Various Labour and Tory manifestos have promised us a referendum, Gordon Brown reneged on it, now Cameron is reneging too, if the people want a vote (and polls suggest we do) then shouldn't the politicians trust us? Whether you are for or against the EU shouldn't the opinion of the people count for something?
What do you reckon, should we have a referendum?
if the media could actually be relied upon to give a true picture then a referendum might be a good way of getting an answer.
But, the media has been anti europe for so long that there is no true picture, all we hear are negatives and often the negatives are invented. Very little is said about what the benefits of Europe are, what the implications of leaving are, etc.
Simple facts like most trade is with Europe, so whatever we do Europe will be telling us what to do.
A friend on mine, a Labour Councillor in Hove told me that Brown & Co denied us a referendum on the EU Constitution because the 'No' vote would win and they couldn't allow that. That smacks of dictatorship to me, as does Camerons stance on it now. What price Democracy when manifesto pledges are torn up and tossed out like so much confetti?
Well actually the referendum Brown proposed was on the EU constitution that never happened - so no vote needed.
A referendum on the EU is stupid and pointless - do you really think withdrawal would be in the UKs best interests?
TJ-your answer mirrors my Labour Councillor friends view but is missing the point. Whether I want in or out of the EU is irrelevant, what I am saying is if the people WANT a say, as they do, who are politicians to deny it? As you will no doubt know the EU Constitution and the Treaty were for all intents and purposes the same document, they even contained the same spelling mistakes!
Got a link to the tory manifesto EU referendum pledge ?
I found this :-
"We have introduced a Bill in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty - a 'referendum lock'."
But that's not a pledge for a a referendum on our current EU membership is it.
[i]That smacks of dictatorship to me[/i]
But its like having kids, now and again you have to stop them before they do something stupid.
the trouble is most people are total morons and arent capable of understanding the issues properly and will only be swayed by whatever the tabloids are saying. So probably best is there isnt a referendum
allthepies-it was in the previous manifesto, before Brown signed the Constitution. And at the time that Brown reneged on his parties promise Cameron screamed and wailed about the benefits of having a referendum, now he orders his MP's to deny the people what they want.
b r-politicians are our servants not our parents. Surely if the people want a say then they should have one. If Cameron feels he has the right to patronise the public then he'll pay at the polls next time out, just like Brown did.
What worries me the most is that none of the Lib/Lab/Con parties are representing mainstream opinion on Europe-opening the door to the extreme right.
+1 for Darrell and b r. Wouldn't want a decision this important left to a public vote. If important decisions all went to public vote we'd still be hanging folk.
darrell- does that give the PM the right to dictate to the public then?
So it wasn't in the Tory manifesto of this government then ?
Yes, it was. In 2007 Cameron promised a "cast-iron" commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. At the time William Hague described Browns signing of the treaty-against 88% of the publics will- as a "bad day for democracy. What's changed?
Sad to say but I agree with the argument that a referendum for things like this is basically a bad idea- if anyone believes that such things get settled by informed decision making in a fair climate, just look at the electoral reform debate. An absolute farce, in the end.
theloner - MemberA friend on mine, a Labour Councillor in Hove told me that Brown & Co denied us a referendum on the EU Constitution because the 'No' vote would win and they couldn't allow that
And not because it became irrelevant after other nations rejected it? No you're right, we should have had a referendum on a constitution that wasn't going to come to pass regardless, that'd be a good use of time and money. Brown denied us our democratic right to achieve nothing.
Here's a clue - there's a reason why successive prime ministers don't want to risk a referendum on pulling Britain out of the EU, and it has to do with not wanting to be the person in charge when they turn out the lights on our economy.
Only an utter, utter 'ricky', which an understanding of economics about a hundred years out of date would consider it prudent to remove Britain from the EU trading block. What exactly would we do next - ask the US if we could become the 51st state?
What do you reckon, should we have a referendum?
When I see people asking if they are going to pay duty on European purchases, I fear that they are not informed enough to make decisions on more important issues.
