I would take Cameron more seriously if he were to promise a referendum in this parlliamentart term and show us that he trust our judgement at the ballot box. If he loses the next election, which seems increasingly likely, no such promise will be honoured by a different government. I have not forgotten the broken promises by Blair on a referendum either.

I will be doing my hardest to provide a "cast iron guarantee" that I aim to show evidence to my friends and colleagues that what politicians and the media say is a lie when it clearly is. Take the "Norway" line spouted by Camoron (sic) today and on a few other occasions. Richard and others have shown clearly that this is a massive lie but it will be repeated time and time again. Hopefully I will eventually get them to believe that statements like the "Norway" line should not be believed. It will be tough for sure as few of my friends and colleagues are as interested as me and will just believe what the likes of CBI and the BBC say. I think I will just keep mentioning Article 50 so that they are pissed off with me but at least it will be ingrained into their brains!

I was listening to our local news whereby the interviewer was speaking to Camborne Tory MP George Eustice and Swindon South MP Robert Buckland (Tory). Eustice is supposedly a eurosceptic but he towed the party line in saying that it has united the party and if renegotiation is successful he will campaign for an "In" vote. Definitely a europlastic there then. As for Buckland, he also believes that renegotiation is possible and a confirmed europhile. So should it ever come to an in/out referendum, as we know on here, virtually every MP of the Lib/Lab/Con party will be campaigning for "in".

PS - Didn't take Blair long to get in on the act did it?

Edited by user 23 January 2013 19:07:37(UTC)  | Reason: To enter a PS

Glad to see that there is a recognition in the bubble that the 'issue' is not just going to go away and that the 'issue' is not just some squabble within the Conservative Party.

We may not get a referendum and it may not be a fair fight if we do but the alternative is that Labour are elected next up and choose to sweep the 'issue' back under the rug.
There it stays for a while (in relative terms) but it will be back with a vengeance.

One can imagine a situation where Labour win the next election and during their term a major new EU treaty is concluded. HMG now have two choices, sign us up with no consent or offer a referendum.
Signing us up with no consent will simply increase the resentment and a referendum, no matter the treaty content, will simply be used as a big 'f**k you' to the EU and UK majority party.

Ultimately this is a situation the bubble has created for itself. It has always been easier, both for HMG and Brussels, to 'plow on regardless' rather than to 'argue the case' and put it to a vote (at least in the UK).
The up-side is that every treaty gets an easy (UK) passage. Downside though is that general resentment grows with every 'yes' vote from the bubble. Simply, these people do not represent my wishes.
Pretending that they do is something that will backfire badly at some point.

My other problem with his speech is that it is the typical 'cutting red tape' BS that we hear from every front man of any political persuasion . His real fight is with Brussels - not Germany, France or Outer Arctic Territories.

Two minutes in a room with the EU bureaucracy will have him either going insane or scrawling his name on the 'agreement'. The reason that the EU is in the mess that it is is that bureaucracy just increases. It is an 'industry'
that creates its own 'reason for existence' (pardon my lack of French). Apple has to create an iPad 7. The (EU) Bureaucracy just has to create more 'regulation' - great industry
if you are on the inside - no 'depression' here, no job losses. Economy 'goes south' - no problem, more regulation. Can't afford us? No problem - print more 'fiat'. 'tiss basically a fight between
'productive activity' and the 'parasites'. Parasites have won already within the EU which is why we all want out. They will sap the 'productive economy' to the point that it collapses .

You drag a Mammoth home to the village. For your efforts ... you are 'awarded.' ...a leg. Why would you take on the risk of 'Mammoth hunting'? Far better to get yourself a place on the 'EU Mammoth carcase division council'
and find some other 'idiots' who will take the risk of heading into the Ice and Snow to hunt Mammoth that you can 'divide up' (as per your democratic mandate as a member of the MCDC) - equitably of course'.
Socialism is great - more people fighting over less Mammoth meat because nobody can see the point of hunting Mammoth.. An EU tale to tell the kids.

Pretty sure that Cameron, even if his offer were totally genuine, will be facing the might of the EU bureaucracy and will, as all before him, fail. Which brings me to the last thought, the idea of a 'two speed Europe'.
This would require a 'two speed Brussels' . Never going to happen, not now, not ever. There is 'in' or there is 'out'. Brussels has no structures that could deal with 'two channels'. You are in or out. Cameron realises
that " Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be.". Which means that we will reside in the wacky world of 'out' where Brussels is geared to 'in' and England is 'out'.
Not going to work for us - not now - not ever.

It's not going to happen ... but we have the internet. We need to use it to effect.

Richard, you wrote:



But a United States of Europe is not an end in itself. There must be some perceived benefit from being a United States of Europe.

In my opinion, the EU is integrating because the governments of its members believe that they will carry more weight on the world stage as a collective (or single) entity than as 27 (or soon-to-be 28) individual ones.

If I'm right, then the logical conclusion is that there will be very little, if any, any movement on the part of other EU member state goverments to accomodate Mr Cameron.

It is a characteristic of the "colleagues" that they have so internalised the debate that their "United States of Europe" has long ceased to be a means to an end and has become an end in itself. The original aim was the abolition of war in Europe. That was a false paradigm - it couldn't work and didn't - so they have progressively reinvented the overt objectives to fit the mood of the time.

The EU, therefore, has very much taken on the mantle of a solution looking for a problem, which rather reflects the way Monnet approached the issue. His mode de travail was to offer political integration as the answer to whatever problem happened to be troubling the politicians at the time.

Of course it won't be unbiased ... and of course we can't trust him. Those are givens.

I'd say the reasons it started are different from the reasons it's continuing now.

Think of all the jobs, empires to grow (same thing), pensions, grants and other other benefits for the political and administrative establishment. The fascinating thing is that no one supporting the EU needs to believe in the European ideal, pretty much everyone's motives can be accounted for by venality and narrow self interest.

Another reason for continuing it is it's perceived easier than sorting out the mess of interdependencies it's created.

Disagree with your first point, as the EU bureaucracy is tiny and not growing.

Your second point is more valid, but the entire world is made up of interdependencies. Most EU regulations are actually dreamed up by some global intergovernmental body and then transposed into EU law, as Richard has repeatedly pointed out here. The EU is just part of the plumbing. A valid question is whether getting the regulations directly will be better for the UK than getting them through the EU process.

I am sure that is the case ... and also why it has to keep inventing new problems.