Should we be offered a referendum on the EU?

[TopGun]

 

If you think our MP's expenses were horrific, wait until details of MEP's are leaked.

 

I'd have to agree with that but that doesn't fundamentally make the EU a bad proposition. Corrupt individuals exist in all walks of life.

 

However, it is interesting to note that the two British MEPs convicted of fraud are both UKIP! Ashley Mote was sentenced to nine months porridge in 2007 for benefit fraud and Tom Wise is currently looking at seven years for expenses fraud.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exukip-mep-faces-jail-over-expenses-scam-1815745.html

[Shandy_Top_89]

I think a lot of people take what is said out of context here.

 

Firstly everyone has made a valid point, those for and against often have very good well considered reasons to feel the way they do. However there will be a mass amount of uninformed voting on base principles, and regardless of whether or not all the pros and cons are listed by the government in event of a referendum chances are people will still ignore it and make an uninformed decision on their gut instinct.

 

Personally i think swannymeres test idea would be perfect in a situation like this, because it would ensure that those voting on the issue are totally aware of the consequences positive or negative. On whether or not im for it myself i am unsure, it depends on if it has our best interests (economic, social, democratic) at heart. As much as i am fond of our history as a nation, these decisions concern the future and the two should be separated, if merging into a European super state would benefit us im all for it. However this treaty is still a minor step towards that and its importance is being over hyped. The enthusiasm of people over the interests of the country on this board has impressed me, however there are others who would vote blind (*see the BNP and part of their vote).

 

Also we should be offered a referendum on principle, but if neither party is offering it there is no chance we are going to get it.

[Saint George]

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.

 

So what you going to do about it ?

[Saintandy666]

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.

 

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

[Johnny Bognor]

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.

 

Remember that the same party claimed that it had put an end to boom and bust, proclaimed to have saved the world as well as offering the nation a clear choice between Labour investment vs cuts. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[hypochondriac]

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

 

Have you actually read what it is? You are very wrong I am afraid

[Saintandy666]

Have you actually read what it is? You are very wrong I am afraid

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

Read the posts by greg hill for more details.

[greg_hill]

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.

 

First of all I'd be interested to know what your source of information on the Lisbon Treaty, given that the documents itself is heterogenous and most MEPs have not read it. Are you by any chance relying on wikipedia? I find it a bit rich that you present yourself as having summarised such a beast in a couple of platitudes.

 

Now, let's actually look at three pillars of sovereignty:

 

The head of state. Our monarch is still head of our armed services and has executive refusal on any public bill. The Lisbon treaty pushes further towards an EU army and the EU take legislation away from our own electorate, thereby avoiding our own executive. We are signing away powers from our sovereign of centuries.

 

The elected legislative. You say the EUP is "more democratic" but it is still denied legislative initiative. I think you would be very hard pressed to describe any system as "democratic" that does not include legislative initiative to the people whoa re actually elected by popular vote.

 

The courts. The EU supreme court is now well established and although right now it only "advises" on law, none of of courts will refuse them and ultimately the EU Supreme Court will reign. Do you remember the Spanish trawler case about fifteen years ago? The Lords were defeated by the EU.

 

I trust that is a pretty decent explanation of why we are signing away sovereignty. What worries me as well as how easily some people are swallowing EU nonsense is how little people appreciate what we are signing away. For all our faults, Britain has one of the best constitutions in the world. No other major country has gone for so long without coup, civil war or mutiny. We're taking a unique system that has evolved and been fought for for a long, long time, and signing it away without a fight. I just hope we wake up before our rights to withdrawal are signed away, too.

[Thedelldays]

this is a sad sad time for our great country

[Wiltshire Saint]

this is a sad sad time for our great country

 

I agree. Those twins should have been voted off X factor ages ago.

[Manuel]

So if we agree that the problem with referendums is that the public are too ill informed and ignorant about the relevant issues to vote sensibly, that no matter how many leaflets you post or debates you air on the tv, people will instead latch on to a single issue, which they've probably gleaned from the front page of the Sun. So what do you do about it?

 

Perhaps we should have some sort of issues-knowledge test before you are allowed to cast your vote, to ensure that only those who are well informed about the facts are allowed to voice their opinion. This would lessen the impact of tabloids manipulating the public and ensure that only those who understand what they're voting for get to have a say. This wouldn't be an intelligence test, most of the facts of the matter are usually pretty straight forward, it's just a case of informing yourself, then proving you're informed so that your opinion is valid. We should do this in general elections too.