The news here does seem to maintain a certain distance from Europe and generally I don't think people are informed.
So the answer is no, no referendum.
Blimey, some of you blokes really do come across as a bunch of Patricians! Sod the Plebs and what they think, we know best! I just can't see that kind of attitude as democratic!
It really reminds me of the '80's, when nobodby understood or cared, only now I'm in my 30's and not understanding and not caring is such very hard work.
Yes, he said all that and then changed his mind in 2009 IIRC but it wasn't a 2010 manifesto pledge was it.
Anyway, if you want out of Europe then vote UKIP, that's about your only option.
Blimey, some of you blokes really do come across as a bunch of Patricians! Sod the Plebs and what they think, we know best! I just can't see that kind of attitude as democratic!
For democracy to function properly we would need a fair and balanced media though.
People who form their political opinions based on the Daily Mail and The Sun shouldn't be allowed to vote.
theloner - Memberallthepies-it was in the previous manifesto, before Brown signed the Constitution. And at the time that Brown reneged on his parties promise Cameron screamed and wailed about the benefits of having a referendum, now he orders his MP's to deny the people what they want.
Brown never signed up to the EU constitution as it was rejected by other countries. So there was no constitution to have a referendum on. So no pledge was broken
Whether it was in the 2010 or 2007 manifesto mate, the issue remains the same. The majority of people want a vote. They should, surely, have it? If not what next? Capital punishment?
Whether or not Brown signed a 'Treaty' or a 'Constitution' Jerry, the premise was the same. Don't try and pretend that it wasn't the same document, every sensible person knows it was whatever their political leaning.
theloner - nope - every sensible person knows that they are not the same -
A referendum on [s]the EU[/s] independence is stupid and pointless - do you really think withdrawal [u]from the union[/u] would be in [s]the UKs[/s]Scotland's best interests?
Really Jerry? Care to point out the differences between the Treaty and Constitution?
Yes we should have a vote has they are only representing the people
Whom for some reason put them in? But thats another thread.
Personally its not ever going to work and nearly every country who's
in has collapsed.
Ive just bought a place in Alicante and courtesy of Great Britain being part of the EU.
I am driving on new motorways and dual carriageways paid by YOU?
And yet come here and our roads are a pot /patched up mess!
Just what are we getting out of it to whats being paid out anyone know ?
We need to get out and reinvest in this country and educate
and train for so called skills shortage and not rely on other
countries investing and pulling the plug on work here and
giving the work to there own people.
What is the point of a referendum? what exactly would it achieve?
Remember the UK is no longer the centre of a vast empire, it is a small country that relies on trade for its existence.
Do you think that if the UK pulls out of the EU that Frankfurt won't ensure that London is screwed as a financial centre?
If we leave the EU do you really think we will be free to make our own laws? do you really think the French farmers won't call for a ban on British Beef imports on the basis of TB or whatever takes there fancy?
Those saying that if we leave the EU then the foreigners will all have to go home, do you really think that is going to happen, look at the use of Filipino nurses or Indian IT contractors, there presence is despite the EU not because of it.
Take fruit picking so you suddenly see all the Romanians being replaced? even though they have been coming since before Romanian accession?
As for comments about Norway and its oil wealth, bit irrelevant now as the North Sea oil wealth has been spent, or Switzerland, they have to play along with the EU rules because they have no choice.
As an aside i guess you know that the EU part funded the trails at Afan?
mrmo-my point is that there has bever had to be an educated discussion on the merits of EU membership because our 'leaders' in parliament have this arrogant, snobby attitude that they know best and we don't count.
The point of having a vote is that the majority WANT a vote, to deny it would be dictaorship in my eyes. I've had enough of 'don't do as I do, do as I say' politics.
Do you think that if the UK pulls out of the EU that Frankfurt won't ensure that London is screwed as a financial centre?
That won't happen being this country nearly solely relies on this for monies.
If it ever to was there would be a war or near war to happen.
As an aside i guess you know that the EU part funded the trails at Afan?
