Will we now revert back to the Common Market?

[Kayless]

http://www.express.co...-of-EU-is-unstoppable
ie what we actually signed up for.

[Gromit]

No.

Because we have signed the Lisbon treaty.

All that has changed is that we have removed ourselves from any say or vote on what the EU does next. A bit like someone who removes themselves from the electoral register then claiming that is a new beginning for the country.

[New Judge]

The EU has rules which say that any major changes to the rules have to be agreed by all members. Perfectly reasonable, but even if it is not, it’s the rules. The UK objected to a major change which would disadvantage a major sector of its economy considerably – to a far greater degree than it would affect any other nation. No compromise was possible. So, in accordance with the rules, the changes could not be enacted.

Er...think again. What happens now is that the EU tears up the rules and goes ahead anyway with just those nations that do agree. (It’s not a Treaty. They call it an “Inter-Governmental Accord”. So that’s alright then). And the UK, which is simply taking advantage of a privilege it has under the rules, is castigated and threatened with “isolation and marginalisation” simply for exercising that privilege.

Our “European Partners” could not give a toss for the UK and expect us to accede to damaging changes to “save” their crippled, ridiculous currency. Now they’ve got the hump and taken their ball away. Oh Dear. How Sad. Never Mind.

[ichkeria]

I think Eurosceptics should prepare for bitter disappointment in the longer term. What Cameron has done may earn him a few temporary pats on the back from certain quarters, but he's adopted a fundamentally untenable position. Isolated as one versus 26, and yet also determined (rightly) that Britain should not leave the EU.
It may be that he geniunely felt he couldn't go with the deal for now, and he obviously hoped the Czechs, Hungarians and Swedes would go with him. But his bluff was called. Eventually he'll have to back track and Britain will be, thanks to him, once again the laughing stock of Europe.

[modeller]

There has been a lot of talk of the loss of our influence in Europe which as I said in the other post we have never had but when you think about it when did we last have much of a voice anywhere in the world. After WWI it's been down hill all the way, partly as a steady loss of an Empire but more importantly by the rise in other States , the US being the main one but closer to home in Europe it was Germany who was centre stage, then France rolled over and largely co-operated with the Germans . After the war it was de Charles de Gaulle who dominated Europe until 1968 . And us ? It was Wilson and Heath who went cap in hand and begged to be allowed to join the Common Market on their terms. It wasn't until Maggie Thatcher came in in 1978 that any British PM raised a voice in protest against the excessives of the EU by that time it was too late and what she did achieve was largely given away by Tony Blair . So where and when was this so called powerful voice of the UK ever heard ? The only time anyone listens to us is to fight their wars for them through Nato, an organisation that France did not belong to for most of the past 50 years.

[jno]

ichkeria, I imagine part of the reason for not going along with the proposed changes was that they would have triggered a referendum on continuing membership of the EU. My own guess is that British voters would narrowly vote to leave, but too narrowly to act on. Anyway, Cameron doesn't want a referendum, so he's left the rest to carry on without the UK, which they will do.

I can't see any common market for the UK to revert to. Maybe other countries will be clamouring to strike trade deals so they can buy Britain's famous exports, maybe they won't.

[Gromit]

The Veto was a way to avoid the need for a referendum. So it is perflexing that all the people who want a referendum are overjoyed by Cameron's use of the Veto.

?

[ichkeria]

From what I've read of this it wouldn't have meant a referendum, and if it had it would only have been a referendum on a treaty not EU membership. Even if all 27 had agreed. But maybe I have misread that.

[jno]

ichkeria, as I recall Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership if there were any major changes to the EU treaty, and the ones Merkozy put forward could not have been explained away as minor. So as far as I can see, Cameron has opted out of joining the revised-treaty EU in the hopes that staying in the old EU will still mean something.

I can't read the future of this; I don't suppose anyone can. I don't know if he could have done any different; Britain decoupled itself when it opted (for good reason) not to join the eurozone. Now it looks as though the eurozone will form the basis of a new Union - if the euro itself survives.

Meanwhile, eurosceptics are saying EU membership only hindered Britain's development, and it will once again become a great nation despite losing both its empire and Europe as trading partners. I'm not convinced, but we'll see.

[New Judge]

Why do you suggest that if we have a looser (or even no) tie with the EU, we will loose the nation states as trading partners, jno. It may seem strange, but international trade is not the exclusiver preserve of EU members.

