Referedum on EU Treaty

[cashman]

lying is lying -simple as, brings no credibility to anyone in office.

[andrewb]

I don't even think he outright denied it did he? But trying to make himself not look silly is completely different to delivering or not delivering that which you were elected to do.

If you honestly believe he did lie, then can't you accept that there is a difference between to what extent you're lieing? If Peter lied how did it effect what he was elected to do? How did it effect him not upholding his election pledge once the next locals come round?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I don't even think he outright denied it did he? But trying to make himself not look silly is completely different to delivering or not delivering that which you were elected to do.

If you honestly believe he did lie, then can't you accept that there is a difference between to what extent you're lieing? If Peter lied how did it effect what he was elected to do? How did it effect him not upholding his election pledge once the next locals come round?

Cyfr its pointless try to defend PB on here I gave up a long time ago, the thing is be's big enough and ugly enough to fight his own corner, with anybody. I think what gets peoples goats on here is that he won't come on and get castigated and get slagged off for his troubles. Yet he HIS some one who is prepared to talk to anyone face to face and not when they are hiding behind a screen name, Its easy to call him the idiot in chief through a compute screen, but entirely different kettle of fish when your looking him straight in the eye. Since my account on Accy Wed was sorted out I have tried to keep out of the political angle as much as possible, because quite franky it bores the pants of me, I would much rather just stick to the knock about fun, but there are times when I can't say nothing. The bottom line is on a site like this there are people from all sides of the political divide and no matter what no body is going to change. Politics is about opinions and opinions are like eyeballs, everybodies got um (and i have cleaned that up seeing we are on a family wed site)

[shakermaker]

Getting back on thread...

I would put forward that the vast majority of people who want a referendum have not read or at least understood the Treaty. How can you have a referendum for public opinion on something when the majority haven't a clue about it?
I believe Greg Pope was entirely correct in commenting that it is wrong for people who have a negative view of Britain in Europe to use a referendum on a quite separate issue to bash Britain's European stance by proxy. It devalues the idea of a referendum and in my opinion is extremely petty.

On Question Time last night (07/03/08), Marcus Brigstocke put forward the point that it is politicians' job to understand and act upon treaties such as the one in debate on our behalf. It does not mean you do not have a voice. As Greg Pope said, if people in Hyndburn or in any other MP's constituency told their MP of their outright dislike for the treaty, then the MP would represent that in parliament.
However seeing as all this business about referenda is entirely centred around point scoring by the idiotic opposition parties; no one properly understands what they want a referendum on!!

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Getting back on thread...

I would put forward that the vast majority of people who want a referendum have not read or at least understood the Treaty. How can you have a referendum for public opinion on something when the majority haven't a clue about it?
I believe Greg Pope was entirely correct in commenting that it is wrong for people who have a negative view of Britain in Europe to use a referendum on a quite separate issue to bash Britain's European stance by proxy. It devalues the idea of a referendum and in my opinion is extremely petty.

On Question Time last night (07/03/08), Marcus Brigstocke put forward the point that it is politicians' job to understand and act upon treaties such as the one in debate on our behalf. It does not mean you do not have a voice. As Greg Pope said, if people in Hyndburn or in any other MP's constituency told their MP of their outright dislike for the treaty, then the MP would represent that in parliament.
However seeing as all this business about referenda is entirely centred around point scoring by the idiotic opposition parties; no one properly understands what they want a referendum on!!

Well considering that this treaty is 98% compatible with the constitution which was withdrawn, foregive me in thinking that this is more legislation from Brussels through the back door. How many times do we have to be shafted by the EU before this govenment is going to listen to the people. This Prime minster, when only in office a couple of days said that he was going to be different and would listen to the people of Britain, I for one am still waiting

[garinda]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

As Greg Pope said, if people in Hyndburn or in any other MP's constituency told their MP of their outright dislike for the treaty, then the MP would represent that in parliament.

Not necessarily.

On the issue of the death penalty, every time there's a poll, the vast majority of people in the U.K. support its return.

However, everytime there's a vote in the Commons about capital punishment, the vast majority of of our M.P.'s vote against it's re-establishment.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Getting back on thread...

I would put forward that the vast majority of people who want a referendum have not read or at least understood the Treaty. How can you have a referendum for public opinion on something when the majority haven't a clue about it?
I believe Greg Pope was entirely correct in commenting that it is wrong for people who have a negative view of Britain in Europe to use a referendum on a quite separate issue to bash Britain's European stance by proxy. It devalues the idea of a referendum and in my opinion is extremely petty.

On Question Time last night (07/03/08), Marcus Brigstocke put forward the point that it is politicians' job to understand and act upon treaties such as the one in debate on our behalf. It does not mean you do not have a voice. As Greg Pope said, if people in Hyndburn or in any other MP's constituency told their MP of their outright dislike for the treaty, then the MP would represent that in parliament.
However seeing as all this business about referenda is entirely centred around point scoring by the idiotic opposition parties; no one properly understands what they want a referendum on!!

Why did Labour tell us we were going to have a referendum if they never planned to give it us because we're too stupid to understand it?

You think a treaty which hands over powers to the EU is a completely separate issue to whether we should further integrate with the EU? This is nothing to do with bashing Europe by proxy, if the people all vote in favour of the treaty in a referendum then so be it, but the people should at least get their say like they were promised.

It's about holding our MP accountable to their election pledge. If we had a Conservative or Liberal MP and they promised a referendum then voted against having one once elected, I would still have created this very same thread.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

On Question Time last night (07/03/08), Marcus Brigstocke put forward the point that it is politicians' job to understand and act upon treaties such as the one in debate on our behalf.

