It is nice to be the one to post first on something that may shape our destiny, but I don't know what to expect?

MSN seems to be pouring venom on the decision, where the BBC seem to be a bit more middle of the road.

Any thoughts?

I have been too busy all week at work (redundancies!) to watch the news.

What's it all about?

this could be a real cameron fcukup

he has played the big boy and the rest of the eu, every other country are now agreeing a new treaty without the uk.

so either idiot cameron backs down, eats humble pie and gets back in with the eu or there is a real risk that the uk will be left on the outside. significant changes to trading arrangements, tax, employment etc could follow.

all because cameron wanted exclusive guarantees for the city. he was punching above his weight and they have called his bluff methinks.

Personally i wouldnt want Germany, Spain, Croatia, et deciding what level of corporation tax should be set for the UK. It's always been the case that the UK has about 80% of the financial markets in the EU, so things like corporation tax would be first ont he agenda for these other countries, where it is near enough a non-existent part of their economy.

I think it was a good move, and already their are people from nations like Denmark thanking England for making a stand becuase their leaders were too scared to do so.

So a British PM has finally stuck by his guns with Europe (so obviously not Blair then). Good on him. When Lithuania (who) is seen criticising a country that takes less out than it puts in, then fccuk off.

The Euro would not be in the position it is now if the EU had not waved it's own rules to accept weak economies in the interest of growing the Euro Zone.

The Europeans played hardball, DC batted it back.

Bring on the referendum. If we become "marginalised" then time to pull out. If we're not a major player, then don't give them our money to play with.

Thanks, Dave - no chance of winning Eurovision ever again

Come to think of it, the only chance of winning it anyway these days was with support from your neighbouring friendly countries, giving maximum votes and bugger the quality of the song.

The strategy continues in the Eurozone..

To be fair to Cameron he only had three choices:

1. Do what he did and then watch as the Eurozone forms an 'inner-Europe' and Britain isn't invited to the party.

2. Back down, let the deal go ahead and get torn apart by the opposition for failing to support the UK economy.

3. Give up and pitch Britain into the Euro as well in exchange for Eurozone support ... probably not a popular move in the Euro's darkest hour.

From three bad options 1 is best for Cameron and 3 is best for Britain, so we're stuck with a bad decision made for political reasons, which is going to haunt us for the next decade.

This is exactly why we shouldn't have a referendum. If we 'pull out' then we get all of Europe's rules and none of the say in what they are, unless we also pull out of EFTA - which would be economically disastrous.

Cameron was not in a strong negotiating position, i wonder what gave him the rationale to make such an ultimatum (or a real threat of using the veto).

The significance is the number of other countries that are party to the agreement. Cameron has not gained split support, he has gone alone and has to do a u-turn, exit the eu or renegotiate with his tail between his legs. I doubt the remaining majority will have much sympathy or provide much credence to his position.

Whilst the uk can boast independence of the euro, a certain amount of comparative economic stability it is reliant on the trade benefits that the eu provides. Separation that leads to trade barriers would be disastrous for the uk.

Like the rest of europe or not, our trade could be severely affected.

This is what gave him the rationale to make the ultimatum. UK pay a lot of money into Europe.(about 2.5 million per day!) IMO if we are sidelined it's no big deal. We'll simply be sidelined watching the Euro Zone disappear up it's own jacksie

Why we're at it Heres a nice graph of where the governments (our) money goes

The Euro as a currency is a dead duck. The only reason it's still floating is because Merkel and Sarkozy keep prodding it back to the surface with Van Rumpouy clearing a path to allow them to do it. Of course, Europhiles are crying about how damaging the veto will be to the economy with the UK marginalised and forced to either jump feet first into the big bedpan that is the single currency or end up the financial leper of Europe.

I can't argue that it'll be good for our finances in the short term, but it certainly won't be bad. We still have the largest financial market in Europe and you're not going to see banks pulling out of London to trade on the Paris Bourse alongside the cattle herders. We're better off out so when the currency inevitably collapses taking Europe to the brink of WWIII at least we'll have our own sovereignty and the power to defend ourselves.

Germany will be left standing as the Ubermensch of the continent offering a sickly teat for each of its United States of Großdeutschland to suckle on, just enough to survive. It's not going to start with Germany invading Poland. Before this whole crapshoot really hits the fan it'll already own them plus the other 25 member states and they'll have no control of their own money or power to do anything about it.

My conviction is that a referendum will work in favour of those lucky people who have no room in their lives or minds for complex issues.

