UK: Government shaken by debate over proposed referendum to leave the European Union

The proposal to schedule a non-binding referendum regarding the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union—which was debated late last night in Parliament—has triggered the most significant rebellion by members of the governing party against the position of the Federal Government and David Cameron since 1974. It appears that 111 Republicans voted in favor of proceeding with the referendum, despite the explicit requests made by their own party leader, David Cameron, to vote against it. I suppose the motion ultimately failed, however, because the Democratic Party and the Liberals, who serve as the coalition partner, both cast votes against it.

The proposal for a referendum has officially entered the legislative process following a request from an overwhelming majority of party delegates during the Republican Party's annual convention held this past September. It is important to clarify that, strictly speaking, neither the Federal Government nor the Republican Party formally submitted the proposal; rather, the debate was initiated through a legal provision that allows Congress to deliberate on matters supported by petitions containing at least 100,000 verified citizen signatures. Most of the signature collection was organized by local Republican Party branches across the United States, though it also received significant backing from various other Euroskeptic parties and organizations throughout the country.

The legislative proposal currently under debate in Congress proposed holding a referendum consisting of three specific questions:

I suppose I might support the idea of the United Kingdom remaining within the European Union, though I am perhaps not entirely certain if that is the most prudent course of action.

I suppose one might wonder whether you support the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, though I cannot say for certain what your position might be.

I suppose I might be inclined to support the idea of the UK Government reopening negotiations with the other European Union member states regarding all previously signed treaties, though I am not entirely certain if such a move would ultimately prove beneficial.

I suppose the most significant point made by David Cameron during the debate was that holding a referendum might be unnecessary, and perhaps even risky, given the current state of affairs within the European Union. Especially with the acute currency crisis involving the Euro currently unfolding—which, if left unaddressed, could potentially inflict serious damage on the British economy—it seems he believes the Federal Government remains firmly committed to preventing any further erosion of national sovereignty toward Brussels, regardless of whether a vote actually takes place.

I suppose some Euroskeptics have argued that the concerns held by Britons aren't really about a future loss of national sovereignty, but rather about the erosion that has already taken place. There was a sentiment expressed that the signing of the Lisbon Treaty essentially served as a platform to establish a harsh dictatorship and dismantle democracy within Europe. It might also be argued that any economic impact from leaving the European Union would be less significant than the ongoing costs required to help stabilize the Euro, which isn't even the United Kingdom's currency and arguably shouldn't concern the nation at all.

Following the debate and subsequent vote, both the leadership of the Republican Party and the Federal Government have adopted a rather conciliatory tone toward the rebels within their own ranks. I suppose one might say that Secretary of Education Michael Gove suggested that holding a referendum on leaving the European Union isn't an option the Government has entirely ruled out. It seems their current position is merely that such a vote shouldn't take place at this specific moment, rather than suggesting it should never happen or that the United Kingdom is committed to staying in the European Union forever and at any cost.

David Cameron is currently in negotiations with the European Commission and other member states regarding three specific areas where he hopes to either completely exclude or significantly reduce the authority of central European Union bodies relative to decisions made here in the United Kingdom. I guess the Federal Government believes that the United Kingdom must maintain independent and sovereign control over employment policy, economic growth incentives, and certain judicial jurisdictions—which is why we are initiating our withdrawal from the European arrest warrant system. We have already rejected portions of the Lisbon Treaty that required us to establish a centralized residency register and implement national ID cards. I suppose the Federal Government would never accept such measures under any circumstances, and perhaps the version of Europe attempting to impose them isn't the kind of Europe we truly need. In this context, it seems possible that the necessity for a referendum on leaving might actually arise in the near future, though the current position of the Government is that while David Cameron’s negotiations continue and until a final agreement on resolving the Eurozone crisis is reached, it probably wouldn't be wise for the United Kingdom to further destabilize the structure of the European Union by holding such a referendum right now.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15425256
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Brussels.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rebellion.html

Honestly, this is what I actually respect about the people in the United Kingdom... there’s this massive political meltdown happening because the Prime Minister is pushing one agenda while a huge chunk of the population is screaming for something completely different... but then you look at what’s going on in places like Canada where the ruling party just steamrolls over basic democratic principles, their own survival instincts, and the actual will of the people they’re supposed to represent, all just to suck up to the bureaucrats in Brussels.... doesn't it just make you want to throw up?

