The full tables for ICM’s poll at the weekend are now up on their website here. It gives me a chance to go back and look properly at the questions on whether people support Tony Blair becoming the EU President. Up until now we’ve had some YouGov polls showing support and opposition evenly split, and this ICM poll showing a majority opposed. The reason for the difference is quite interesting.
ICM asked if people were in favour or against Blair becoming President of the EU. 36% were in favour, 53% were opposed, 11% didn’t know. In contrast, when YouGov asked they gave people the options of saying they supported Tony Blair, or that they opposed him and would rather the President came from another EU country (my emphasis). While support for Blair isn’t much difference between ICM (36%) and YouGov (31% and 38%), YouGov found much lower opposition to Blair.
It suggests the contrast is down to fact that people ICM is picking up everyone who opposes Blair, while YouGov only got people who oppose him so much that they would rather have someone from another EU state.
A bit embarrassing that apparently 20% of people would prefer to having a Briton that they hate in charge over a foreigner they have had no problems with. Maybe the UK hasn’t really progressed much since the 1950s after all…
Duncan – to be fair, 20% of people didn’t move to say they would rather have Blair, they just answered don’t know.
“Maybe the UK hasn’t really progressed much since the 1950s after all…”
Why is wanting to be ruled by a foreigner progressive?
So 36% want to destroy the EU?
Seriously, it would be interesting to see how that relates to Labour and Eurosceptic opinions.
I’d like to see the results in Germany or France too.
All very interesting but as there will not be a vote, no notice will be taken it is all irrelavent
“Duncan – to be fair, 20% of people didn’t move to say they would rather have Blair, they just answered don’t know.”
That’s a bit better I suppose – it could just mean that they don’t know much about the other candidates then. Which is much better.
“Why is wanting to be ruled by a foreigner progressive?”
I never said it was progressive. I was saying that it was backward for someone to consider being foreign as more of a detriment to a candidate than whatever Tony Blair did to annoy them (probably a lot). Particularly when the job in question is for an international institution containing twenty six other countries and it having a foreign leader a lot of the time should be expected.
Also – ruled? Firstly, the role is ill-defined and there’s nothing to say that the president would have any far-reaching executive powers. Secondly, despite the scaremongering bandied about the EU does not “rule” the UK – Lisbon doesn’t create a federation – given that only somewhere between 10-20% of our laws come from the EU anyway… (http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/blog/2009/02/eu-scare-stories-coincide-with-euro.html)
I don’t think it’s backwards. I think it is entirely natural to want to be governed by someone of the same nationality (that is of course the basis of democracy), and considering the European Union has a direct impact on this country.
NICHOLAS
“Maybe the UK hasn’t really progressed much since the 1950s after all…”
Why is wanting to be ruled by a foreigner progressive?’
Conversely why isn’t it progressive?
Surely the only valid non-racist question is would he do a good job? In my opinion no– the world does not need a fundamentalist Chrsitian warmonger as head of the EU.
Jack, I say “Amen” to that!
After Blair scrapped an election win in 2005 with 36% of the votes he claimed he got the message that people felt disrespected by Labour.
Whether he really got the message or not Brown’s Labour transferal of more power to Brussel’s without a referendum will demonstrate that they have virtually no respect for the British people.
Cameron has said that ‘never again’ will be part of the election campaign. I think this will be concrete proof for many people that the Tories have more respect for the people of this country.
Blair? Fundamentalist? Hahaha!!
Blair is fundamentally without fundament. That’s what’s wrong with him.
I want the president of the European Council, if there has to be one, to be an extremely dull, technically-minded individual who is wedded only to the improvement, reputation and cost-effectiveness of the EU. Someone who will get the accounts in order, coordinate a crackdown on corruption (whether by politicians or Greek olive farmers) and engage in quiet negotiations away from the spotlight. And not stop traffic when he lands at the airport…
“Conversely why isn’t it progressive?”
It may well be progressive, I was asking why it was viewed as so. I am not bothered by what is progressive or not, I wanted to know why national self-determination (or racism as you call it) was viewed as regressive.
Why do people still use the word “progressive” on this site? It is a weasel word, and it contributes nothing to debate. Anthony, please put it on your list of automatically moderated words.
I’m actually miffed with Blair because he broke his promise on giving the people a referendum on the Euro.
But since the Iraq war the Labour government has lacked the credibility to successfully campaign for the Euro, even if they wanted to.
Blair would be more highly rated in this country if he had resigned with dignity in 2004. But sadly it seems that dignity and respect have not been hallmarks of this government, at least not since that time.
Its probably no coincidence that the 36% figure who are in favour of Blair being EU president is the figure Labour got in the 2005 GE. Then 9.5 million gave Blair’s Labour the benefit of the doubt. About 3 million less I think will give Brown’s Labour the benefit of the doubt in 2010.
“I don’t think it’s backwards. I think it is entirely natural to want to be governed by someone of the same nationality (that is of course the basis of democracy), and considering the European Union has a direct impact on this country.”
So it’s democratic to expect a single country to always have the top job in an international organisation? It’s democratic to put someone’s circumstances of birth over their ability to do the job they are trying for? Replace ‘nationality’ with ‘ethnicity’ or ‘social class’ and see if your statement is still acceptable – it’s the same principle as in your statement. It is unacceptable for people in a modern Western society to think like that.
If my interpretation of the poll data is correct it says something damning about the UK. Of course, as Anthony said, it may be overanalysis. But I don’t think there’s any way of turning it into a good thing if I am right.
@ Duncan – what a bizarre comment to come out with.
Let me put it to you this way. If people who belong to a single society with a particular geography and shared history and culture can’t feel any great sense of belonging and responsibility towards one another then you’re sure as hell not going to get them to feel a sense of belonging and shared responsibility across much vaster and more nebulous entities like the EU or the whole world.
There’s nothing “damning” about a society wishing to make its own decisions on a whole raft of matters that affect it. In fact, it’s hugely desirable that they do because the alternative is, in the end, disaffection.
These questions are interesting, even if there is a lot of guff spewed out around the issues. I’m not one of those who fears an EU superstate and the presidential role is clearly to represent, not rule the EU, but nonetheless there is a huge democratic deficit at the heart of the EU that will have to be addressed. The clear avenue for that within the current institutions is the EU parliament, and the question must be why the president doesn’t come from the parliament itself, so at least there is a direct line of accountability to all EU voters. I think I’m right in saying the EU has for over 15 years not had a properly audited set of accounts, as the auditors refuse to sign them off as there are so many holes. The general behaviour over referendum results betrays a lack of care for voters, and while I support the aims of the EU in general, and believe working together is preferable to the ‘island’ mentality, while tobacco farmers remains the recipient of the highest levels of CAP subsidy and we operate a crazy two parliament system to keep French pride satisfied, there is no wonder people despair of this institution.
“A bit embarrassing that apparently 20% of people would prefer to having a Briton that they hate in charge over a foreigner they have had no problems with. Maybe the UK hasn’t really progressed much since the 1950s after all…”
Duncan,
The issue is the right trying to dictate the view that Blair is hated. He’s hated by one group of voters. He;s still highly respected by the left.
I poll last year, in the guardian, gave Cameron a 15 point lead over Labour. Sneakily however, they gave voters the option of “Blair as leader”. The poll lead shrank to 3 points.
You and your Mail reading goons hate him. We get that.
Blair had a poll lead when he retired. Camerons only gains have come against Brown.
I think we should probably dispel the myth that Blair is universally hated in the UK.
I’m not shocked by this poll. Not that I think he’s universally loved, but the guy will always retain a lot of loyalty from the left.
Other than wars, he changed British politics a lot, for the better.
Many of his policies are being ripped of by Cameron even now
Chris – Blair was ousted by “the left” because he wasn’t considered “left” enough. They foisted Brown on us instead, trumpeting that he’d be a proper Old School Labour PM. Now it’s obvious that Brown is an utter disaster, suddenly you lot are all pro-Blair again. well tough. You destroyed his third term and got rid of him so you’ll just have to live with it.
