Another take on the Euro-vote
Hat tip to Plato at "Political Betting" for drawing my attention to a very interesting piece by Mail journalist Tim Shipman called Why Cameron really defied the Euro rebels.
Shipman argues that Cameron's reasons for opposing the motion for a referendum on membership of the European Union was not because he completely disagreed with what the rebels wanted, but because he does agree with much of what they want but considers that calling for a referendum now is not the best way to get it.
Here are some extracts from the article
"Mr Cameron’s behaviour over the last week is more explicable if you take the view that he sought to crush the calls for a referendum not because he doesn’t want to repatriate powers but precisely because he does and wants to remain in charge of the process.
"If he is to take on Brussels, he wants to do so on his own terms and at a time of his chosing.
His aides stress that the threat of a referendum is a single shot distress flare, rather than a submachine gun with a magazine full of bullets. Mr Cameron will get one chance only to fire it and when he does so it has to count.
"The apparently minor EU treaty change which seems on the cards for this December is viewed at the top of government as a very bad time indeed for Britain to start throwing its toys from the pram over issues like employment legislation. Mr Cameron believes that would be destabilising for the economy and would win few to no friends in the EU.
"But my conversations over the last few days have convinced me the Cameroons believe there will be a much bigger treaty revision at some point over the next couple of years – anything less and the relationship between the 17 Eurozone nations and the 10 outside the single currency will become increasingly fractious.
"When that comes, that is when Mr Cameron will strike. Officials believe the prospect of Britain holding a referendum will put such fear into the European Commission that concessions will flow."
You can read the full article here.
Shipman argues that Cameron's reasons for opposing the motion for a referendum on membership of the European Union was not because he completely disagreed with what the rebels wanted, but because he does agree with much of what they want but considers that calling for a referendum now is not the best way to get it.
Here are some extracts from the article
"Mr Cameron’s behaviour over the last week is more explicable if you take the view that he sought to crush the calls for a referendum not because he doesn’t want to repatriate powers but precisely because he does and wants to remain in charge of the process.
"If he is to take on Brussels, he wants to do so on his own terms and at a time of his chosing.
His aides stress that the threat of a referendum is a single shot distress flare, rather than a submachine gun with a magazine full of bullets. Mr Cameron will get one chance only to fire it and when he does so it has to count.
"The apparently minor EU treaty change which seems on the cards for this December is viewed at the top of government as a very bad time indeed for Britain to start throwing its toys from the pram over issues like employment legislation. Mr Cameron believes that would be destabilising for the economy and would win few to no friends in the EU.
"But my conversations over the last few days have convinced me the Cameroons believe there will be a much bigger treaty revision at some point over the next couple of years – anything less and the relationship between the 17 Eurozone nations and the 10 outside the single currency will become increasingly fractious.
"When that comes, that is when Mr Cameron will strike. Officials believe the prospect of Britain holding a referendum will put such fear into the European Commission that concessions will flow."
You can read the full article here.
Comments
Let the british people decide. By not allowing them to do so, then democracy fails. Do you really think that a referendum on this would go with the status quo?
the last one did as it was unfairly worded, it was not a question.
"At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used instead?
instead the question should have been,
How should the UK elect MPs to the house of commons
first Past the post
Alternative vote
Alternative vote plus
Proportional Representation.
There lies the problem, you can change the answer by not asking the question.
let me give another example.
I currently do not pay my road tax because its a rip off and the roads are so bad, should I change my policy and pay 10% of it?
Yes
No
Then when everyone votes "no" because they think i should pay the lot I can say, you see the people say i should not pay my road tax