LOL wow just how much was that compared to a total new motorway system and
dual carriageways in and around Alicante and this goes to Murcia and surrounding districts.
Just google Alicante to see how big a region it is. Its not just the sea side town!!
Plus have you not seen Alicante's New Airport courtesy of EU funding?
theloner, the point is there can't be an educated informed discussion with the British Media as it is.
On that basis what is the point, the outcome is known, but the implications aren't
That won't happen being this country nearly solely relies on this for monies.
If it ever to was there would be a war or near war to happen.
Do you really think there would be a war? Consider for a moment the outcome, consider who would enlist? the only war that might happen is a trade war which would see the UK well and truly screwed, we have to import fuel, food, labour, etc etc etc.
and look up objective one.
Personally its not ever going to work and nearly every country who's in has collapsed.
Ive just bought a place in Alicante and courtesy of Great Britain being part of the EU. I am driving on new motorways and dual carriageways paid by YOU?
And yet come here and our roads are a pot /patched up mess!Just what are we getting out of it to whats being paid out anyone know ?
We need to get out and reinvest in this country and educate
and train for so called skills shortage and not rely on other
countries investing and pulling the plug on work here and
giving the work to there own people.
As someone said further up the thread, daily mail readers. 🙄
If a referendum were to happen with the three so called options:
1: To stay in
2: To stay in but renegotiate our terms, such as free trade agreements.
3: To leave.
The EU would not allow option 2. And before anyone mentions Switzerland, they weren't in the EU in the first place. To have a country in the EU, try to do this option would send a signal to other countries that they can do the same. The EU would then be pointless. Some of you would like that, but it ain't going to happen.
So we are left with option 1 and 3, and since the unbiased OP seems to be clamouring for option 3, It means we are completely out with all the economic consequences that come with it.
Sorry mrmo, but are saying is that the British people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions about our own future?
Sorry mrmo, but are saying is that the British people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions about our own future?
No, i am saying the British People have been told for so long that the EU is a bad thing they will vote for what they have been told to be true.
If that is stupidity so be it, i would say it is more akin to brain washing.
A referendum on the EU is stupid and pointless - do you really think withdrawal would be in the UKs best interests?
These points simply do not follow so this is a merely a cheap trick - the answer to the second part has no bearing on the first.
Who defines "best interest"? What happens in a period of economic prosperity/recession. The government could argue, sorry its not in the interests of the UK to hold an unsettling election at the moment, so we will cancel an election. Hmmm!!!
When I see people asking if they are going to pay duty on European purchases, I fear that they are not informed enough to make decisions on more important issues. The news here does seem to maintain a certain distance from Europe and generally I don't think people are informed. So the answer is no, no referendum.
While there may be truth in what you say here, BUT the logical conclusion to this argument is that democracy is a bad idea. We take it as read that citizens have a right to vote irrespective of there level of understanding of the issues involved. So to use this as a basis for argument (alone) is to tear up the foundations of democracy. Or am I missing something here?
BTW (TJ) not showing my hand yet but look forward to your interpretation 😉
Do you really think there would be a war? Consider for a moment the outcome, consider who would enlist? the only war that might happen is a trade war which would see the UK well and truly screwed, we have to import fuel, food, labour, etc etc etc.
After bailing the banks out hence we are in so much debt that it could not ever happen?
What happened to America when they had a problem with Vietnam over a tooth brush
and amongst other items.
Trade war well if that puts us in the shite so the above will happen has a last resort.
Fuel,food,labour well we would simply need to invest then you will not need the above
from anyone else.
If we invest for long term you would not need to worry for the above.
And if we need to buy we would look at America and Australia for such items
teanhurtmore-thanks for that, it's kinda what I was trying to say (rather badly!).
I cannot see how withdrawing would help in the current economic climate. We mainly trade with europe and the end of that free trade would clearly harm us.
The problem is there is little [none] positive news about Europe from the free press and lots of BS stories about what it does and does not do.
The vote would almost certainly be to withdraw which would harm us massively in the short run. Now is not the time to do this as the tottering economy would be Fubbared.
