Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like the last two referenda he 'allowed' it to desperately win support and votes, he doesn't even want this, but was prepared to chance it to get into power. It's not about being democratic, it wouldn't be offered if he didn't feel he had to. Now he has to try his best to fight to stop the referendum going against him.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.

So pretty much business as usual, then?

I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.

Here's the thing though - much of all that telling of what to do would still apply after we'd left, because it comes either via the ECHR which is not actually the same thing as the EU(and the referendum is on whether to leave that or not, not on leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe), or it's part of EU regulations which you have to comply with in order to trade with the continent anyway(because practically we'd have to negotiate EFTA membership if we left the EU like Norway have, and every concession we extract would have a cost). That's not necessarily an argument to stay in of course, but a lot of folk seem to have fairly unrealistic expectations of what leaving the EU would actually mean for the level of involvement of "Brussels bureaucrats" in UK affairs.

Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU these days. I like the idea, and I think that with the appropriate reforms(by which I chiefly mean making institutions more democratic, not stamping our feet like a nation-sized toddler until we get special treatment in the fashion of our current pig-fondling PM) it could have a bright future - the problem is I can no longer quite make myself believe those reforms are forthcoming. I certainly don't have as little faith in EU reform as I do in the prospect of reforming the creaking, festering, undemocratic pseudo-democracy that is the British state, but the response to the '08 financial collapse and especially the treatment of Greece recently really drove home just how deeply the claws of international corporate finance have sunk into the EU's policymaking bodies.

I'll probably end up voting "In" for two reasons - 1; the higher the In vote in Scotland in the event the UK(ie England) votes Out, the more chance of another indyref for us in the next few years, and 2; given the choice between a shambolic British state overseen by an EU co opted by but not yet entirely ruined by corporate interests, and a shambolic British state entirely under the thrall of the self-serving, regressive, undemocratic elements that fairly fester within it even with the EU to help hold them in check, I prefer the lesser of the two evils.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.

So pretty much business as usual, then?

I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.

Here's the thing though - much of all that telling of what to do would still apply after we'd left, because it comes either via the ECHR which is not actually the same thing as the EU(and the referendum is on whether to leave that or not, not on leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe), or it's part of EU regulations which you have to comply with in order to trade with the continent anyway(because practically we'd have to negotiate EFTA membership if we left the EU like Norway have, and every concession we extract would have a cost). That's not necessarily an argument to stay in of course, but a lot of folk seem to have fairly unrealistic expectations of what leaving the EU would actually mean for the level of involvement of "Brussels bureaucrats" in UK affairs.

Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU these days. I like the idea, and I think that with the appropriate reforms(by which I chiefly mean making institutions more democratic, not stamping our feet like a nation-sized toddler until we get special treatment in the fashion of our current pig-fondling PM) it could have a bright future - the problem is I can no longer quite make myself believe those reforms are forthcoming. I certainly don't have as little faith in EU reform as I do in the prospect of reforming the creaking, festering, undemocratic pseudo-democracy that is the British state, but the response to the '08 financial collapse and especially the treatment of Greece recently really drove home just how deeply the claws of international corporate finance have sunk into the EU's policymaking bodies.

I'll probably end up voting "In" for two reasons - 1; the higher the In vote in Scotland in the event the UK(ie England) votes Out, the more chance of another indyref for us in the next few years, and 2; given the choice between a shambolic British state overseen by an EU co opted by but not yet entirely ruined by corporate interests, and a shambolic British state entirely under the thrall of the self-serving, regressive, undemocratic elements that fairly fester within it even with the EU to help hold them in check, I prefer the lesser of the two evils.

Like you, I believe in Scottish independence, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom why the SNP want to regain our sovereignty from Westminster, only for it to then be handed over to Brussels.

I'd like all the facts before making my decision. Proper facts, not those that are distorted or twisted for the benefit of the side making that point.

One thing that I do have an issue somewhat with, is that the UK is a major contributor to EU funds, yet has the same voting power as any other country. From what I've heard, Cameron wanted to stop giving child benefits to immigrants who have children living abroad, Poland abruptly stopped that.

Now I understand why Poland stopped that. But I think the UK should have more of a say where its money goes (on the flip side, we have the second largest debt of any country after the USA).