Just another round of diplomatic heavy-lifting from the UK, trying to squeeze something out of the European Union and calling it a day. Honestly, the Brits are absolute pros at this kind of maneuvering.

Paul Newman86 said:Just another round of diplomatic heavy-lifting from the UK, trying to squeeze something out of the European Union and calling it a day. Honestly, the Brits are absolute pros at this kind of maneuvering.

Unlike the latter group, 🙄

I wonder if the countries within the Eurozone, driven by this sheer terror of a "non-binding" breakup of the European Union, will eventually just cave in and let the United Kingdom dictate monetary policy for the whole Eurozone. It’s a ridiculous thought, really—using the money of Eurozone nations while their own Pounds remain perfectly safe in Swiss banks, where they can manipulate their own "transactions" and the exchange rate of the Franc at will. Especially now, seeing how the "stunned" Greeks—who aren't much different from the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irishmen, or Icelanders—have essentially "strengthened" themselves by shifting away from the Euro, leaving Eurozone banks insolvent after pulling their cash out. I guess one might think it isn't an issue, but what happens if the European Union raises the threshold for the Euro to combat that insolvency? That would effectively pull all the Euro tied to the Franc, the Dollar, and the Pound out of circulation. Of course, it could stay linked, but then the guarantee for those transferred Euros held in foreign currencies in banks outside the Eurozone would have to fall on the shoulders of US, UK, and Swiss banks, given their independent monetary systems.

But honestly, it doesn't seem to be a problem for the people in the United Kingdom. They have plenty of money sitting in private accounts, practically begging to be used to protect the Pound. I mean, didn't we see those "anonymous" patriots a year or two ago, willing to hand over their own private wealth to the state just to preserve the independence of the UK monetary system and the Pound?

I guess none of that is going to happen. About 40% of their exports go straight to the European Union, so I really don't see them taking that kind of risk. I imagine David Cameron is keeping that in mind, and honestly, so are the politicians in Brussels whenever they're duking it out with them.

copperhound122 said:I wonder if the countries within the Eurozone, driven by this sheer terror of a "non-binding" breakup of the European Union, will eventually just cave in and let the United Kingdom dictate monetary policy for the whole Eurozone. It’s a ridiculous thought, really—using the money of Eurozone nations while their own Pounds remain perfectly safe in Swiss banks, where they can manipulate their own "transactions" and the exchange rate of the Franc at will. Especially now, seeing how the "stunned" Greeks—who aren't much different from the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irishmen, or Icelanders—have essentially "strengthened" themselves by shifting away from the Euro, leaving Eurozone banks insolvent after pulling their cash out. I guess one might think it isn't an issue, but what happens if the European Union raises the threshold for the Euro to combat that insolvency? That would effectively pull all the Euro tied to the Franc, the Dollar, and the Pound out of circulation. Of course, it could stay linked, but then the guarantee for those transferred Euros held in foreign currencies in banks outside the Eurozone would have to fall on the shoulders of US, UK, and Swiss banks, given their independent monetary systems.

But honestly, it doesn't seem to be a problem for the people in the United Kingdom. They have plenty of money sitting in private accounts, practically begging to be used to protect the Pound. I mean, didn't we see those "anonymous" patriots a year or two ago, willing to hand over their own private wealth to the state just to preserve the independence of the UK monetary system and the Pound?

Withdrawing deposits doesn't make a bank insolvent. It makes them illiquid, sure, but not necessarily insolvent. 😁
The causality is actually reversed here—deposits are withdrawn because the banks *are* already insolvent.

While some people are actually fighting to get out of the European Union, we seem to be shifting into fifth gear with a driverless car, busy constructing this whole EU-religion that everyone is expected to worship. 🙏 🙏

Over here, you can end up behind bars just for tearing down an EU flag. I’m genuinely curious—has anyone in the United Kingdom ever been prosecuted for burning or ripping one of those EU flags?

Michelle Wells3 said:I guess none of that is going to happen. About 40% of their exports go straight to the European Union, so I really don't see them taking that kind of risk. I imagine David Cameron is keeping that in mind, and honestly, so are the politicians in Brussels whenever they're duking it out with them.

Then there was this moment with David Cameron:

"...the leader of France is deeply involved in the Eurozone crisis. So much so that he completely embarrassed David Cameron at the Sunday summit in Brussels. 'You missed a great chance to step up,' Nicolas Sarkozy snapped at the British Prime Minister when he started arguing why EU members outside the Eurozone need a say in how the crisis is resolved."