I agree very much with Alec about the flaws which he identifies in the EU.
They are serious-and with respect Alec-its easy to repeat the mantra “.there is a huge democratic deficit at the heart of the EU that will have to be addressed.”…………, but someone, somewhere has to start doing it.
Cameron’s position, whilst uncomfortable on the Referendum, is entirely credible, recognising that Lisbon is now EU Law-but crucially undertaking the most interesting series of manifesto mandate requests, and subsequent actions in government.
It will be very interesting to see the reaction of Labour & LibDems to the proposed amendments to the European Communities Act 1972, the key founding piece of legislation through which all legal force of our membership of the EU applies ( such that the standard legal devices whereby EU Treaty amendments create variations in UK law will not apply to any future such amendments)This proposal unmakes that aspect of the Lisbon Treaty which means that future variations to the EU Treaty do not require future treaties with ratification by national Parliaments.
Even more interesting will be the reaction of Brown ( or whoever?) & Clegg to the proposed Sovereignty Act, to re-assert that rulings of the European Union (e.g. of the ECJ) have effect in British Law only through the auspices of Acts of the Crown in Parliament.
These are the proposals of a true Eurosceptic, who is not Europhobe.
They chime exactly-unless Anthony corrects me-with Opinion Polls in UK on attitudes to Europe.
They provide what UKIP cannot-the real prospect of a UK government actually trying to stem the tidal wave of “ever closer political union”
As to the vexed question of mechanisms for negotiated changes to our membership-the Shadow Europe Minister on The Daily Politics said that it already exists-in the methods used to “attach” the Irish & Czech concessions to the Lisbon Treaty.
I can see no potential for significant drift of support from Cons to UKIP over this issue-perhaps the reverse in fact ?
@Colin – I’m glad we agree on something. I would however disagree that Cameron’s response offers any meaningfull starting point to address the issues. Its a typical Cameron style presentational position that is devoid of meaning and doesn’t merit any close examination. The Sovereignty Bill is worthless, as he has stated that the Bill of Rights will be subservient to the EU Court of Human Rights, so the highest authority for all UK laws rests beyond our shores and will continue to do so. The notion that anyone in Europe will pay the slightest attention to a request by Cameron to give UK opt outs on anything to do with Lisbon is laughable, and Cameron knows it. Even the ‘referendum lock in’ is pointless, as I understand that Lisbon allows the EU to take on more powers if it wants to anyway. (I’ve not read the treaty (!) but I have heard this from several sources).
I am very pro an EU, but not this EU. Although I feel on balance we are better off in at present, I wouldn’t be too frightened of leaving, as global free trade and access to markets is much better now than in 1972. If Cameron was serious he would call for an ‘in this EU or out’ vote, and then negotiate on the back of the result, with the ultimate option of UK withdrawal. This would be a coherent position, would utterly terrify the EU elites, and would introduce an all out bloodbath from which a democratically inspired organisation could arise. As it is, Cameron’s position is worthless and the rest of the EU leaders now view him as an irrelevant lightweight whose threats are hollow. He’s lost the negotiation even before he gets into power.
Alec-calling for a withdrawal would be political suicide-even though you seem to support the idea. UKIP presumably represents this opinion presently-some 2% of the electorate.
I get very tired hearing the constant assertion that Brussels has all the power, can continue to take it to the centre, and that member states who wish to stem this flow have no chance of success.
Lets just see what happens when Cameron tries.
He will be supported in his efforts by a majority in UK, and clearly hopes to take a UK Parliamentary election mandate with him when he does so.
If he fails-then you can tell him you told him so.
@Colin – I’m not saying the Tories should call for exit, but rather than mess about with pointless semantics actually pose the question for the British public and then use the result to negotiate. I believe the threat of any major net contributing nation leaving the EU will have a very significant impact and enable substantive change to be negotiated. You then go back to electorate wirth the result and hope they say yes to a reformed EU. Otherwise, there is no chance for Cameron to achieve anything substantial.
