Referendum

[Awol]

..........

I'd agree with all of that.

Yes the government are honour bound to deliver on their referendum pledge, if it's in their manifesto how can they not?

...!

Wrong on so many counts

Cheers for that..

clicky

In his letter to the PM, Mr Cameron said: "Your 2005 general election manifesto stated without qualification that 'we will put it - the EU Constitution - to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a "Yes" vote'.

"You will remember telling the BBC the weekend before you became Prime Minister that 'the manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate'.

"This is indeed a matter of trust with the electorate. So, will you now honour the promise you made to the British people to hold a referendum?"

Three questions.

1) Can you accept that Labour pledged a referendum on the Eurpoean Constitution in their 2005 manifesto?

2) Can you accept that in the rest of Europe the treaty is accepted as being a re-namned constitution that is at least 95% the same thing as the document we were promised a referendum on?

An example of thoughts in Europe on this: clicky

However, his efforts to counter calls for a plebiscite were undermined by the Irish Prime Minister, who criticised him for “running away” from giving voters a chance to express their views. Bertie Ahern, whose country is the only state committed to holding a referendum, attacked other EU leaders in an interview for being too afraid to make the case for Europe. “I think it’s a bit upsetting . . . to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity,” he told the Irish Independent.

“If you believe in something . . . why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn’t be so much afraid of it,” he added.

3)

Wrong on so many counts

How so?

[drat01]

post not posters doesn't count on this thread apparently Tony

an / The - two totally different words.

You are very guilty of not reading what was agreed in Portugal, spend a bit of time - the BBC is actually a good place to start - ignoring the Mail type headline - to see how it all differs.

:-) - Ooooh the Tory English nationalist line sneaking through there

A referendum is NOT a general election. Even if they held one on the last thing and they lost it means nothing other than they would change the policy.

Your answer just confirms everything I have said about more being for political rather than the people's advantage.

I really would love to hear your views as a Right wing Tory on things such as Europe, the EU, and Immigration. I wonder how many of the commitments Cameron and Co. may make in a couple of years they will come to deny in later life when explaining why they lost the next election

[drat01]

Awol - that own goal is Laursen quality.

So Mr Cameron - trying for political gain - tries to ask the same wrong question and that in somehow makes it right?

Have you actually read the manifesto?

So because some Irish politician thinks that the UK should hold a referendum it's right?

This is the best thread ever - and people were worried about giving away the UK's ability to govern itself :-)

[tonyh29]

A referendum is NOT a general election. Even if they held one on the last thing and they lost it means nothing other than they would change the policy.

if they lost it I'd be fairly confident it would cause a vote of no confidence in the house and most likely a leadership battle ..so there is quite a bit at stake on this

I've posted my views on Europe and the EU before .. I'm against it as you well know and I've given countless arguments to support why the UK is better out of it , just as some have given arguements on why we are better of in it .. such is life when it comes to politics ..

I'm not agaisnt controlled immigration , I have a lot of admiration for the work ethic of people coming to the UK , they certainly shame some of the British in that regard ..

I don't know what the official Tory party line is on Europe / the EU I'm not really that big a follower of political parties and unlike some :-) I form opinions outside the party line ... I vote Tory becuase better dead than red as they say and voting Lib Dem would just be a waste of ink on a waste of paper .. we could reduce our carbon foot print if we din't waste ink putting a box for the lib dems on our ballot papers .. just think about that :-)

[Awol]

Awol - that own goal is Laursen quality.

So Mr Cameron - trying for political gain - tries to ask the same wrong question and that in somehow makes it right?

Have you actually read the manifesto?

So because some Irish politician thinks that the UK should hold a referendum it's right?

This is the best thread ever - and people were worried about giving away the UK's ability to govern itself :-)

You are better than them at not answering a question!

No I didn't read labour's 2005 manifesto, are you disputing that their pledge was made? Labour aren't so I think you're on to as loser there. The messenger - in this case Camermoron - is irelevant it's the message you are squirming to avoid, ditto with Ahern's point.

Labour made the pledge, they have not shown that the treaty and constitution are substansively different and they are going to break their word, again.

You are also completely avoiding the issue that these two documents are virtually the same as Tony29 has pointed out a few times.

So no own goal, just you resolutely avoiding an answer to the central points. The alternative is admitting that Labour are liars and if Iraq didn't convince you of that then nothing will.

[drat01]

So you haven't read the manifesto but are prepared to say that they should honour it?

Maybe if you read what was written and what some are now intimating to be a contract you would see that the two things are different. And as for Tony's summing up of the two things, :-) , it get's better and better - maybe if again you read what the differences are you could make a better judgement?

