View From The Top Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 With the Lisbon Treaty now in force and the British people being denied the right to vote on it, should the Tories offer, if/when they come to power a referendum on remaining in the EU? Surely it would settle arguments one way or another, once and for all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 We'd only waste it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 November, 2009 We'd only waste it. That's a fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 I think there should be a referendum. However, the spin from opposing sides would be so concentrated it would be hard for most of us to make a decision. I'd vote to come out because I'm fed up with a lot of the strange rulings being forced on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 Of course we should, at the moment we are being bulldozed into a European super state and no one even knows if it's what the British people want. More Labour lies making a mockery of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 I'd vote to come out because I'm fed up with a lot of the strange rulings being forced on us. Which ones, ESB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 November, 2009 More Labour lies All Tories are upright citizens whom we can all trust. Yes siree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 I think there should be a referendum. However, the spin from opposing sides would be so concentrated it would be hard for most of us to make a decision. I'd vote to come out because I'm fed up with a lot of the strange rulings being forced on us. Well, if you want to go back to the world of the bent cucumber then more fool you. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 (edited) There should be a test on the Lisbon treaty, those that score over 75% should be allowed to vote wether we should implement it or not. Almost everybody seems to have an opinion but hardly anybody seems to have a clue what it's actually about! Edited 6 November, 2009 by swannymere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 It's pathetic that we haven't been given a vote on it. It's the main reason why I'm not voting labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 All Tories are upright citizens whom we can all trust. Yes siree. I don't think anyone said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 Which ones, ESB? Gimme a bit of time on that one mate. It would be crass to just quote 'straight bananas' now, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 Gimme a bit of time on that one mate. It would be crass to just quote 'straight bananas' now, wouldn't it? The measurements thing was irritating, because people were getting on fine as they were and now it's more confusing because there is now a mixture of the 2. One thing that riles me is that you can get convicted in Britain and then get it overturned by appealing to the european court of human rights. What's that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 It makes an utter mockery of democracy that we don't What a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 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. Go back and read the labour election manifesto and then say that it's no big deal. It's a huge deal because it makes a mockery of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 5 November, 2009 Share Posted 5 November, 2009 Go back and read the labour election manifesto and then say that it's no big deal. It's a huge deal because it makes a mockery of democracy. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 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. It is virtually the same thing with little changed but the wording. It will end up the same anyway and it will all be done without anyone actually voting on it. It's a heinous abuse of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 It is virtually the same thing with little changed but the wording. It will end up the same anyway and it will all be done without anyone actually voting on it. It's a heinous abuse of power. 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Since when did our political system involve electing a government who will then hold an election every time a significant decision has to be made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Since when did our political system involve electing a government who will then hold an election every time a significant decision has to be made? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 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). If someone does not believe that this is labour just trying to push through the reforms they wanted with the constitution through the backdoor without a democratic process then they are deluded. It stinks and if you read up on the hideous corruption involved with the EU then you would think twice before strengthening Britain's ties with it. The negatives most definitely outweigh the positives as far as England is concerned. It's one of the biggest threats to this nation than there has been for a long time. In some ways. I can see why people are voting BNP when labour just lie and ignore the British public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Since when did our political system involve electing a government who will then hold an election every time a significant decision has to be made? Read the manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 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. It's not everything like this though. It's one of the most important democratic decisions with regards to Europe that there has been since Thatcher and labour has shamelessly lied to get it through. It's a travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 It's not everything like this though. It's one of the most important democratic decisions with regards to Europe that there has been since Thatcher and labour has shamelessly lied to get it through. It's a travesty. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 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. That's a ludicrous reason to not have a referendum. Maybe explain what it is in detail beforehand so that people are more informed? The average person is an ass who will only moan once it is too late. I want England to retain the independence it has fought for, not give it away to some European superstate to spend our money as it sees fit and to overturn our laws on a whim. I know you're young so may not appreciate the seriousness of it (and that isn't meant to be patronising btw, I didn't give 2 ****s at your age.) but believe me it's a massive consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 That's a ludicrous reason to not have a referendum. Maybe explain what it is in detail beforehand so that people are more informed? The average person is an ass who will only moan once it is too late. I want England to retain the independence it has fought for, not give it away to some European superstate to spend our money as it sees fit and to overturn our laws on a whim. I know you're young so may not appreciate the seriousness of it (and that isn't meant to be patronising btw, I didn't give 2 ****s at your age.) but believe me it's a massive consideration. I completely agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 I completely agree But of course they won't outline it all in detail because they know they would lose. It stinks. I don't know if anyone else saw this last week but it made my blood boil. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8329425.stm Just one of many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 This will be another little push for the likes of the BNP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_hill Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 We've just had a thread on this. Yes of course we should have a referendum, since it involves an almost complete overhaul of our constitution. Strange rulings forced upon us - we now abide by a constitution, sorry I mean "treaty" that has not been fully read by the people who signed it and involves laws being passed by politicians we have never heard of from countries like Greece and Portugal. EU accountants have been rejected by auditors for many years in a row. The elected chamber has no legislative initiative. Most countries have been refused a referendum. Most people don't understand how the EU works. MEPs have been filmed signing in and sodding off to claim expenses en-masse. We now spend billions on EU funds that go to other countries when our own health service is in such a mess. The threat that we'd be ruined without the EU did not help us or any other nation during the economic collapse. There was no coherent or organised plan whatsoever. Every president and PM scrambled to save their own. When the Irish voted 'no' the EU simply ignored it, then used tax payers money to bankroll a second referendum. The council of ministers has a whole bunch of nasty characters. The transport minister was convicted of embezzlement. Estonian Siim Kallos was convicted for giving false information and is now in charge of fighting fraud in the EU! The list goes on. Think about it: we only just managed to expose our own MPs committing a pretty basic act of fraud thanks to a well developed constitution that allowed the press and the police to bring about the exposure, even when the MPs tried hard to block it. Just think what they'll be doing up in the EU, safe in the knowledge that most people don't have a clue how it works, let alone how to catch them out. Why else would they push ahead so fast without letting the people have a say? The Lisbon treaty transfers our sovereignty, and that is a constitution, regardless of whatever names it's given. And don't believe David Cameron, he never intended to give us a say and he knows full well his pledge of a referendum on further changes is a total lie because the treaty already has the right to amendments written into it. In other words, it's self amending. Cameron is actively deceiving people in the arrogant belief that he's already won the next election. The only thing any small 'c' conservatives can do now is to vote anyone but Conservative. Vote Popular Alliance, UKIP, vote Green, vote Monster Raving Loony. Vote anyone but Tory. If that bunch of fraudsters lose one more election, they'll be finished and we can put real conservatives in their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Firstly I agree with Ponty in the fact that a referendum would be wasted on the majority as it would probably end up in a No vote for no good reason other than the "We should remain British" type sentiment. Why do people in this country think that anytime we get involved in Europe it's the case that all the other countries on the continent are there to gang up on Britain and start meddling in our affairs to our detriment? We are all equally signing this treaty and Britain still remains a powerful force in Europe regardless. There are enough people moaning about MP's and political parties by our citizens yet when they hear someone in Brussels might be making a decision there is outrage. Maybe they will be better at it and improve our daily lives? Time to move on and away from our island mentality if you ask me, there are many admirable qualities we can learn from our neighbours on the continent and I for one and happy to be a little closer to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Firstly I agree with Ponty in the fact that a referendum would be wasted on the majority as it would probably end up in a No vote for no good reason other than the "We should remain British" type sentiment. Why do people in this country think that anytime we get involved in Europe it's the case that all the other countries on the continent are there to gang up on Britain and start meddling in our affairs to our detriment? We are all equally signing this treaty and Britain still remains a powerful