On the UKIP point, you’re right of course re the level of support for UKIP, but polls clearly show many more people want out than vote for UKIP. I’m not so sure it would be political suicide for a major party to campaign to leave the EU, and I certainly don’t think it would be suicide to offer a vote on the issue. Not doing so by contrast shows Cameron’s pretence to want to give the British people a say is a sham.
Either way, this shows the Tories have not resolved their position on Europe yet. The strains will erupt and as before we will have a government hobbled by internal divisions on this issue.
Alec-I assume you mean by “pose the question” that Cameron gives a referendum on “in or out” .
You then advise him to “use the result to negotiate….. substantive change ” & “hope ( uk voters) say yes to a reformed EU”
ie-Should a majority in that referendum be for”out”, Cameron would ignore their wishes but use their votes to negotiate a revision to our being “in”
I don’t consider that advice sensible, or the proposal honest. The stratagem would be electoral suicide & deservedly so.
Cameron is proposing an honest version of your proposal ie:-
Accept that leaving EU is politically impossible at present.
Accept that there is no indication of UK public support for it.
Recognise the clear UK public support for less transfer of powers to Brussels, and a more democratic EU.
Crystalise that support in a General Election mandate.
Use it to try & negotiate what the UK public mandated & what the public in other EU countries have expressed a desire for-ie the sort of reform in EU that both you & I would think desirable.
I will not accept rejection of this plan solely on the basis that EU proceedures & laws will prevent it.
EU laws & proceedures are bent & abused by the ruling Franco German axis to their own advantage every day. Why should UK not play the same game?
Mr Lellouche Minister for Europe under President Sarkozy,said the Tories did not appear to want to “listen” to France and other EU members over the future direction of Europe.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said European integration could not be “jeopardised”
Cameron’s smile just got a little wider.
“So it’s democratic to expect a single country to always have the top job in an international organisation? It’s democratic to put someone’s circumstances of birth over their ability to do the job they are trying for? Replace ‘nationality’ with ‘ethnicity’ or ’social class’ and see if your statement is still acceptable – it’s the same principle as in your statement. It is unacceptable for people in a modern Western society to think like that.”
If anyone has unacceptable opinions, it’s you, telling people what to think. That last sentence is breathtakingly arrogant.
Democracy means decisions taken by the majority of the “demos”–the people, i.e. the nation. The EU puts the UK in a small, permanent minority. Therefore if the majority in the UK desire a certain policy but is outvoted by other countries then how does democracy prevail there? It is a negation of democracy. EU-wide democracy would depend on a single European people identifying as such: such Euronationalism is almost absent in this country. That is why EU law overriding native law is obnoxious to most people in this country, because it is a negation of their democratic will.
If someone would rather be governed by a compatriot than a foreigner then that is a natural and democratic instinct. There is a word for someone who would rather be ruled by a foreigner because they would rather have their policies than trust the rule of their fellow countrymen: Quisling.
new yougov out tonight
CON 41%
LAB 27% -1%
LD 17% +1%
@Colin – I appreciate what you are saying, and I think our views are actually quite close on this. The difference is that I don’t believe without some huge external threat – such as a major donor country threatening to leave the EU – the major EU players will simply not entertain any talk of reform in the way we want it. Your last post rather confirms this point – rather than giving Cameron a smile, it just backs up the point that he will be completely ignored by them, which is what I am saying his policy will allow.
I also don’t accept a referendum on the basis of asking whether people want to be in the currently constituted EU is dishonest. If yes, so be it, but if it’s made clear that a no vote will lead to renegotiation with the results put before the public again for a final decision I can’t see where the dishonesty lies. Effectively you are asking for a mandate to reform but giving the public the final say on the outcome. Other EU leaders would not be able to ignore this.