 Da Boss wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That: The fact is both Scotland's separation AND brexit really DO have implications for the Peace Process. Everything is connected and nothing happens in a vacuum. I think it's okay for people to bring in relevant facts to make their arguments - it makes more sense than ignoring said facts.

I'm going to try my best to behave and not be too angry in this thread, but Europe is a subject I am very passionate about so please forgive me for being a bit hotheaded the odd time here.

I took umbrage at your suggestion that the Peace Process is irrelevant to the discussion - it is relevant, as are many other things. How relevant? Well, that's definitely up for debate. But I reckon Europe had a fair role to play as a mediator and a neutral forum for the process, and that is a comfort to a lot of Nationalists who have pretty decent reasons to distrust the British government.

Anyhow. Like I said, I'm glad the referendum is happening, but I do not want Europe twisted and broken by the process. I hope it can happen, the result is respected, and both the UK and the EU can continue with a minimum of disruption. But I fear that this is not a likely outcome.

It is the one thing I give Cameron a fair bit of credit for - he didn't have to allow this, or the Scottish referendum, and he's made a rod for his own back in doing so. But he still did it. Much as I dislike the man and his politics, he's a democrat in that respect.

I apologise if I were disrespectful towards the peace process. The deaths of all those people over the years was a tragedy, and hopefully, the Republic and the North will never have to suffer that level of violence ever again.

But the point that I was trying to make was this: Ireland's problems between Catholics and Protestants occurred long before the European Union was invented, so IMO, I don't believe Britain's exit from the EU should be a factor as far as the peace process is concerned.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.

So pretty much business as usual, then?

I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.

Here's the thing though - much of all that telling of what to do would still apply after we'd left, because it comes either via the ECHR which is not actually the same thing as the EU(and the referendum is on whether to leave that or not, not on leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe), or it's part of EU regulations which you have to comply with in order to trade with the continent anyway(because practically we'd have to negotiate EFTA membership if we left the EU like Norway have, and every concession we extract would have a cost). That's not necessarily an argument to stay in of course, but a lot of folk seem to have fairly unrealistic expectations of what leaving the EU would actually mean for the level of involvement of "Brussels bureaucrats" in UK affairs.

Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU these days. I like the idea, and I think that with the appropriate reforms(by which I chiefly mean making institutions more democratic, not stamping our feet like a nation-sized toddler until we get special treatment in the fashion of our current pig-fondling PM) it could have a bright future - the problem is I can no longer quite make myself believe those reforms are forthcoming. I certainly don't have as little faith in EU reform as I do in the prospect of reforming the creaking, festering, undemocratic pseudo-democracy that is the British state, but the response to the '08 financial collapse and especially the treatment of Greece recently really drove home just how deeply the claws of international corporate finance have sunk into the EU's policymaking bodies.

I'll probably end up voting "In" for two reasons - 1; the higher the In vote in Scotland in the event the UK(ie England) votes Out, the more chance of another indyref for us in the next few years, and 2; given the choice between a shambolic British state overseen by an EU co opted by but not yet entirely ruined by corporate interests, and a shambolic British state entirely under the thrall of the self-serving, regressive, undemocratic elements that fairly fester within it even with the EU to help hold them in check, I prefer the lesser of the two evils.

Like you, I believe in Scottish independence, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom why the SNP want to regain our sovereignty from Westminster, only for it to then be handed over to Brussels.

Well, because the two aren't really equivalent in terms of relative effect on sovereignty. The UK retains control of defence policy, energy policy, industrial policy, employment law, and a whole swathe of other lawmaking competences which Scottish independence would grant us control of and which membership of the EU would not significantly curtail. Also, I don't know about the party leadership, but the sense I get through friends of the actual membership is that a lot of them support the EU on a fairly conditional basis, which means functionally the official party policy is also conditional given how powerful their collective vote is at the party conference. I don't know that the idea of a federal Europe would be as popular with the SNP as the present assumption of "stay in and tinker with it a bit" is.

EDIT: Besides which, there would be nothing to stop us having an EU referendum of our own a few years after indy if public opinion shifted - we'll be a dab hand at them by then

Do_I_Not_Like_That: I am absolutely loath to drag this off topic with too much Peace Process stuff, but I feel I need to respond to you.