Oh right, I see, well, maybe the government should have thought about that before they offered us the prospect of a referendum in the first place...only to snatch it away again when they realised they'd probably lose.

Incidentally, I see that 29 Labour MPs had the courage to vote for a referendum, right across the spectrum from Frank Field on the right to Dennis Skinner on the left...is that "point scoring by the idiotic opposition parties"?

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

is that "point scoring by the idiotic opposition parties"?

No that's representing their respective constituency's views.

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Why did Labour tell us we were going to have a referendum if they never planned to give it us because we're too stupid to understand it?

...It's about holding our MP accountable to their election pledge.

The remark about being 'too stupid to understand it' are your (quite crass) words. I consider myself to be as compus mentus as the next bloke and I find the treaty somewhat unreadable. That doesn't make me stupid.
I trust the Government to understand it for me and act upon it as it is their job. You would do the same if your party were ever able to be elected into power, regardless of the tripe you claim about creating the same thread if this was a Conservative action.
Your claim of what "it's about" is merely political spin from an oppositional view, as is proved with "Why did Labour tell us...". Good grief - it might as well have come straight from Cameron. There's no concern whatsoever in Conservative critique for the treaty's effect upon the people of Britain. Point scoring is the one and only concern of the Conservative party. It always has been and it always will be.

Originally Posted by Cyfr

This is nothing to do with bashing Europe by proxy, if the people all vote in favour of the treaty in a referendum then so be it, but the people should at least get their say like they were promised.

If people have so much of a strong opinion on the subject then why aren't they telling their MPs Cyfr? Why must we have a referendum? Last I checked, the system of MPs representing your area's views in parliament still existed. You don't need a referendum in order to let the public have a say.

Change the record about election promises please! Only people who voted Labour on basis of a proposed referendum have the right to criticise the Government in the issue of the treaty on this basis.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

No that's representing their respective constituency's views.

It's actually called not breaking the election pledge they made to the public. As for the MPs who voted against, I would suggest it's more to do with the three line whips, the fear of losing a proposed referendum and the desire to curry favour with their political masters.

And as for "point scoring", yes. I'm sure the opposition does indulge in it...are you seriously suggesting that this present government are any better in this respect?

[andrewb]

I'm not encouraging people to get hold of the treaty, read it and understand it in raw form. However I'm pretty sure given the major changes at face value people can make up their own minds.

I won't stop mentioning the manifesto no, that's the whole issue here. If politicians say they will do something, they should do it, not do the exact opposite. You're wrong when you suggest I would follow the Conservative party blindly, I have no problem with criticising them when I think they're wrong, and promising something then voting against it is WRONG.

You say it might as well come out of David Camerons mouth? Well it's the job of the opposition and parliament as a whole to scrutinise the executive. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have failed to do this, because they failed to ensure that Labour kept to its promise.

You don't seem to get it, they said they would do it and did the opposite. It's not an issue of them not representing us, I'm well aware of the system of representation, but on THIS issue of handing over powers to the EU, every party PROMISED they would give us an individual say, regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed with their other policies.

I can't believe you're suggesting I don't have a right to criticise my MP because I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for anyone because I wasn't old enough in the general election, however if I want to inform people about how their MP and government promise them one thing and vote the opposite once they're in parliament, I will.

[shakermaker]

At a basic and quite generic level, I maintain that doing what is best for the country comes above one's duty to keep election promises. I see election promises are somewhat relative (and let's face it - all election campaigns are are Americanised circus freak shows these days) and doing what benefits the people most, isn't.

This thread is going to go round in circles. Look; I think a referendum on this treaty is unnecessary because :
a) You can't have a national referendum on something that only the minority understand and therefore have a worthy vote on. Should people vote with little or no understanding of the subject then the results would be corrupt.
b) The public's views on whether Britain should be in the EU at all would also corrupt the results of any proposed referendum. The point of debate is not about that after all, is it.

The only referendum I would be in favour of would be a referendum on whether or not we should be in the EU at all. However of course Murdoch's media & the Daily Mail would turn that into a circus.

[andrewb]

I see you watched question time too

I think its the job of the politicians to give people the information about what the treaty actually means, the important aspects of it. Then people can vote with an understanding.

I don't think it corrupts the vote if some people want to be out of the EU. I'm sure they'll happily settle for not further integrating, given a choice between further integration and not further integrating. They're achieving the 'lesser of two evils' from their perspective, and I think its right that they should have a say too.

If the parties never intended to give people a vote because it is too complex and they don't feel they could get people to understand what it meant, then they shouldn't have promised they'd do it really. Breaking the promise just puts more people off politics and makes them believe the politicians are even more corrupt than they already think they are.

[shillelagh]

Cyfr have you read the treaty in its raw form? If so can you explain it to all of us on here. Not major points but all of the treaty. You see you could pick out one point that someone will go against but another point that you dont think is major the other person may think it is. Thats the point of reading something in its raw form - you understand it all. Some of the points wont bother you but others will - but what may bother you someone else might agree with and disagree with you.

Im going staying out of this now.

[Acrylic-bob]

Is it just me, or does the Irish Government know something about the Lisbon treaty that Brown and Co. do not? If, as Brown says, A referendum on the treaty is not necessary why is it that the Irish are to have one sometime in June? Apparently the Irish Electorate are by no means certain to vote in favour of the treaty, which would, it is said, kill the treaty stone dead, since it needs all member states to ratify the treaty for it to be put into effect.

Given that the government were crapping themselves when they thought that we were going to be the country which killed the Constitution, before France and the Netherlands kindly stepped into the breach, is Brown's insistance that the treaty does not require a referendum a very convenient way of not having to be responsible for thwarting the expectations of his European masters? It makes you wonder!