Where I think we are close on this is that I suspect we both think the EU is inherently (or should be) a good thing to be part of, but we are frustrated as to how the current system is managed. We differ on what level of pressure it will take to change it, and whether a straight in/out vote is political suicide. Five years ago I would have said it was, but now I’m not so sure – there is a growing sense that Europe has to be made to listen to it’s people, and I suspect nowhere is that sense stronger than in the UK.
Neil A said:
“[We need] Someone who will get the accounts in order, coordinate a crackdown on corruption (whether by politicians or Greek olive farmers) [in the EU]”
Exactly. We need a very boring, very miserable accountant in charge.
A note on the Greeks/EU in general: As a “perpetual traveler” (ie a proud and determined tax avoider), I am currently living on a Greek island. It is a real eye opener let me tell you. You may be aware that British Telecom was at one stage going to lay a fiber network but recently changed their mind because it was too expensive. So no next gen communications/fast internet for the British.
But guess what I have been seeing in the last few months being laid under the roads here. And not in major cities either. There are no cities where I am. Fiber is being run in small towns and along the country lane type roads that connect these towns. (“Villages” may be a better description.) When I inquired as to how the, until recently, state owned, now German owned, telephone company could afford it, the answer was “its from the EU.”
So if in a few years your internet connection is not quite the educational resource it needs to be because its not cutting edge enough, well, you did pay for it… its just you paid for it for someone else. Your kids can go screw themselves.
As for the corruption here I think many tax payers in all net contributor countries would feel sickened to know what happens to their money. I shudder to think how much EU money goes directly into the pockets of politicians and their friends here. (You even have to pay a bribe to be awarded a pass on your driving test.)
And the farmers, well, I have heard it from their very mouths what goes on. It is mass fraud. Simple as that. Thats before considering the massive waste of food (and shortages/higher prices of other things) that comes about from such left wing policies as subsidization.
Alec :-
“I suspect we both think the EU is inherently (or should be) a good thing to be part of, ”
I think that European Union is almost certainly a bad thing.
I think that a European Community could be a good thing.
Anthony
What about the YouGov poll for Channel 4?
It’s so boring, this discussion of constitutional issues!
@Colin – quite right.
Chris/Duncan
“[A] poll last year, in the guardian, gave Cameron a 15 point lead over Labour. Sneakily however, they gave voters the option of “Blair as leader”. The poll lead shrank to 3 points.”
That’ll be Blair or “Heir to Blair”.
OldNat
You missed James Ludlow’s post (15th from top).
Alec & Colin, Leaving the raw data that Oldnat craves aside untiul the next set arrives, I found your exchange interesting, which is why I’m still here.
I’m intrigued by the idea that a PM could use the result of an “in/out” referendum (or POLL as our previous dear Oracle would put it) as a strong bargaining chip.
A result of “let us stay in” would disrobe UKIP completely, IMHO. However, a “let us leave” result, even if delivered in a purely consultative referendum, would surely be a precursor to us leaving, and could hardly create a strong bargaioning position.
I had the misfortune of reading an exchange on Iain Dale’as site, wher he was berated by all and sundry Tories for promulgating the idea that a cleansing referendum on membership would be welcome. The prevailing mood among his correspondents was that such a referendum might result in a “satay in” result, which would rob our Govt of the one effective bargaining chip – that we might hoild a referendum, and the result might be “out”, if our intrerests were opposed.
Whenever possible, I refer to my own Oracle – the Yes Minister VHS tapes. When Sir fRank ointerviews Sir Humphrey about who is to take over from him, he says “It isn’t so much knowing the answers, as knowing the questions”.
Any spin doctor (ibid, but I think Charlie Whelan was there when that phrase was first used in 1990′s political debate) would be able to come up with a consultative referendum question that could, if threeatened, provide a more powerful bargaining chip than teh threat of an “in/out” referendum.
Where Cameron made sense to me was when he said there were higher priorities than referenda that would follow a GE so swiftly. He spoke nonesense about the “referendum lock” – presumably hoping to claim the dunderhead vote – and I agree that he is a smart speaker with a smart writer.
