Nobel Prize 2012!

[JodieHarsh]

So Mo Yan has this year's Nobel Prize for literature...

Not read him, to my shame.

Anyone here know his work? Where ought one to begin? And did anyone really think Bob Dylan would get it?!

"Give me an example of two EEA/EEC/EU members who were at risk of going to war and, thanks to their membership of the EEA/EEC/EU, decided not to."

How about the current Turkey/Syria situation? Neither are in the EU admittedly but Turkey would like to be and has been cleaning its act up over the last few years in an effort to gain acceptance. It can't be said for definite that the possibility of EU membership is making Turkey less bellicose than it was in the past, but it has to be a factor in their decision not to counter-attack.

BTW not an 'EUfanatic', just think credit where credit's due.

flatpackhamster

I'm not surprised you completely missed the point of what I said - it suits your personal agenda.

Your response points are so farcical they don't merit a response. You clearly don't know the difference between 'peace' and 'conquest'; you have no idea about different levels and intensities of conflict; your implicit support of NATO and hatred of the EU shows an ignorance of how supranational bodies work and fatally contradictory views regarding sovereignty; you have an ignorance of historical events; you spout hysterical bullshit like that the EU causes 'hunger, poverty, misery and starvation'... the list appears endless.

And as for your attempts to take the moral high ground, all I need to do is point out that you were the first people to dismiss others as 'fanatics'.

Ever since I first got on the internet I've encountered people like you. Shouting nonsense and conspiracy theory, unwilling to listen to others. Before then, I had no opinion of the EC (as it was then) and as little knowledge. And it was people like you that invaded the radio forum of which I was a member with outrageous claims regarding the EU (another one of my favourites was how Germany was secretly amassing tanks in order to militarily control Europe).

A little bit of autodidactic research into politics, economics and history showed not only the facts but also the deliberate misinformation and outright lies spread by those who want to isolate and ultimately impoverish Britain for narrow personal gain.

In fact, a little bit of research on your username shows that you do the self-same thing on a plethora of forums on the internet. And that when you rocked up to Mumsnet a couple of months ago you immediately got people's backs up by telling them how they should run the site to your particular standards. I'd bet you don't even have kids.

So, please please go on spamming lies and nonsense about the EU across the internet. Because all you'll succeed in doing is exposing yourself as a lunatic, and disposable cannon fodder of a small Establishment cabal who actually don't give two hoots about your economic wellbeing.

somebloke

Although the EU may require new member states to be democracies, the fact remains that the EU itself is not a democracy. The point has been well made that if it applied to join itself it would fail.

It's a supranational body. It's a club. And as far as supranational bodies go, it is more democratic than others by having an elected Parliament, a council made up of ministers from elected national governments and head civil servants appointed by elected national governments.

(Assuming that it that the EU followed its own rules which it in fact doesn't - did you know that bailouts of individual states who got into financial trouble were supposed to be strictly verboten according to the terms of the treaties? This by the way was one of the "safeguards" that was used to reassure Euro-sceptics before the introduction of the Euro.)

The financial crisis has been a game changer for everyone. Before it happened Britain wasn't going to nationalise banks, the US wasn't going to bail out private car manufacturers, and yes - the EU wasn't going to bail out member states.

In this environment, are you seriously going to criticise just one body for performing a certain action when the circumstances warranted it?

The EU is not, was never designed to be, and cannot be, a democracy. To have a democracy you need by definition a demos, a people as in "we the people".

A demos is an electorate of a political unit. It is defined solely by who is eligible to vote.

'Demos' does not have some other sort of magical, etherial property bestowed upon it. Check your dictionary.

Monnet's vision was of supranational entity which would be run by an "enlightened" administrative elite, who would decide for the people what was best for them, and which placed itself above the nation state, which in time was supposed to wither away.

We're a long way from Monnet's vision. Just as in Britain we're a long way from the vision of an electorate being something where only men can vote.

Whenever a member state has a referendum and gives "wrong" answer, it is made to rerun it until it gets the "right" answer, which is then taken as being irrevocable.

It is never a 're-run' - that's a blatantly false statement. In each circumstance where a member nation has rejected a referendum, the terms and conditions of what was voted on have been substantially altered.

A single state without a demos is doomed to fail, as we are seeing with the unrest in Greece and Spain. Meaningful democracy in Greece, Spain and arguably the Republic of Ireland, have been suspended, with EU placemen having been parachuted in to govern them and run their economies.

