Saintandy666

Might have been a typo, but they should check that kind of stuff.

It isn't the biggest change, I would say joining the EU in the first place was. This treaty really isn't constitutional change, it just streamlines the EU. And yes, now we are in, much of our economy is tied into EU trade. Switzerland does well because it has its whole we are independent from everyone thing going on, I don't think we would be able to replicate that. The only way we could come out of the EU and be as powerful and rich as before would be to get closer to America, and in my opinion... America is pretty much finished as the worlds biggest power. Europe(if we join together) and China are the future.

Sopcast channel 60341

Anyone know a sopcast channel?

ZOMFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!! It all makes sense now

As Wilson did in 1975, he let people in his party make up their own minds and campaign against each other. It was either that or he lost half of his cabinet/government.

That is one of the weakenesses of referendums. The government at the time sets the question. Just look at the difference between the 1979 and 1997 questions for a scottish parliament and the difference in results. 1979: Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act to be put into effect? Yes: 51.6% No: 48.4% Turnout 63.8% This was a no vote win because of the rule that the majority of the population must vote yes(for this referendum). 1997: Do you agree that there should be a scottish parliament? Yes:74.3% No:25.7% Turnout:60.4% Obviously you can say there were other factors at play, but I think the question played a significant role. Oh and another lil fact, there has never been a referendum under a Tory government. Anyway, back to the original point, if there were to be a referendum, the British people would probably vote no and this would be disasterous for the whole of the U.K. Please don't tell me, whether you agree with the Lisbon Treaty or not, that you think being in the EU is detriment to the U.K as a whole...

I agree with this and think we are going to get this within the next 10 yearsish anyway. At least then everyone could stop bickering about it and move on.

Like I said earlier maybe there should be a referendum, I am for more use of referendums on matters of constitutional change, matters of conscience and matters that cross parties boarders. However, I am not 100% sure that this falls into any one of those categorys.

Indeed you are, but it was the way in which you said it.

I accept that he is knowledgable, but bloody hell, this is a debate... I'm allowed my opinion, however wrong you or others may think it is.

I have seen lots of stuff on it, as well as studying it in politics class for several lessons. It is literally just a streamlining treaty. The EU can't function at the moment as well as it could because it is still set up like it has only a few members, not 27! You can't have tonnes of veto powers in a bloc of 27 members or no decisions would ever be made. And yes, it does make the EU parliament more powerful which can only be a good thing. It allows them much more power on lawmaking, as well as on setting the EU budget as a whole. It takes this power from the unelected council. This treaty isn't giving the EU anymore power, but just moving it about within the organisation. For example, currently we have a 6 month rotating presidency, where one country takes it for each time period. Now, we will just have a more permenent position(2 1/2 year terms), but still no executive powers have been gained. That isn't a expansion of power(not that this position has any real power anyway), just a moving of it. If you are a supporter of the EU, you should support this treaty as it allows for the whole organisation to work more efficiently!

The description I gave is pretty much what it actually does... If you can add any other changes to my original description which support your points, please go ahead.

We aren't giving away anymore sovereignty, read what the Lisbon Treaty actually is in my first post!!!!!

Maybe there should have been a referendum, but the average person doesn't know or care about this, let alone know what the lisbon treaty stands for. People would just instantly have a europe-backlash without considering the circumstances. I'm not saying people shouldn't be against it, I'm just saying people will not necessarily consider it properly.

Exactly, we live in a representitive democracy, not a direct democracy. I understand a referendum on constitutional changes or matters of conscience or matters which cross party lines, but we elect people to represent and make decisions for us, it's too disruptive to hold a referendum for everything like this.

Maybe, but the constitution would have been starting afresh. This treaty is just a streamlining thing, which is very different to a federal europe(something I think we need to move towards a bit anyway).

That was the EU constitution which referenced to a federal europe. Now, that is something we would want a referendum on. This treaty however does not require such a referendum.

The lisbon treaty just streamlines everything. It's extremely useful because the way the EU works is still the same as it was at the beggining as a very small organisation. All it does is take away some veteos from some nations on some issues so that the large range of subjects can be debated and agreed upon. It also creates a 'President of the EU council' not a President of the EU. This new position holds no executive power and is just a spokesman for what is decided elsewhere. This replaces the rotating presidency at the moment. Similarly for the foreign minister position. It also gives more power to the EU parliament making the whole organisation MORE democratic... What is wrong with all this? No other nation except Ireland had a vote on it, simply because it's no big deal. Just a change to make the system work more efficiently. The whole thing is blown out of proportion.

To be honest, I was just stating one of the more common absurd answers they give.

Ok... the argument you get from those with religion...

The christian arguemnt you get to this is 'God moves in mysterious ways'. Now that is a joke argument.

Well, there either isn't a god or there is a god? One group is going to be wrong and one is going to be right... no arguments there. A christian might look at Hinduism for example and they can see that clearly it is 'wrong' and their religion is 'right'. In other words, they are an athiest to this religion. Why can't they see that this is how us athiests see their religion?! Along with every other one... There is no evidence for any of it at all, it's all based on faith. Religion is just a vehicle to control the masses and the source of much evil for millenia. I think we could all get on a lot better if we stopped messing about with it, and instead focused on joining together and other issues.

The night before yesterday

How much longer left?