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!

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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