[Guinness]

Originally Posted by g jones

I have not read back over what I wrote but what I said has occurred; anti EU views have swung to the right. Cameron has made clear he wanted repeal of the working hours directive, repeal workers rights and conditions, a clawing back of EU powers in fields of environment, social affairs and crime.

And the British Government can then create it's own set of worker protective rules without the associated Euro gobbledegook that allows them to be bypassed and ignored

Originally Posted by g jones

The repeal of the EU arrest warrant for example would have left 39 pedophiles free to offend, British courts unable to convict them as they did.

Pure sensationalism...in the main the EU arrest warrant simply speeds up the extradition process, and has loads of strings attached to it. Extradition can be negotiated by treaty.

Originally Posted by g jones

Cameron's has finally and openly said in effect his EU referendum is a policy to undermine workers pay and conditions and their families.

You got a link to that? I can't find it anywhere, or is it just your interpretation of what he said?

Originally Posted by g jones

To make the labour market 'more flexible'. I made this point consistently then and suggested then it was changing my view and losing support on the left. Jobs and growth are the priority and most business leaders have stated, a referendum will undermine that objective clouding the issue. I have to consider the views of businesses locally. Their view is pro EU on the whole as your would expect.

What business are actually asking for is a referendum now or never, not to have to wait 5 years so they can plan for the future today without uncertainty. Care to name these 'local' businessess who are pro EU?

Originally Posted by g jones

But the OUT divisions are not just Labour left and UKIP/Tory right. Even the right are divided on what OUT means. It is fundamental that the case for OUT is explained in full.

Politicians may have divisions on what OUT means...the voting public do not, it's the opposite of IN. Guess that makes us smarter than your average politician

Originally Posted by g jones

However no-one can explain what OUT means. Norway often cited by many as a position Britain should adopt however it pays 80% of what British citizens pay and we would pay far more than 80% to be able to access the single market, without any say and with Britain's crucial banking at the mercy of Berlin and Paris.

Switzerland also pay and have to accept all single market EU rules (like Norway) but negotiate every single trade agreement separately. Red tape?

Some believe OUT is OUT with no trade with Europe, no single market. 50% of our export trade is currently with Europe employing 3million workers.

Pure speculation, we spend a fortune in trade, far more than they spend with us, it would be financial suicide for them to dictate unfair terms or increase tariffs, or refuse our exports we could take our business elsewhere.

Originally Posted by g jones

So no-one can agree on what OUT means. Or now what IN means with Cameron's intervention. Whether Britain will have to pay more for the SM with no say... The list of questions just goes on and on ...

And the list of answers also goes on and on....

Originally Posted by g jones

I made these points last time.

Opinion polls are quickly shifting against OUT because of this. The EU skeptic right needs to quickly and thoughtfully explain what OUT will result in because otherwise my view will keep moving away towards a solid IN.

And we all know how reliable opinion polls are.

Originally Posted by g jones

At the same time Euroskeptics have to recognise that Ed Miliband has targeted what are my concerns (and of the left - a necessary component of a successful out vote) for reform ... but within Europe.

And here is your usual obligatory EdM is my hero moment

Originally Posted by g jones

On the final point about a referendum I have met with the people's pledge to listen closely to their points of view. The question is whether a referendum could offer Britain a better future.

What Labour voters may face in a referendum is Hobson's choice. OUT and the risk of losing of employment and economic damage or IN and a renegotiated relationship that attacks workers, the environment. As I made absolutely clear last time, in this scenario, why would a Labour MP wholeheartedly endorse a possible lose-lose referendum even if he was a Euroskeptic? To not have a referendum, as disappointing as that may be would be the best option for business and workers.

Or we could just maintain the status quo, open our borders to all and sundry, join the United States of Europe and start brushing up our schoolboy German, which is what you are basically telling your labour voters to do