Referedum on EU Treaty

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by 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!

Spot on Bob, its Brown and co jumping through hoops to keep well in with the Frogs and the Germans, and sod the British people, they'll do as I tell them, I'm In Charge

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by 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.

Who is to judge whether I or anyone else can understand the treaty?

You? The government?

Will I have to pass an exam to prove my eligibility to cast an opinion on the treaty?

In any case how many of the millions of voters actually read the various manifestos before deciding which candidate to vote for in the general election? Doesn’t that make this government corrupt also?

This government, in a manifesto, promised a referendum on the EU Constitution. When this constitution was rejected by a couple of countries it was effectively dead and buried so our excuse for a government declared, quite rightly, that there was no point in having a referendum as it was dead.

Then less than 5% of the constitution was re-written and given a new title and all of a sudden it is a totally different document. Even the co-author of the re-write says that it is the same document with only very minor differences. If anyone should know it would be him.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by 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!

Good point.

Maybe that is why the referendum on the original constitution was delayed to see how the rest voted.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by 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.

No I have not read the treaty in raw form, infact I'd suggest that most MP's have not read the entire thing themselves.

By 'major' I mean giving over powers to the EU because its takes decision making away from the UK.

With Greg Pope refusing to give us a referendum it means only ONE person looks at the issues rather than the whole constituency.

The MP's need to make us aware of the key issues, such as constitutional changes (handing over powers) so we have the information to decide if we want to do that.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

No I have not read the treaty in raw form, infact I'd suggest that most MP's have not read the entire thing themselves.

By 'major' I mean giving over powers to the EU because its takes decision making away from the UK.

With Greg Pope refusing to give us a referendum it means only ONE person looks at the issues rather than the whole constituency.

The MP's need to make us aware of the key issues, such as constitutional changes (handing over powers) so we have the information to decide if we want to do that.

Spot on Cyfr Spot no, thats the case in a nutshell