« War with the Mirror | Main | Cameron Q&A with Independent readers »

Comments

Hooray! Many thanks indeed Dep Ed for opening a diary on this topic.

The signing of the Euro constitution is the most important event that has happened in politics since the last election.

Cameron is absolutely right to demand a referendum. We will hold Brown to account on this. Yesterday many ConHome posters were asking for DC to demand a referendum. I guessed he would, and he has. Brilliant news.

Cameron's speech on repatriation of powers was wonderful. Cameron wants powers to come back to the UK and not to flow to the EU. Labour wants the traffic in the opposite direction. The electorate will have a clear choice in 2009.

Telegraph: The shadow foreign secretary William Hague said last night|: "Gordon Brown should take the talks over now and guarantee that if the new treaty transfers powers from Britain to the EU by including parts of the EU constitution, the British people will have their say in the promised referendum."

Fighting talk, William. Every man, woman and child in Britain knows that powers are being transferred. No if's, when's or but's. Please go and write another book.

What more do you want, Tapestry?

I suspect anything short of testing Trident on Brussels might not satisfy him :-)

If powers are transferred without incorporating parts of the previous EU Constitution, Hague thinks there is no need for a referendum.

Merkel's formula would work - change the language and disguise what's going on - and it's no longer the Constitution. Hence no need for a referendum. Hague's playing exactly the same game as Merkel.

Hague should merely say 'if powers are being transferred, as envisioned by the Constitution - or merely if further powers are being transferred, there must be a referendum'. It's just like his 'keep the £ for one Parliament' in 2001. It sounded as if he was keen to keep the £, but after one Parliament he was committed to getting rid of it.

LOL. I have friends in Brussels, Andrew.

Tapestry, but your request here

"merely if further powers are being transferred, there must be a referendum"

is exactly what David Cameron just said here

"Any treaty that is about the transfer of powers to the EU must be put to the country in a referendum."

Any treaty - not just the EU constitution - any treaty

Didn't Blair say something similar while in opposition? Isn't Cameron heir to Blair?

I agree that there is a danger we might lose the battle on semantics.

If Blair and Brown can somehow prove that there has been no transfer of power, in a very literal and obvious way of course, then they can push aside any demands for a referendum.

We need to take a good look at whatever treaty comes out and point out every instance of power being transferred away from Britain and into the European state.

On EU matters Cameron has got some convincing to do after the recent change to the MEP selection process was approved by the Party Board. Many members have still to find out that they have lost any realistic way of influencing the choice of MEPs.

Nevertheless this is good news. At least we are talking about the EU. Previously we were told to stop "banging on about Europe"!

The Constitution does not transfer any powers simply because national parliaments have no powers to transfer.

The Constitution in fact permits national parliaments to exercise powers themselves in areas the EU decides not to exercise itself.

It is empowering national parliaments by saying that those areas where the EU Commission chooses not to undertake itself can be exercised by national parliaments.

There will be no referendum and the Conservatives know that; there will however be a European Union acting on matters such as Justice, Education, Health and with its own President and Foreign Minister.

Under Brown's profligacy: mountains of debt, record trade gap, lack of production, vast, unsustainable public sector and welfare spending, etc Britain is heading for bankruptcy.

There will be a devastating run on the pound within the foreseeable future and after our currency has been thoroughly debauched, Brown will abandon it and shunt us into the relative safety of the Euro.

Living standards will have deteriorated dramatically; bankruptcies, unemployment, and repossessions will have gone through the roof, but Brown's not worried. He has achieved his ambition of PM on the back of a sham, hollowed-out, debt-driven economy and he is lining up Mervyn King at the Bank of England, Buy-to-let landlords, and whichever Patsy succeeds him as Chancellor, to be the scapegoats for the economic disaster ahead.

"The Constitution in fact permits national parliaments to exercise powers themselves in areas the EU decides not to exercise itself.

It is empowering national parliaments by saying that those areas where the EU Commission chooses not to undertake itself can be exercised by national parliaments."

Excuse me! Parliament is sovereign ... to suggest that "the constitution" thus empowers Parliament is to impose a supranational authority on Parliament, thereby diminishing its powers.

