drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 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?and the answer to why I think there is no need or commitment for a referendum is there for all to see. The UK is not a political system built this way. 1975 was the last one and hopefully will be the last full stop. I maintain that the commitment in the Labour manifesto was not based on what is on the table now. End of story, pretty plain and simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 How can a view of the opinions of a wide range of people be anything but a generalisation?:-) - This is great Gringo - on one hand no one has read the document because it hasn't been translated so it must be the same as before and consequently we demand a referendum - please at least be consistent other than trying to have a dig at the Labour party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2r2xjn Even the Guardian admit its not the same "The inquiry by the House of Lords European Union Committee will involve seven sub-committees taking evidence and questioning witnesses in detail on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution." Now should the HOL be involved in the debate? Hmmm a very interesting question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I maintain that the commitment in the Labour manifesto was not based on what is on the table now. End of story, pretty plain and simple really. So that makes you, Gordon and his front benches then. Not Tony Benn, not the Guardian, not any European politician. You're right, it seems very plain and simple to me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I maintain that the commitment in the Labour manifesto was not based on what is on the table now. End of story, pretty plain and simple really. So that makes you, Gordon and his front benches then. Not Tony Benn, not the Guardian, not any European politician. You're right, it seems very plain and simple to me too.oops the Guardian sort of contradict you now "The inquiry by the House of Lords European Union Committee will involve seven sub-committees taking evidence and questioning witnesses in detail on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The UK is not a political system built this way. 1975 was the last one and hopefully will be the last full stop. What about if the euro comes up again, no referendum? I maintain that the commitment in the Labour manifesto was not based on what is on the table now. End of story, pretty plain and simple really. Yep that is clear, it will be interesting to see in a few weeks when this has been thoroughly chewed over by the experts to see exactly what is "on the table". Your opossition is based on the differences between those documents so if they are proved to be substantially the same your position may change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That'll be the guardian reporting news then - I expect the Telegraph and countless other news sources says the same thing. I assumed you were talking about editorials and comment when you brought newspapers into it. My quote was comment from a Guardian columnist openly coming out and calling the government liars. And how does this: "The inquiry by the House of Lords European Union Committee will involve seven sub-committees taking evidence and questioning witnesses in detail on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution." mean: the constitution and the treaty are anything other than effectively the same document. It doesn't. More smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 AWOL - from the evidence I have seen both in my business life and my home life I think that there is a strong case for us to be part of the Euro. But of course I would maintain that the Government are the people to make the enquiries and make the policy not me. If I felt strongly enough about it then as part of the next election that would help me decide on which way I would vote The next few weeks will be interesting especially as the document apparently has not been translated, or so I keep getting told. It would be even more interesting if each political party gave their respective MP's a free vote on this and they had to explain their decisions and how they came to them. UKIP exist in Blue clothing maybe a headline you see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That'll be the guardian reporting news then - I expect the Telegraph and countless other news sources says the same thing. I assumed you were talking about editorials and comment when you brought newspapers into it. My quote was comment from a Guardian columnist openly coming out and calling the government liars. And how does this: "The inquiry by the House of Lords European Union Committee will involve seven sub-committees taking evidence and questioning witnesses in detail on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution." mean: the constitution and the treaty are anything other than effectively the same document. It doesn't. More smoke and mirrors.Classic Santa - So because you see an editorial or a view that is in some way worth more than actually reporting news? and "on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution."" is a key phrase but obviously as that;s not an opinion more a fact ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 If I felt strongly enough about it then as part of the next election that would help me decide on which way I would vote yeah I can really see you not voting labour It would be even more interesting if each political party gave their respective MP's a free vote on this and they had to explain their decisions and how they came to them. yeah mean other than "I had to vote that way or the party would remove the party whip from me " as they did with the last vote the government were about to lose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity-Tom Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 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. With that, I am in total agreement. If Labour did promise this then it would be a damning statement as to how trust worthy they are, however, I still think they should avoid a referendum on this. I really have no idea if they promised this or not to be honest though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 If I felt strongly enough about it then as part of the next election that would help me decide on which way I would vote yeah I can really see you not voting labour It would be even more interesting if each political party gave their respective MP's a free vote on this and they had to explain their decisions and how they came to them. yeah mean other than "I had to vote that way or the party would remove the party whip from me " as they did with the last vote the government were about to loose Tony did I say I would vote for anyone else? :-) - maybe not vote which some say is the way to go apparently Lose - not loose :-) Do you not agree then that MP's should be given a free vote on something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 AWOL - from the evidence I have seen both in my business life and my home life I think that there is a strong case for us to be part of the Euro. But of course I would maintain that the Government are the people to make the enquiries and make the policy not me. If I felt strongly enough about it then as part of the next election that would help me decide on which way I would vote The next few weeks will be interesting especially as the document apparently has not been translated, or so I keep getting told. It would be even more interesting if each political party gave their respective MP's a free vote on this and they had to explain their decisions and how they came to them. UKIP exist in Blue clothing maybe a headline you see FWIW and for similar reasons to you I agree on the Euro, but again I think it is too big an issue to be decided by government alone. We have already established that manifesto commitments are liable to change for expediencies sake so I'm not filled with confidence there. As to the free vote for MP's I couldn't agree more, it would be great if that happened for every vote, along with an annual publication of their voting record for consumption by their respect constituencies. It might even go a long way to sorting out the current lack of accountability among freespending MP's - of all shades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Anyway I have to run now - not dipping out before anyone thinks that - I have a very large proposal to write up that has to be done in Euro's and is subject to various local laws - wish they would sort out business laws across borders .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 So because you see an editorial or a view that is in some way worth more than actually reporting news? Like I say - you brought up the media bias issue with all your bluster about only Tory rags slagging brown off. Assuming you meant their editorials and comment, I just pointed out that papers on all sides of the politcal spectrum have editorials that are ripping Brown's stance apart. "on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution."" is a key phrase but obviously as that;s not an opinion more a fact ...... and it's a fact that that statement does not mean that the treaty and the constitution aren't, to all intents and purposes, the same document. EDIT: used a wrong smiley after an ironic statement which undermined my entire point. Decided it was safer to remove it (that one is correct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 31, 2007 Moderator Share Posted October 31, 2007 "The inquiry by the House of Lords European Union Committee will involve seven sub-committees taking evidence and questioning witnesses in detail on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution." In what way does that prove that the two things aren't almost identical? Replace means to remove one thing and put another in it's place. The replacement can be the same or different. Gov't under pressure for something - I know let's set up an inquiry, which will take ages and everyone will forget about the whole thing for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Pete I do know what replace means thanks - I may spend a lot of time in Europe but English is still my first language So now its gone from being the same to being similar and that's the same is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 31, 2007 Moderator Share Posted October 31, 2007 If you know what it means, then how on earth can you say that the statement about the inquiry shows the two things are not the same? it does nothing of the sort. The two things are to all intents and purposes the same. It's like having a horse in the field - "oh no, take that Horse away" 10 minutes later the horse is back with a couple of stripes painted on it "it's not a horse, it's a Zebra - completely different." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sorry Pete it does - like for like means just that. As I said previously just because a mouse has nearly the same DNA as a man does not make it a man. Funny enough this proposal I am working on is really clear about defining what is what and how assumptions that things are the same should not be made. The key is what is included and what isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nice analogy blandy. Perhaps a better one would have been an elephant in a room Auld Gordon and his pals still wouldn't see it mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts