The EU

[WillPS]

Cameron's promising a referendum should the Conservatives win the 2015 General Election.

My view is that Cameron had to do this, otherwise UKIP would have split the Tory vote, probably ensuring Labour a landslide victory.

I expect UKIP will probably return a couple of seats in 2015 and knock chunks from the other parties; and under those circumstances whoever win that election will probably be compelled to hold a referendum just to shut them up.

I expect an in/out referendum to return an 'in' result, that's certainly how I'd vote - but is that the referendum we'll be given? Despite giving his reasons for objecting to such a referendum now, he hasn't outlined what the question will be as far as I can tell.

[WillPS]

It's all talk. Irrelevant talk at that. There are far more important, interesting or exciting issues to deal with right now.

Anyway, a referendum such as this is going to attract such a small turnout that its result will be next to useless - look at the AV vote 2 years ago: £75m squandered for about forty percent turnout, in which roughly six million voting Brits felt passionately enough to vote Yes. I think about forty-five million in this country are eligible to vote. How could that possibly be representative of national mood? Doesn't The Trash Factor receive more votes than this?

An EU referendum will only hear the voices of those most passionate about the subject - be that europhile or sceptic - whilst the rest of the common electorate will be attending Curry Night at their local.

It's an issue, I quite agree. Referendums should always be held back for a General Election as that's the only way you can really get a decent enough turnout to represent some kind of quorum.

I'm not sure the turnout will be quite as low as they were for AV, though, which was poisoned by the issues surrounding the Liberal Democrats at the time. Most people have an opinion on the EU, and I think as a standalone referendum it could probably be more closely compared to whatever the turnout for the Scottish Independence referendum.

[bilky asko]

I think the issue of whether to stay in the EU or leave it is one that transcends political views. The main three parties don't reflect the national mood on the issue, and I think that a referendum would end up with the result of "Out".

I think that, potentially, it's a bad idea to have the EU vote coincide with the General Election. There will be a good number of people who feel compelled to vote on the issue, despite having no real views of their own - therefore, we will end up with a good proportion of the result being dictated by the press.

Personally, I don't see why apathy of a number of voters should stop those of us who can be bothered to decide one way or another. If a low turnout is due to bad weather or a disaster of some sort, that is a different matter, but if people just can't be bothered to decide, then they shouldn't be concerned about the result.

[cwathen]

The referendum promise is either a master stroke by David Cameron or it's desperation - I haven't quite decided which yet. Whether it's for or against, most people do have a view on Europe - however simplisitic or uninformed that view might be. A party which promises to give us a referendum on Europe should attract wide appeal - whichever way they feel on the matter. The eurosceptics will argue that the referendum gives us the chance to get out whilst the pro-euros will argue that it gives us the chance to gain a secure mandate on staying in Europe and put the matter to bed once and for all. Labour will arguably lose this one whichever way they go on it - if they promise their own referendum to stop this becoming a major election issue they will be accused of being copycats, if they oppose it then they are not criticising a Tory policy or position, they are simply criticising giving the people a choice and a voice - in a democracy.

As I said, I'm not sure whether Cameron has done this out of confidence that he will stay in but to make sure he is in a stronger position and with a majority next time, or out of desperation that Labour will re-group and get themselves re-elected and this is a piece of killer legislation to shore himself up against this.

Although one does have to ask the question, if Cameron believes so strongly that the referendum is necessary, why do we need to wait until the general election to do it? Surely if there is any question of the UK's future in Europe, particularly with the present instability of the Eurozone, then this needs to be sorted out now, not in 2 years' time? This could end up being the policy's undoing...it clearly has been born out of a strategy to win the next general election rather than a genuine need to ask the people what they think.

I'd actually quite like to see more votes. Money should be invested in technology that allows a referendum to be held regularly and cheaply. Don't they vote much more regularly on things in Switzerland? In the internet age, the idea of us just voting for an MP and him having a sort of say in what kind of happens is ridiculous. We should be able to say "gay marriage - yes or no", "europe - in or out", "NHS - private or not". Give the power to the people.

