Posted: Feb 12, 2019 1:35 pm
The first reading of the EU Referendum Act was in May 2015 before the proposal date you gave, so unlikely that the tax directive was the reason.
Tax regulations were perhaps symptomatic of the issue but may not be the source as such. The Euro crisis highlighted the need for further integration and regulation among all member states, that would require bring the city closer to the ECB. Think there had been an attempt to force Euro clearing from London into a Euro zone state, which failed in the courts, but the trajectory of change was there. The opt out the UK had to remain out of the Euro would I guess, depending on the changes required, at some point become detrimental through divergence in economic policy. There was talk of direct financial transfers for example.
Any treaty changes would be an issue following Cameron's introduced of a legislative lock to hold a referendum on any further EU treaty. At some point there was going to be a political crisis with that in place.
There is also an argument that Euro crisis created high unemployed in the euro zone and resulted in immigration increases to the UK where work was plentiful. This perception of mass immigration and the effect on wages became a catalyst for the domestic political pressures to increase to do something.
Migrant crisis in 2012 is another. Highly pressured heart breaking circumstances, but the rules do apply in the EU and yet Merkel, lets be honest, was able to unilaterally change the rules to open the border then close it in a deal with Turkey.
The pressure UKIP were exerting on the political status quo feed off that.
It was likely a range of events peculiar to the UK's half in half out status, that got us to the point of the referendum.
Tax regulations were perhaps symptomatic of the issue but may not be the source as such. The Euro crisis highlighted the need for further integration and regulation among all member states, that would require bring the city closer to the ECB. Think there had been an attempt to force Euro clearing from London into a Euro zone state, which failed in the courts, but the trajectory of change was there. The opt out the UK had to remain out of the Euro would I guess, depending on the changes required, at some point become detrimental through divergence in economic policy. There was talk of direct financial transfers for example.
Any treaty changes would be an issue following Cameron's introduced of a legislative lock to hold a referendum on any further EU treaty. At some point there was going to be a political crisis with that in place.
There is also an argument that Euro crisis created high unemployed in the euro zone and resulted in immigration increases to the UK where work was plentiful. This perception of mass immigration and the effect on wages became a catalyst for the domestic political pressures to increase to do something.
Migrant crisis in 2012 is another. Highly pressured heart breaking circumstances, but the rules do apply in the EU and yet Merkel, lets be honest, was able to unilaterally change the rules to open the border then close it in a deal with Turkey.
The pressure UKIP were exerting on the political status quo feed off that.
It was likely a range of events peculiar to the UK's half in half out status, that got us to the point of the referendum.