force in Europe regardless. There are enough people moaning about MP's and political parties by our citizens yet when they hear someone in Brussels might be making a decision there is outrage. Maybe they will be better at it and improve our daily lives? Time to move on and away from our island mentality if you ask me, there are many admirable qualities we can learn from our neighbours on the continent and I for one and happy to be a little closer to them. Personally I can never trust the French, hiding in their wine cellers whilst we bailed them out against the Germans (see also Belgians). The Spanish are lazy and work shy (see also Italians and Portugeeze). Eastern Europe want subsidies and access to our benefits systems. I trust none of them, they have different cultures, languages and values to us. I'm proud to be British, we have a fantastic history in war/ medicine/ sport/ engineering and welfare to it's citizens. This small Island once had a 1/3 of the World under it's Sovereignty and that influence benefitted many nations and can still be felt in India and the Caribbian today. To not want to be part of a European State without being asked first does not mke me ill informed or small minded, patriotism seems to be a dirty word these days with accusations of racism thrown around at anyone that dares says they are proud of our nation and it's history. I don't want to dillute that by being "european". Watched the excellent BBC documentory on Churchill earlier this week, the full speach "we will fight them on the beaches" and the context in which it was in made me incredibly proud of our fighting Island mentality, one which whilst people that fought in that war are still alive, we should be proud of - not ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Firstly I agree with Ponty in the fact that a referendum would be wasted on the majority as it would probably end up in a No vote for no good reason other than the "We should remain British" type sentiment. Why do people in this country think that anytime we get involved in Europe it's the case that all the other countries on the continent are there to gang up on Britain and start meddling in our affairs to our detriment? We are all equally signing this treaty and Britain still remains a powerful force in Europe regardless. There are enough people moaning about MP's and political parties by our citizens yet when they hear someone in Brussels might be making a decision there is outrage. Maybe they will be better at it and improve our daily lives? Time to move on and away from our island mentality if you ask me, there are many admirable qualities we can learn from our neighbours on the continent and I for one and happy to be a little closer to them. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 There should be a test on the Lisbon treaty, those that score over 75% should be allowed to vote wether or not we should implement it or not. Almost everybody seems to have an opinion but hardly anybody seems to have a clue what it's actually about! Spot on. A sheep mentality that bleats: Immigrants steal our jobs They're devious johnny foreigners The pound is British We're English/British and don't need them Up yours Delors And that's about as sophisticated as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_hill Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Spot on. A sheep mentality that bleats: Immigrants steal our jobs They're devious johnny foreigners The pound is British We're English/British and don't need them Up yours Delors And that's about as sophisticated as it gets. Excuse me, did you read my previous post? Did you see any of your stereotyped statements in there? I've given reasons why we should at least take a vote on it, others have responded with 'Little Englander' type insults whilst, ironically, failing to offer a single sensible argument for staying in or even giving a sensible opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Well, this is what I think: There is little point in a referendum as 1. The turn out would be pathetically low 2. People are not well enough informed to make a sensible decision. There is not a clear enough dialogue about the pro's and con's of being part of the EU. For my part, I am divided on the EU issue. There is much that the EU do that I dislike. Namely is the idea that the EU is an organisation that has been designed for the benefit of big business. The closer economic links created by the EU do not benefit the individual per se, they benefit large multi national companies. The EU protects industries in the region to the detriment of others. It is a mechanism of keeping poor countries poor by excluding them from trade and the support it gives its own farmers and indurstries give them an even greater advantage over producers in the poorer parts of the world. That is fine from a selfish point of view, but in terms of generating world equality, the EU does more harm than good. That becomes a problem because there is a link between poverty and desperation and terrorism. World citizens who suffer as a result of the actions of the developed world may become disillusioned with the whole economic system and look to change that through the limited means at their disposal. However, if we look at Britains influence and economic power I think it is obvious that this is on the decline and has been for some time. we are about to be overtaken in terms of economic and political power by the likes of India, China and Russia. There are some nations emerging that we simply cannot compete with. This is true of many other European countries. The Lisbon treaty will allow us work together much more closely and compete with these nations. A giant EU superstate may well be what is needed. Anyone suggesting that Britain withdraw from the EU has not thought through the implications of the changing world order and the implications that has for our future. Added to that, issues such as world poverty, climate change, environmental protection and