You say that the problems were pre-EU. That is definitely true. But the *solution* to those problems involved the EU as a key player. The legal structures and just the whole process involved it. So whether you think it *should* or not, it just DOES have something to do with a Brexit. How much is unclear, but quite simply it is worth considering when considering a Brexit, same as any factor.

Not saying people have to vote In for the sake of Norn Iron, but dismissing it out of hand as a factor is not really sensible either.

That's pretty much my last word on it!

I agree with everyone who is unhappy with the democratic deficit in Brussels, and the behaviour of the banking elites during the crisis. Trichet told our government that a "bomb would go off in Dublin" if we even considered burning senior bondholders, causing the government to go back on it's manifesto pledge to do so and clear some of the debt they'd accrued off the public books.

The way the private banking system was bailed out with public money is disgusting, and the ECB is complicit in that. It also suits the agendas of the Centre Right parties who are in control across most of Europe, and it suits them too to have Greece fail. So I'm angry as hell about that.

Cameron's reforms do nothing about those problems and arguably make the problem of lax financial regulation even worse, while cutting yet more benefits to workers across the EU and making their lives harder while the super rich capitalist class are growing ever richer. Is it really the best he had on offer?

Edit to add: Corbyn (as usual) gets it:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/20/jeremy-corbyn-comment-britain-eu-reform

 Da Boss wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That: I am absolutely loath to drag this off topic with too much Peace Process stuff, but I feel I need to respond to you.

You say that the problems were pre-EU. That is definitely true. But the *solution* to those problems involved the EU as a key player. The legal structures and just the whole process involved it. So whether you think it *should* or not, it just DOES have something to do with a Brexit. How much is unclear, but quite simply it is worth considering when considering a Brexit, same as any factor.

Not saying people have to vote In for the sake of Norn Iron, but dismissing it out of hand as a factor is not really sensible either.

That's pretty much my last word on it!

I agree with everyone who is unhappy with the democratic deficit in Brussels, and the behaviour of the banking elites during the crisis. Trichet told our government that a "bomb would go off in Dublin" if we even considered burning senior bondholders, causing the government to go back on it's manifesto pledge to do so and clear some of the debt they'd accrued off the public books.

The way the private banking system was bailed out with public money is disgusting, and the ECB is complicit in that. It also suits the agendas of the Centre Right parties who are in control across most of Europe, and it suits them too to have Greece fail. So I'm angry as hell about that.

Cameron's reforms do nothing about those problems and arguably make the problem of lax financial regulation even worse, while cutting yet more benefits to workers across the EU and making their lives harder while the super rich capitalist class are growing ever richer. Is it really the best he had on offer?

I don't want to take this OT either, but has it occurred to you that if Britain leaves the EU, it could be the catalyst for a united Ireland to form, and be in the EU? I don't know if you're for or against a united Ireland, but that could be one consequence.

Am I correct in saying that if the UK pulls out of the EU, there is a clause in the Good Friday agreement for a referendum on Irish unification?

And finally, you're no doubt aware that the battle for YES or NO will be won or lost in England, by the sheer size of its population in relation to the rest of the UK. That's not England's fault, but I doubt if the votes of Wales, Scotland, or NI, will make that much of a difference.

Hrmph. I do not want a united Ireland against the wishes of a sizable portion of the population of Northern Ireland. I don't see it happening for a few more generations, and even then I think the european context would be essential for this.

Not sure on the GFA clause - I don't think so but I'm not certain.

As for English votes, well of course. Like everything in the UK, England holds the power.

 Yodhrin wrote:
The UK retains control of...... energy policy

Not for much longer. Even as the Brexit is hogging the limelight, the European Commission is diligently working to acquire control of this one.

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-union-and-climate_en
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:0080:FIN

I wonder if anything would change after a Brexit. The UK is not part of Schengen nor the Euro, so no changes there. I doubt anyone wants to upset trade. Free movement for EU and UK citizens as it stands now could be a problem, but nothing some political bargaining wouldn't solve.

That's true.

However as our government has fethed up our energy policy, perhaps we need someone else to take it over.

The objectives don't sound too different to what we have already been doing. For example, for decades we've imported French electricity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's true.