Each nation's electorate voted for governments that are making cuts. And some of their citizens are exercising their democratic rights by protesting. A limited amount of civil unrest does not equate to the end of democracy.

You can't "pool" sovereignty by the way, any more than you can pool virginity. You can let go of it - let it pass to a higher level, or you can hang onto it.

Of course you can pool sovereignty. It happens all the time. In the Channel Tunnel area, we've got French officials performing border checks on Britain's behalf and on the UK side we get uniformed French police performing law and order duties. Kent Police even have a station in France!

This sharing of sovereignty by British and French police forces acts to mutual advantage, and neither force goes blubbing about any loss of sovereignty.

I think if you don't know the difference between a supranational body and a club then I'm not the only one who needs to check his dictionary.

The EU places itself above the nation state as a source of political authority The EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty states that EU law "shall have precedence" over national law. It also says that, within the field of "competence" i.e. power of the EU, national governments shall be permitted to legislate only in areas in which the EU has decided not to.

The only EU body permitted to initiate EU legislation is the non-elected EU Commission. Commissioners may indeed have been appointed by democratically elected governments. They are typically members of the old boys' network who need to be shifted out of the way, or be found somewhere to go after being rejected by normal democratic processes. Past incumbents include Leon Brittan, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Chris Patten. On appointment they are no longer representatives of their country but of the EU itself. (Peter Mandelson used to refer to "my member states".

When they finish they are given a big fat pension that would cost £2-3 million pounds if bought on the open market, the continued payment of which is dependent on their continuing to advance the aims of the EU (a fact which in itself compromises any of them who are in the House of Lords where they are supposed to act in the interests of the UK.)

The EU parliament is a fig leaf. It can't initiate legislation. If it tries to amend it too much then the commission can just scupper it by withdrawing it. MEPs are permitted to speak only for 90 seconds (usually) after which their microphones are switched off.

Maybe I have never joined the right clubs, but I have never been a member of a club whose rule book stated that the rules of the club have primacy over the laws of the UK, or that Westminster shall be allowed to legislate only in areas where the club has decided not to.

The EU is no more a club of nation states than the USA is a club of states (they are really provinces). There is a higher federal level which is a higher level of political authority.

Reruns of referendums in the EU are made only after the merest of fig leaf modifications. They are only rerun after the "wrong" result, never after the "right" one.

A demos is much more than an arbitrary collection of people who happen to have been given a vote. The Basingstoke Women's Institute + The Baton Rouge Rotary club + the Bayern Munich LBGT Supporters' Group constitutes a collection of people. They are not a demos. A demos is a collection of voters with sufficient commonality of identity that people are prepared to put up with a democratic vote going against them e.g. labour supporters when the Tories win, and vice versa. The UK is a demos (though it has become more strained in recent years) - the EU most definitely is not. Swedes and Greeks have little in common apart from shared humanity.

A constitution is a constitution, not something to be discarded when circumstances change. Changing such a set of rules should require a number a hurdles to be passed. It was an absolutely explicit rule of past treaties that bail outs of individual states by the EU were forbidden. This has been ridden rough-shod over not for the benefit of the respective populations but to keep the whole EU/Euro gravy train on the road. Incidentally the rules allowing member states to adopt the Euro originally were fudged too. The only ones that really satisfied the criteria were the UK and Luxembourg, and we didn't join anyway.

Sovereignty refers to the level where authority lies. It's nothing to do with pragmatic give-and-take relationships such as particular police arrangments, which are always subject to cancellation by either party.

UnimaginitiveDadThemedUsername

I'm not surprised you completely missed the point of what I said - it suits your personal agenda.

Your response points are so farcical they don't merit a response.

And yet you seem to have written a considerable amount of text.

You clearly don't know the difference between 'peace' and 'conquest'; you have no idea about different levels and intensities of conflict; your implicit support of NATO and hatred of the EU shows an ignorance of how supranational bodies work and fatally contradictory views regarding sovereignty; you have an ignorance of historical events;

If you expended the same effort providing sources for your claims or some sort of information about them as you do in berating me then perhaps I wouldn't just regard you as a blowhard.

you spout hysterical bullshit like that the EU causes 'hunger, poverty, misery and starvation'... the list appears endless.

