Referendum

[drat01]

Not a big fan of referendums personally. Whether Labour have broken a promise or not, I don't know. It's not my Labour party anyway, and I'm starting not to care whether or not they get reelected, so all I care about is further European integration and the new treaty ensures that.

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.

Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't know if they're honour bound, tbh. A treaty, in the sheer nature of the word, is different from a constitution. I don't really know enough about it to give a fair answer. I'm actually going to a debate about the new treaty at Uni tomorrow, so we'll see then. I'll report back.

Michelsen you have it perfectly summed up edited. Post not poster, please. Blandy

[Gringo]

"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.

[billy_loes]

Won't be no election til 2010 billy boy

your guessing though aren't ya

no 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%.

You see I think the Tories want a ready made policy for themselves according to the result.

A lot can happen in politics and I wont be betting on the date .......... 8)

[bickster]

The UK has only ever had one national referendum, it does not need another.

Even though that referendum was for something very similar and just as important?

The only reason there won't be a referendum is because it would be a NO vote

That means the majority of the people don't want it but the government carries on regardless

[Condimentalist]

Anyway, whats all this bollocks about diminishing the power of the elected government? Surely if the referendum goes the way the government campaigns for it does the exact opposite, it strengthens its power on the particular subject

It only weakens the government if the governments ideas are rejected (and I suspect you think thats what would happen here)

What have new labour got to do with this? Its a referendum, the peoples voice isn't divided along party lines

No, but it gets heavily influenced by the Daily Mail and other such veritable institutions, and at least the parties on the whole know something about why their opinion is how it is.

The way I see it is like this, we had a referendum when we went into the EEC in the first place, to take this step is such a major one, the same respect should be given to the will of the people.

Firstly, we didn't have a referendum when we joined the EEC; we joined and then had a referendum about whether we wished to leave shortly after. Secondly, why is this really such a major step? It's nowhere near as important as, for instance, Maastricht or the SEA.

[drat01]

"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.

It's a skill - and looking at previous posts in this thread it seems fair game so why not join in the fun?

Its a simple question to answer because there is no question to answer. Care to share the commitment that was made that so many people decided that Labour were worthy of the vote at the last election ?

Or is the bigger question about validity and impact of referendum's making you feel that bit uneasy?:

[billy_loes]

A referendum would prove a close finish....nose..short head

as will the next election.

[bickster]

....

The way I see it is like this, we had a referendum when we went into the EEC in the first place, to take this step is such a major one, the same respect should be given to the will of the people.

No we had One referendum back in 1975 that asked if we should stay in the Common Market

Turnout 64.5%

Where do you stop, each time there is a tax amendment do we have a referendum, a change in the law on this or that? What is the point of a government?

Carry out the will of the people? or is that a tad old fashioned these days?

This has potential sovereignty issues, its slightly different to a change in taxation and use that as an argument against having a referendum, just shows a weakness in the argument imo

[drat01]

The UK has only ever had one national referendum, it does not need another.

Even though that referendum was for something very similar and just as important?

The only reason there won't be a referendum is because it would be a NO vote

That means the majority of the people don't want it but the government carries on regardless

and back to my previous point, could you argue that referendums on the introduction of the Poll Tax would have got a yes? Would a vote on lowering the age for voting gone to referendum? etc etc .

No Government is Honour bound or duty bound any bound to have referendums on any issue. Unless of course you are advocating a major change in how the country is run?

[drat01]

....

The way I see it is like this, we had a referendum when we went into the EEC in the first place, to take this step is such a major one, the same respect should be given to the will of the people.

No we had One referendum back in 1975 that asked if we should stay in the Common Market

Turnout 64.5%

Where do you stop, each time there is a tax amendment do we have a referendum, a change in the law on this or that? What is the point of a government?

Carry out the will of the people? or is that a tad old fashioned these days?

This has potential sovereignty issues, its slightly different to a change in taxation and use that as an argument against having a referendum, just shows a weakness in the argument imo

:-) Changes in sovereignty :-) - Have you actually read what is being proposed?

This is now laughable - the will of the people - so you really are advocating a system where referendums will be held on basically any change of law aren't you?

[bickster]

Unless of course you are advocating a major change in how the country is run?

Bingo, only been saying for years too

[drat01]

Unless of course you are advocating a major change in how the country is run?