However as our government has fethed up our energy policy, perhaps we need someone else to take it over.

The objectives don't sound too different to what we have already been doing. For example, for decades we've imported French electricity.

The problem (if that's how one views it), is that it's yet another piece of power clawed away by the EU. It won't be returned once it's surrendered.

For all this talk of how we get to explicitly opt out of 'ever closer Union', I don't believe it for a minute. Primarily, because they never call it that anyway. It's always a 'logical extension' or 'corollary' of 'existing powers' or somesuch. That process will not cease if we choose to stay.

I've been doing some in-depth reading into how Cameron and Osborne approached the negotiations.

Cameron's strategy was to announce ahead of the negotiations that he would campaign for an IN vote, regardless, and when Cameron arrived in Brussels on Thursday, he made it perfectly clear he wanted a deal done by Friday...

Talk about sabotaging your own bargaining position

Insiders say that Osborne wasn't really sure what he wanted from the EU for Britain, which should come as no surprise to anybody

And these are the people who make the big calls. God help us.

Osborne and Cameron give every impression of making up their governance on the back of a beer mat.

I think with the rest of Europe having such awesome, flavorful food, they should keep your bland food separate.
Why would they want the average of their food quality to plummet?

...kidding. do whatcha want. Unless war were declared.

23rd of June is right in the middle of Euro 2016, the day after the final group games I think....

Newspaper headlines might almost write themselves.

It is extremely frustratung that rather than pushing for reforms to the "democratic" processes of the EU to make things freer, fairer and more accountable; things that would benefit everyone and perhaps even allow the UK a better say in the future of the EU and its place in it (assuming we don't keep on sending oxygen wasters as our MEP's...), we got a few pointless plattitudes that don't actually amount to a whole heap of beans and are aimed at placating Daily Mail readers...

I support a united Europe, but one which is built by the people, for the people. One which the democratic processes are transparent, open to question and discussion.

Cameran's demands got none of that, nor do I see the EU moving in even remotely that direction; in fact quite the opposite!

I am very conflicted on voting to stay or leave. Domestically, staying may help slow down the Conservative drive to return the UK to a fifedom amd the Labour drive to... well... do the same but with more smarm... but it may also mire us forever in a rapidly deepening quagmire of European Union closed door, untracable amd unaccountable rulership.

Leave the EU at the next junture.

The whole thing is a pisstake.

You don't even have to exaggerate the case on this to justifying leaving to the vast majority of "average" voters. You just need to present that we are paying benefits for nonresident noncitizens and that Poland is blocking correcting that and they will vote in droves to leave.

The IN campaign will scaremonger as all they have to present is a hope for change and the status quo. It's all about business not wanting the hassle of change and nothing to do with the benefit of the people.

I've always been for a seperate UK in the EU but I won't support the notion after the shenanigans of the last few months and years of interference and unnecessary interfering and I think jumping ship is the only shock the EU might get to sort it's act out.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The UK retains control of...... energy policy

Not for much longer. Even as the Brexit is hogging the limelight, the European Commission is diligently working to acquire control of this one.

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-union-and-climate_en
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:0080:FIN

You'll struggle to find many folk up here who'll be terrified by that prospectus, given it's pretty much the same as the policies supported by all the main parties here bar the Tories(who consistently attract 12-16% of the vote, though they might go a couple of points higher this year by stealing some of the Orange Labour block with their explicit and vehement Unionism-based campaigning). Christ the Scottish Government have been one of the main advocates for the Interconnector scheme, it would be fantastic for us as it would let us sell renewables energy capacity to the continent. And further; implementing policy within an EU framework, even a fairly restrictive framework, is still more sovereignty than we have now in that area, ie none at all.

You have to remember, things may be a dead-heat down south with the Out vote creeping up as time goes on, but up here polling consistently shows a 2/3 majority for staying in(and importantly, a straight majority for staying in on the raw numbers AND the intention to vote-filtered figures, in both face-to-face/telephone and online samples, ie on current polling even if every single Scottish "don't know" respondent voted Out, In would still win), the EU is not the boogieman for us that it is for England.

 reds8n wrote:
23rd of June is right in the middle of Euro 2016, the day after the final group games I think....