I dont trust the public to do anything other than an emotive vote for freedom without full comprehension of the facts and implications;
neither has any political leader even those who naturally dont like the EU
The whole discussion also ignores the fact we voted to join as well.
It's a fair point to say it's anti democratic or against the peoples wishes.
As usual you raise some interesting points teamhurtmore [ your THM from now on btw] but democracy does not always make great decisions [ nor do politicians- Blair over Iraq or Germans voting for Hitler [forgive me my Goodwin]. I would not like to defend either as great exemplars of either democracy or ignoring the people.
personally I am ambivalent as i dont really care where I am ignored from be it the EU council or Westminster
What happened to America when they had a problem with Vietnam over a tooth brush
and amongst other items.
What the Americans ran home with the tail between their legs?
Fuel,food,labour well we would simply need to invest then you will not need the above
from anyone else.
Where? tell me where we can build a power station where NIMBY-ISM won't be an issue? tell me where we can grow enough food to feed a population of c70Million?
Is the state of British Infrastructure maybe the result of incompitent British Government for the last 50+ years and actually nothing to do with Europe, why did British Rail invest in a new generation of Steam Trains in the 1950's infact the last british steam train was put into service in 1960 and the last service was in 1968? the introduction of diesel began in 1955?
How about the 1970's and the quality of British Leyland cars?
Something else you may or may not have noticed, why do companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Sony, Fujitsu, etc etc invest in the UK? might it have anything to do with membership of the EU?
There is no upside to leaving - why risk finding out if the general public are as stupid as they often appear.
If there is a vote I believe the British public will do exactly what the propaganda has been encvouraging for years: cut of its nose to spite its face. The rest off Euroland will then mutter something akin to "good riddance", build a huge refugee camp in Sangatte with a 30cm high wall around it and trade through Frankfurt.
Who defines "best interest"? What happens in a period of economic prosperity/recession. The government could argue, sorry its not in the interests of the UK to hold an unsettling election at the moment, so we will cancel an election. Hmmm!!!
Nonsense.
While there may be truth in what you say here, BUT the logical conclusion to this argument is that democracy is a bad idea. We take it as read that citizens have a right to vote irrespective of there level of understanding of the issues involved. So to use this as a basis for argument (alone) is to tear up the foundations of democracy. Or am I missing something here?
Well, we all have a chance to vote on European policy at the next election, of course if political parties don't follow their manifesto, and you feel that strongly about getting out of the EU, vote for someone else. That's democracy.
While the excuse of the economic troubles have been used to stir up this vote for a referendum again, its the economic consequences of withdrawal that the Anti-EU brigade have been conveniently ignoring, rather focusing on the political ideology of the EU instead.
The contradictions on STW never fail to amaze me.
People who defend individual rights and complain about lack of equality in other aspects seem equally happy to (1) prevent others from "voicing' their opposition to something and (2) seem qualified to define what is/isn't in the best interests of us all.
Quite illuminating really!!
Where? tell me where we can build a power station where NIMBY-ISM won't be an issue? tell me where we can grow enough food to feed a population of c70Million?
The Government would simply build one and where well that would be up to them.
Like I said we would look at America and Australia and no doubt be other countries
whom be happy to deal with us.
Just proves the younger generation can't let themselves out of a paper bag unless you
open it for them.
You need to learn there is no such word has can't
You have to accept you can't ! But remember there is always someone else out there that can.
Thats my out look on such a word as Can't.
Can't frame that word and take it to bed
Ewan - the foundation of our society allows people to demonstrate their stupidity frequently!! Even here 😉
El-bent - Member
Who defines "best interest"? What happens in a period of economic prosperity/recession. The government could argue, sorry its not in the interests of the UK to hold an unsettling election at the moment, so we will cancel an election. Hmmm!!!
Nonsense.
What is nonsense here - the example (possibly?) or the logic (not at all?).
Surely all the government would need-to postpone or cancel and election-would be a parliamentry majority?
technically the crown calls an election [not parliament], convention says they do this at the behest of the govt but it is not essential.
