I know it is only two pages, but I actually read everything (something I seldom do anymore on the politics board). I have to say kudos to the fact that there is no name calling amongst you guys. I wish more discussions were like this.
Also, I wish I understand what you guys were going through more. All of you have provided a great insight, but not enough for me to completely understand. But I hope things turn out for the best, whatever path that may be.
You seem to be asking for a potted summary. What a challenge! The following is offered with some sort of nod in the direction of impartiality (well at least at the start!)
It all started in the 1950s - retreat from Empire and all that. Churchill, again prime minister, realised that the UK needed trading partners. He felt that the Commonwealth countries and the USA were too distant. (In an age before the Jumbo Jet and before containerised sea transport he was right, but of course the technology has come along). He felt that we had to engage more with Europe. The European Economic Communities were set up with the UK on the sidelines, but 20 years later after a lot of bickering we went into the EEC, a decision taken by a referendum.
The trading community that was the EEC served the UK well. But it has grown by stages taking more and more powers, morphing into the EU. At every stage it is a small change. The present Lisbon Treaty will give the EU a figurehead (a president) and tidy up a mess of complex previous treaty legislation. It also gives a framework where the EU can make decisions as a majority decision - there will be no national veto. It is possible to argue that the Lisbon Treaty in itself doesn't create a state called the EU and destroy the nation states - but it is also possible to argue that it is the point of no return as no nation state can stop the subsequent drift of power to the EU. The death throes of the countries may take a decade or so, but basically that's it, they've gone.
The UK was promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Our government has reneged on this promise. The result is likely to be the UK as part of a soft-socialist Europe, and as a thank-you gift for delivering the UK trussed and helpless the likely first appointment as EU president is Tony Blair. Our Labour party is doing very badly in the polls (about 23%) but that isn't going to stop them inflicting socialist policies and a socialist president on Britain for a good few years to come.
UK popular views on the EU vary according to how you ask the question. We do like our holidays in Europe and we like Europeans. In general people in the UK don't want the Euro as a currency, and there if there were a referendum on Lisbon it would probably be rejected. The question of leaving the EU is a different one altogether. It would hurt financially. Basically people want some form of EU, but not the form we've got.
Everyone knows that once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified we are pretty much stuck with it. The Lisbon Treaty becomes the legal framework of the new EU, so there is no possibility of an opt out. If the Conservatives win the next election and hold a referendum on Lisbon then it would in fact be a referendum on leaving the EU.
The two referenda in Ireland (just over a year apart) have shown how the EU is able to sway public opinion. The recession is a big factor, but also there has been massive EU support for the yes campaign, and Ireland has in effect been told vote yes or go broke like Iceland. The power of the EU bureaucracy is immense.
Assuming Lisbon is ratified David Cameron and the Conservatives cannot go into the next election saying that they will hold a referendum on it - the EU would campaign for Labour in the UK election and the Conservatives would lose. But the Conservatives are facing the minor party UKIP in every constituency. They therefore have to offer some tough anti-European rhetoric to avoid too many votes going to UKIP. It's a balancing act - be sufficiently anti-European without provoking the EU bully boys and big money to come and campaign for their socialist friends the Labour Party.
In a way non-ratification by the Czechs would cause the Conservatives major problems as this would also provoke the EU to campaign for Labour. However in these circumstances it might backfire on the EU.
Once in power it is a different matter. I think the Conservatives would actively seek to undermine the EU in order to negotiate opt outs for Britain. At the moment upwards of 80% of Conservative party members want a referendum on EU membership, and this is a powerful force for dictating the Conservatives' decisions. I think a referendum is possible - and this would be an effective way to get EU concessions on Lisbon.
The EU is an uncontrollable monster. It is a sham democracy with accounts that haven't been signed off by the auditors for years and years. It does a lot of damage in the third world through the indefensible Common Agricultural Policy. The parliament operates as a "grand alliance" so throughout the EU most voters may have a choice of the party they vote for, but then find that it was pretty much irrelevant as all the main parties are part of the "grand alliance". However you vote you get the same party in charge! In US terms it is as if the Democrats and Republicans had made a deal to work together as one party, so you can vote for who you want but it makes no difference to the result. It is as if they've decided there will be a Democrat president for two years and a Republican for two years (which is what the EU has done for leader of the "grand alliance"). EU presidents will be appointed, not elected. It's a political fix. It is not democratic.
As a soft socialist region with sky high labour costs the EU is intrinsically uncompetitive in global markets. There is an area where politics trump economics. The EU is too big to fail - a bit like banks that are too big to fail. It will be proped up at need by enormous sums of money. The EU is doing this by stacking up future liabilities that it cannot possibly repay - but it is too big to fail. All the time the EU can expand it can stave off failure. But it is harder and harder now to see where that expansion is going to be. Maybe Turkey (lots of isues). Maybe further east (Russia will really like that). Other targets are small countries (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland).
My personal view is that I would like the UK to leave now. I think there would be costs, ie people like me would pay more tax, earn less and find prices go up. It would be messy and it would hurt a lot. If we don't we have a finite time (10 years? 20 years?) before socialist economics in the EU inevitably fail.
In the UK now the EU is the elephant in the corner. Our media is NOT full of it. We get lots more info on US politics than EU politics. As a nation we are sleepwalking.