Newspaper headlines might almost write themselves.

Also, you know, Glastonbury. Not to mention it overlaps to a non-trivial degree with the election periods for the devolved governments. It's like Cameron wants a really low turnout, which if true is King Kong-sized stupidity, given a lower turnout result will have a higher chance of being influenced by passionate Outers who are almost certain to vote, and events like sport and Glastonbury will disproportionately affect the turnout levels among the young, ie the most favourable demographic for In.

Jeezo, what a bumbling moron Cameron is.

My question is whether an 'oot' vote would trigger another independence referendum here in Scotland. The nats here seem to be quite keen about having another one...

Britain leaves Europe, and loses Scotland in the process. Could happen...

One pretty obvious consequence of a Brexit would be the move of the banks out of the City and the country. Language ties to the States are not that important anymore, to be able to work from within the EU is much more important, even if it comes with a slight raise in corporate tax.

What percentage of the overall tax household of the UK is generated in the City?

Overall, everyone agrees that economically, the Brexit would be pretty tough on the UK. Pretty much all of their economic growth in the last 30 years can be attributed to having most of the benefits of the EU without the deeper cooperation, and being the bridgehead between the States and the US. Once TTIP comes over us (heaven forbid), a non-EU UK will have a tough time.

I share all of the concerns of the democratic deficits of the EU, but in all seriousness, the UK debate, just as the refugee debate in Germany, is an angst-driven debate of a middle-class (perceivedly) losing socio-economic stability due to decisions of some far-away elite, and blaming the socially weakest. Instead of looking very closely at the local elites and their own behaviour (consumption, and especially loan-based consumption).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...the autocratic power of the commission...

This is the single most bothersome thing about the EU.

SNP are still demanding another referendum for independence thinking leaving the EU should trigger one. So much for democracy, keep demanding massive historic reshaping referendums until you get the result you want. You don't call referenda like this often because of the instability it causes and the fact that once a decision has been made it doesn't respect the result to call another straight away. Scotland has to wait at least ten-twenty years before its a reasonable request to push this again.

Similarly what ver the result of the EU referendum, the losing side just have to put up with it, it can't be raised again for 30-40 years.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
SNP are still demanding another referendum for independence thinking leaving the EU should trigger one. So much for democracy, keep demanding massive historic reshaping referendums until you get the result you want. You don't call referenda like this often because of the instability it causes and the fact that once a decision has been made it doesn't respect the result to call another straight away. Scotland has to wait at least ten-twenty years before its a reasonable request to push this again.

Similarly what ver the result of the EU referendum, the losing side just have to put up with it, it can't be raised again for 30-40 years.

This is incorrect on multiple levels.

First, because the SNP are "demanding" nothing. They stated after the referendum result and continue to state now that there won't be another referendum until people here want one. What they have done is point out that if Scotland votes In by a large margin while England votes Out and takes the rest of us with them, it is possible that such an event could create the demand for another referendum and that if so, the SNP would work to make that happen. Try reading what they actually say rather than whatever hysterical BS the Torygraph or Daily Heil are claiming they said. You will note they are also campaigning for In/Remain, so it's not as if they can be accused of cynically trying to use the EU referendum to further the cause of independence, they're just making their position clear ahead of the Holyrood election.

As for this "30-40 years!", "once in a generation!" rubbish, how you can spout that with a straight face moments after declaring "so much for democracy" would be laughable if it wasn't so desperately unaware. If people want another referendum, and they elect a majority government that has a referendum as policy, then we'll damn well have one whenever we please because that is democracy - the expression of the will of the people at the ballot box, not arbitrarily restricting what people can and cannot vote for based on your political views.

Howard: I'm not sure I agree with that stance. I think it really depends on a variety of factors.
For one, Scotland was promised all sorts of things in "The Vow", and it seems to me that the duplicitous political class of England pretty much screwed them over on that - rather than Devo-Max they got EVEL. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many of the "The Vow"'s pledges have been fulfilled? If they voted to stay in based on promises that are not delivered, I think voting to leave again is reasonable.

And for a second, if something dramatic changes in the make up of the UK, it can be a decent enough reason for another referendum. I mean, taking your EU idea as an example - the EU suddenly became a totalitarian superstate by popular vote in it's countries, I think it would be reasonable for the British to re-run their referendum. When things change, people may change their minds.