Constitutionally I dont believe the govt could postpone one as the crown [ monarch] could/would just sign the paperwork anyway.
Not sure about the referendum - I'm euro-sceptic by nature, but accept we cannot just jack it in and leave. A referendum on a simple "In or out" question would probably see the "Out" people winning.
That said, taking some powers back or placing ourselves in the free trade area that Heath's government originally promised would be nice!
The Government would simply build one and where well that would be up to them.
Like I said we would look at America and Australia and no doubt be other countries
whom be happy to deal with us.
But the government just building one where it feels isn't democratic is it!
What about the democratic process, the enquiries, the MPs protecting their electorate.
As for dealing with the US and australia, would it not make sense to develop markets before you destroy the current market. The UK trades with Europe, if you walk away now before establishing a new trade network you are asking to fail. And there is always the issue that the US is and always has tended to protectionism when it is in its interests, such as now with rising unemployment.
Personally i would rather be in Europe if only to try and mitigate the rappant neo con attitudes expressed by all the British parties. Democracy can't function properly when the choice does not exist, which the current Conservative/Labour system has brought us to.
Only an utter, utter 'ricky', which an understanding of economics about a hundred years out of date would consider it prudent to remove Britain from the EU trading block. What exactly would we do next - ask the US if we could become the 51st state?
That's a little naive!
Europe gets a huge amount out of the UK; investments, a huge export market and huge taxation.
By leaving the EU, there won't be any loss of trading; they can't afford not to trade with us, but we'll suffer less from taxation to the EU and can extricate ourselves away from EU law. I think some people are confusing leaving the EU with ceasing trading with the EU.
The MPs, being career politicians, have less idea than those experienced in the real world about what makes this world tick. They certainly shouldn't have the facility to deny the public a fair choice over our future.
Surely all the government would need-to postpone or cancel and election-would be a parliamentry majority?
No, they would first have to pass an amendment to other sections of law, but its questionable whether they would be able to force this through against the opposition of the House of Lords using the Parliament Act - its a complex area of constitutional law, and there are some very interesting and enlightening discussions with arguments either way in Jackson vs Attorney General 2004, which was the HOL judgement on the Hunting act...
By leaving the EU, there won't be any loss of trading; they can't afford not to trade with us, but we'll suffer less from taxation to the EU and can extricate ourselves away from EU law. I think some people are confusing leaving the EU with ceasing trading with the EU.
Out of interest what makes you think the EU HAS to trade with the UK? what does the UK make that can't be sourced elsewhere?
Look at British companies and how many are actually british and how many are merely outposts of foreign owned organisations?
How much of EU law is actually an issue and how much is the result of media propaganda? Yes there are stupid laws, but i am fairly certain that Westminster is perfectly capable of making its own stupid laws without the help of brussels.
Another day another dose of STW authoritarianism from the Usual Suspects.
- The proletariat are stupid and cant be trusted
- If you disagree with me you are a bigoted Daily Mail reader
I dont actually think this is a fabulous time to be trying to organise a referendum on Europe, the Euroland economy is going down the toilet and could take us with it. Flip side is we havent been asked our view since the 1970s and then we were talking about the good old EEC, not a nascent federal state.
A timely reminder if one were needed of what a bunch of nasty little zealots occupy the back benches of the Tory party. They're in coalition with a committed pro-European party having failed to win outright last year, and think it is a good strategic move to go after Europe. Idiots.
So referendum? Yes, but not now please.
Mrmo
UK is a massive export market for mainland EU. They can't afford not to trade with us.
But the government just building one where it feels isn't democratic is it!
In such circumstances Democratic would not exist They would simply do what
is necessary to keep the country working/moving
UK is a massive export market for mainland EU. They can't afford not to trade with us.
Export market, only for as long as we can afford to buy things, which means the UK needs to export goods.
