How would you vote on the European Constitution?

[lewislewis]

yes it does. because it is about democracy, people's choice and not what nanny Brussells says it's good for you. otherwise why hold elections if the politicians know what's good for us, anyway.

Well no because elections more or less decide who governs the country, the Consitutiton just fine tunes the European Union which our elected politicians are keeping us part of. If a referendum took place it wouldn't be about the Consitutiton at all, people would just vote against the EU because they're British, xenophobic conservatives. Unfortunately i'm a UKIP scare-story come true, I want the EU to end 'Britishness' for good.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Well no because elections more or less decide who governs the country, the Consitutiton just fine tunes the European Union which our elected politicians are keeping us part of. If a referendum took place it wouldn't be about the Consitutiton at all, people would just vote against the EU because they're British, xenophobic conservatives. Unfortunately i'm a UKIP scare-story come true, I want the EU to end 'Britishness' for good.

if people want to vote against the EU because they are proud of being British, isn't that their right? they would still be part of the EA, like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland.

 

[lewislewis]

It is, I believe in the right to self-determination, but the Consitution only makes moderate changes and would be mis-represented by the media.

Edit- I have great experience of referenda being distorted and manipulated by the media.

 

[CyberRose]

yes it does. because it is about democracy, people's choice and not what nanny Brussells says it's good for you. otherwise why hold elections if the politicians know what's good for us, anyway.

But where do you draw the line? Do yuo want to hold a referendum on every aspect of policy? If so, then I could ask the question of why elect politicians to make those decisions for us? But if you just want a referendum on the EU then it looks suspiciously opportunist

 

[CyberRose]

But inside nations like England and Wales, different sub-regional variations are used to determine economic policy.
That's why in Wales, the poor areas like the Valleys get Objective One funding, but the rich areas like Cardiff don't. You could apply the same divisions not just to England itself but to the NE or SE

Objective 1 (and 2,3) are European policies! And theydo apply to areas of England that are poor like South Yorkshire and Merseyside

 

[CyberRose]

as long as the UK citizens agree with it. and they are getting closer to europe. they don't just take holidays on spanish costas, they visit and discover other parts of europe, they settle in brittany and the south west of france (causing some resentment over house prices, welsh fashion, in brittany, apparently,recently), they make business. and that's nothing to do with constitutions or european parliaments as far as I know.

Well it has everything to do with all the previous treaties that have given us the rights you mention above. But if your point was why do we need a constitution when we already have these rights, well, in order to implement further policies to give us more benefits like the ones you discribe then we need reform in the EU to ensure the decision making process is stream-lined to work around 25 members, otherwise everything could just grind to a halt...

 

[CyberRose]

if people want to vote against the EU because they are proud of being British, isn't that their right? they would still be part of the EA, like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland.

If people are basing their decisions on fear and prejudice then their decisions are not their own and they have been manipulated. I don't believe in the right to be racist and in this country making decisions based on racism is illegal and I have no problem in extending that principle to important decisions like EU membership. I have no problems with valid criticisms of the EU like those of the left as it at least gives us a focus for a debate, but when the argument against is based on racism, fear or prejudice then I have no problem with the government ignoring those views.

And if we withdrew politically from the EU and maintained a simple trade agreement (as proposed by UKIP) then we would lose all influence over European policy which a country like the UK simply cannot afford. We would have no say over environmenatal issues, immigration issues or security issues. A lot of policy problems in a globalised world originate outside your borders and while we are in the EU we have a say in how other countries deal with them and we can enforce it. Outside of the EU we have no influence and no say and no way of forcing other countries to act in our best interests (and of course it works both ways but as I think most people prefer the "European" way of dealing with issues that's not so much a problem)

 

[lewislewis]

Objective 1 (and 2,3) are European policies! And theydo apply to areas of England that are poor like South Yorkshire and Merseyside

Of course, what's the problem?

 

[CyberRose]

Of course, what's the problem?

