Gringo

Agreed, and if gordo was smart he could structure a vote to guarantee a pro-vote, ie offer people three choices: 1) vote for the treaty 2) vote for the treay and joining the euro 3) vote to leave the EU. Those options would mean that 1) & 2) would get more votes that 3) giving him the mandate he wants. He's been trapped by a promise tony made, and something that is not going to go away, bu twill instead dominate the news for the next year and half unless another country votes no.

You have? Great job seeing as it hasn't been translated yet - unless you're judging on the previously proposed constitution - which this treaty is completely different from of course. Google: labour manifesto referendum promise returns only the odd 118,000 responses. I'm sure you could find something there. If as all the proponents say that the treaty is exactly same as the constitution, then surely the promise stands. In fact lots of prominent labour people seem to agree that a promise was made: So again ignoring your efforts to confuse the argument (after all if referendums were so bad, why did tony promise one in the first place), are the govt honour bound to observe their manifesto pledge?

"Dismissive pomposity" and "post not poster" combined in one go, well done sir. Would you like to actually answer the question in hand (ie not whether referendums are good or not) by "Are the govt honour bound to offer the people a vote on the new EU treaty". You've started so by saying that this is different to what was promised but failed to actually support this premise in any form. Have another go.

your guessing though aren't yano more than your good self, but the markets are on my side. According to the sage that is betfair, probability of an election in 2008, approx 8%, probability of an election in 2010, approx 33%.

Won't be no election til 2010 billy boy

Then assuming you voted no, we will have to disregard your vote as you obviously ignored the question in hand and voted on some other topic. A referendum promised by a govt to win an election. By a bluelabour govt. Surely they should honour their promises -especially manifesto promises, not backtrack on whether they think referendums are a good idea or not, just because they are in danger of losin or not. Again, your vote should be discounted as you are voting (as per Michelsen) on whether you think referendums are a good idea or not, and not the question in hand, which if I may remind you is "Are the govt honour bound to offer the people a vote on the new EU treaty".

A topic that has been touched on in a lot of other posts, but never really discussed in itself. Gordo has recently signed up to the new EU treaty, that is an agreement designed to cover elements that would have been implemented under the previously proposed EU constitution. In their party manifesto, Labour promised a referendum on any EU constitution, but when the said agreement was dropped following NO votes in France and the Netherlands, this promise was considered expired. People who want a referendum are saying that this new treaty is the same constitution in all but name, whilst those who believe a referendum is not required say that this is a new agreement and the govt have secured certain exemptions that secure the UK's right to determine their own laws under their own parliament. Not a discussion on whether the proposed treaty/constitution is a good one or a bad one, but on the main issue surrounding this - whether or not the people have been promised a referendum or not, and whether that promise still stands. EU treaty 'same as constitution' I believe that promise still stands and the people have been promised a vote.

I'd march against it definitely. And you'd be followed and photographed and if you wore a mildly provocative t-shirt with a slogan such as "Tony Blair - war criminal" likely to find yourself detained and lodged on the DNA database.

Santa_Rosa Thank you for reading the essay before responding. I doubt many of the pro-voters have.

None are processed - if you wish to obtain credit - you have to give your permission for a credit search, storage of that data and supply of data into shared groups such as Insight. Secondly, I never mentioned any fictional massive database, apart from the point which hardly supports the strawman accusations you refer to. Wrong - information other than the payment profile, credit limit and current balance never leaves the banks - they be processed as according to the banks own requirements, subject to the agreement of the individual that was gaine when they gained the credit. Permission, agreement, optional. Financial information. The only variation to this is people using store cards, who again sign up to their information being recorded and stored. Again, optional, permission based. If I use a an AMEX card to buy a pizza from tescos - AMEX don't know what I've spent the money on. If I also use a tesco store card, tesco knows that I've bough a pizza, AMEX still don't. Permission based, optional. As I said - the resales team sell licences (or at least use to) for the sterling product which were something ridiculous like £40k for a Z/OS license or £20k for an AS/400 licenses, where as any smart crowd would spend £1,200 for a PC license and hook it up next to the big iron box and use shared DASD instead.

connect:direct license fees were just a glimmer in the ibm resales team's eye in my days.....anyway Back to the bureau databases - all that information is collected, held and processed with the person's permission (that little box we tick when we apply for credit). It's personal choice, and not data collection that is imposed. The data is also confined to financially relevant information, whereas the big whitehall database will be far more extensive. Also the use of the data is (supposedly) strictly controlled, and access to the data is supposed to be justified through additional applications for credit, or breach of contract (ie failure to make payments, or dissappearing.). Just because there are already two (three) massive databases is not a reason to have another one with even more data.

hence the reference to the unusual tape delivery between the three companies - most company would supply one tape each to both bureaus - but I think hsbc had fallen out with equifax and would only send experian a tape, and subcontracted the onward delivery to them. It was something silly anyway - and seeing as you're a "storage" guy - thought it might ring some bells.

