UK to have referendum on leaving EU

[Cain]

This is pretty huge news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21170265

David Cameron has rebuffed criticism at home and abroad of his commitment to hold a referendum on the UK's future in Europe if he wins the next election.

Labour and the Lib Dems have said plans to renegotiate the UK's membership and put it to a public vote was a gamble and against the national interest.

France and Germany warned the UK against pursuing an "a la carte" approach. The US said the UK and the EU were stronger together.

But the PM said he had public backing.

Peter Oborne explains fairly well why this is a huge deal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/9821289/David-Cameron-may-have-finished-off-the-Tories-but-he-had-no-choice.html

All Conservative leaders since Margaret Thatcher have faced one central problem: how to prevent the party splitting wide apart over Europe. This was the difficulty that pulverised John Major, caused William Hague to go bald, propelled Iain Duncan Smith to the party leadership, and then got him sacked a short time later.

Until yesterday, David Cameron's policy was both sensible and wise: to let sleeping dogs lie. He took heed of Mr Hague's advice that shifting position on Europe was like moving an unexploded bomb, liable to go off at any moment, across a crowded room. Much better to leave alone. No wonder that the Prime Minister delayed any action for so long, and carried it out with such reluctance.

Yesterday, with immense trepidation, the unexploded bomb was moved. At first sight, Mr Cameron has got away with it. He received a hero's welcome from Conservative MPs when he entered the chamber for Prime Minister's Questions. Truculent customers such as the viscerally Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell say they are delighted. Meanwhile, there was enough pro-European language in the Cameron speech to keep the Tory Left happy. Mr Cameron has pleased everybody, and that makes it less unlikely that the Conservative Party will win the next election.

So much for the short-term consequences. In the longer term, the situation is much more interesting, and more dangerous. The Prime Minister has moved the bomb, but he has not defused it. It remains in the room, ticking away. It is simply in a different place, and the circumstances have changed: Mr Cameron, by committing the Tories to an in-out referendum, has greatly increased the likelihood that Britain will eventually leave the European Union, while a formal split within the Conservative Party over Europe now looks almost certain.

There's also the international context:

Cameron has just put the world on notice that the UK is prepared to cause major disruption to the economic life of an immense trading bloc, with who knows how many cascading effects on the pattern of global trade and investment. We're not a political risk in the way that say, Pakistan is, but Cameron has established political risk as a necessary factor in the ways that other countries will think about the UK from now on. As such, what the hell is going on here is going to be a matter of interest to the world's intelligence agencies above and beyond the usual level of spying-between-friends. In addition, there's the fact that pretty much every state with a dog in this fight would probably be pleased if the current government were to be replaced by a more co-operative entity. I have no idea whether or in what way these two things might connect, but I do wonder if the Conservatives will be on the receiving end of some of the same kind of attention that Labour used to get back in the Cold War days.

Prepare for "interesting times".

[LMNO]

Ok, so the UK kept the Pound as currency, right? 

I suppose that's superficial.  So the UK will drop out of current trade agreements, tighten border restrictions, as well as establish their own defense?  Or was the EU being supported by the UK on this?

Hey, I'm American -- at least I'm interested, if not smart, about this.

[Cain]

Yes, the UK isn't part of the Euro, still uses sterling.

Well, the UK already maintains its own military, and our military alliances are carried out by venues other than the European Union, so that won't be an issue.  Initially.

However, this would mean withdrawing from the Common Market, having no say in European financial policy, no representation in the European Parliament and so on and so forth.

It would also mean an overall decline in UK international influence.  I strongly suspect if this went ahead, the Americans would cool their relationship with the UK considerably, in addition to our loss of influence on the Continent.

[Junkenstein]

It's going to be interesting at least. UKIP are doing the happy dance.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the result is to get out followed by a reversal in a few years with punitive terms.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes, the UK isn't part of the Euro, still uses sterling.

Well, the UK already maintains its own military, and our military alliances are carried out by venues other than the European Union, so that won't be an issue.  Initially.

However, this would mean withdrawing from the Common Market, having no say in European financial policy, no representation in the European Parliament and so on and so forth.

It would also mean an overall decline in UK international influence.  I strongly suspect if this went ahead, the Americans would cool their relationship with the UK considerably, in addition to our loss of influence on the Continent.

Either that, or the USA and the UK would get even cozier.

[Cain]

I doubt it.  UK's chief role in Europe is to act as an American proxy, extending the common market without without presenting political and military risks to American hegemony.  Without the UK representing American opinions in the EU, advancing policies which benefit American interests, we lose relevance in that regard which weakens our overall standing.

I have no doubt the UK will try to cosy up even further to the Americans, and become more pathetically dependent on them, but for far less in return.

This loss of influence would impact on our entire foreign policy, as we could no longer speak with the authority and riches of the Common Market to back us up.  China and Russia aren't going to treat us anywhere as near as well as we are treated by them now, for example.  The potential trading and FDI losses to the UK are potentially devastating too, and that will further weaken our global standing.

To be sure, we will still be a member of NATO, retain our UN seat, keep our nuclear capability.  But then, so did Russia in the 1990s, and that didnt help the poor bastards that much.

[Cain]

It is worth noting, this is driven almost entirely by domestic and not foreign political concerns.  See Oborne's piece on the ticking time-bomb I quoted above. 

If the Tory electoral strategy is for a referendum, this could bring UKIP into a potential coalition government...a possibility I've discussed before now.  UKIP are usually more hostile to the Tories than nearly anyone else, the bigotry of small ideological differences and that.

Of course, the problem with this is that it's not even a sure bet that the Tories will win the next election...the polls certainly suggest they may not.  Also, business is rather hostile to the idea of leaving the EU.  While they would love for the Working Time Directive to be revoked, the benefits of free trade and the free movement of labour definitely outweigh this.

Cameron himself is not really anti-European.  His aim is to stay within the EU and renegotiate the social chapter, bringing big business and public opinion to bear on the Tory Right, and force them to shut up once and for all.   At least, that is my assumption.

This has the potential to backfire in so many ways, however.  The public actually voting to leave the EU, for one.  Cameron not getting to renegotiate.  The restive backbenchers deciding they've had enough of Cameron and ousting him (which I believe this was a pre-emptive to move in order to defuse such a plot).   And so on and so forth.