[jno]

I should more properly have said "preferential" trading partners, NJ. Individual EU members may decide to cut their own deals with the UK (depending on the rules of their new association); then again, why should they? The point of the common market was to encourage intra-market trade and I suspect the new one will do the same. That implies discouraging trade with non-members. Are Britain's export and import businesses so alluring that they will overcome any such disincentives?

As I said, I don't know. Can you be sure?

[ichkeria]

"ichkeria, as I recall Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership if there were any major changes to the EU treaty, and the ones Merkozy put forward could not have been explained away as minor. So as far as I can see, Cameron has opted out of joining the revised-treaty EU in the hopes that staying in the old EU will still mean something"

Hmm, maybe. That does seem, if it's true, pretty desperate on his part. Doesn't the UK already have crucial opt-outs on just about everything anyway? And I think most people were resigned to him not having a referendum anyway. Promising a referendum on membership - rather than simply on any revised conditions, is madness.

"Meanwhile, eurosceptics are saying EU membership only hindered Britain's development, and it will once again become a great nation despite losing both its empire and Europe as trading partners. I'm not convinced, but we'll see. "

Well, as you say, who knows, but it strikes me as hopelessly delusional and pie-in-the sky. The world has moved on. Smaller countries can only get things done in blocs - that I am sure is the reason all responsible politicans, especially when they get into power, suddenly see the benefits of the EU.

[jno]

this was Cameron's pledge (after he'd wriggled out of an earlier one)

http://www.guardian.c...erendum-campaign-over

"If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum."

I think the Merkozy proposals could only be sen as involving just such a transfer. If he'd agreed to them he would have had to call a referendum (or wriggle out again).

[ichkeria]

"If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum."

What's happened in other countries is that there have been referenda on new treaties, but not on membership. When Ireland and co voted no the implication was that the treaty was dead (or that they'd have another vote :-) )
Cameron's pledge was pretty wishy-washy. He'd have wriggled out of it easily as he already had done. I think that would have been a far lesser evil than what he may be faced with. For a start the potential collapse of the coalition (well I can dream :-) )

[modeller]

What will happen is that this cosy new club will have to make agreements to save its skin but those agreements will need the support of the whole EU which means a change in the treaty and then Cameron will/may have to call for a referendum but I bet it will be worded in such a way as to enable him to stay in the EU on the promise that some powers will be negotiated back to us. They wont be but that will delay everything for a few more years.

A few polls have been carried out by independant groups and the press and the loaded questions were roughly similar :
1. Do you want to stay in the EU if we can regain control over immigration , the economy and the abuse of the human rights .
2. Do you want to leave the EU and let the UK be isolated in the world.
3. Do you you want to stay as we are and enjoy the benefits of a large European market.

You can guess the result 70% chose No. 1. 20% chose No.3 .
The fact that it was unobtainable was not queried by the electorate. Which is the case with all elections . Most people believe the rubbish politicians churn out. What is more most people voted on party lines. LibDems almost all chose No.3

[ichkeria]

"1. Do you want to stay in the EU if we can regain control over immigration , the economy and the abuse of the human rights . "

Eh, can you provide chapter and verse on who on earth asked that question? If I was them I think I'd be keeping my head down now!
"Control over the abuse of human rights" ??!!

[modeller]

If you punch it up in Google you can get the results from a number of polls.

[jno]

well, those were his words, ichkeria. It seems pretty clear what he intended, but doubtless if push comes to shove he will try to explain himself with less precision, and the electorate at large will try to tell him what *they* thought he meant. But as Gromit points out, he seems to have snubbed the eurozone to please his voters and his financiers, in order to deny them the referendum they really want.

[modeller]

My neighbour had that question asked by one of those telephone polls and when he asked for details they said human rights were being abused by criminals e.g. " rapists and muderers " who avoided being deported on the grounds of their human rights .
We know that it does happen and European courts over rule ours . We also know that immigrants avoid being sent home by marrying UK citizens.

[ichkeria]

To be honest it's polls like the ones quoted which put me off the idea of a referendum, not only on the EU but on a lot of issues.
The AV referendum campaign was a dispiriting experience, with both sides, frankly, lying to get their point across.
And as a firm supporter of the EU I worry that all the "sexy", "convincing" arguments are on the side of leaving. The arguments in favour of staying in are, by comparison, rather dull even if, in my opiniion, very good ones. Either way you could be sure that both sides of the argument would be caricatured in order to appeal to as many floating voters as possible.

[ichkeria]

... and the confusion between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU is one distortion to highlight, perhaps.