I feel it is the same for Scotland and Brexit.

It's one point where I feel the other leaders in Europe have it completely wrong - they are grumbling about Cameron allowing the referendum. That is bs. The referendum is fair enough if people want one. What they should be considering rather than complaining about people being allowed a say, is why are so many people across Europe so disillusioned with the project? In my view it's because of the behaviour of our ruling "elite" in the past 20 years or so, and people's increasing awareness of their crappiness. They have not adapted to it, and they fear a bit too much democracy.

It's not even been 18 months since the Scottish referendum, it's a bit premature to base a second one on pledges not being met or on the result of the EU referendum. In Wales a lot of people were skeptical about Devolution, it was a very slim majority win, but after a few bumps many have come around to it and are happy with it to the extent that extra powers were voted for. Same with the EU result, it should be given time (years) to settle before using public opinion on it to call another referendum.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That: The fact is both Scotland's separation AND brexit really DO have implications for the Peace Process. Everything is connected and nothing happens in a vacuum. I think it's okay for people to bring in relevant facts to make their arguments - it makes more sense than ignoring said facts.

I'm going to try my best to behave and not be too angry in this thread, but Europe is a subject I am very passionate about so please forgive me for being a bit hotheaded the odd time here.

I took umbrage at your suggestion that the Peace Process is irrelevant to the discussion - it is relevant, as are many other things. How relevant? Well, that's definitely up for debate. But I reckon Europe had a fair role to play as a mediator and a neutral forum for the process, and that is a comfort to a lot of Nationalists who have pretty decent reasons to distrust the British government.

Anyhow. Like I said, I'm glad the referendum is happening, but I do not want Europe twisted and broken by the process. I hope it can happen, the result is respected, and both the UK and the EU can continue with a minimum of disruption. But I fear that this is not a likely outcome.

It is the one thing I give Cameron a fair bit of credit for - he didn't have to allow this, or the Scottish referendum, and he's made a rod for his own back in doing so. But he still did it. Much as I dislike the man and his politics, he's a democrat in that respect.

I apologise if I were disrespectful towards the peace process. The deaths of all those people over the years was a tragedy, and hopefully, the Republic and the North will never have to suffer that level of violence ever again.

But the point that I was trying to make was this: Ireland's problems between Catholics and Protestants occurred long before the European Union was invented, so IMO, I don't believe Britain's exit from the EU should be a factor as far as the peace process is concerned.

It wont be. If the UK leaves it leaves as a unity, Scottish independence was a threat because a split in the UK will kick off Wales and Northern Ireland for 'freedom' also. Wales will ultimately stay, but the decision could go either way in Northern Ireland.
Now there is talk or at least claim that a vote to leave the EU will trigger a second Scottish indyref and therefore trigger a kick off in Northern Ireland. However those aren't direct consequences and Westminster doesn't have to agree to a second Scottish indyref, and likely wont. This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
- Blocking financial regulation and legislation (wow, another big surprise)
- Gaining exceptions for Britain (the surprise will literally kill me at this rate)
Whoop dee fething doo. So we got benefit cuts, another chance for Britain to be obstructionist, and yet another exception for the Super Special Crybabies of the EU. Colour me ecstatic.

Nothing about:
- Corporate capture and lobbying within the EU
- Excessive secrecy of EU insitutions
- Lack of accountability and ridiculous benefits for EU workers
- TTIP

And nothing about dealing with the existential problems facing the EU. These are reforms I can get behind, but Cameron went for small minded cuts and protection of special interests, which is hardly surprising.

So while a Brexit would likely be bad for Europe and worse for Ireland, I have to say my patience with Britain in this regard is at an end. Have your vote, and if you leave, I really won't be that sad. The rest of us can get on with the business of dealing with problems together, I hope.

I agree with most of the post - but why is it only Britain should try and get these reforms - does no one in any posiiton of power in Europe want to stop the gravy train they are a part of....shockingly............ Were we the only chance of EU reform?

All countries get their special needs answered - France most of all - Dual parliment is only because they, the French scream and wail if its even mentioned.

 Orlanth wrote:
This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.

Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.