And crucial to the discussion, as an Export nation the UK would have to ensure its products comply with the rules of its trading partners. Outside the EU we can't use the rules to our benefit, we just have to do as we are told.
mrmo-I haven't seen any evidence that the EU's trade with us would be at all affected by the UK not wanting to be part of the European Federal State. Trading partners-YES, junior partners in a Franco/German Dictarorship-NO. I'm not even going to get into the EU gravy train that sucks billions from the European economy. EU membership has cost the UK £90,000,000,000 or so, the benefits of membership are there to see but so are the pitfalls.
If we withdrew from the EC I am absolutly certain it would have major effects. Companies that use us for a low tax low regulation manufacturing entry intot eh EU would have no incentive to remain, we would have no right to trade with the EC and I am certain we would lose much trade/
As for the canard of renegotiating our membership - forget it. It would never be allowed.
Sop its either in and use our influence to get decision made our way or out, have no influence, lose manufacture and trade.
mrmo-I haven't seen any evidence that the EU's trade with us would be at all affected by the UK not wanting to be part of the European Federal State. Trading partners-YES, junior partners in a Franco/German Dictarorship-NO. I'm not even going to get into the EU gravy train that sucks billions from the European economy. EU membership has cost the UK £90,000,000,000 or so, the benefits of membership are there to see but so are the pitfalls.
Switzerland. Do as the EU tell you. that is the example you are looking for.
Franco/German Dictatorship, then maybe the UK rather than play the stupid games it has done for almost 40 years would be better served if its elected politicians developed a set of balls and actually decide to work the EU to their benefit rather than whinging like spoiled children that the the bully has nicked their lunch money.
As a member of the electorate, Brussels/Westminster, doesn't make a blind bit of difference, both in it for themselves, EU gravy-train, well i give you duck ponds and expenses.
Article on it in [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8843522/EU-referendum-Cameron-is-determined-to-face-down-his-backbenchers.html ]The Telegraph[/url] made what I see to be a key point underpinning the sense of Cameron's position:
Basically Cameron needs to ensure that the Conservatives are in power when these renegotiations do happen - and backbenchers should suck it up until then.The eurozone emergency is precisely the wrong moment to force this debate. Marriage counselling is pointless when the couple’s house is on fire. But the European crisis means that, much sooner than expected, an EU Intergovernmental Conference will be necessary to discuss sweeping changes to the Union, its fiscal structure and much else. Britain will be in a potentially strong position to barter, and to achieve the repatriation of powers it seeks. There would be a Treaty and a referendum on the renegotiated terms of membership. In private, Cameron’s team believes that all this is achievable – but not yet, and certainly not during the Coalition’s lifetime.
Companies that use us for a low tax low regulation manufacturing entry intot eh EU would have no incentive to remain
Eh, thats a bit of a convenient u-turn TJ - you've spent years on here telling us that all this neocon free market deregulation low tax theory as espoused by us right wing nutter's was bollox! Now you're telling us that being a low-tax, low-regulation economy is vitally important 😆
I think this one is going to have to be bookmarked for when you're telling us about why corporations should be paying more tax...
Of COURSE it would have major effects! Whether the GOOD effects would outweight the BAD is the question. Is there any reason, for example, that we couldn't recommense our trading agreements with the commonwealth? I'd personally rather do business with economies like India, Canada, Australia and South Africa-growing economies with a futre-than the PIIGS of Europe...and for the record I think you're wrong Jerry, if the EU were forced ionto a corner they'd give us the concessions we need. If the UK walked out Spain, Greece and Italy may follow suit-it would certainly cause uproar in Brussels. The Spaniards I know are clamouring for a return to the Peseta and for a little more autonomy. And as for the EU government itself, an unelected, undemocratic gravy train of jumped up little Hitlers if ever there was one-what exactly is the point of them? Anyway, this is seriousl;y bad digression from the point-should the people have a say or should they be ignored?
mrmo-two wrongs don't make a right. The EU State is a gigantic waste of money that should be being spent on other things than further lining the pockets of already very wealthy people. I read that DPM Clegg gets a £60,000 a year pension for ONE stint in the EU Parliament...times that by thousands and you start to see why we're skint and the political class won't hear a word against the EU...
theloner, to answer the question directly, the people should have a say, but i don't mean what follows in the irish you voted the wrong way vote again way.