I've spent a good proportion of my life either studying aspects of Europe or living among Europeans and I can honestly say that I simply do not know enough about the economic, political or social consequences to be qualified to vote in a referendum. And of course everything would depend on the wording of the question. I really don't know how I would vote.

There are unquestionably advantages to being involved at the heart of the decision-making of where our continent goes. But what we Brits have never been good at is the concept that we have to relinquish certain things that we have hitherto seen as our sovereign rights in order to shape the future. My experience of France suggests that - despite the volatile and often violent protests by the general citizenry - the French political and management class is more open to accepting change at European level as there is a feeling of moving forwards towards a future that will require adaptation.
The truism that France sticks close to Germany through fear of it once more rising to become a threat is an outdated cliché that no longer persists. The Franco-German axis at the centre of Europe is driven by a genuine desire to lead the EU forward as a trading and cultural bloc able to rival the US and China. This can only happen if Europe is strong and genuinely feels united, rather than a loose coalition with members bickering constantly about major and minor issues.
The European vision is bold and strategic, but quite possibly over-ambitious, especially as a number of states were unwisely allowed to board the bus without paying for their tickets. But the desire nevertheless exists and is widespread and passionate that Europe must move forward together.
The problem for Britain is that historically our island status has meant we've always been independent and violently opposed to allowing others to "tell us how to run our country" (except America, but that's OK, because we have a "special relationship"). Continental Europeans feel this, but far less strongly and tempered by an undersanding that their National boundaries are lines on a map, not a stretch of sea.
We're a bit like a bloke that won't commit to a serious relationship, we don't want to be tied down.

I feel very ambivalent about the whole thing because, although it makes me groan with frustration when the only stories you ever hear in the British media are about how "faceless Eurocrats" are going to ban "our" bananas or make us all wear grey or some other bollocks aimed at knuckle-grazers , I simply don't understand how we can have a Common Agricultural Policy that suits Greece and Scotland equally well.

Interesting times, but if we're going to have a referendum, I hope people will at least try to find out what the issues are from independent or at least well-informed sources and vote on the facts not idiotic prejudice spouted by those with no vision at all.

Yeah, but he gets to drive a 911 instead of a Renault Espace.

Dont be daft Jim, we both know that the sheep will just vote the way their tabloids tell them too.

Since out government has managed to p*** off both the commission, and the big players in EU, the idea that we can leave, then be given some kind of special deal like Switzerland & Norway (EFTA) and just get away with a trade agreement is laughable.
Who will we be then left to trade with??

I can only imagine democracy is a terrible thing when you're trying to get a mandate for a dictatorial superstate.

I certainly feel rocked about it.

And not the way OS thinks they should so they must be wrong?

As for being stuck with european law, if we go, so can they. If things go really tits up for the Euro, watch France and Germany move into self preservation mode..

This takes me back to what I said before: people should make an informed decision, whether it is to stay in Europe or to leave I won't mind as long as it is based on knowledge and not because they have some vague idea that they "are fed up with being pushed around by Europe". It really will make a difference to all our lives and either decision wioll lead to positive and negative consequences. Remaining in Europe will require some tough times, but wrapping ourselves in the Union Jack and cheering as we wave goodbye to the Frogs and Krauts will mean some unpleasant medicine as well once the strains of Land of Hope and Glory fade.

Also, Brewster, I wasn't saying it was necessarily wrong for Britain to want to avoid commitment to Europe and to drive the metaphorical 911 (although it may get rather costlier), just that our needs may change.

I say grow some balls, kill the Euro off and pull out of Europe.

The reason people don't know how to vote in a referendum or how to generally make any decision in this country is because they cannot even teach their own children manners.

I for one do not want to be locked into a special relationship with an isolationist country that was actively preparing to go to war with Great Britain in the 1930s.

I refer of course to the United States of America, that bastion of freedom to the west of us.

Whether people like the idea or not, the European Union and its predecessors have been good for Europe.

I come from a generation whose parents had had to become used to the idea of a major European war every 20 years or so. No one in their right minds would want to go back to those times when disputes were settled by force rather than words.

It seems to me that the USA has not leant that lesson.
They still go in all guns blazing when something happens outside their borders that the USA disagrees with, or they see as against american corporate interest.
Hanging on to their coat tails is the only thing that the eurosceptics seem to come up with.

Like it or not, the world is about commercial rivalry between ever larger groups.
The UK cannot survive on its own, it needs to be an integral part of a larger grouping.
That can never be with the USA as its partner unless one wants to become the 51st state and hand over virtually all sovereignty to a parliament an ocean away.

We live on the east side of that ocean, that makes us Europeans.
Ignoring that fact and burying our heads in the sand as the red-tops and eurosceptics would have us do will prove disastrous.