Thanks for the confirmation, TomTom, I was wondering if my skepticism had crossed the Rubicon into cynicism.

Incredible that the Merkel woman was once seen as a potential ally in Europe. Well she has come out in her true colours.

I see she was a member of the Communist Young Pioneers in her youth.

Many members have still to find out that they have lost any realistic way of influencing the choice of MEPs.

Well there's a surprise. So what are the details?

Whatever happens in Brussels at the 21-22 June European Council, you can be sure that nothing will be signed.

The German Presidency will issue (its) conclusions, the text of which has been doing the rounds in Brussels in skeleton form for the last three weeks or so, with each iteration including more text.

On the subject of the institutional settlement, EU foreign ministers are to be presented with a draft text on the evening of 17 June. This draft text will set out the mandate for a future intergovernmental conference on institutional reform, which will open in July and could be concluded as early as October.

It is that conference, not the 21-22 June summit, which will produce the text of a treaty which heads of state and government will be invited to sign no later than early 2008.

The relationship which that treaty bears to the text of the 2004 Constitutional Treaty nevertheless evidently depends on the content of the negotiating mandate agreed on 21-22 June.

BTW, I really don't understand TomTom's last post. Could he perhaps clarify by quoting from the 2004 Constitutional Treaty text?

You know what I am not seeing?

A bunch of comments from the more sceptical posters saying "Wow, David Cameron demanded a referendum! Hey, great work!"

I would imagine the lesson from this is that even when the leadership does exactly as these posters have asked, they still cannot bring themselves to give him credit for it.

You know what I am not seeing? A bunch of comments from the more sceptical posters saying "Wow, David Cameron demanded a referendum! Hey, great work!"

Yes he's done the right thing for once, but it's no more than one has a right to expect from the leader of the Conservative Party.

Let's see how he follows it through.

Powers are transferring to the EU day by day as it is. The new 'non-constitution' will operate on the same principle - admit nothing to the public while the racket clicks on at a pace just slow enough to be uninteresting to the BBC and the rest of metropolitan elite running this country.

I meant 'ratchet'!

This is absolutely right and it's reassuring that the leadership have chosen to take the position opposing any further surrender of our national soverignity to Brussels.

TomTom @ 12:37 - "The Constitution does not transfer any powers simply because national parliaments have no powers to transfer."

I think you must be talking about a different Constitution, and different national parliaments, maybe on a different planet.

But in any case it doesn't matter precisely what was in the Constitution, what powers it transferred etc - the fact is that Blair promised us a referendum, that pledge went into the 2005 Labour manifesto, and every Labour MP is morally bound by that both for the original Constitution and for its substitute.

"Any treaty that is about the transfer of powers to the EU must be put to the country in a referendum."

I don't wish to be negative but what will Cameron promise if it isn't put to the people in a referendum.I'm all for exploiting the Spiv's dilemma but I want more clarity.So far all we have is Cameron sounding tough over the EU but not offering anything he can deliver .Also if he does promise a referendum on repudiation we won't believe him because of his past failed promise over the EPP.

Excuse me! Parliament is sovereign ... to suggest that "the constitution" thus empowers Parliament is to impose a supranational authority on Parliament, thereby diminishing its powers.

Posted by: Richard North | June 10, 2007 at 12:59

Parliament being sovereign may be your perception but it simply shows your age. The Single European Act and subsequent Acts of Parliament had the effect of making the national parliaments subordinate - if that was not the case you would not demand a referendum - you turn to pleniscite because you believe the people is sovereign not parliament

Well done, David Cameron, great work ... but there's no need to tautologise by saying "Any treaty that is about the transfer of powers to the EU", as every new treaty always transfers more powers to the EU - that's the whole idea.

Route

Constitution

The principle of subsidiarity regulates the exercise of powers. It is intended to determine whether the Union can intervene or should let the Member States take action. In accordance with this principle, the Union may intervene in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence only insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

The principle of proportionality is the second major principle governing the exercise of powers. By virtue of this principle, action taken by the Union, in terms of its form and content, does not exceed what is required to achieve the objectives set out in the Constitution.

