http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/russy68/eu.jpg

 

I know The Sun is as popular as bad breath round here, but I rather liked their front-page headline about Gordon Brown reneging on his promise to hold a referendum on the EU treaty - the Churchill mock-up photo of him giving two fingers to the British voters is one of their best. And their demonstrations outside the Labour Conference in Bournemouth with the front page image on the side of a double-decker bus - I like it.

 

We live in an age where The Sun, like it or not, can determine who wins elections - and their campaign against Gordon Brown is gathering momentum - again, I like it

 

The online petition to demand a referendum has nearly 100,000 signatures now - you can add your name here:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2004240000,00.html

Edited September 28, 200717 yr by russt68

Anyone who relies on the Sun for information on the treaty will be extremely ill-informed. We elect MPs to make decisions like this on our behalf. Instead of a referendum, MPs ahould be allowed a free vote on the issue.

absolute poppycock - when ministers views are so colossally out of touch with public feeling - this is when they MUST listen to the electorate for once. The only time the political parties want to know how people are feeling is once every four years at the ballot boxes.

 

How do you think political uprisings start? When people are sick to death of their elected politicians riding roughshod over their opinions, that's how.

 

Far from relying on The Scum for info - I feel they have captured public feeling on this perfectly (and I despise The Sun)... and Brown NEEDS to listen - for once.

absolute poppycock - when ministers views are so colossally out of touch with public feeling - this is when they MUST listen to the electorate for once. The only time the political parties want to know how people are feeling is once every four years at the ballot boxes.

 

How do you think political uprisings start? When people are sick to death of their elected politicians riding roughshod over their opinions, that's how.

 

Far from relying on The Scum for info - I feel they have captured public feeling on this perfectly (and I despise The Sun)... and Brown NEEDS to listen - for once.

 

OK, perhaps you could tell me what you don't like about the treaty. Try and restrict yourself to how it changes the existing rules.

ok, here goes...

 

A politician chosen to be president of the European Council for two-and-a-half years, replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months is simply unfair and could lumber Europe with a leader all countries dislike - hence causing mass unrest.

 

A new post combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, to give the EU more clout on the world stage - a good thing - in part.

 

A smaller European Commission, with fewer commissioners than there are member states, from 2014 - shouldn't ALL member states have equal say and their own commissioner? Isn't that democratic?

 

A redistribution of voting weights between the member states, phased in between 2014 and 2017 - a good thing.

 

New powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs - no remote foreign politician should have ANY say in the way we run our judicial system - not now, not ever.

 

Then you have things like the single currency - this will never ever happen in Britain unless all concerned can guarantee all prices in Europe, as in the United States, are standard and equal - should we really pay 7 euros for a bottle of wine when Portugal pays less than a euro? Should DVDs cost almost 20 euros in many mainland European states, but a third of that amount here? Of course, this will never happen, as each member country will still have its own country-run economy - and should Britain really be subsidising the economy of Romania? Or Poland?

 

Europe, as a solid state, is a terribly bad idea, and one that successive PMs have tried to con us over - primarily Mr Brown and Mr Blair. Not once have they even attempted to explain the intricacies of the plans with the British voters - and that, quite frankly, is arrogance at its worst. We elect MPs to SERVE us - and with something as life-changing as Europe - the general public MUST be consulted or informed. How dare they try to push this through without first holding a mass public televised debate or a general election-style ballot. Or, preferably, both.

Edited September 28, 200717 yr by russt68

they should consult us, after all it is a thing that very much affects us all, and can dramatically change our economy/culture

This thing just confuses me so much, I don't really understand it apart from what i have read in the sun lol, which even though i am sure the sun are using the worst possible senarios and saying they will deffinitly happen, it does make me worried. Ah i'm immigrating to new zealand in 4 or 5 years time so i shall run away from the mass and evil europe lol.

Tony Blair promised a referendum in the Labour manifesto prior to winning the last election. But as usual they have reneged on their promise, no surprise there then. <_<

 

Just proves a politician will say anything to win power, then change their minds once they are in power.

 

 

Tony Blair promised a referendum in the Labour manifesto prior to winning the last election. But as usual they have reneged on their promise, no surprise there then. <_<

 

Just proves a politician will say anything to win power, then change their minds once they are in power.

 

I know, and it will make people who will be voting for the first time at the next election not trust them and vote Tory, people like me lol, who realise now they can vote why bother voting lib dems they will never get into power, so if you want change vote for the Tory party.

 

However we were prommised a vote on the EU constitution, this is the same thing with a slightly difrrent name.

The thing about the British style of government is referendums do not occur, it is not a British political history.

 

Should we have a referendum, yes. We should have a lot of them on more subjects than just Europe. However the likes of the Sun distort so many of the facts that the average Sun reader is misinformed about Europe and many other things.

