@ V.E. Bott: This is absolutely fundamental argument for staying within Europe. We will inevitably be forced by market pressure to comply with EU regulations if we want to continue trading (adding serious strain to our Parliament in the process; can we really afford to pass hundreds of acts regulating tire pressure and the like?) . If we accept this, surely it is better for us to have a hand in policy formulation? Complaints of a lack of democracy are nothing compared to being wholly unable to influence EU policy in the future.

The Sceptics really do have to make up their mind if they’re hoping for EEA status (like Norway) or for some arrangement based on a committment to harmonise our legislation with EU rules (the Swiss model) so as not to obstruct the exchange of goods with EU Member States.

The former is described, by Norwegians, as government by fax. Most of the EU legislation simply passes straight into Norwegian law without Norway being given a vote on the topics concerned. The second arrangement is even more onerous, as not only does Switzerland have to shape its legislation to match that in the EU but the relations between Switzerland and the EU are ever in a state of flux, with Switzerland constantly having to worry that the EU will move in a way that leaves it right out in the cold, as happened very recently over the rights and status of fund managers based in Switzerland.

We have grown so used to the benefits of the EU that people have no idea of what life could be like if we were back on the outside. In good times, of course, it might be alright although rather less democratic even than the present unsatisfacory arrangements. In bad times, Britain could find itself totally marginalized, with painful consequences for trade and employment.

Sweitzerland and Norway have very specific reasons for their positions on Europe. Oil and a national identity based on fisheries in the case of Norway, banking secrecy and a terrific commitment to popular democracy via constant referendums in Switzerland’s case. Sovereignty for sovereignty’s sake just isn’t enough of an argument.

Some of us EU-phobes aren’t that bothered about Eastern Europeans, just the accompanying laws and regulation.

Which provides solid concrete evidence that British Europhobes do not understand what they are wishing for.

That law and regulation will still have to be implemented here. Only we won’t get a say in drafting it.

That is a very, very bad bargain indeed for a supposedly first tier economy like Britain.

Europhobes wilfully don’t want to understand that any attempt to de-couple Britain from the EU will immediately relegate Britain to the role of also rans in the league of countries to be listened to.

The EU needn’t care too much about Britain’s negotiating power upon its self-defeating withdrawal – it can ride roughshod over our bombed out economy. We lost a lot of friends in Brussels with our indulgent finger pointing and siren calls for Europe to be “more like us” during the good times.

No doubt, but my point is that the key word in that sentence is “some”.

No doubt they could, but at some point the xenophobes will realise that that relationship does not get rid of the eastern europeans.

But the problem with an In/Out referendum is that it could just go wrong.

I don’t think Cameron wants to go down in history as the man who took the UK (or perhaps just England?) out of the EU, condemning us to perhaps 15 years of economic disadvantage until we have to go begging for readmission on rather less favourable terms. Nor do I think Cameron would want to face the wrath of the CEO’s of all those FTSE100 companies who would immediately demand his guts for garters the moment the results were in.

But you have to wonder how they see themselves. They do doublethink in a big way. One look at any right wing website will tell you that they are constantly telling each other how they represent the overwhelming majority, yet they’ve accepted the idea that it’s vital to keep tory europhobia quiet until after the election. If the tory party really thinks its hatred of Europe is a major vote winner, why is it so desperate to keep it quiet? Could it be that they know we like it in Europe?

Dominique de Villepin, previously a recent prime minister of France when Chirac was President, thinks the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815 inadvertently went the wrong way: “And yet this defeat shines with an aura worthy of victory.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article881293.ece

Take a look at this video clip of the extraordinary funeral arrangements in 1936 for the German Ambassador to Britain, Leopold von Hoesch, a career diplomat, who died unexpectedly in post. The British Coldstream Guards marched in a funeral procession along with Nazi troops flying the swastika. Crowds there to view the procession made the Nazi salute:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/11/when-nazism-came-to-london.html

The funeral arrangements conducted in Germany after the coffin had been transported there were much less impressive:
http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/02/Kanzlei__und__Residenz/An__Embassy__in__Belgrave__Square/Interwar__Years__Seite.html

Leopold von Hoesch was replaced as ambassador by von Ribbentrop who arrived in London during October 1936. Ribbentrop’s conduct in London was symbolised by the notorious Hitler salute when he presented his credentials to King George VI. He left his post as ambassador, on promotion, less than two years later.

PS: Anyone at LibCon picked up on the BNP’s attempt to put together a far-right EU bloc yet?

1. Does the author think there should be a referendum on Lisbon or not? If yes, then you’re examining the wrong party – Labour is the governing party and their 2005 manifesto had something about the EU constitution in it, if I remember rightly. If no, then why are you so concerned about pushing the Tories to hold a referendum on a ratified Lisbon?

2. If a referendum on a ratfied Lisbon treaty cannot ‘unratify’ it, as appears to be the case, then what’s the point of holding one? The Tory position will be made clear in their 2010 election manifesto (if it isn’t, they’ll lose millions of votes to UKIP). If you want to know what it is before then, get Obama Beach to call an election.

It’s Labour’s forthcoming civil war which will be far more entertaining…

It is very clear that you cannot have a referendum on a treaty that has already been ratified by all member states and is in force. To promise such a thing would be pointless.

To set out a clear set of principles as to how you will seek to reframe the relationship between the UK and the EU is clear and simple. To seek a mandate for this by making it part of a future manifesto is also clear and simple.

It is far more honest than promising a referendum and then failing to deliver.

This is a pragmatic, honest and practical position to take.

Far more acceptable that making promises that you will never carry out – like Labour has done. Time after Time and Teim.

Or the Lib Dems who also promised a referendum and when presented with a chance to have one – ran away and hid.

Get over yourself on this one. There will be no Tory civil war.

The only civil war is the one that will be fought for the leadership of the Labour Party – and that will be a lot nastier and a lot bloodier than anything we have seen in recent years.