How would you vote on the European Constitution?

[goneforlunch]

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...

It seems not enough people support the Reform Treaty, formerly known as the Constitution, to risk putting it to a vote. And all the benefits people in the UK enjoy ... which are these? The EU has already been discussed at some length in this thread, but if you have anything new to add, I'd be pleased to hear it.

But you are of course right in that there are people intelligent enough not to buy into the shit they read in the mainstream media. And I also agree that the Independent is one of the better sources for EU news although I disagree with its spin.

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

With an ever expanding EU, I doubt there is any chance at all it will carry on after that. What happens when the funding stops under the barely democratic EU? Wales might even be expected to make a contribution of its own to the EU budget. The net contributors would like some help!

 

[CyberRose]

How is the EU "barely democratic"?

 

[Dhimmi]

How about having a tiny number of citizens within the union having a vote on a constitution and despite a resounding no changing the name to bypass any further votes?

 

[TAE]

Dhimmi, I think you'll find that is being done by the individual countries' governments, not by the EU commision or the EU parliament.

 

[butchersapron]

With the full backing of the EU.

 

[CyberRose]

How about having a tiny number of citizens within the union having a vote on a constitution and despite a resounding no changing the name to bypass any further votes?

That's the UK, not the EU

Besides, the UK population it appears didn't want a Constitution for Europe so the government has decided not to have one, how is that undemocratic?!

We're having a normal treaty just like all the rest (in fact it's not even gonna change as much as the rest) so I don't see why we should have a referendum now and not in the past. It's not like we have referendums on many policy areas so why on the EU? It's just an opportunist attack by single-issue Eurosceptics

 

[CyberRose]

With the full backing of the EU.

What does that even mean?!

The only actors that can agree a new treaty are the national governments of the EU...

 

[butchersapron]

It means that none of the EU's bodies has taken a postion that says, 'Oh well, we lost those referendums, we bow to the will of the people, and we'll certainly publiclly and vocally oppose any plans to simply rename and reintroduce the exact same proposals'

 

[CyberRose]

It means that none of the EU's bodies has taken a postion that says, 'Oh well, we lost those referendums, we bow to the will of the people, and we'll certainly publiclly and vocally oppose any plans to simply rename and reintroduce the exact same proposals'

So because 2 countries rejected the Constitution, and 18 countries have ratified the Constitution, you think the EU should not support the Constitution, and that would somehow be democratic in your mind?!

 

[butchersapron]

How many of those 18 states were referendums held in CR as you're so concerned with democracy?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

What does that even mean?!

The only actors that can agree a new treaty are the national governments of the EU...

what about the electorate?

 

[gosub]

That's the UK, not the EU

Besides, the UK population it appears didn't want a Constitution for Europe so the government has decided not to have one, how is that undemocratic?!

We're having a normal treaty just like all the rest (in fact it's not even gonna change as much as the rest) so I don't see why we should have a referendum now and not in the past. It's not like we have referendums on many policy areas so why on the EU? It's just an opportunist attack by single-issue Eurosceptics

So because people were unable to galvinize sufficent support in 97 for a referendum that gives precendence? Labour IIRC changed its manifesto in the run up to that election, there would be a referendum on single currency, there should have been one on Nice but the single currency "debate" was still ensuing and Blair promised one on the constitution and we should have one a consitiution isn't just about offically recognizing a flag and anthem Justifing policy on the basis of previous bad form and broken promises is opportunistic to say the least.

Not that I think were we to have a referendum, we would only have one, as other EUropean Nations have shown, when they are called and the government doesn't get the result it wants, they call another one, how very democratic.

 

[CyberRose]

How many of those 18 states were referendums held in CR as you're so concerned with democracy?

I'm not "so concerned with democracy" actually. I just take issue with people hiding behind "democracy" on EU issues when they remain silent on democracy (ie referendums) on any other issue.

FYI 2 countries ratified the Constitution by referendum and the remainder ratified it by overwhelming majorities in the national Parliaments (you know, those things citizens elect to make political decisions for them)

But all that is irrelevant because it concerns the actions of national governments, not the EU institutions which people have claimed is "undemocratic", hence me asking "why" to which I have yet to receive a reply (not including those who have bizarrely used the actions of national governents to show the EU is undemocratic)

 

[CyberRose]

what about the electorate?

Who elects national governments!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not "so concerned with democracy" actually. I just take issue with people hiding behind "democracy" on EU issues when they remain silent on democracy (ie referendums) on any other issue.

FYI 2 countries ratified the Constitution by referendum and the remainder ratified it by overwhelming majorities in the national Parliaments (you know, those things citizens elect to make political decisions for them)

But all that is irrelevant because it concerns the actions of national governments, not the EU institutions which people have claimed is "undemocratic", hence me asking "why" to which I have yet to receive a reply (not including those who have bizarrely used the actions of national governents to show the EU is undemocratic)

It's not irelevent. It's centrally important. Adopting a new constitution that effects everyone needs to be voted on by everyone subject to it. It's that simple - a basic democratic staple.