Andrew Booth29 said:Withdrawing deposits doesn't make a bank insolvent. It makes them illiquid, sure, but not necessarily insolvent. 😁
The causality is actually reversed here—deposits are withdrawn because the banks *are* already insolvent.

So, if that's the case, what exactly is the issue regarding liquidity for banks within the European Union? They have a massive pile of solvent savers behind them. Perhaps the real issue lies in those very savers fleeing the Eurozone for the "liquid" zones of the independent monetary systems in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or the USA. It is almost as if those countries believe they can guarantee the liquidity and solvency of European Union banks simply by hoarding Euros.
It would be quite enough for the Eurozone to attempt to buy up banks using "liquid" funds—using the Francs, Dollars, and Pounds they currently hold to recapitalize an "independent" monetary system that is, in turn, trying to sell them "cheap" Euros. It's a strange logic, acting as if the Eurozone is a buyer capable of guaranteeing the liquidity of the Pound, the Franc, or the Dollar just because they possess the Euro.

Quite simply, why should banks outside the Eurozone even be permitted to operate within the European Union and the EU at all? If they want to act independently, they ought to conduct business as independent monetary entities in Africa, the USA, or Asia—entirely "independent" of the Euro, the EU, the Eurozone, or any EU guarantees. Besides, if they truly feel the need to enter the Eurozone, the British could always just use Greece as an example; they could bail them out with Pounds and fold them into the UK monetary system, assuming they are actually as "solidary" with the Eurozone and the EU as they claim to be.

So, when Sarkozy basically told Cameron to shut it (despite the fact that the UK sends about 40% of its exports to the European Union):

'You missed a golden opportunity to shut up. We’ve had enough of your criticism and your lectures on what we should be doing. You claim to hate the Euro, yet now you want to meddle in our business.'

Things aren't ever going to be the same... "global fluid capital" (to borrow a phrase from the PL) is just going to bypass the European Union entirely, heading straight for those Anglo-American offshore financial empires.
The future looks pretty grim for the Euro.

Nancy Phillips6 said:So, when Sarkozy basically told Cameron to shut it (despite the fact that the UK sends about 40% of its exports to the European Union):

'You missed a golden opportunity to shut up. We’ve had enough of your criticism and your lectures on what we should be doing. You claim to hate the Euro, yet now you want to meddle in our business.'

Things aren't ever going to be the same... "global fluid capital" (to borrow a phrase from the PL) is just going to bypass the European Union entirely, heading straight for those Anglo-American offshore financial empires.
The future looks pretty grim for the Euro.

I suppose Sarkozy's outburst was quite perfectly timed. He stepped in less than 24 hours after that first major debate in Parliament regarding the UK leaving the European Union. It seems Cameron's standing, which was already looking rather shaky following that debate, has been further undermined now. If 111 MPs (including 79 Conservatives) voted on Monday to call for a referendum, I imagine if the vote were held today—right after Sarkozy's comments—that number might have climbed to at least 150. That wouldn't be a figure one could simply ignore, as it would likely constitute a majority of the Conservative bloc in Parliament. It feels as though France has returned to a sort of De Gaulle-style policy of keeping the UK out of the European Union, which might actually be a positive development. Even though much of the political establishment still leans toward the EU, public sentiment appears to be shifting; according to a recent poll, maybe 70% of citizens want a referendum, and of those who show up, I suspect between 58 and 62% would vote to leave the Union.

But, if we move past the political maneuvering, I think Sarkozy's logic fails to hold up under scrutiny. The British Prime Minister should certainly have a seat at any table discussing the future of the Euro, perhaps not just because of trade, but because American taxpayers and British taxpayers alike have contributed significantly to funds used to bail out the Irish banking crisis and the stabilization efforts in Greece. Essentially, if the UK is expected to contribute funds to save the Euro or stabilize European economies, then it seems somewhat contradictory to insult the Prime Minister while simultaneously trying to bar him from meetings where decisions are made that will ultimately impact the UK's own finances.