Sorry this has not addressed Oldnat’s desire for us to point at numbers, butit’s much nmore interesting to me.
John – Was it one of the Milibands who said “in 12 months time they’ll be clamouring for Blair’s return”?
I often listen to Brown at PMQs and imagine a better-trained voice saying similar things in better ways.
@John TT – the point of the in/out vote is that if the people vote to stay in under the presently constructed arrangement, we can all accept Lisbon as the will of the people and forget about it – there is no need for any bargaining power, as we accept the bargain on offer. That’s democracy. This is why so many Tories fear it as it’s not what they themselves want. An out vote would merely mean the UK does not want to remain under the present circumstances – it is up to the EU to offer something better for Britain if they want us in, again with the people having the final say. I think they will, as the large number of new entrants is placing an increasing strain on EU donor nations, and Europe will fear a large economy on its doorstep free to undercut EU business and industrial legislation.
I find it odd to be in the same camp as Iain Dale, but that’s Europe for you.
I don’t follow the argument – probably because I don’t understand the process. Is it the position that a UK vote to depart the EU (which we can have I believe) will result in the EU deciding en masse to ask us to stay, and offer incentives?
I remain intrigued about the consequences of an in/ou vote. If we vote for Out, then what would our options comprise, and what would our European friends actually do?And would they be united in any decision to respond to our departure? How would our good neighbours over on the continent delineate the greater good from their own interests?
I can’t personally envisage a united (and therefore constructive) response by the EU to a “leave” result by us here. There are too many countries for that now, surely?
Prior to Yes Minister, I refer to entente cordiale and the hoary opld notion that history’s mistakes keep coming back. I’m into homogenisation myself (but then again I’ve never been stabbed by anyone who doesn’t speak English – or anyone eslse for that matter). As far as the top tier of management goes, I find it ironic that we are run by a family, and yet bang on the loudest about democratioc accountability
Alec – Sorry for the typos – I meant to say “Germanic/Danish/Greek family”, and I’m supposing that we all accept that ultimate power resides with the Crown Executives and its servants, who we as subjects trust enough to earrant hiring MPs andPMs who shrink from finding real constitutional solutions that might result in “Get oO Your Bicycle” style monarchy. I’m a bit mor eextreme than dear Tebbit on that, but that’s UK (&C) for you.
People! You aren’t thinking this through… what better assassination target could their be for competing extremists than Holy Roman Emperor Tony?
We could have the mother of all whip-rounds for that King Cnut.
I’m troubled by this idea that Blair is still popular with Labour supporters.
Most of the labour supporters I have known are either dead or ex- or anti-Iraq, or anti-Trident. For sure they can’t be pleased with GB’s standing in the polls, but that doesn’t mean that another leader would do any better at this stage,\and that’s why he’s still there isn’t it?
He was attractive to those who want a strong leader,who voted for Thatcher (but not that wimp John Major). Policy, right or left has nothing to do with it, but Bob Altemeyer’s e-book The Authoritarians
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/.
explains all though it isn’t about UK politics.
@John TT – your first paragraph just about sums it up. Oddly, Lisbon for the first time allows states to leave the EU, but essentially yes, my theory is that an out vote would lead to a general desire among 26 nations to try to persuade us to stay in, with incentives to match. All 26 states would want this – the net recipient countries, as losing one of the largest donors would severely slash the money they will get, and the donor countries, as they will be pressured to pay more. The rest is vague, and deliberately so – that’s what makes this such a strong bargaining position for the UK. A new PM could go to Brussels and ask what’s on the table and they would not know for sure how much they need to do to keep UK in. Of course the bottom line is that we would need to be prepared to leave if we were not satisfied – empty threats are pointless – but as I said previously, I no longer feel a life outside the EU is particularly terrifying.
Alec,
For someone who has so consistently criticised Cameron for lack of strategic thinking you display a surprising paucity yourself.