And you'll not find me being quiet about democracy on any other issue either. I believe in direct democracy, not the type used by the EU and antional states to hide their own interests and agendas.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

FYI 2 countries ratified the Constitution by referendum and the remainder ratified it by overwhelming majorities in the national Parliaments (you know, those things citizens elect to make political decisions for them)

it doesn't mean they agree with the decisions. you might as well say that the war on Irak was a democratic decision.

 

[CyberRose]

So because people were unable to galvinize sufficent support in 97 for a referendum that gives precendence? Labour IIRC changed its manifesto in the run up to that election, there would be a referendum on single currency, there should have been one on Nice but the single currency "debate" was still ensuing and Blair promised one on the constitution and we should have one a consitiution isn't just about offically recognizing a flag and anthem Justifing policy on the basis of previous bad form and broken promises is opportunistic to say the least.

Not that I think were we to have a referendum, we would only have one, as other EUropean Nations have shown, when they are called and the government doesn't get the result it wants, they call another one, how very democratic.

We never had a referendum on joining the UN or NATO or the EU (or any of it's reforming treaties) so whether or not Euroceptics failed to muster enough support for a referendum for Amsterdam or Nice is irrelevant. We don't make policy by referendums in this country, we elect a government to do that for us.

If you think we should have referendums for every policy decision (which I suspect a number of people on here will) then fair enough, but don't just single the EU out as then it is obvious it is just an opportunist attack. I don't think we should have referendums when we elect a governments to do that for us. But then I agree with Parlimentary democracy, if you believe in an alternative way of running government then fine, but then that has nothing to do with the EU

 

[CyberRose]

it doesn't mean they agree with the decisions. you might as well say that the war on Irak was a democratic decision.

Did Labour say they were going to invade Iraq before they were elected? No

Did everyone know Labour supported EU membership before the election? Yes

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Did Labour say they were going to invade Iraq before they were elected? No

Did everyone know Labour supported EU membership before the election? Yes

it depends what you mean by EU membership. also, people can change their mind, can't they? if not, why do we bother with new elections every so often?

 

[butchersapron]

Did Labour say they were going to invade Iraq before they were elected? No

Did everyone know Labour supported EU membership before the election? Yes

Did they? Did they also know that labour promised a referendum?

 

[CyberRose]

It's not irelevent. It's centrally important. Adopting a new constitution that effects everyone needs to be voted on by everyone subject to it. It's that simple - a basic democratic staple.

And you'll not find me being quiet about democracy on any other issue either. I believe in direct democracy, not the type used by the EU and antional states to hide their own interests and agendas.

You mean "used by the national states" yes? The EU has no power over individual electoral systems used in member states so it's pointless complaining that it does and opportunist to blame the EU

And I don't believe in direct democracy so I guess there's no point carrying on this discussion as it no longer has anything to do with the EU...

 

[CyberRose]

it depends what you mean by EU membership. also, people can change their mind, can't they? if not, why do we bother with new elections every so often?

Well, by "EU membership" I guess I mean the UK being a member of the EU

And if they change their mind, then they can voice their opposition by voting for a party who's principles are more in line with their own. I guess that's why we "bother with new elections every so often"

 

[CyberRose]

Did they? Did they also know that labour promised a referendum?

Yes everyone knows Labour is pro-EU

You have strong anti-EU feelings? Well vote UKIP or set up your own party

 

[butchersapron]

Yes everyone knows Labour is pro-EU

You have strong anti-EU feelings? Well vote UKIP or set up your own party

You can't say that people knew that labour was pro-EU and so were given the chance to vote accordingly when there was a pledge in their manifesto to allow a referendum on the issue (to sway anti-eu labour voters, of who there are very very many) that was ignored. You cannot have it both ways on that.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Well, by "EU membership" I guess I mean the UK being a member of the EU

it doesn't mean anything. what about the rules that govern the EU?

 

[CyberRose]

You can't that people knew that labour was pro-EU and so were given the chance to vote accordingly when there was a pledge in their manifesto to allow a referendum on the issue (to sway anti-eu labour voters, of who there are very very many) that was ignored. You cannot have it both ways on that.

A referendum on whether to have a Constitution or not, not on whether we should be members of the EU (which this seems to have translated into certain people's heads)

So the only problem people can have with not having a referendum is if they are pissed off that we are no longer having an EU Constitution...

 

[CyberRose]

it doesn't mean anything. what about the rules that govern the EU?

Sorry you've completely lost me...

 

[butchersapron]

A referendum on whether to have a Constitution or not, not on whether we should be members of the EU (which this seems to have translated into certain people's heads)

So the only problem people can have with not having a referendum is if they are pissed off that we are no longer having an EU Constitution...

Yes, i was talking about the constitution. The one that labour promised a referendum on.

That last para makes no sense.

 

[CyberRose]

Yes, i was talking about the constitution. The one that labour promised a referendum on.

That last para makes no sense.

I mean, we're not having a referendum so those complaining we are not having one must be pissed off because they want a EU Constitution

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Sorry you've completely lost me...

so how can you argue if you can't understand in the first place?