Sorry I thought you were saying this was a 'British' policy that the EU could also use

 

[MikeMcc]

I voted no, I'd prefer a referendum on getting out completely (though staying a member of EFTA).

 

[CyberRose]

I voted no, I'd prefer a referendum on getting out completely (though staying a member of EFTA).

But then the Uk would lose all political influence over the EU, sure it could join in their projects but it wouldn't have a say in how those policies were formed and what characteristic they took...

 

[butchersapron]

That's a big margin against.

 

[CyberRose]

That's a big margin against.

Racists!!!

 

[butchersapron]

I suspect it'd be larger or at least no smaller in the 'real' world too, so do the politicians - hence a referendum can't ever happen.

*champions of europe*

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I voted no, I'd prefer a referendum on getting out completely (though staying a member of EFTA).

EFTA is now EA

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Well it has everything to do with all the previous treaties that have given us the rights you mention above. But if your point was why do we need a constitution when we already have these rights, well, in order to implement further policies to give us more benefits like the ones you discribe then we need reform in the EU to ensure the decision making process is stream-lined to work around 25 members, otherwise everything could just grind to a halt...

it's all very true, but can't you trust people to make the decision for themselves? if the spanish, dutch and french have been given the right to vote on the issue, why not the brits? of course, if they say no, there might be consequences, so all point of views and possible consequences must be debated publicly and electorally.

 

[MikeMcc]

But then the Uk would lose all political influence over the EU, sure it could join in their projects but it wouldn't have a say in how those policies were formed and what characteristic they took...

And...

 

[Dhimmi]

I said further to the left than the alternative (ie an Americanised British brand of capitalism)

Fair enough, apologies for my misreading.

Put it this way, would you prefer a European social model or an American social model?

Honestly? Neither.
I'd prefer a UK social model firmly rooted with our connections, be they West Indian, Indian, African, Anzac, Canadian, etc.
I think the UK is in a unique position with regard to our relations across the globe, the envy of many other nations, and that is what we should embrace. And without any hint of "reclaiming empire" or similar BS.

 

[Irenick]

Against...

 

[Charlie Drake]

Against - SMASH THE EU

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Against - SMASH THE EU

so what do you want instead? nation states? the land of anarchy? the yanks and russkies sharing the spoil? something else?

 

[lewislewis]

Duh, isn't it a foregone conclusion that the smashing of the EU leads to autonomous social collectives siezing power (and then abolishing the concept of power)?

No, for us the choice is to follow America forever or take a more independent route by co-operating with Europe.

 

[CyberRose]

I suspect it'd be larger or at least no smaller in the 'real' world too, so do the politicians - hence a referendum can't ever happen.

*champions of europe*

You'd be suprised how many people actually support the EU. For all the great things the EU does, and for all the many benefits people in the UK enjoy because of the EU, you will never ever read about it in the British media (apart from the Independent) because spouting Euro-myths is more entertaining. Given that everytime you hear the EU mentioned it is in a negative light could make one think the whole country is anti-EU but there are a hell of a lot of people who are intelligent enough not to buy into the shit they read in the newspapers...

 

[greenman]

Lewis Lewis - I suggest you take a closer look at the sort of things Merkel, Fischer, other Europhiles and particularly the leaders of "New Europe" are saying if you think that evolving the European state will give us more "independence" from the USA....

The so called "Christian Democratic" model of Europe is getting closer and closer to the "Anglo Saxon" anyway - have a look what is happening to postal and rail services, have a look at the directives that are likely to come through once national vetoes are even further reduced and the ERT, TABD, etc really get their feet under the table.