If we want to become increasingly marginalised where decisions about our future are concerned Cameron has taken a giant step in that direction.

As I explained above, I don't know how I'd vote in a referendum as a lot depends on the wording of the question, the issues are complex and there's a huge amount at stake - now it seems I'm a failure as a parent too. Can anyone explain the link? Biggenz?

Although while we're looking at history, I'd point out that since there could have been a war with the US we have fought an actual war against Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. One that the US (eventually) were instrumental in winning.





Although some want to pass virtually all sovereignty to a Parliament across the English Channel. The difference being that at the moment the US is not attempting to take our sovereignty.

The problem is that lots of people know exactly how they'd vote in a referendum, they just don't have any concept of the issue beyond a jingoistic feeling that we should be a sovereign nation.

The issues involved and their implications are enormous and stretch well beyond teaching kids to say "please" and "thank you". It's exactly this "grow some balls" nonsense that makes a referendum such an incredibly dangerous strategy.

We're up to our necks in a world of super-block players; the US, China (the world's dominant industrial force), a rapidly modernising India (which will be the world's most populace country within the next decade), the Eurozone - we either throw our hat in with one of those powers or we become a third world country with only our precious damn sovereignty left to our name.

I suppose there's no chance they could tag a "bring back capital punishment" vote on to any referendum... It could be worded:

Should we:

Pull out of Europe

or

Bring back capital punishment

or

Pull out of Europe and bring back capital punishment.

You must tick one.

There's a difference between throwing your hat in with one of the big players and surrendering your sovereignty.

No, no there isn't. Our sovereignty is our belief that while we may nominally be part of something larger we're independent of it. We can't be half-hearted about this - either we're an integral part of a union or we're out of it.

I've use the United States as an analogy before, but when we think of a united Europe that it the model we're should be thinking of; overarching federal law which provides a framework, within which individual states can enact the legislation supported by their own population. We should be aiming towards having state representation at the federal level and local legislators, but not sovereignty.

Why do you think our sovereignty is something that we should hang on to? What's its value?

I liked this quote from Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform.

"If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

Hmmm... fried in garlic, steamed, then coated in breadcrumbs.

I'm proud to be British. I know you believe that is ridiculous and it's simply down to chance as to where you are born, but I believe being British is far more than that. We've been an island nation of battling beer swillers for centuries. Being British is about how you feel about this fair isle, the values that are instilled and the way you conduct yourself.

Let's say my parents were holidaying in Manila at the time of my birth, would that make me Filipino? It's this "progressive" thinking that being British is simply defined by where your parents happened to be at the time of your birth that has led us to having inner city state schools teaching in 20 languages, disaffected groups of minorities rioting because they haven't clue who or what they are and a system that has marginalised them because "it's right they should be taught their times tables in Swahili in Peckham Primary."

Beyond the fact that we're of the same species I have absolutely nothing in common with an indigenous Greek, Pole, Frenchman, Hungarian, etc. Just because this island floats off the coast of that fragmented continent doesn't mean I should, either. I have some sympathy with Germany. The easiest way to get things done, especially in a Union of completely un-unified people is to simply take control and tell them what to do. Indeed, the Germans make a good fist of doing things well too. I am not, however, German and I don't want them telling me what to do or how to do it.

I have family that fought and died within living memory so I wouldn't have to and yet you and OxfordSteve scoff at Cameron for putting a halt to our slide into the this socialist dream of a unified Europe. A "Union" where the Berlaymont bathes in cash from every member, sticks its fingers into everything and anything it can to justify its existence, deposes incumbent heads of state when they don't do as Brussels tells them and allows Germany free reign to bully any sovereign nation that's on its arse because the Germans shouldn't have allowed them to join the single currency anyway.

What would you have Cameron do? Sign away control of our own budgets and as he's getting off the plane at Heston Aerodrome wave a copy of the treaty saying "There shall be peace for our time..."? Being British is about Elgar, Nelson, Tennyson, Wellington, the Queen, this green and pleasant land. Pride in the people we are for the very stuff that makes us, not just that we we're born on a "European island."

I used to blame liberal socialism for the errosion of what truly made this Great Britain. Now I see that it's far more deadly serious than that. It's proponents are actively seeking to destroy Britishness all together at any cost, including that of throwing GB straight into a Fourth Reich just to have their way.

i was actually scoffing about the idea that we would have a reasoned debate around our future either in or out of the eu, rather than a tabloid led and tabloid level one.
Further i questioned who we are going to trade with going forward if we were to leave the union, and i do not believe Cameron or the party have either.