British public becomes more pro-EU in 2014

I think its inevitable we'll stay in. The EU is a complex issue and I don't think many people's view on it extend much beyond, undemocratic and essential for the economy. Things are looking up and Europe looks to be an important part of that compared to a while back where it was all over the place, and I think most people aren't willing to risk the economic security for the political side of things, the renegotiated membership question would seemingly confirm that. If people's worries over Britian's independence are calmed, its a clear in.

I think its a while before the EU issue will come to a head. I do still think ultimately we are either going to leave or be the exception. The ultimate goal is a federalised Europe, which I don't think we are ever going to be part of. When it comes to losing the pound and handing over our taxation powers, I think the political side of things will be serious enough people are willing to risk it economically, and based on projections we'll probably have a lot more clout by the time that comes around.

I am interested to see why public attitudes have become more favourable to staying in the EU this year, particularly in the period since March that has been where UKIP were dominating the headlines and there has been a rise of the right wing at the European elections.

Probably because every second story isn't about their economies continuing to implode. Not that things are great now, but they stopped getting worse at least, and PIGS probably aren't going to default and destroy what is left of the world banking system. Possibly when the recession is 5 years or so behind us people will even start talking about joining the Euro again.

What I think is much more worrying for the independence movement than the few percentage point drifts is the fact that introducing the 'renegotiation' produces such an enormous immediate shift, despite the fact that it isn't specified what, if anything, the renegotiation would provide. Pretty much no new information is added by this question yet it produces a 15ppt shift in voting intentions. That suggests most people don't really understand this issue, which makes it difficult to produce a stable majority in favour of a change to the status quo. Joining the EU would have had the same problem if we had voted on that, with a hostile government and establishment.

For that reason, and some others, I don't think Britain is going to leave the EU until the government positively desires leaving. Cameron's government next term, if it materialises, will not, and so I think the chances of leaving are negligible. On the other hand, in the next 20 years there is going to be a crunch point where Britain either has to accept joining the Eurozone and probably major concessions on criminal justice and military and foreign policy, or accept a formal associate membership status. Associate member status sounds much more probable to me.

I doubt anyone will campaign on the basis of wanting this change, but it will happen - whether the Conservatives or Labour happen to be in power at the time - and the de-facto withdrawal will happen much like the original entry, behind closed doors and without much public consultation or understanding. And when the sky is still in place the next morning most people will probably forget the EU exists.

I agree with this analysis.

I think Cameron has pulled a good trick here. He wants to stay in the EU, he knows the eurosceptics main argument is "the British people haven't been consulted", but he also knows its a complicated issue that most people won't understand. So by offering a referendum but then claiming that there's been a renegotiation that means staying in is in Britain's interests, he drastically increases the chances of a stay-in-the-EU vote in a referendum. This then makes the eurosceptic argument much harder to make in the future: they will of course argue that the referendum was a sham because the renegotiation wasn't a renegotiation but this will look like clutching at straws.

Where Cameron has possibly made a mistake is in the context of the Tory party: the party will rip itself apart over Europe and quite possibly split with the eurosceptic wing finding it unpalatable to remain in a Tory party advocating Britain staying in the EU.

But going forward I think there will be a gradual drift in the EU towards greater focus on the Eurozone countries, and those outside will inevitably have some sort of associate status which ironically is what a lot of the eurosceptics would like us to have anyway. I think to be fully in we would probably have to join the Euro and I can't see the UK being in a position where joining the Euro would be attractive, any time soon.

What Cameron I think should have done in the circumstances he actually faced is argued for staying in the EU, if he believed that. What I read from the Juncker move, though, is that Cameron really believes there's a constituency on the continent for a looser union and not just ending, but seriously reversing integration, not for a select few but for all members. If that is true, then Cameron is one of the people who simply doesn't understand what is going on. That means he can and probably will make more actions that at least appear irrational, and that makes the scenario much more difficult to predict.

I agree with that too. And I think it goes further: while associate status is the first step, since it's in everyone's interest for the change to not seem too fast or radical, if it's symbolically admitted we're not really in, do we really still want the customs union, omnilaws, and all associated baggage? Most people here - even EU supporters - seem to view that as some kind of entry fee, not a positive in itself. So if our fee leaves us standing at the door anyway, why not go EFTA like Iceland, or just bilateral trade agreements like Switzerland or South Korea?

I think that Cameron primarily wanted to rally his back benches, to go forward without a candidate was ludicrous and I think he's smart enough that if he really opposed Juncker that much then he'd have essentially selected a candidate last summer with Merkel and Hollande before the parliament selected theirs. I do agree though that he thinks there's a constituency that wants more of a trade agreement but like many skeptics on here I wonder if he makes the mistake of thinking it's larger than it is. Either that or he severely misjudged Merkel.

I'm not so sure that would occur. While laws from Brussels and protectionism miff a few people the only issue that resonates on the EU is immigration and I don't see that changing. A lot of people really overestimate how much the sovereignty stuff appeals to the electorate I feel. Of course in such a scenario the fact that we have a loose arrangement may remove the need for a referendum if it were to occur on the grounds of representative democracy but that probably could not come from the right given that they've been banging on about how undemocratic not having a referendum is.