Eurostat report shows 27.7% of Greeks below the poverty line

Greek unemployment now 25%, youth unemployment 58%

Unemployment in Spain 24.6%, youth unemployment 50%

There's Portugal, of course, and Italy and Ireland who are all suffering. This is a direct consequence of the Euro - the way it was constructed, creating monetary union without fiscal union. The EU has caused this. Then there's the destructive effects of its policies on some industries, such as the CFP on British fisheries.

The EU does cause poverty, it does cause hunger, it does cause misery. People in Greece and Spain are starving and the EU is the reason they are starving. And the EU doesn't care. The Commission doesn't care, the Council doesn't care, and Parliament is impotent even if it does care.

And as for your attempts to take the moral high ground, all I need to do is point out that you were the first people to dismiss others as 'fanatics'.

Ever since I first got on the internet I've encountered people like you. Shouting nonsense and conspiracy theory, unwilling to listen to others. Before then, I had no opinion of the EC (as it was then) and as little knowledge. And it was people like you that invaded the radio forum of which I was a member with outrageous claims regarding the EU (another one of my favourites was how Germany was secretly amassing tanks in order to militarily control Europe).

I don't think it would have been people like me. I know that Germany doesn't want to control Europe. The German papers tell one as much. You do read the continental papers, don't you?

A little bit of autodidactic research into politics, economics and history showed not only the facts but also the deliberate misinformation and outright lies spread by those who want to isolate and ultimately impoverish Britain for narrow personal gain.

And yet you don't seem to be too busy showing us these facts. You're much more interested in telling everyone how much better informed you are than people who disagree with you.

In fact, a little bit of research on your username shows that you do the self-same thing on a plethora of forums on the internet.

You've discovered that I don't hide who I am or what I think and that I hold consistent views no matter where I go. Well done. Have a sweetie.

And that when you rocked up to Mumsnet a couple of months ago you immediately got people's backs up by telling them how they should run the site to your particular standards.

Let's see whether you can work out why I might have appeared on Mumsnet a few months ago. Think it over. Take your time.

I'd bet you don't even have kids.

How much would you like to bet?

So, please please go on spamming lies and nonsense about the EU across the internet. Because all you'll succeed in doing is exposing yourself as a lunatic, and disposable cannon fodder of a small Establishment cabal who actually don't give two hoots about your economic wellbeing.

The entire political class, bar a few outliers, supports membership of the EU. The majority of the media supports EU membership in one form or another. The only mainstream paper whose editorial line is that Britain should be outside the EU entirely is the Express. Everyone else supports full membership or renegotiation.

The people who don't want membership are the majority of the general public. That makes you the disposable cannon fodder of the Establishment cabal and me the heroic defender of Liberty and the Common Man.

Amusing, isn't it?

somebloke

The only EU body permitted to initiate EU legislation is the non-elected EU Commission. Commissioners may indeed have been appointed by democratically elected governments. They are typically members of the old boys' network who need to be shifted out of the way, or be found somewhere to go after being rejected by normal democratic processes. Past incumbents include Leon Brittan, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Chris Patten. On appointment they are no longer representatives of their country but of the EU itself. (Peter Mandelson used to refer to "my member states".

We already have a forum for directly elected politicians and a forum for ministers of elected governments, so there is nothing wrong with having a forum for individuals who have proved they are capable operators. As Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten was responsible for its smooth transition back to Chinese rule. Mandleson and Kinnock both showed how they were able to change their own party from within when it could have been ripped apart. Leon Brittan resigned his seat from a standing Tory government to become a Commissioner.

The golden rule of democracies is that you don't elect civil servants because of the conflict of interest. Britain doesn't do it, and the EU doesn't do it. Do you really think we should elect civil servants? I don't think that's a good idea.

The EU parliament is a fig leaf. It can't initiate legislation. If it tries to amend it too much then the commission can just scupper it by withdrawing it.

So if proposed legislation isn't acceptable to the directly elected parliament it gets withdrawn by the Commission - and that's somehow a bad thing?

I thought the standard line was that the European Parliament was merely a rubber stamp and had no power - but now you're saying they can effectively knock something into touch. Once again, why is this a bad thing?

MEPs are permitted to speak only for 90 seconds (usually) after which their microphones are switched off.

An incidence where we expect politicians to be succinct in order that as many people be heard as possible and that votes can be always take place.

Do you prefer that great democratic tradition of filibustering, then? Talking so long that a vote cannot even be made?