Your motives are explained perfectly by your last statement

[Santa_Rosa]

Head hitting wall time - please show where this was promised?

Those thousands of google hits not good enough for you then? Why not?

Ha - its obvious today is read half a post day isn't it - is all this for children in need or something?

Have you read the manifesto - Gringo even kindly posted it earlier in the thread - or doesn't that fit in with the Daily Mail, Torygraph, Mail on Sunday and Conservative party media issues that make up the bulk of those first Google posts?

At least look at what was said rather tan listening to half a story

p.s. where do I send the sponsor money?

I haven't read the manifesto no. Too dry for me, I prefer a good Iain Banks. But plenty of people have, and I've read what they have to say. Even accounting for Tory bias at the top of those google hits, it really is a lot of people saying the same thing isn't it? And how about this from The Guardian? Not a paper renowned for it's true blue views I'd say:

The British establishment always defaults to Jesuitical. It may be indelicate to repeat what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown said in 2005 on the European constitution, but it was: "We shall put it to the British people in a referendum, and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote." When asked about a no vote they replied in unison that, "You cannot have a rejection of the treaty [sic] and then bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go." A governmental structure for the new Europe was too important for fudging. Blair proclaimed and Brown agreed: "Let the people have the final say."

I fail to see any room for equivocation here. In just two years there has been no war or national emergency to justify reneging on the pledge. Yet Gordon Brown, David Miliband and their court of lobbyists and commentators are wriggling, squirming, spinning, "re-interpreting" and forgetting. They have stood words on their head and pushed them up every orifice. No intellectual self-abuse is too great if it can cheat the voters of what was promised. Referendum denial is not political ethics for slow learners. In this case it is plain wrong.

Brown says he has "opt-outs", but these are irrelevant to the referendum as the same opt-outs applied in 2005. Miliband says the new treaty is "completely different" from the 2005 one, but no observer or other European leader agrees. The treaty has the same 250 clauses (all but 10 identical) and the same 63,000 words as the constitution. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, admitted that the name change was simply to give British ministers squirm room.

The only substantive difference between 2005 and 2007 is that Blair thought that, while he might lose a referendum, he should go out and fight one. Brown also thinks he might lose, but lacks the guts to fight.

.

I'd never vote Tory by the way - I have no axe to grind. Just sick of the spin and lies that you laughably accused the Tories of - of course they do it too, but New Labour created this monster

It's all smoke and mirrors and I hoped we'd seen the back of it with the demise of Bliar. Unfortunately it's still alive and kicking under Brown and taking far too many people for mugs.

[drat01]

A referendum is NOT a general election. Even if they held one on the last thing and they lost it means nothing other than they would change the policy.

if they lost it I'd be fairly confident it would cause a vote of no confidence in the house and most likely a leadership battle ..so there is quite a bit at stake on this

I've posted my views on Europe and the EU before .. I'm against it as you well know and I've given countless arguments to support why the UK is better out of it , just as some have given arguements on why we are better of in it .. such is life when it comes to politics ..

I'm not agaisnt controlled immigration , I have a lot of admiration for the work ethic of people coming to the UK , they certainly shame some of the British in that regard ..

I don't know what the official Tory party line is on Europe / the EU I'm not really that big a follower of political parties and unlike some :-) I form opinions outside the party line ... I vote Tory becuase better dead than red as they say and voting Lib Dem would just be a waste of ink on a waste of paper .. we could reduce our carbon foot print if we din't waste ink putting a box for the lib dems on our ballot papers .. just think about that :-)

So Tony you admit then your and others motives are not based on the substance of the agreement its more on political grounds?

[drat01]

Simon Cowell and Pop Idol has a new summer job

[Awol]

So you haven't read the manifesto but are prepared to say that they should honour it?

Maybe if you read what was written and what some are now intimating to be a contract you would see that the two things are different. And as for Tony's summing up of the two things, :-) , it get's better and better - maybe if again you read what the differences are you could make a better judgement?

Your motives are explained perfectly by your last statement

As I said before I haven't read Labour's '05 manifesto and I doubt many commenting on here have. That isn't really the point if all parties acknowledge that a commitment was made then reading myself isn't necessary. I don't read every law or piece of legislation passed but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on them based on the accepted facts of each case.

As for your final dig, my motives are based on making politicians do what they promise they will do and nothing more. However Iraq does prove my point though doesn't it. Can you acknowledge Labour have serious form for lying to parliament and the nation? Is that in itself not a reason to be suspicious of their calm reassurances?

[Santa_Rosa]

shouldn't governments deliver on their promise to have a referendum, not what the outcome might be.

If they did promise it, then they shouldn't have done but to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. It may be wrong to go back on a promise (if indeed there was one) but it would be a greater wrong to have a referendum on this basis alone.