I know internet usage is logged - I think I even referred to it above. As I said - business doesn't need or want to know - it's govts that do - your earlier post made out it was business not govt driving this, which is rather misleading: It's govt driving, forcing business to ask for this information. Worked at equifax for three years and experian for 18 months, including implementing the money laundering tracking system at the former - all a long time ago mind you. In those days HSBC primarily used experian for their online credit checks, though their batch tapes process was checked at both bureaus - when it didn't get lost between nottingham and bradford.

Make things up? So you never denied the right to privacy to be a civil liberty? OK then, the right to privacy is being eroded by an ID card and national ID database where your personal information will be (insecurely) held and then made available to anyone who wants a look? Won't it happen - well they've just done the same with your phone records - including allowing foreign countries to request access to your records. So there's a civil liberty being eroded. My information belongs to me, not the state. If you are still struggling to get to grips with the idea of privacy, may I suggest you read the essay linked to on page one. I feel that you often fall into the one-size-fits-all trap when discussing privacy and it's meaning to different people, and that if you don't think your liberties are being infringed then nobodies are. Which conspiracy theory? I simply stated that business is required to identify clients because of government legislation, not through any desire of their own. Why does a bank or solicitor care whether money is kosher or not - they don't, it's the governments that worry cos they aren't getting the tax they want. I don't think I stated anywhere that money laundering legislation was recent - I stated it had been strengthened recently. Maybe, but it's not a problem to businesses, it's a problem for government - as far as the banks are concerned it would be a lot cheaper to ignore the issue than have to get all of their staff trained in money laundering legislation, and have to build processes to report all suspect transactions. I was merely countering the point you made that business wants to identify people, whereas they are forced to by the govt. If it is the case that business also wants to collect data on people for marketing, credit risk purposes, then surely it is: * up to the people, not business to decide if it is a good thing; * up to business, not the people to foot the bill.

lock them up or kill them when they get above a certain age. I saw that in a film so it will happen one dayStrawman.

Previously when people have talked about such liberties as the right to privacy, you have either dismissed it as being non-existent or unimportant. Businesses did not introduce money laundering legislation which is behind most of the requirements made for people to identify themselves. Money laundering regulations were introduced (by the govt), initially to stop the drug barons hiding their dosh, but then strengthened in light of, you guessed it, the war on terror. If however "business" did decide that they needed such a thing, then surely it is: * up to the people, not business to decide if it is a good thing; * up to business, not the people to foot the bill.

A tip. If they ever do get introduced and it is stipulated that you can get arrested for not carrying your ID card with you even when you take the rubbish out... always carry your ID card. That way you won't get arrested. :nod: Works every time. But what about the erm, older members of the community, who may struggle to remember?

And the benefits you get from carrying the card? More specifically, what benefits do you get that justify the cost (£18bn-£30bn according to the LSE).

So it's not just the tin-foil hat brigade who seem to think there's a creeping regression of privacy, freedom and liberties, but indeed the bloke appointed by the government to try and safeguard those. Clicky.... So the votes are 9-9. Of those owners who expressed a preference, the people saying no said: * too expensive; * invasion of privacy; * criminalising of dissenters; * offers no real or tangible benefits. The people saying yes said: * it's not an invasion of privacy (not really a pro-argument); * they're smaller than passports; * we're all fruitloops. So whilst I accept we are indeed all fruitloops, we are really only left with in argument in favour so far - that they are easier to carry than a passport. Interesting to note though that one of the EU nations that does have ID cards is rolling back the requirement to carry one.

But they do tap the phones, and they do monitor emails and internet usage - and no one objects because to do so is seen to be supporting or least aiding the terrorists. Before you say ID cards are OK, you should first demand some reason for them and some form of cost-benefit analysis whilst all this money is being poured down the drain. The government trumpets free speech while trampling on it You’re better safe than free - the mantra of the Whitehall Taliban What have they got to do with ID cards? Well....

In which case, why did crazy george try to steamroller through the REAL ID bill?

Then read the above linked essay by Solove which will at least you give you a view on why some people think these measures are dangerous. Keeping up with the jones' is not the best motive for directing policy. The question should be is if it is a good thing or not, not whether everyone else is doing it. We have an ID that makes travel within the EU simple - it's called a passport and it's optional. It's not compulsory for any other services and so this argument in itself cannot support an ID card system imposed upon everyone.

Ooooh no, the price of passports have magically increased to £72, with it scheduled to rise to £85 in the next three years. It's the world paper shortage don't ya know and nothing at all to do with making the price of an ID card seem reasonable.

I had thought you had done a bit of a david kelly on CV, stolen his ID and deleted the offending article. As per rantin, your first reply is remarkably similar to that on the previous thread, so again - top marks for consistency.

Well at least you're consistent, last time you were also first to respond, though you words were slightly less cagey