Maybe I have never joined the right clubs, but I have never been a member of a club whose rule book stated that the rules of the club have primacy over the laws of the UK, or that Westminster shall be allowed to legislate only in areas where the club has decided not to.

There's plenty of groups where you have to abide by the rules, and where actions that may be legal and permitted in the outside world would cause you to be censured if they conflict with the club or put it into disrepute.

A demos is much more than an arbitrary collection of people who happen to have been given a vote. The Basingstoke Women's Institute + The Baton Rouge Rotary club + the Bayern Munich LBGT Supporters' Group constitutes a collection of people. They are not a demos. A demos is a collection of voters with sufficient commonality of identity that people are prepared to put up with a democratic vote going against them e.g. labour supporters when the Tories win, and vice versa. The UK is a demos (though it has become more strained in recent years) - the EU most definitely is not. Swedes and Greeks have little in common apart from shared humanity.

You're just making stuff up now. Multiple dictionary definitions do not attribute a demos with anything other than being a collection of people who vote. Actually, to be fair, there is another definition - voters eligible to vote within an Ancient Greek republic. But considering women now have the vote in the countries we are discussing, they clearly aren't a 'demos' in this sense so we can discount this meaning.

A constitution is a constitution, not something to be discarded when circumstances change. Changing such a set of rules should require a number a hurdles to be passed. It was an absolutely explicit rule of past treaties that bail outs of individual states by the EU were forbidden. This has been ridden rough-shod over not for the benefit of the respective populations but to keep the whole EU/Euro gravy train on the road. Incidentally the rules allowing member states to adopt the Euro originally were fudged too. The only ones that really satisfied the criteria were the UK and Luxembourg, and we didn't join anyway.

Like I said, our current economic environment has been a game-changer for everyone. And I'd suggest that the endless meetings and summits of EU nation finance ministers to come up with solutions and new mechanisms like the Fiscal Compact shows that there were indeed 'hurdles', as you put it.

Sovereignty refers to the level where authority lies. It's nothing to do with pragmatic give-and-take relationships such as particular police arrangments, which are always subject to cancellation by either party.

And if that higher level of authority includes you as a member (as does the EU and NATO), then you aren't losing sovereignty.

flatpackhamster

Eurostat report shows 27.7% of Greeks below the poverty line
Greek unemployment now 25%, youth unemployment 58%
Unemployment in Spain 24.6%, youth unemployment 50%

What about Finland, the Netherlands, Austria etc? Nothing about them, eh?

Given that EU membership demonstrably doesn't cause poverty and unemployment in all EU nations across the board, your claim that the EU is responsible is clearly nonsense.

Loving the way you believe that an individual nation's mismanagement of its own economy is somehow someone else's fault.

Let's see whether you can work out why I might have appeared on Mumsnet a few months ago.

You've become a parent? Well done you. It's funny how you spend most of your time telling people how to run their site according to your personal political prejudices, arguing politics and spreading misinformation and lies though, isn't it?

The people who don't want membership are the majority of the general public.

A recent YouGov/Sun poll puts those who don't want membership (and therefore withdrawal) at 26% - which isn't a 'majority' the last time I checked:

d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/39lzsuywij/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-EU-090712.pdf

Classing 26% as a majority is either the mark of an imbecile or a liar.

Which are you?

The commission aren't "civil servants" they are the major source of executive power. Kinnock lost an election (or was it 2) because he was perceived as a windbag not up to the job. He was virulently anti-EU when climbing up the Labour party greasy pole under Michael Foot and he is pro-EU now he is a happy passenger on the gravy train. When Marta Andriessen pointed out irregularities on EU accounting, instead of taking her findings on board he got her sacked.

Mandelson had to resign twice from the Labour government because of financial irregularities.

Patten holds down 3 positions (1) EU Commission pensioner (2) membership of the House of Lords (3) Chairman of the BBC Trust, each of which are on conflict with the other two.

So yes they are all operators - if you want that sort of thing.

And as commissioners they could not be got rid of.

One the second point you didn't read what I said. It's not the EU Parliament that can kick something into touch. The point is if they try to amend it into something better and the Commission don't like it, the Commission can withdraw it.

...

Er .... there are possible positions between restricting speeches to 90 seconds and having fillibusters lasting several hours.