What kind of negotiation do you think you can have with anyone who already knows your bottom line ?
@Paul HJ – a very good one, if your opposite number fears greatly your bottom line. In fact the current position is the precise summary that you highlight – Cameron will be totally ignored because everyone round the table knows he won’t threaten to leave. His ‘bottom line’ is known and holds no fears whatsoever for the EU.
Actually I think we’re both confusing terminology slightly – in negotiating terms the relevant bottom line in my plan would be the level of concessions that would be required to make the British voter want to stay in the EU – as no one knows that for certain it would actually be an extremely strong negotiating position for the UK.
If you want any more evidence of how badly awry Cameron’s EU strategy has gone, just look at today’s comments from the Netherlands, Poland and Ireland – the UK’s three closest EU allies – all three state absolutely categorically that there is no chance whatsover of reopening any issues related to Lisbon and there will be no change to the current constitutional agreement. Cameron will end up being humiliated and shown as completely impotent in terms of the policy he has just announced. Again, he’s misfired strategically by promising a fight he will lose with embarrasing ease. Along the way, he has marginalised the UK position as well, which, putting party politics aside, is a much more serious blunder.
Alec,
With regard to your comments on the bottom line I disagree. How can anyone claim to know the negotiating position of the UK government 6 months hence, still less 2-5 years ahead ?
However, if the UK government did as you proposed and held an in/out referendum, then its hands would be tied either way whatever the result. If the vote were to stay in, then the Government definitely could not credibly threaten to leave if its demands were not met, while if the vote were to leave, then the government could only legitimately negotiate on the terms for departure, and not some alternative settlement to enable continued membership. In that I am in full agreement with John TT (there’s a rarity!)
As to the rest of your post:
Your comments about the position of Poland Netherlands and Ireland would be valid – if, but only if, Cameron were proposing to reopen the Lisbon settlement.
What Cameron is proposing is that no future transfer of power or changes to UK law can be made without the approval of the UK – by act of Parliament if it relates to legislative matters, and by will of the people expressed in a referendum if of a constitutional nature.
What you appear to overlook is that we do not need to hold a referendum in order for that approach to have democratic force when negotiating future policy with our EU partners. Since these proposals will be in the Conservative manifesto, then Cameron – if he becomes PM – will have a mandate to implement them.
If some future proposal for the evolution of the EU were to throw up a situation where a threat of UK withdrawal may be an option, then the PM at that time (whomever he/she may be) would have the legislation provided by Cameron to support their insistence on a referendum, and thus give greater force to their negotiating stance.
As I have said before, Cameron is not stupid, and his position is strategically vastly superior to that of UKIP.
While the Labour position may be clear vis-a-vis our EU partners, they are hardly in a position to claim that Cameron is back-tracking when they refused the referendum promised in their manifesto.
Finally, I don’t see how you can be so confident that our EU partners would bend over backwards to keep Britain in the EU should we threaten to leave. There must already be a fair number wondering how they can make treaty changes to enable the EU to expel a member state.
Paul HJ – I think you’ve rather missed what cameron has said he will do – he clearly stated he wants powers over the social chapter and legal rihts to be returned to the UK – this is Lisbon. Reopening the Lisbon Treaty is exactly what he has in effect proposed, which is why he has blundered. He has picked a fight he cannot win. Wait and see.
As for the in/out referendum – everyone seems to have missed my point. The question would be to ask the UK voters if we wanted to stay in an unreformed EU. If we vote yes – problem solved, no need to renegotiate, and no need to worry about superstate etc – this is what we want. If no, the vote isn’t no to the EU – it’s no to this EU. Renegotiating our terms of entry is perfectly valid in this case.
It’s been an interesting debate, but I have other things to get on with, and we all know it’s not going to happen
anyway, but thanks for the pleasnt sparring anyway.
They forgot to ask how many cared.
Never mind that, how many of those who want him to be Holy Roman Emporer are mischievous?
I bet that half the wacky EU-related results are a manifestation of innate British contempt for all things continental!