I am not in favour of leaving the EU at the moment as this likely would isolate British workers more from their European brothers and sisters. We should take a leaf out of the book of the French Euro-sceptic left who won the referendum on the basis of a different vision of Europe rather than an outright rejection of European cooperation and retreat into national isolationism. Left Euroscepticism is democratic and internationalist and opposes key aspects of the current and proposed EU set up on these terms, not nationalism. Falling into the black and white EU vs US/"Social Model"vs"Anglo Saxon model" thinking is a trap that benefits noone but the power elites. We must unite across Europe against the messianic elitists and their big business corporate chums and oppose every proposal they bring forward that increases their power and reduces that of ordinary people.

As in France a vote on the Treaty/Constitution would allow us to clearly define a left Euro-sceptic position (as in France) that at the moment is ignored in favour of presenting everything as Little Englanders versus Europhile Idealists (which actually obscures the real interests that lie behind both these simplistic positions.)

 

[goneforlunch]

But inside nations like England and Wales, different sub-regional variations are used to determine economic policy.
That's why in Wales, the poor areas like the Valleys get Objective One funding, but the rich areas like Cardiff don't. You could apply the same divisions not just to England itself but to the NE or SE.

This will change. Our current Objective 1 areas (West Wales, S Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside) receive the highest priority for EU grants. In order to qualify, an area must have per capita GDP of less than 75% of the EU average. With the accession of the new Eastern European countries only Cornwall will still qualify for Objective 1 status.

All we need is a government that embraces Europe rather than fears it, and then negotiates the best deal possible for our people.

Our government does not "fear" the EU any more than any of our previous governments have, far from it, and, with the exception of Thatcher [in the latter but not early part of her premiership] have shown as much commitment to European integration as any other government. Your argument is very simplistic in asking for a government that "embraces" Europe.

I visit Europe frequently and the condition of those countries, the level of social care and kindness, the rejection of militarism and the general co-operative attitude is very positive.

I too visit continental Europe frequently, and also see the conditions, and systems of government, good and bad. It's not an argument for integration.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

You'd be suprised how many people actually support the EU.

Yup, a good 25% of urbanites!

 

[butchersapron]

No, for us the choice is to follow America forever or take a more independent route by co-operating with Europe.

No it's not, not unless you make it so. And no thanks, i don't want an independent imperialist european bloc constructd around the interests of european capital either. Totally false choice and the pretty much the bosses agenda.

 

[lewislewis]

This will change. Our current Objective 1 areas (West Wales, S Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside) receive the highest priority for EU grants. In order to qualify, an area must have per capita GDP of less than 75% of the EU average. With the accession of the new Eastern European countries only Cornwall will still qualify for Objective 1 status.



Our government does not "fear" the EU any more than any of our previous governments have, far from it, and, with the exception of Thatcher [in the latter but not early part of her premiership] have shown as much commitment to European integration as any other government. Your argument is very simplistic in asking for a government that "embraces" Europe.



I too visit continental Europe frequently, and also see the conditions, and systems of government, good and bad. It's not an argument for integration.

West Wales & the Valleys still qualify until 2013 though yes it may stop after that.

 

[lewislewis]

Lewis Lewis - I suggest you take a closer look at the sort of things Merkel, Fischer, other Europhiles and particularly the leaders of "New Europe" are saying if you think that evolving the European state will give us more "independence" from the USA....

The so called "Christian Democratic" model of Europe is getting closer and closer to the "Anglo Saxon" anyway - have a look what is happening to postal and rail services, have a look at the directives that are likely to come through once national vetoes are even further reduced and the ERT, TABD, etc really get their feet under the table.

Of course of course but those elected governments come and go, regimes change and that's up to the people of those countries to decide, and the Christian Democrats/centre-right won't always have power. Even with conservatives/christian democrats in power, those countries appear to treat their workers better than the UK with Labour in power.

Sorry i'm not arguing hard right now i'm really tired.

 

[Dhimmi]

there are a hell of a lot of people who are intelligent enough not to buy into the shit they read in the newspapers...

This is very Brussels, the only opinions which count are those which are flavourable. Anyone who disagrees is neither a fascist, stupid or both.

It's one of the core reasons folk don't trust it in my fascistic ignorant opinion.