so on need consensus for any meaningful action to take place and closer working relations will encourage that to happen. We are more likely to reach agreement as a "superstate" than we are individually. We are also more likely to be able to influence America and China if we stand united than if we approach such issues individually. So basically, I am unsure of what the right approach to Europe is. I feel a tradition of opposition, not from a xenophobic point of view or from any idea of Britishness, but from an equality point of view. But, in the face of a changing world I recognise that we must also change. We are not going to end globalisation, it a process well embedded in our society. We can only use it to our advantage, and that invloves strength in unity. Or not. I don't know actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 6 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 November, 2009 I'm comfortable with European integration, right of work etc, it's the EU institutions that I dislike and mistrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Using the fact that people are not well enough informed to make a sensible decision as a reason not to have a referendum is nonsense. It's up to the government to make sure the information is out there. It's not the joining the EU that has annoyed me about this in particular, it's more the arrogant Labour government once again making a mockery of democracy. The country obviously was against the war - Labour go and butcher thousands of people anyway. The country is obviously, at best, devided over Europe - labour ignore that and launch straight into a European superstate regardless. Add this to the MP's expenses (now going to give themselves a pay rise against public opinion) and the money that are throwing at the banks and you realize why people feel so helpless, democracy seens so pointless and why people vote for the BNP out of frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Spot on. A sheep mentality that bleats: Immigrants steal our jobs They're devious johnny foreigners The pound is British We're English/British and don't need them Up yours Delors And that's about as sophisticated as it gets. So when I put legitimate reasons as to why this is a bad idea, is that me being a sheep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 saying people would not understand or would not vote is a disgusting attitude.. it would be up to the powers at be to MAKE all the information published here there and everywhere...this constitution is MASSIVE....and yet, we can decide which bland MP will be the new PM but not on an issue like this.. I would guess that a vote on this constitution would bring a high turn out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 So when I put legitimate reasons as to why this is a bad idea, is that me being a sheep? yes..because you dont have the same opinion as him....it happens all the time on the main board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 saying people would not understand or would not vote is a disgusting attitude.. it would be up to the powers at be to MAKE all the information published here there and everywhere...this constitution is MASSIVE....and yet, we can decide which bland MP will be the new PM but not on an issue like this.. I would guess that a vote on this constitution would bring a high turn out That's my exact point. The real reason they won't have one is because er they would lose and I would imagine by a substantial margin. Far better to do it on the quiet and sneak in through the back door. Even if the treaty was wonderful and for our benefit, labour promised to let us have our say and they have just blatently lied. It's scandalous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 I really dislike the implication that people who vote against this do not know anything about it. Labour should tell people the benefits and we should then be able to weigh it up against the negatives to make up our own minds. It's the same with the BNP debate, unite against facism didn't want the BNP appearing because they thought it would cause mass rioting. Bonnie Greer gave the British public more credit than that and I would like to think that we could give credit to the majority here should they bother to vote. Besides, democracy is about letting everyone have a voice, however idiotic you are and you can't just refuse to let people vote because you won't like the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 The European Constitution was rewritten after the French and Dutch voted no to it. In most European Countries and by the people who wrote it, is agreed that the Lisbon treaty is 90% the same document. However, to get out of their manifesto commitment the Labour Government claim it is not, and their lemming like back benchers rammed this through Parliament. The Irish constitution guanenteed a referendum, and the "Treaty" was defeated. Was this the end of the matter ? No, that's not the way things are done in the EU, they were told "they've got it wrong" vote again.This tells you all you need to know about the EU and the way we're slowly but surely being sucked into a super state by stealth. The only reason Mandelson propped up Brown in the summer, was because a new leader would have to have called an election (to have 2 unelected Prime Ministers after Blair promised to serve a full 3rd term, would have been too much for the British people to stomach) and the Tories would have had time to hold the promised referendum before all countries had ratified the Treaty. Mandleson is a federalist at heart and federalists put the EU needs above that of our Country, leaving us stuck with a lame duck Prime Minister. The Tories, despite the pro Eu BBC trying to spin it as a U turn, cannot hold a referendum once it was ratified. You can not go back and renegotiate an Eu treaty once it's enforced in law, without the agreement of every country. Any referendum would be pointless and costly, and would change