That would wholy undermine the point of government - they are there to govern. As a democracy we can choose who the government is based on what they say they will do if elected, but once in they are left to get on with it and if we don't think they've done a good enough job then we can vote them out again and let someone else have a go. It may be that the actual people we elect are of questionable competency and integrity, but in principle the system is perfectly sound.

And if we the electorate can't even make the right choices in the politicians we elect in that the bulk of the electorate will always vote for one of two main parties despite the fact that both of them have long track records of failing to deliver what they promise, then the competence of the electorate to make decisions must be called into question too - in which case we are the last people who should be making policy decisions!

[barcode]

What I found rather amusing is the fact Scotland could vote to be independent, either way it goes we could still be forced to hold other referendum before we join the EU. I cant see how Alex could get way joining without asking us!

[Sput]

I'd actually quite like to see more votes. Money should be invested in technology that allows a referendum to be held regularly and cheaply. Don't they vote much more regularly on things in Switzerland? In the internet age, the idea of us just voting for an MP and him having a sort of say in what kind of happens is ridiculous. We should be able to say "gay marriage - yes or no", "europe - in or out", "NHS - private or not". Give the power to the people.

So they took this to its natural conclusion in California, and the result was a budget crisis and political deadlock. Trouble is, when you boil it down to yes/no questions you immediately cut out the compromise that's inherent to politics. Real politics. Not the stuff on the telly.

http://www.economist.com/node/18586520 Sums it up better than I ever could.

I think the difference between Switzerland and the California (and probably us) is that their system was part of the political culture for a very long time and shaped how their politics modernised. Suddenly imposing it here seems like it'd just poison everything a la California.

[adamcobb55]

I'd actually quite like to see more votes. Money should be invested in technology that allows a referendum to be held regularly and cheaply. Don't they vote much more regularly on things in Switzerland? In the internet age, the idea of us just voting for an MP and him having a sort of say in what kind of happens is ridiculous. We should be able to say "gay marriage - yes or no", "europe - in or out", "NHS - private or not". Give the power to the people.

So they took this to its natural conclusion in California, and the result was a budget crisis and political deadlock. Trouble is, when you boil it down to yes/no questions you immediately cut out the compromise that's inherent to politics. Real politics. Not the stuff on the telly.

http://www.economist.com/node/18586520 Sums it up better than I ever could.

I think the difference between Switzerland and the California (and probably us) is that their system was part of the political culture for a very long time and shaped how their politics modernised. Suddenly imposing it here seems like it'd just poison everything a la California.

I recently asked a Swiss friend about their referendum system and he said that the problem with near fortnightly referendums is that everybody but a few political nutjobs on the extreme left and right of the spectrum essentially gives up on voting in them and some seriously weird legislation can slip through without anyone doing anything about this.

[Sput]

One other thing widely credited to the formation of the EU: We've not had a war between the major powers for a generation in Europe. That's something of a historical rarity.

[WillPS]

One other thing widely credited to the formation of the EU: We've not had a war between the major powers for a generation in Europe. That's something of a historical rarity.

Yes, and compared to the terrific cost of such wars the EU is very cheap.

[Sput]

Of course, that all depends on Greece not turning their new and quite understandable rage about the economic measures imposed upon them outwards...

[ali.james]

One other thing widely credited to the formation of the EU: We've not had a war between the major powers for a generation in Europe. That's something of a historical rarity.

Yes, and compared to the terrific cost of such wars the EU is very cheap.

Are you seriously implying that following WW2, without the EU there would have been any possibility of such a war happening? Because if you are not, how on earth could you arrive at the conclusion that, on balance, the EU has been 'cheap' ?

The pro-EU politicians flagrantly exploit such naivety. Granted, back then the post-war leaders might have felt like there needed to be some symbolic gesture. Indeed when the EU was just the three communities, there almost certainly was a good cause behind the endeavour.

Unfortunately the eurosceptic doubts have proved to be invariably correct. Now, its bullying 'referendum' processes and exhaustive treaties have even cost some mediterranean countries the ability of being able to vote for their own prime minister. The euro project has driven countries into deep financial trouble, costing generations of young Europeans the chance of a prosperous life. If anything, widespread unemployment and lessening democracy will incite such wars. And for such failings, the unelected personnel grant themselves ever more lavish salaries.