Any government worth it’s salt should have had the foresight to see this at the time of the promise, and not made it.

[drat01]

Awol - you dont even have to read the whole manifesto - as I said Gringo kindly cut and pasted the so called commitment. The problem with accepted facts is that sometimes they aint exactly the truth

If you are trying to single out Labour as being the sole party that has said something then gone back on it then you are totally and utterly wrong.

[drat01]

shouldn't governments deliver on their promise to have a referendum, not what the outcome might be.

If they did promise it, then they shouldn't have done but to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. It may be wrong to go back on a promise (if indeed there was one) but it would be a greater wrong to have a referendum on this basis alone.

Any government worth it’s salt should have had the foresight to see this at the time of the promise, and not made it.

:-) - and still no acceptance that they never made a commitment on this, but hey let's not stop that becoming a issue - what was this thread about Honouring or something?

[drat01]

Also I would be very interested to see what any of the good voters, and especially those who can easily fit under the anything but Labour banner, actually make of the "thing" that was signed in Portugal what is good and bad. Or hasn't anyone read it?

[Santa_Rosa]

shouldn't governments deliver on their promise to have a referendum, not what the outcome might be.

If they did promise it, then they shouldn't have done but to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. It may be wrong to go back on a promise (if indeed there was one) but it would be a greater wrong to have a referendum on this basis alone.

Any government worth it’s salt should have had the foresight to see this at the time of the promise, and not made it.

:-) - and still no acceptance that they never made a commitment on this, but hey let's not stop that becoming a issue - what was this thread about Honouring or something?

Well according to the Guardian (see my previous post - you must have missed it as you posted at the same time) they did make a commitment. That's the Guardian. Not the Daily Mail or the Torygraph or any of the other tory rags that get trotted out everytime you need something to hide behind. I expect they have an agenda as well though.

[Gringo]

Here it is again.

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

The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively,

and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy,

taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the

EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments

and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain

and for the new Europe.We will put it to the British people in a referendum

and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain

a leading nation in Europe.

The people drafting the manifesto obviously got a little confused as they kept referring to the constitution as a treaty where as gordo keeps telling us the amended treaty is not a constitution.

I do fail how this quote supports your case Drat, without being able to point to what must be glaring differences between the constitutional treaty and the amending treaty - something that no commentator has so far done. Of course, those who claim it is the same are from such a narrown band, ie those who drew it up and all the right wing politicians such as tony benn.

[Gringo]

Or hasn't anyone read it?

Translations haven't been published yet, so would be a tad difficult. Of course you could ask the question whether any one read the previously proposed constitution. As AWOL pointed out, there are times you have to rely on the opinions of those people who have read it all. And everyone of those (from all across europe, the opposition benches and the govt backbenches) seem to say it is the same proposal - the only people who have a different point of view sit next to gordo.

[Awol]

Awol - you dont even have to read the whole manifesto - as I said Gringo kindly cut and pasted the so called commitment. The problem with accepted facts is that sometimes they aint exactly the truth

If you are trying to single out Labour as being the sole party that has said something then gone back on it then you are totally and utterly wrong.

Not at all Drat I know the Tories are as bad as Labour, the sleeze of the late 80's early 90's was awful.

My problem essentially is with the incumbent political party - whoever that happens to be - actually delivering what they promise to do. Arguing that "well the other lot are/were/will be just as bad" is no argument at all, it implies that we the public should suck it up. Why should we?

We can pick around the wording of specific 'commitments' all day long but it is the spirit and the intent of the commitment that is important, not trying to exploit wording to avoid doing the thing you implied that you would.

I'm struggling to grasp why you cannot recognise what the major beef is for all of those who think we should have a referendum. Honesty and transparency are the ideas notable for their absence.

Per se I am open to hear the arguments from both sides but only one side is willing to make it. If the government don't have the confidence to 'sell' their own policies to the electorate WTF should we let them brush it under the carpet?

[drat01]

Or hasn't anyone read it?

Translations haven't been published yet, so would be a tad difficult. Of course you could ask the question whether any one read the previously proposed constitution. As AWOL pointed out, there are times you have to rely on the opinions of those people who have read it all. And everyone of those (from all across europe, the opposition benches and the govt backbenches) seem to say it is the same proposal - the only people who have a different point of view sit next to gordo.

Hmm interesting then - so many google condemnations, so sure it is the same as before, so many people wanting to make political gains out of it?

I admire your knowledge of all political parties and media outlets who are saying this around all of europe Gringo, or is this a generalisation ?

[Gringo]

How can a view of the opinions of a wide range of people be anything but a generalisation?