[Saintandy666]

First of all I'd be interested to know what your source of information on the Lisbon Treaty, given that the documents itself is heterogenous and most MEPs have not read it. Are you by any chance relying on wikipedia? I find it a bit rich that you present yourself as having summarised such a beast in a couple of platitudes.

 

Now, let's actually look at three pillars of sovereignty:

 

The head of state. Our monarch is still head of our armed services and has executive refusal on any public bill. The Lisbon treaty pushes further towards an EU army and the EU take legislation away from our own electorate, thereby avoiding our own executive. We are signing away powers from our sovereign of centuries.

 

The elected legislative. You say the EUP is "more democratic" but it is still denied legislative initiative. I think you would be very hard pressed to describe any system as "democratic" that does not include legislative initiative to the people whoa re actually elected by popular vote.

 

The courts. The EU supreme court is now well established and although right now it only "advises" on law, none of of courts will refuse them and ultimately the EU Supreme Court will reign. Do you remember the Spanish trawler case about fifteen years ago? The Lords were defeated by the EU.

 

I trust that is a pretty decent explanation of why we are signing away sovereignty. What worries me as well as how easily some people are swallowing EU nonsense is how little people appreciate what we are signing away. For all our faults, Britain has one of the best constitutions in the world. No other major country has gone for so long without coup, civil war or mutiny. We're taking a unique system that has evolved and been fought for for a long, long time, and signing it away without a fight. I just hope we wake up before our rights to withdrawal are signed away, too.

 

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!

[hypochondriac]

saintandy you are wrong, and no amount of politics lessons are going to convince me otherwise. Try to take on board the points that greg hill has made. He is clearly extremely knowledgeable on the subject.

[Saintandy666]

saintandy you are wrong, and no amount of politics lessons are going to convince me otherwise. Try to take on board the points that greg hill has made. He is clearly extremely knowledgeable on the subject.

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

And I'm allowed to call your opinion completely wrong.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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!

 

If that's your view fine. However we were never consulted on it. The Irish were and voted against, only to be told to vote again. That is how the EU works. The French & Dutch voted against the constituation, so they amended it slightly and denied them a second vote. The Irish voted against it, so they were told to vote again.

 

Why is it the Pro Europeans are always against referendums, if they're convinved they're right, then put it to the people. They wont because they know they'll lose, so they edge ever closer to federal Europe by stealth.

[Saintandy666]

And I'm allowed to call your opinion completely wrong.

 

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

[Saintandy666]

If that's your view fine. However we were never consulted on it. The Irish were and voted against, only to be told to vote again. That is how the EU works. The French & Dutch voted against the constituation, so they amended it slightly and denied them a second vote. The Irish voted against it, so they were told to vote again.

 

Why is it the Pro Europeans are always against referendums, if they're convinved they're right, then put it to the people. They wont because they know they'll lose, so they edge ever closer to federal Europe by stealth.

 

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.

[View From The Top]

It should just be a simple yes/no referendum on one question.

 

Should we stay in the EU?

[Saintandy666]

It should just be a simple yes/no referendum on one question.

 

Should we stay in the EU?

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

There is no chance we will ever get this in a referendum. IF we ever got a referendum (which I strongly doubt) then it will be worded in such a wa as to make it confusing at best and strongly favouring the pro lobby.

[View From The Top]

There is no chance we will ever get this in a referendum. IF we ever got a referendum (which I strongly doubt) then it will be worded in such a wa as to make it confusing at best and strongly favouring the pro lobby.

 

That would depend on who is in power.

[hypochondriac]

That would depend on who is in power.

 

Well I can't see a scenario in the next ten years where it won't be one of Labour of Tory (or maybe Lib Dem.) If it is one of them that my original point stands.

[Saintandy666]

There is no chance we will ever get this in a referendum. IF we ever got a referendum (which I strongly doubt) then it will be worded in such a wa as to make it confusing at best and strongly favouring the pro lobby.

 

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...