-

Demos: You're just time wasting. The word does indeed come from the ancient Greek. This does not (of course) mean that it has to have literally the same definition as then e.g. with only male and non-slave suffrage. It has a widely-accepted definition in political science as a more or less homogeneous group that can be considered as an entity. Look it up. The acid test is "am I prepared to go with the decision of the majority even if it goes against my vote?". If I am able to acknowledge the others as having enough commonality of culture, aspiration and purpose as I then my answer will be yes. I do feel that towards the Scots, Welsh and Cornish. I do not towards Finns, Greeks and Slovenians (not that I harbour any hostility to those groups.)

-----

Constitutions are not absolutely permanent but are quasi-permanent. The hurdles to be overcome to amend them are, or ought to be, high.

For example the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of expression, could be removed, but it would require something like a 2/3 majority in the Senate and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree. I may not have the precise details correct - but the point is that it can't be done at the drop of a hat by a bunch of political placemen just because "circumstances have changed" or even faced with a "gamechanger". The prohibition on bailouts was absolutely central. Of course some people did warn that the Euro would inevitably lead to unsustainable tensions and they have been vindicated. At the time theywere variously derided as Little Englanders, xenophobes and other mindless terms of abuse.

----

No it doesn't. Sovereignty denotes where authority lies. If ultimate authority lies with the UK Government, let's say in deciding what type and level of taxes we are allowed to levy, then the UK is sovereign. If it lies with the EU Commision then the EU is sovereign. And it doesn't matter whether some of the commissioners are from Britain.

If the USA wants to abolish the 1st amendment and gets enough votes in the relevant bodies then it can do so. If all the senators and governors from Ohio disagree then the can be overruled. So so sovereignty resides at the Federal level in the USA. Ohio has zero sovereignty. It has devolved powers, which are not the same thing.

www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027161740-SenseofSovereignity1991.pdf

UnimaginitiveDadThemedUsername

flatpackhamster

What about Finland, the Netherlands, Austria etc? Nothing about them, eh?

No. Obviously. You asked me to prove my point and I did. I didn't mention the countries you've listed because they aren't the ones where people are starving and rioting on the streets. Yet. Is it your view that these people are acceptable casualties given that there is no street violence in Finland? It would be an odd position to hold. Yet you don't seem bothered in the slightest by their plight.

Given that EU membership demonstrably doesn't cause poverty and unemployment in all EU nations across the board, your claim that the EU is responsible is clearly nonsense.

I thought you were the expert on history and the EU. I had - foolish me - assumed you were going to fill you next post with all the amazing facts you had. It seems that you were too busy - again - thinking up rude things to say to me. Maybe next time?

So let me help you out with some facts.

When you create monetary union, you are tying a whole group of countries with different currencies together. Some nations will have their old currency overvalued, and some undervalued.

Germany had its currency undervalued when it joined the Euro. As a consequence exports were cheaper, and the German economy boomed.

Countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy had their currencies overvalued when they joined the Euro. As a consequence their exports were more expensive. A single interest rate created further problems, since it set interest rates too low to control (for example) the Spanish credit bubble.

So there has to be a mechanism (fiscal transfer) to move the money from the nations who benefit from the currency (Germany) to the ones who don't (the PIIGS). But, since there isn't a fiscal union there is no fiscal transfer mechanism. So the first major stress test of the Euro - this global banking/liquidity/etc crisis - has ripped it apart and revealed its fundamental flaws.

Without convergence of the economies before they joined the Euro, the scheme was destined to fail. But the PIIGS joined the Euro for political reasons, not economic ones.

The Euro was a political tool to force convergence but it has failed. And there were a great many people warning that without fiscal union monetary union would fail. And it has failed, and millions are having their lives ruined. Ruined because the EU played politics with their lives.

Loving the way you believe that an individual nation's mismanagement of its own economy is somehow someone else's fault.

It would certainly be the sole fault of the politicians if they had access to the tools to improve the productivity of their economy, such as altering interest rates and cutting the exchange rate.

Their problem was that they were tied in to a system where they could never become more productive than Germany.

A recent YouGov/Sun poll puts those who don't want membership (and therefore withdrawal) at 26% - which isn't a 'majority' the last time I checked:

^d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/39lzsuywij/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-EU-090712.pdf^

Classing 26% as a majority is either the mark of an imbecile or a liar.

Which are you?

It's a bit of a shame that you didn't pay a tiny bit more attention to that poll. If you read question 7 on page 3 - which is the important question here, not the one you plucked out - you'll note that only 31% want to remain a member of the EU and 48% want to leave - with 17% "don't know" and 4% 'wouldn't vote'.