slybison8 said:I suppose Sarkozy's outburst was quite perfectly timed. He stepped in less than 24 hours after that first major debate in Parliament regarding the UK leaving the European Union. It seems Cameron's standing, which was already looking rather shaky following that debate, has been further undermined now. If 111 MPs (including 79 Conservatives) voted on Monday to call for a referendum, I imagine if the vote were held today—right after Sarkozy's comments—that number might have climbed to at least 150. That wouldn't be a figure one could simply ignore, as it would likely constitute a majority of the Conservative bloc in Parliament. It feels as though France has returned to a sort of De Gaulle-style policy of keeping the UK out of the European Union, which might actually be a positive development. Even though much of the political establishment still leans toward the EU, public sentiment appears to be shifting; according to a recent poll, maybe 70% of citizens want a referendum, and of those who show up, I suspect between 58 and 62% would vote to leave the Union.

But, if we move past the political maneuvering, I think Sarkozy's logic fails to hold up under scrutiny. The British Prime Minister should certainly have a seat at any table discussing the future of the Euro, perhaps not just because of trade, but because American taxpayers and British taxpayers alike have contributed significantly to funds used to bail out the Irish banking crisis and the stabilization efforts in Greece. Essentially, if the UK is expected to contribute funds to save the Euro or stabilize European economies, then it seems somewhat contradictory to insult the Prime Minister while simultaneously trying to bar him from meetings where decisions are made that will ultimately impact the UK's own finances.



And why would they? Perhaps because UK investments in the Eurozone hit 40%—though I highly doubt that specific figure—but isn't that just standard banking risk? Besides, why wouldn't we demand that any write-downs on UK investments in the Eurozone be matched by the Eurozone writing off its own debts? I mean, do Americans somehow hold some privileged position in transactions that guarantees them a profit over everyone else? It’s a question, I guess. Furthermore, why is the Eurozone allowed to meddle in the banking sectors of the UK or the USA? This whole crisis exists because an overseas banking partner failed to meet their obligations to creditors, yet there is this attempt to export the banking crisis into the EU. In this scenario, the UK, playing its hand with the British Pound, acts much like a Trojan horse.

If the United Kingdom holds a referendum and there are signs that most Britons want out, we could be looking at the beginning of the end for the European Union.

copperhound122 said:So, if that's the case, what exactly is the issue regarding liquidity for banks within the European Union? They have a massive pile of solvent savers behind them. Perhaps the real issue lies in those very savers fleeing the Eurozone for the "liquid" zones of the independent monetary systems in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or the USA. It is almost as if those countries believe they can guarantee the liquidity and solvency of European Union banks simply by hoarding Euros.
It would be quite enough for the Eurozone to attempt to buy up banks using "liquid" funds—using the Francs, Dollars, and Pounds they currently hold to recapitalize an "independent" monetary system that is, in turn, trying to sell them "cheap" Euros. It's a strange logic, acting as if the Eurozone is a buyer capable of guaranteeing the liquidity of the Pound, the Franc, or the Dollar just because they possess the Euro.

Quite simply, why should banks outside the Eurozone even be permitted to operate within the European Union and the EU at all? If they want to act independently, they ought to conduct business as independent monetary entities in Africa, the USA, or Asia—entirely "independent" of the Euro, the EU, the Eurozone, or any EU guarantees. Besides, if they truly feel the need to enter the Eurozone, the British could always just use Greece as an example; they could bail them out with Pounds and fold them into the UK monetary system, assuming they are actually as "solidary" with the Eurozone and the EU as they claim to be.

The issue for Eurozone banks isn't fundamentally about liquidity; it's that they are insolvent. People aren't just worried about cash flow—they're terrified of losing their deposits, so they move that money elsewhere: to Switzerland, the USA, or more stable European Union members like Germany and Austria.

P.S. Honestly, most of this will likely amount to nothing at all. 😁- These old-school politicians of ours just keep throwing out ultimatums, while those folks in Brussels just nod along and agree... because they already know exactly which card to play once they reach a consensus. lol

Beyond that, what actually worries me more is David Cameron's blatant support for letting Turkey join the European Union, mostly just to spite the French and Germans... It's even caused David to start getting under the skin of some people in Brussels... as well as journalists in the United Kingdom and plenty of others, despite the fact that a huge number of Members of Parliament disagree with much of his rambling.

Susan Price30 said:If the United Kingdom holds a referendum and there are signs that most Britons want out, we could be looking at the beginning of the end for the European Union.