nothing. I believe that in Britain there are more people that want to leave the EU, than share the Eu establishment's vision of Europe. However, the centre ground is held by people, who want a free trade bloc, but want laws made in Westminster to supersede any made in Brussels. It can not be right, that I can be arrested in my country by a foreign police force for a crime that is not an offense in my own country. I am no BNP supporter, but Nick Griffin was right. Had he denied the Holocaust on Question time (not an offense in the UK), he could have been arrested, extradited and charged in Germany (where it is a crime) despite never having entered that Country. My view on Europe is very simple, I want what the British people voted to stay in, (back in 1975). A common market for free trade and the movement of people and goods. I do not want unelected Bureacrats making 80% of our rules, and in Ken Clarke's very own words, making Westminster like a "county council". I would rather be out, rather than in an Eu like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 There have been many views on this thread so far stating that in a democracy we should all be able to have a say. We do, when we democratically vote in a party in a general election. These people are elected to make decisions on behalf on the electorate. The policies they choose to implement from that point onwards they are trusted with. If the public were to be consulted where would you draw the line? Re-classing cannabis, hold a referendum. Lower the maximum speed limit, hold a referendum. Obviously such things as the constitution and our armed forces are far more critical but governments have made decisions on our behalf for centuries so who is to decide which topics require our say and which aren't? If, God forbid Brown was asked whether to push the button should we have an X factor type phone vote to come to a conclusion? Love them or hate them these elected people are governing us until May at least and it's impossible to say if the choices they are making are better or worse than the ones influenced by a referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 There have been many views on this thread so far stating that in a democracy we should all be able to have a say. We do, when we democratically vote in a party in a general election. These people are elected to make decisions on behalf on the electorate. The policies they choose to implement from that point onwards they are trusted with. If the public were to be consulted where would you draw the line? Re-classing cannabis, hold a referendum. Lower the maximum speed limit, hold a referendum. Obviously such things as the constitution and our armed forces are far more critical but governments have made decisions on our behalf for centuries so who is to decide which topics require our say and which aren't? If, God forbid Brown was asked whether to push the button should we have an X factor type phone vote to come to a conclusion? Love them or hate them these elected people are governing us until May at least and it's impossible to say if the choices they are making are better or worse than the ones influenced by a referendum. That's just a complete cop out. When a Party gets elected promising to hold a referendum then doesn't it is clearly deceiving the country. There is no other way of dressing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_hill Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 We do, when we democratically vote in a party in a general election. These people are elected to make decisions on behalf on the electorate. The policies they choose to implement from that point onwards they are trusted with. If the public were to be consulted where would you draw the line? Re-classing cannabis, hold a referendum. Lower the maximum speed limit, hold a referendum. Obviously such things as the constitution and our armed forces are far more critical but governments have made decisions on our behalf for centuries so who is to decide which topics require our say and which aren't? If, God forbid Brown was asked whether to push the button should we have an X factor type phone vote to come to a conclusion? Love them or hate them these elected people are governing us until May at least and it's impossible to say if the choices they are making are better or worse than the ones influenced by a referendum. Several problems with that. Firstly, Labour promised a referendum then did not deliver. Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty is, in effect, a total overhaul of our constitution and it also effectively transfers sovereignty away from our monarch who is still officially head of the armed forces, so by your own reckoning it's vitally important. Third, it's totally illogical to say it's impossible to decide politicians' choices are better or worse than a referendum. What if tomorrow they made a law saying everyone must support Portsmouth FC? Is it impossible for me or you to decide that's silly just because we are not politicians? Also, your opening paragraph is only one school of thought. Another argues for greater involvement of the electorate. Switzerland for example hold a great number of referenda. They also happen to be outside the EU. You also have the catch 22 situation: do you believe we can elect people and thereby give them the right to transfer power to people whom we didn't elect? You did not cover that at all. It also needs to be pointed out that there is a large amount of deception going on within the EU and its development, which is why they want to move ahead ASAP with referenda. Essentially, unless you believe a constitution that has been fought and worked for over centuries should be overhauled within a few years behind closed doors to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, then you cannot make a case for allowing them to go ahead with a vote. Time to move on and away from our island mentality if you ask me, there are many admirable qualities we can learn from our neighbours on the continent and I for one and happy to be a little closer to them. Could you explain what it is about the EU that makes you feel closer to your continental brothers? Do you feel closer to Saga and Bart than Claus and Cortese because the former two belong to a country that has agreed to sign a treaty nobody has read, handing over sovereignty to an elite few in the name of greater profits? What educational and cultural benefit has this given you? Are the Norwegians and Swiss little islanders, sinking into economic ruin and ignorance? 