The people need to have a full and true picture of the EU, the good, the bad and the indifferent. The media should accurately relay what is spent and what is the cost of membership. It should be made clear what the EU is, how NATO the European Court, etc etc all fit in.
Then with a population given a proper idea of what the EU is then Vote.
Problem is the current media situation means that there is no true picture, and so on that basis NO.
Go on, vote your way isolationism, pleeeeease, pretty please. Please Dave and Nick, please give these people a vote, pleeeeease.
Teh loner - there would be massive undesirable effects adn almost no desirable effects from leaving - we would be much much poorer.
Who are 'These People' Edukator?
maybe one way forward is to prosecute all politicians at the end of their term, if there actions are in the greater good fine, else seize all their assets. Maybe that would make them think a bit more.
and maybe look at the US, no MP can serve more than 2 or 3 terms.
There should be a referendum, the result would be at least 65% against the Eu, which would put the government if nothing else in a stronger bargaining position against some of the issues with Europe that are contrary to our National Interest.
The problem is, if such a vote were held here, and repeated in France & Germany, the outcome would be similar, talk to anyone in any none governmental or public sector leftist intransigent mode, and they all feel the same.
It's an over bloated bureaucracy that is overdue reform.
The threat of us leaving would bring that reform about sooner rather than later.
Wether or not there's a referendum is purely a decision for parliament but to even think that the public can't be trusted to give the 'right' answer is way out of order
saying that the media can't be trusted is neither here nor there - it's no different to any other national vote
Aren't the SNP avoiding the independance vote because they can't be sure they'll get the answer they want right now?
So basically, you've been able to work it all out in spite of the biased press, but because yoiu're not sure others will be able to you'd rather they didn't have a say?mrmo - The people need to have a full and true picture of the EU, the good, the bad and the indifferent. The media should accurately relay what is spent and what is the cost of membership. It should be made clear what the EU is, how NATO the European Court, etc etc all fit in.Then with a population given a proper idea of what the EU is then Vote.
Problem is the current media situation means that there is no true picture, and so on that basis NO.
There has probably never been an election where voters have had all the relevant information presented to them in an unbiased way by the parties involved, and there probably never will be. It shouldn't stop this referendum going ahead. In fact, right now is probably as good as its ever been as far as informed voters are concerned, given that the internet allows the majority of people access to more information than has been available at any other time in history (but they need to filter it themselves!).
A final point (not specifically directed at mrmo), just because you expect a vote to go against you doen't mean everybody else has made a mistake! My own take? There shouldn't be a referendum, but purely because there will come better times for the UK to flex its muscles and renegotiate the treaties involved.
The threat of us leaving would bring that reform about sooner rather than later.
To be blunt, i don't think it would, the UK has spent the last 40 years whinging, we need to get stuck in and force from the front, not whinge at the back.
the EU does need to be reformed but ALL politicians are at fault on this, they are happy with the gravy train, and they don't see a problem. A referendum is not going to fix anything, can you imagine the scenario if the politicians choose to ignore the outcome and said it was all a trick to force brussels to do as they wanted?
Go and ride your bloody bikes FFS 🙄
and maybe look at the US, no MP can serve more than 2 or 3 terms.
<whispers......I dont think thats right>
"These people" are British people able to vote in British elections. (not me, which is why I said "these people" rather than we/us)
<whispers......I dont think thats right>
i meant look at the idea that the president can only serve two terms and adapt that to all mps.
The "best" about this is the message it sends about modern politics:
1. Government introduces political gimmick/opportunity to extend political debate (delete as appropriate)
2. E-petition lesds to debate on uncomfortable topic
3. Government uses all political processes (whips etc) to quash debate.
Marvelous! Not that it matters anyway. To the joy of the sceptics and the sorrow of the supporters the Euro and various part of the EU on the road to self destruction already. It is an appalling spectacle.