I suppose that isn't necessarily true. There is also a possibility that the European Union might consolidate into a federal state during that time—which, I suspect, is what most member states actually desire, even if they don't express it publicly. In such a scenario, the United Kingdom would likely secure a free trade agreement, which seems to be their primary interest, while the European Union could benefit from moving past British obstructionism. Furthermore, the United Kingdom might find great advantage in this, as any prospects for Scottish independence would likely vanish.

Afterward, the United Kingdom could function either as an associate member of NAFTA, or perhaps initiate its own integration alongside the stronger nations of the Commonwealth. This second option seems more probable, as such an association would probably offer much more benefit to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it would to the USA, given that the US might not be particularly interested in bringing the United Kingdom into NAFTA.

In that case, the issue of Northern Ireland would likely return to the forefront. A British exit from the European Union would, for the first time in history, necessitate the establishment of a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This could become a significant complication, especially if the Anglo-Irish agreement regarding the Common Travel Area had to be suspended to accommodate Ireland's entry into the Schengen Area. It is quite possible that the United Kingdom might manage to retain Scotland but end up losing Northern Ireland.

Honestly, I don't see the UK ever truly leaving the European Union. If anything, they’ll probably end up moving even closer to Brussels rather than pulling away.

slybison8 said:I suppose that isn't necessarily true. There is also a possibility that the European Union might consolidate into a federal state during that time—which, I suspect, is what most member states actually desire, even if they don't express it publicly. In such a scenario, the United Kingdom would likely secure a free trade agreement, which seems to be their primary interest, while the European Union could benefit from moving past British obstructionism. Furthermore, the United Kingdom might find great advantage in this, as any prospects for Scottish independence would likely vanish.

Afterward, the United Kingdom could function either as an associate member of NAFTA, or perhaps initiate its own integration alongside the stronger nations of the Commonwealth. This second option seems more probable, as such an association would probably offer much more benefit to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it would to the USA, given that the US might not be particularly interested in bringing the United Kingdom into NAFTA.

In that case, the issue of Northern Ireland would likely return to the forefront. A British exit from the European Union would, for the first time in history, necessitate the establishment of a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This could become a significant complication, especially if the Anglo-Irish agreement regarding the Common Travel Area had to be suspended to accommodate Ireland's entry into the Schengen Area. It is quite possible that the United Kingdom might manage to retain Scotland but end up losing Northern Ireland.

I'm signing on this one! It’s hardly a secret that "certain" countries in the European Union (Germany, for instance) are pushing harder and harder for a tighter union that leads straight toward federalization. We hear these ideas constantly—ideas that sound more like a single nation than a loose collection of countries. Look, if people in the United Kingdom aren't happy with how things are going in the European Union, they should just leave! Sure, it might take a bit of a hit for European Union integration at first, but long-term, they'd get rid of that internal friction ( 😬 ) and could always iron out the details with trade deals and stuff so that nobody ends up losing money. 🤷

slybison8 said:I suppose that isn't necessarily true. There is also a possibility that the European Union might consolidate into a federal state during that time—which, I suspect, is what most member states actually desire, even if they don't express it publicly. In such a scenario, the United Kingdom would likely secure a free trade agreement, which seems to be their primary interest, while the European Union could benefit from moving past British obstructionism. Furthermore, the United Kingdom might find great advantage in this, as any prospects for Scottish independence would likely vanish.

Afterward, the United Kingdom could function either as an associate member of NAFTA, or perhaps initiate its own integration alongside the stronger nations of the Commonwealth. This second option seems more probable, as such an association would probably offer much more benefit to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it would to the USA, given that the US might not be particularly interested in bringing the United Kingdom into NAFTA.

In that case, the issue of Northern Ireland would likely return to the forefront. A British exit from the European Union would, for the first time in history, necessitate the establishment of a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This could become a significant complication, especially if the Anglo-Irish agreement regarding the Common Travel Area had to be suspended to accommodate Ireland's entry into the Schengen Area. It is quite possible that the United Kingdom might manage to retain Scotland but end up losing Northern Ireland.

The end of the Union as we know it—that’s essentially what I had in mind. 😁 As for whether that outcome is beneficial or detrimental for the United Kingdom or the European Union, one could certainly debate that...

However, I suspect the proposed referendum was aimed more at significantly stripping the European Union's central authorities of their power regarding decisions made within the United Kingdom rather than a literal 'exit' from the EU.

At least, not for the time being.