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. If I were to explain in full why this is total and utter nonsense it would take a flipping book. Indeed, it has shocked me a little to see how easily some people are taken in either by basic propaganda or just received wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 There have been many views on this thread so far stating that in a democracy we should all be able to have a say. We do, when we democratically vote in a party in a general election. These people are elected to make decisions on behalf on the electorate. The policies they choose to implement from that point onwards they are trusted with. If the public were to be consulted where would you draw the line? Re-classing cannabis, hold a referendum. Lower the maximum speed limit, hold a referendum. Obviously such things as the constitution and our armed forces are far more critical but governments have made decisions on our behalf for centuries so who is to decide which topics require our say and which aren't? If, God forbid Brown was asked whether to push the button should we have an X factor type phone vote to come to a conclusion? Love them or hate them these elected people are governing us until May at least and it's impossible to say if the choices they are making are better or worse than the ones influenced by a referendum. There was a referendum in Scotland and Wales over devolution.There was a referendum over the Belfast agreement,and Northern England assembly in Nov 2004. Labour also promised us one over the pound as well.Therefore they can not be against the prinicple of a referendum. They just seem to be against this one, because they know they'll lose. Whatever the rights and wrongs in this Country, the fact is there was one in Ireland. The fact that the EU refused to let the result stand, tells you all you need to know about that body (as does the fact that their accounts have not being signed off, for god knows how many years) If you think our MP's expenses were horrific, wait until details of MEP's are leaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petersfield Saint Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 Well, this is what I think: There is little point in a referendum as 1. The turn out would be pathetically low 2. People are not well enough informed to make a sensible decision. There is not a clear enough dialogue about the pro's and con's of being part of the EU. For my part, I am divided on the EU issue. There is much that the EU do that I dislike. Namely is the idea that the EU is an organisation that has been designed for the benefit of big business. The closer economic links created by the EU do not benefit the individual per se, they benefit large multi national companies. The EU protects industries in the region to the detriment of others. It is a mechanism of keeping poor countries poor by excluding them from trade and the support it gives its own farmers and indurstries give them an even greater advantage over producers in the poorer parts of the world. That is fine from a selfish point of view, but in terms of generating world equality, the EU does more harm than good. That becomes a problem because there is a link between poverty and desperation and terrorism. World citizens who suffer as a result of the actions of the developed world may become disillusioned with the whole economic system and look to change that through the limited means at their disposal. However, if we look at Britains influence and economic power I think it is obvious that this is on the decline and has been for some time. we are about to be overtaken in terms of economic and political power by the likes of India, China and Russia. There are some nations emerging that we simply cannot compete with. This is true of many other European countries. The Lisbon treaty will allow us work together much more closely and compete with these nations. A giant EU superstate may well be what is needed. Anyone suggesting that Britain withdraw from the EU has not thought through the implications of the changing world order and the implications that has for our future. Added to that, issues such as world poverty, climate change, environmental protection and so on need consensus for any meaningful action to take place and closer working relations will encourage that to happen. We are more likely to reach agreement as a "superstate" than we are individually. We are also more likely to be able to influence America and China if we stand united than if we approach such issues individually. So basically, I am unsure of what the right approach to Europe is. I feel a tradition of opposition, not from a xenophobic point of view or from any idea of Britishness, but from an equality point of view. But, in the face of a changing world I recognise that we must also change. We are not going to end globalisation, it a process well embedded in our society. We can only use it to our advantage, and that invloves strength in unity. Or not. I don't know actually. Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petersfield Saint Posted 6 November, 2009 Share Posted 6 November, 2009 I'm comfortable with European integration, right of work etc, it's the EU institutions that I dislike and mistrust. Which pretty much sums up how I feel too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.df4bace08d6214b24d8c04ce3795c4ef.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now