 

Europe has been helpful to the British public, without it we'd have no minimum wage, no right to paid holidays, no freedom of information, no equality of gays in the armed forces, no human rights legislation enshrined in law, no right of travel and work rights across Europe. No free trade with our neighbours.

 

Do we want to loose all of that and much more by being xenophobic?

While I don't read the sun. It's a good thing they highlight this. There should be referendum.

I truly functioning government for the people (which is what it's purpose is isn't it????) should be held more and more accountable.

A referendum would in part allow people to become much more educated about the changes going on.

Have you noticed the Labour party don't actually try to explain the constitution(oops slip of the key i meant treaty,:lol:) they just skip over it and say its just a tidying up excercise, nothing to get too excited about, pretty boring and you won't really understand it, just sign here. What a bunch of sanctimonious t****.

 

Hey if we get the chance we might vote yes :lol:

erm.... gordon brown is gaining popularity, not losing it!

 

wouldnt a referendum be a waste of time and money? realistically we ARE in europe and we cannot survive as an island state alone, those days are gone. tbh im not bothered wether we have a referendum or not.

ok, here goes...

 

A politician chosen to be president of the European Council for two-and-a-half years, replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months is simply unfair and could lumber Europe with a leader all countries dislike - hence causing mass unrest.

 

A new post combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, to give the EU more clout on the world stage - a good thing - in part.

 

A smaller European Commission, with fewer commissioners than there are member states, from 2014 - shouldn't ALL member states have equal say and their own commissioner? Isn't that democratic?

 

A redistribution of voting weights between the member states, phased in between 2014 and 2017 - a good thing.

 

New powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs - no remote foreign politician should have ANY say in the way we run our judicial system - not now, not ever.

 

Then you have things like the single currency - this will never ever happen in Britain unless all concerned can guarantee all prices in Europe, as in the United States, are standard and equal - should we really pay 7 euros for a bottle of wine when Portugal pays less than a euro? Should DVDs cost almost 20 euros in many mainland European states, but a third of that amount here? Of course, this will never happen, as each member country will still have its own country-run economy - and should Britain really be subsidising the economy of Romania? Or Poland?

 

Europe, as a solid state, is a terribly bad idea, and one that successive PMs have tried to con us over - primarily Mr Brown and Mr Blair. Not once have they even attempted to explain the intricacies of the plans with the British voters - and that, quite frankly, is arrogance at its worst. We elect MPs to SERVE us - and with something as life-changing as Europe - the general public MUST be consulted or informed. How dare they try to push this through without first holding a mass public televised debate or a general election-style ballot. Or, preferably, both.

 

I won't bother with the items you've described as a good thing.

 

The Presidency - at the moment there is a new President every six months. The President also remains head of government in their own country. So the chances of them getting anything done are slim. A 2 1/2 year term for someone who can concentrate on the Presidency will mean there is more chance of them achieving something.

 

The Commission - each commissioner has a specific job. If each new member state also gets a commissioner that means inventing a new portfolio. There has to be a point where we cll a halt to increases in the number of Commissioners. Most of the complaints about the EU are to do with the number of people employed (actually that figure is much lower than most people think). Now we have a proposal to reduce the number of jobs (and some of the highest paid jobs as well) and people are still moaning. The old arrangements were fine when there were only six members. It still worked with 15 members but they work less well for an EU of 27 members.

 

New powers for the European Parliament - a good thing. It's the only EU institution directly elected and should, therefore, have more power.

 

More control over our judicial system - I don't particularly want that but it's not enough for me to want to reject the whole treaty.

 

The euro - the treaty makes no difference to whether we ever join.

 

Subsidising Romania and Poland - a very good thing. These countries are still emerging from decades under communism. Romania, in particular, suffered greatly under Ceaucescu's brutal regime. If we can help ensure Eastern Europe is made up of stable democracies, that has to be a good thing. The EU has already helped countries such as Spain, Greece and Portugal become stable democracies after having right-wing dictatorships as recently as the 1970s. Npw we can do the same for former Communist states.

 

A single European state - noone is seriously suggesting that. I wouldn't actually mind it but I know I'm in a small minority both in the UK and in the rest of Europe.

 

There has only ever been one UK-wide referendum in our history. There wasn't one when we entered the Common Market (as it then was) or for the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty. All of those developments were more significant than this new treaty.

 

Having said all that, there's no doubt that the government's attempts to explain the treaty have been pitiful. OK, so anything they say won't be reported fairly in the Sun, Mail and Express but they should at least make more of an effort than they have done so far.

I used to be in favour of a single european state now I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong I'm still pro-european, and I still think there are more benefits to negatives over our membership, especially when the sun likes to make up lies and distort the truth about the EU burecrats and the roles they play.