CyberRose said:
a decision on whether to adopt a european constitution is an extremely important decision with consequences for the future. it's not about the price of bread or the education system or whatever else. people must have their say.
How would you vote on the European Constitution?
- Thread starter CyberRose
- Start date
a decision on whether to adopt a european constitution is an extremely important decision with consequences for the future. it's not about the price of bread or the education system or whatever else. people must have their say.
gosub
~#
CyberRose said:
John Major - Prime Minister 28/11/1990 - 1/5/1997 signed Maastrict on 7/2/1992. He only contested two elections as PM and leader of the Conservative party 9/4/1992, and 1/5/1997. [ETA: + Leadership election 23/7/1993]
Gordon Brown 27/06/2007 - will sign the constitunional treaty that binds its successors to not be able to leave the EU without the say so of other EUropean nations (no semantic destortions can make that "pooling sovreignty" ) and further extend Qualified Majority Voting into areas as yet not fully detailed, and the man has not won an election to give him a mandate to sign anything.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
1. It's an amending treaty, just like the rest, not a constitutiongosub said:
2. They are not Presidents, they are Prime Ministers. PMs head the government which is formed by the party with the most MPs, in this case Labour, and everybody knows Labour policy is pro-EU
3. You missed out Amsterdam and Nice
goneforlunch
Member
CyberRose said:
Glad you're not really confused, but you did use the confused smilie. The "benefits" as presented by pro-EU debaters simply don't stand up to scrutiny, imo.
Even when a referendum on the Constitution [aka the amending treaty] was promised by the government in its election manifesto? That's not very democratic.
I have voted UKIP in the past (and probably will again until a better party intent on leaving the EU forms). I'm most definitely not xenophobic, racist or against workers' rights, and very few UKIP supporters I have met are either.
gosub
~#
The mandate for Amsterdam and Nice bears up better to the scrutiny of mandate, but as it[the EU] leeches into almost every area of governance and short cuts democratic debate, it would be nice to be consulted at least once, specifically about it, though to sort out anywhere sensible or constructive on our relationship with Europe would require two referendums. I think the first should concern the previous administrations promised plebiscite. This I fully expect the "no" side to win, not least because of the overwhelming case, but to act as a release value for some of the animosity and bile that has most certainly built up.
The Pro EUro lot may have lost but would have a far more level playing field for any subsequent referendum on a constitution (and lets face it, a constitution obtained though subterfuge and minimal public involvement is the least likely to stick) .
Though the dog that didn't bark bit on this is; I'm reading flags and anthems out of the revised text, no-body's saying anything either way about a recognized currency. Its early doors but if that's in there there will be hell to pay.
The Pro EUro lot may have lost but would have a far more level playing field for any subsequent referendum on a constitution (and lets face it, a constitution obtained though subterfuge and minimal public involvement is the least likely to stick) .
Though the dog that didn't bark bit on this is; I'm reading flags and anthems out of the revised text, no-body's saying anything either way about a recognized currency. Its early doors but if that's in there there will be hell to pay.
Dhimmi
Half Man Half HobNob
CyberRose said:
Does that make the no votes on this poll yes votes?
CyberRose said:
Well no but you come close to claiming that of folk who are anti-EU.
CyberRose said:
I'd like to think the electorate might be trusted to make up their own minds.
CyberRose said:
So you object to the UK joining the EU? That was a policy decision taken by referendum.
If the EU was a brill idea they'd have no problem in an EU wide vote on continued membership for all nation states. They won't of course because they'd lose a good few members and the continued funding of their corporate friendly, anti-labour, un-auditable and deeply corrupt power game.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I use the "confused" smiley to give extra weight to the question I ask! Makes it more rhetorical I think! As for the benefits, I could write a list, and you could contend them, and I don't think we'd get very far would we?goneforlunch said:
Another way of looking at it would be that the government has listened to the public and that's why they aren't having a Constitution (and the referendum to go with it) and instead they are having the same kind of treaty we have had three times before with no referendum (it is spin, but it's still true)
Must just be the politicians then! And of course there are valid right-wing views just as there are valid left-wing views against the EU. But UKIP and the actions, comments of their politicians give me the impression they are politically on the right as well as economically (surely you can't agree with their economic policies?!?!?!?). I have also mentioned the link between UKIP and the BNP (a lot of cross-membership has been discovered and they seem to have an agreement in a lot of places not to stand against each other which would suggest a shared support to an extent)
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
The only good thing I can see by having a referendum that would take us out of the EU is that the pro-EU brigade could blame all the countries ills on non-membership of the EU (similar to what the anti-EU brigade do now, but vica versa) and maybe the population would become more pro-EU?gosub said:
Possibly similar to if the Conservatives ever got back in it could kill the party off within 5 years when everyone remembers just how bad they really are!
But in both the examples, we would be subjected to years of shit before we got back to normal! (IMO)
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
No why would it?Dhimmi said:
Point taken, tho I do make a point of saying those basing their opinions on xenophobia or fear have been brainwashed by whoever, but there are valid criticisms from both ends of the political spectrum - I have yet to hear anyone opposed to the EU on this thread admit there are valid reasons to support the EU...
I'd like to think that too!
What an absurd comment to make
And UK legislation is more pro-worker than proposed EU legislation?