[hypochondriac]

So once again, just because the majority of the people want us to do something which some consider to be bad, that isn't a reason not to have a referendum. With regards to the EU, if accepting this and other hoops we must jump through to stay in the EU, then I would rather we were out of it. I would like to stay in but retain many of the rights that have been eroded.

 

As someone has already mentioned, I want us to be in the position we were with Thatcher. I want a healthy relationship with Europe but I consider it wrong that we must subsidise smaller nations and that criminals can go to Europe to get our judgements overturned.

[View From The Top]

Well I can't see a scenario in the next ten years where it won't be one of Labour of Tory (or maybe Lib Dem.) If it is one of them that my original point stands.

 

If the tories called a referendum they would have to allow members to vote with their consciences (if tories posses such a thing) to avoid ripping the party apart and would therefore have to crouch the question in very neutral terms.

[View From The Top]

So once again, just because the majority of the people want us to do something which some consider to be bad, that isn't a reason not to have a referendum. With regards to the EU, if accepting this and other hoops we must jump through to stay in the EU, then I would rather we were out of it. I would like to stay in but retain many of the rights that have been eroded.

 

As someone has already mentioned, I want us to be in the position we were with Thatcher. I want a healthy relationship with Europe but I consider it wrong that we must subsidise smaller nations and that criminals can go to Europe to get our judgements overturned.

 

Could you please supply evidence of the latter point.

[Saintandy666]

If the tories called a referendum they would have to allow members to vote with their consciences (if tories posses such a thing) to avoid ripping the party apart and would therefore have to crouch the question in very neutral terms.

 

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

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...

 

The European project in a nutshell. Deny the "Peasants" a vote, because they'll vote the wrong way. Even when they are given a vote, as the Dutch, French and Irish found out they'll find a way to rail road their plans through anyway.

[greg_hill]

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.

 

You don't think effecting arguably the biggest change since Cromwell to the power of our monarch, our politcos, our borders and our system of law falls under 'constitution' then?

 

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...

 

Why do you think leaving the EU would be disastrous? We need to discuss this because it's yet another received wisdom from the pro EU groups that has never been substantiated. Does anyone see Norway and Switzerland sinking into oblivion? Did they struggle more or less than us in the recession? Have they been made the Pariahs of Europe? Has Lundekvan or Coretese been kicked out of the UK?

[Under Weststand]

The European project in a nutshell. Deny the "Peasants" a vote, because they'll vote the wrong way. Even when they are given a vote, as the Dutch, French and Irish found out they'll find a way to rail road their plans through anyway.

That it the problem in a nutshell for me, I think we need to stay in the European community, but still retain our own identity, but what you've described the way when you do vote against something, its then twisted & changed slightly & then pushed through the back door. Meaning your vote however well informed is worthless. Is that what all our forefathers fought for, to give you a vote that means nothing. Surely we as citizens are entitled to vote on something that takes away the country's ability to manage its self,as it see fit. Shanndy666 your right we cannot have a referendum on all policy change, we VOTE to elect politicians, to represent us upon what they promise, pledge in their manifesto's. Now the Government of this country pledged in their Manifesto that the voters of this country would have a referendum on this particular issue. So I'm rightly aggrieved that I cannot make an informed choice on the Lisbon treaty & then as PROMISED by the Elected government make an informed decision & then make my VOTE on said Treaty. If there is nothing to fear from this treaty, why oh why are they trying to push this through the back door, & not excepting nation's NO vote's.

[Eastcowzer]

'IN' or 'OUT'. If you have'nt made up your mind by now, then no amount of spin, from either side, is likely to change your mind.

[Saintandy666]

You don't think effecting arguably the biggest change since Cromwell to the power of our monarch, our politcos, our borders and our system of law falls under 'constitution' then?

 

 

 

Why do you think leaving the EU would be disastrous? We need to discuss this because it's yet another received wisdom from the pro EU groups that has never been substantiated. Does anyone see Norway and Switzerland sinking into oblivion? Did they struggle more or less than us in the recession? Have they been made the Pariahs of Europe? Has Lundekvan or Coretese been kicked out of the UK?

 

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

 

As pro EU, do you think it's right that the Irish were told to vote and vote again, until they gave the right response?

[Saintandy666]

As pro EU, do you think it's right that the Irish were told to vote and vote again, until they gave the right response?

 

No, I disagree with that. The Irish should not have been made to vote a second time.