Bingo, only been saying for years too

Fair enough Gareth and TBF to you I think you have.

Maybe we could have a scheme like voting on X Factor where we press the red button Sky to decide on the next law change?

Hang on though ITV may get the vote franchise and your vote would still cost but not count - ooooh there is another conspiracy

[bickster]

, whats all this bollocks about diminishing the power of the elected government? Surely if the referendum goes the way the government campaigns for it does the exact opposite, it strengthens its power on the particular subject

It only weakens the government if the governments ideas are rejected (and I suspect you think thats what would happen here)

What have new labour got to do with this? Its a referendum, the peoples voice isn't divided along party lines

No, but it gets heavily influenced by the Daily Mail and other such veritable institutions, and at least the parties on the whole know something about why their opinion is how it is.

Sorry I don't understand, it gets influenced by someone with a vested interest which is better that it being influenced by someone with a vested interest?

The way I see it is like this, we had a referendum when we went into the EEC in the first place, to take this step is such a major one, the same respect should be given to the will of the people.

Firstly, we didn't have a referendum when we joined the EEC; we joined and then had a referendum about whether we wished to leave shortly after. Secondly, why is this really such a major step? It's nowhere near as important as, for instance, Maastricht or the SEA.

I stand corrected (I was under ten at the time and barely remember it) but on an issue such as Maastricht we should have had one imo

[Gringo]

:-) Changes in sovereignty :-) - Have you actually read what is being proposed?

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.

Its a simple question to answer because there is no question to answer. Care to share the commitment that was made that so many people decided that Labour were worthy of the vote at the last election ?

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:

Kate Hoey, a former sports minister, who said the Major government had never promised a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, "whereas my Government did".

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?

[blandy]

There's no compelling argument either way.

Yes, they did seem, to me, to promise one on what is the same thing in all but name.

No, a referendum would not actually be on the treaty, it would be voted on based on general feelings about all kinds of stuff.

The promise was political expediency, the refusal of one is on political expediency.

I don't care.

I abhor the Tory unremitting hostility towards Europe, the Labour try to have your cake and eat it approach and the whole lack of focus in what is actually being done.

I also have reservations about the direction the European Union heads in many ways.

The Government ideally, or at least parliament should deal with it, but they're totally incapable of it. They're all in the thrall of vested interest, the largely sceptical press (with their own agenda) and there's no real examination of what is going on, what is proposed and what the consequences will be.

[bickster]

Tony's word doesn't count, the british public in general didn't vote for him, they voted for their local candidate. You don't vote for Prime Ministers apparently, it never enters your thinking at all

[drat01]

:-) Changes in sovereignty :-) - Have you actually read what is being proposed?

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.

Its a simple question to answer because there is no question to answer. Care to share the commitment that was made that so many people decided that Labour were worthy of the vote at the last election ?

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:

Kate Hoey, a former sports minister, who said the Major government had never promised a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, "whereas my Government did".

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?

:-) - The tope 3 in that google list were from the Mail, the Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday. Plus throw in a few from the Tory party near the bottom of the page and you start to see why the numbers are so high?

Have a read of the manifesto Gringo, Im sure you have a copy and lets debate on what was said in there.

On a more general point about manifesto's are they contracts or guidelines?

I think most have answered your loaded question so why you keep asking it? or is it again trying to score a political point?

[Gringo]

Yes, they did seem, to me, to promise one on what is the same thing in all but name.

No, a referendum would not actually be on the treaty, it would be voted on based on general feelings about all kinds of stuff.

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.

[drat01]

Tony's word doesn't count, the british public in general didn't vote for him, they voted for their local candidate. You don't vote for Prime Ministers apparently, it never enters your thinking at all

:-) - or you vote for a Tory

Its the same laughable stuff, shame that the real issue about constitution and how a country is run is missed.

Still pop - sorry political - idol mentality is what its all about

[drat01]

Yes, they did seem, to me, to promise one on what is the same thing in all but name.

No, a referendum would not actually be on the treaty, it would be voted on based on general feelings about all kinds of stuff.

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.

Hmm so what you are suggesting is not a honour bound vote more a vote based on on how you could win it?

Now I see where youare coming from. Honour bound, its raised a smile in my household I must admit

and Gringo your obsession with Blair had to sneak out in the end