And is the alternative to EU membership any less corporate friendly? Any less anti-labour? Any less corrupt? No, the alternative is more...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
CyberRose said:
To briefly come back on just this point alone, the UKIP and BNP are today utterly hostile to each other - the UKIP stopped Griffin (and probably one other BNP candidate ) picking up a seat in the European Parliament, and also stopped them from topping one million votes in total a few years back. - the UKIP have acted for the last 5 years or so as an unmovable bloc on the BNPs electoral strategy as reagrds euro-elections. Years before that there was an attempt by BNP members to infiltrate the UKIP but that was spotted and stopped and joint membershio is now (IIRC) proscribed.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I was talking about local and general elections (Euro elections are on too grand a scale for this strategy)torres said:
If you look at election time, more often than not UKIP and the BNP will not stand against each other (altho there is no evidence to suggest a deal has been struck, it certainly suggests that the two parties believe their supporters are pretty similar). There have also been many cases of UKIP members supporting the BNP. Also, Ashley Mote, suspended from UKIP over fruad charges, went and sat with the skinheads in the Euro Parliament (ensuring that they could officially be recognsied as a "Group" and all the benefits that come with that)
And of course UKIP have proscribed BNP membership! They can hardly not in this day and age can they?! But that's not stopped BNP supporters gaining positions in public service and it certainly won't have stopped them joining their ideological-lite counterparts in UKIP
BNP website said:
gosub
~#
Dhimmi said:
No it wasn't, the UK joined the Common Market and voted to remain a member of the Common Market by referendum. That might sound pedantic, but those votes were secured by explicitly saying it wouldn't lead to an EU type thing. There has been no public consultation on Britain joining the EU.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
CyberRose said:
UKIP rarely stand in local elections. And in general (and euro elections, i don't see why you're discounting them in this thread, they're pretty bloody relavent i would have thought!) they stand head-to-head wherever and whenever - that's why there's bad blood between the leaderships, the whole post-euro elections BNP analysis was based not how they could work with the UKIP but how they could stop them poaching 'their' votes - the answer wasn't to work with them but to undermine them and destory their credibility. It was to constantly attack their leadeship whilst wooing their flaky membership. Of course you're going to get some crossover from one set of loons to another, but that doesn't imply that they're working togther (in fact defections are often accompanied by bitter wild-eyed denuciations of 'selling our country to the wogs') and nor does it imply that it's a small step from being anti-eu to being pro-BNP (not that you've said that). But this is probably going too far off topic for this thread.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Dispite them fielding "record number" of candidates for the last local elections?torres said:
The reason they don't put as many candidates forward as the mainstream parties is because they are not big enough. But that's no different for general or European elections (and the reason I discount European elections is because it would be impossible for UKIP to not stand against anyone from any party due to the size of the constituencies)
While I cannot be bothered to go through every council in the UK to test the theory, I have had a look at some fo the South Yorkshire ones, and altho there are cases of them standing against each other, for the main, they don't:
Sheffield 0 wards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Council_election_2007
Doncaster 1 ward:
http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Living_...ions/Elections/Local/Local_Elections_2007.asp
Rotherham 0 wards: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/graphic.../Electoral+Services/_Election+Results2007.htm
Barnsley: N/A as no UKIP candidates
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
CyberRose said:
Here's a link to the direct head to heads in the 2007 general elections in Scotland and a tatse of the animosity between the two in the analysis and the approach that i mentioned above - attacking the party leaders as selling the country out whilst appealing to the flaky members.
http:***//regionalnews.bnp.org.uk/bnp-scotland-region/ukip-v-bnp-in-scotland_513.html
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
But there's only 8 regional constituencies they could have stood in! My point about the European elections would apply to this even more. Obviously they will stand against each other when there are only 8 competitions, but neither party fielded any candidates for the 50 or so local constituencies in the 2007 election (I think as I have no idea how the Scottish electoral system works and have just tried to educate myself this last 5 mins!!)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So what you're saying is, if the evidence is against you it doesn't count? An odd way of doing things. The seats are too big or something. Precisely what level is acceptable to you then given that the bnp barely stood 750 candidates in the last local elections and less than a 120 in the general election? So far we have scotland not counting, and on the same basis i guess wales won't count either, the euro elections don't count (despite the UKIP specfically being a party that has been formed to contest european elections) - any other elections where they BNP and UKIP go head-to-head that don't count when investigating if the BNP and UKIP go head-to-head electorally? What a carry on 
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
But can't you understand my point? The less number of seats there are up for grap, the less likely any deal/arrangement will take place. When there are only 8 seats up for grabs, and no chance on Earth either party would get a candidate elected it would be pointless to make a deal. Whereas in local elections, where there are loads of seats in each constituency (such as Sheffield) and due to the small size of both parties and the fact that there seems to be a shared support base, then it makes more sense not to stand against each other cos they will split their vote...torres said:So what you're saying is, if the evidence is against you it doesn't count? An odd way of doing things. The seats are too big or something. Precisely what level is acceptable to you then given that the bnp barely stood 750 candidates in the last local elections and less than a 120 in the general election? So far we have scotland not counting, and on the same basis i guess wales won't count either, the euro elections don't count (despite the UKIP specfically being a party that has been formed to contest european elections) - any other elections where they BNP and UKIP go head-to-head that don't count when investigating if the BNP and UKIP go head-to-head electorally? What a carry on
Similar threads
