possible that a strongly pro-EU party will just take us straight in.

Not all promised Europe referenda actually appear, and those that do have a nasty habit of getting re-run repeatedly until the EU gets the result it wants.

 

There has been chronic pressure on the UK government to join the EURO since it's inception and at best this has paused for a while.

The working assumption amongst EU leaders is that everybody will join the EURO eventually with dates like 2020 being banded about routinely.

Still this is not a fact. But neither is it a fact that the UK will never join the EURO.

 

What is a fact is that we are legally committed to "Ever closer union" as long as we remain in the EU. There's really only one way to interpret that.

 

I'm not entirely happy with the implication that I'm Xenophobic. I've said nothing about immigration (not that one has to be Xenophobic to be anti-immigration) and made no disparaging remarks about those from other countries. Does one have to be Xenophobic to prefer national government to continental government?

 

Most of the UK prefer national government to continental. They've just been misled into thinking that voting to stay in the EU doesn't mean signing up to full continental government.

Edited June 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[Harrystottle]

In 2001 we signed the Nice treaty which, yes I'm repeating myself, commits us to "ever closer union".

 

We're legally committed to "ever closer union".

How can you possibly say we're not going further with integration whilst "ever closer union" is the law.

 

We're committed to ever closer union

 

The pro-EU case is a con.

The plan is to get the UK people to vote to stay in the EU thinking that they won't get sucked into a single European state when in fact they almost certainly will. True or False?

 

We have been committed to European Union since Major signed the Maastricht Treaty.

 

This is what baffles me about media coverage of the EU. We sign the Maastricht treaty, we sign the treaty of Nice, we sign the Lisbon treaty, all of which binds us ever closer to the EU - but the press coverage doesn't reflect this. It's like "Oh no, it doesn't really mean that. Not for us."

[I1L2T3]

Yes. Thatcher got that one wrong. What's your point?

 

Up until 2008, it was considered by our political leaders that it was only a matter of time before we joined the EURO. They're just waiting for us to forget about the riots, the poverty and mayhem that it's caused before bringing it back.

If this were not the case, why did the government expend so much energy preparing for it?

 

There might be a referendum on joining the EURO. It's also quite possible that a strongly pro-EU party will just take us straight in.

Not all promised Europe referenda actually appear, and those that do have a nasty habit of getting re-run repeatedly until the EU gets the result it wants.

 

There has been chronic pressure on the UK government to join the EURO since it's inception and at best this has paused for a while.

The working assumption amongst EU leaders is that everybody will join the EURO eventually with dates like 2020 being banded about routinely.

Still this is not a fact. But neither is it a fact that the UK will never join the EURO.

 

What is a fact is that we are legally committed to "Ever closer union" as long as we remain in the EU. There's really only one way to interpret that.

 

I'm not entirely happy with the implication that I'm Xenophobic. I've said nothing about immigration (not that one has to be Xenophobic to be anti-immigration) and made no disparaging remarks about those from other countries. Does one have to be Xenophobic to prefer national government to continental government?

 

Most of the UK prefer national government to continental. They've just been misled into thinking that voting to stay in the EU doesn't mean signing up to full continental government.

 

The idea that the UK will join the Euro and focusing on that as a reason for getting out now is not a great idea.

 

As for the 'ever closer union' concept I've been reading up about that. It has nothing to do with creating a super state, nothing at all. It is not a legal requirement either. The Lisbon treaty simply states this:

 

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

 

It's not a law. It's a concept. It's about localism not centralism.

 

And you accuse others of scaremongering

[unbeliever]

The idea that the UK will join the Euro and focusing on that as a reason for getting out now is not a great idea.

 

As for the 'ever closer union' concept I've been reading up about that. It has nothing to do with creating a super state, nothing at all. It is not a legal requirement either. The Lisbon treaty simply states this:

 

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

 

It's not a law. It's a concept. It's about localism not centralism.

 

And you accuse others of scaremongering

 

It's part of a legal document. You underestimate its force.

 

Ask around and you'll find plenty of pro-EU people who are supremely confident that the UK will join the EURO and most of them expect and hope to eventually become part of a single state with the rest of Europe.

 

I'm not focused on the EURO. My comments have been about inevitable further integration leading toward a super-state. You made the case that since we would not join the EURO, this was impossible.

I've merely been pointing out that you are quite wrong to say that the threat of the UK joining the EURO is gone and therefore you are quite wrong that European integration has ceased as far as the UK is concerned.

The threat of the UK joining the EURO is minimal for the next 5 years because of the governing party's manifesto. Anything can happen after that. It only takes one election to go to a pro-EU party and we're in the EURO. After that there's no way out.

[I1L2T3]

It's part of a legal document. You underestimate its force.

 

Ask around and you'll find plenty of pro-EU people who are supremely confident that the UK will join the EURO and most of them expect and hope to eventually become part of a single state with the rest of Europe.

 

I'm not focused on the EURO. My comments have been about inevitable further integration leading toward a super-state. You made the case that since we would not join the EURO, this was impossible.

I've merely been pointing out that you are quite wrong to say that the threat of the UK joining the EURO is gone and therefore you are quite wrong that European integration has ceased as far as the UK is concerned.

The threat of the UK joining the EURO is minimal for the next 5 years because of the governing party's manifesto. Anything can happen after that. It only takes one election to go to a pro-EU party and we're in the EURO. After that there's no way out.

 

Not underestimating anything - just pointing out the 'ever closer union' isn't enshrined in law. It isn't - find the passage in the Lisbon treaty yourself then come back on here and prove that it's a law.

 

I can honestly say I've never met anybody who thinks the EU should be part of an EU superstate and that we should adopt the Euro.

 

I can't ever recall a politician saying it.

 

You are just scaremongering now.