That's a majority.

So how does it feel being the disposable cannon fodder of the establishment cabal? Are the parties good? Sorry, soirees. Maybe they can give you some 'facts' for your next post.

somebloke

Yes, the Commission is the executive branch, but what is an executive branch? It's the branch that administers the state.

The Commission is responsible for drafting European Union law and in theory has a monopoly and independence over instigating legislation. They deal with day-to-day running of the EU and uphold law and treaties. Whilst they have Commissioners ultimately responsible for specific areas and therefore resemble ministers, they are in fact bound by existing legislation as ultimately agreed by member nations in the Council. They don't have the authority to busk it and make policy on the fly like our ministers do.

Commissioners can't be got rid of? Wrong. Commissioners can be got rid of - the European Parliament forced the mass resignation in 1999.

Marta Andreasen's case is a curate's egg. She has a long history of falling out with employers for not following procedure (even Nigel Farage has fallen out with her now), so whilst on balance I think she was forced out there is a strong element of doubt. Unfortunately, as far as whistle blowing goes, I can't think of any organisation that ends up smelling of roses. The NHS is absolutely shocking in its treatment of whistleblowers and needs to change - but I don't think that's reason enough to call for its extinction.

Demos - give it up. It doesn't matter how much eurosceptic pixie dust you try to sprinkle over it, it isn't going to change its meaning to what you want it to mean. A demos is an electorate. Full stop.

Constitutions - it's interesting that you use the US as your example. American obsession with the fixed nature of their Constitution is a very real issue for their society.

Sovereignty - you post a link to the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-wing think tank that has most recently made a name for itself in suggesting the introduction of summary dismissals of British workers. If I posted a link to Europa you'd laugh at me.

Noel Malcolm's essay is interesting, but clearly rooted in an archaic historical view and apart from a fleeting reference to NATO makes absolutely no mention of the effects on sovereignty of international treaties or other major international bodies (as well as ignoring any cost-benefit analysis - it just obsesses on the 'cost'). Like I said earlier, I've got respect for people who have an absolutist attitude to sovereignty and who don't pick and choose which groups and treaties they sign up for. I just haven't met many people like that.

flatpackhamster

You said, and I quote:

"The people who don't want membership are the majority of the general public."

Let's play your game?

?you claim that 48% is 'a majority'. 48% is not a majority. You were talking about people who don't want membership. On that basis, you haven't got to a majority.

Of course, you're trying to spin what you actually said into a different question, which is why you are now trying to bundle in 'don't knows'.

And you are, of course, cherry-picking a specific question from the poll that you weren't originally referring to, which forces a binary choice on the electorate - "If there was a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?"

48% vote to leave when forced to pick from an in-or-out choice. A high percentage. But in any case, 48% is still not a 'majority'

Now let's play my game...

?giving people a fully open choice, the question on p1 asks the following:

People hold different views about how they would like to see the European Union develop. Which of these statements comes closest to your view?

Those answering "Complete British withdrawal from the European Union"? = 26%

26% is not a majority.

Page 3 asks the question "Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms.
How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?

Those answering "Would vote for Britain to leave the European Union"? = 34%

34% is not a majority.

It's clear that out of all the different categories of opinion, most people favour a redefinition of membership, NOT the rejection of membership that you claim they do.

In summary, whether we play your game or mine, you're still wrong in saying that the majority of the British people don't want membership of the EU. The fact that you tried to run this past AND not cough to being found out shows that you are a liar when it comes to debate about the European Union. You're in great company, of course - people like Nigel Farage and Dan Hannon lie their socks off about everything EU-related they can get their hands on, and are routinely supported by huge chunks of the British media in the long-term aim to bounce the British people into being turkeys that vote for Christmas.

No matter - you're still a mendacious liar, and cannot be trusted.
We are done here.

Renegotiation is not an option, as anyone with an ounce of understanding of the EU would know. There is a binary choice here, in or out. Cameron wants to pretend there's a 'third way', but there isn't.

We clearly are done, since your sole interest is in arguing about a percentage in a single poll. I was hoping you might bring some of those much-vaunted 'facts' about the EU, but, for the third time of asking, you've failed to do so. I can only conclude that you don't really understand the subject, which is, I'm sure, why you're in favour of membership.