The current Treaties stipulate that both principles must be applied by all the institutions. This is also stated in the text of the Constitution. However, the Constitutional Treaty introduces a major innovation in this regard, suggesting that the national parliaments should be directly involved in monitoring the proper application of the subsidiarity principle.

The Constitutional Treaty thus strengthens the application of the subsidiarity principle and the active role of national parliaments via:

* increased information and transparency in relation to national parliaments (forwarding of Commission proposals, etc.);
* the new role assigned to national parliaments, allowing them to deliver a reasoned opinion if they consider that the principle of subsidiarity has not been complied with (early warning system).

These new provisions allow the national parliaments to establish political control,


PROTOCOL ON THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

The Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the EU, which was annexed to the EC and EU Treaties in Amsterdam, has also been adapted to meet the need for greater transparency and more effective document transmission. It contains more precise obligations on the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Court of Auditors in terms of the dissemination of information:

* In addition to forwarding directly all Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications), the Commission also sends the national parliaments "the annual legislative programme as well as any other instrument of legislative planning or policy strategy that it submits to the European Parliament and to the Council of Ministers". Moreover, the revised version of the Protocol asks that the Commission simultaneously send all its draft European legislative acts directly to the national parliaments and to the European Parliament and the Council.
* The Council of Ministers must send the agendas and minutes of its meetings to the Member States' governments and to the national parliaments; this is a new requirement. The Court of Auditors is also now required to send its annual report to national parliaments, for information. Other than in emergencies, a period of six weeks must be observed between a draft legislative act being sent to the national parliaments and being recorded in the Council's agenda. Moreover, a period of ten days is observed between the recording of the draft act in the Council's agenda and its adoption.


michael mcgough,
The EPP promise wasn't broken, but delayed until an appropriate moment. Cameron did the ground work and discovered that leaving the EPP at that time would not have been in the party's best interests as we would have lost funding and committee positions, effectively lowering our MEPs ability to represent our constituents. At the next EU elections we will form a new group, when these problems won't arise, and any MEP who refuses to join the new group will not be allowed to stand in the upcoming elections.

I was dissapointed that we couldn't withdraw immediately, but I'd far rather wait until the right moment to do something, rather than do it just because we initially planned to.


That is a fair point, Tory T. Despite being a "Cameron sceptic" I am very pleased that he has spoken out about this.

If no referendum were to be granted than an incoming Conservative government would have two options (a) repeal the legislation implementing the treaty or (b) call a referendum on repealing such leglislation, as soon as they had been elected.

Sean,I agree that they would have those options but I worry about a third option of doing nowt.

Well, TT, Dennis and Sean Fear, I do think that is graciously said. I hope Cameron will rise in next month's ConHome survey as a result.

This treaty is, for me, the number one issue of the day. I am delighted that Cameron has taken this step.

Mr C is starting to talk the talk. Carry on and walk the walk and I'm starting to get very interested in voting Tory again at next G.E.

Don't put you shirt on any follow through on this by the party.

Take a step back and think about this. Our elected representatives are debating and posturing over the imposition of unwanted rules to a club we pay to belong to. utterly pathetic.
This entire farce over a referendum will allow politicians to hand more perceived credibility to a group of unelected officials who will then "impose" unpopular laws onto the member countries. As we reach the end game of this preposterous project, with the deception become clearer with every turn, we must call the politicians bluff.

The EU is fundementally flawed concept. It is merely an exercise in extracting tax without accountability for usw by the political elite.

"I submit that large sections of the "Constitution" are already implemented through The Treaty of Amsterdam" Your submission is correct. Amsterdam,
and before that the Single European Act and Maastricht, and after that Nice.

So? This is what Lord Pearson had to say about that argument last week:

"They will also say that there is no reason to hold a referendum, because referendums were not held on the Amsterdam, Nice or Maastricht treaties,
nor on the Single European Act 1986, all of which drained our sovereignty
to Brussels but which neither Labour nor Conservative Governments dared
to put to the people.

When you come to think of it, that is a seriously dishonest non sequitur,
even by the standards of our modern political class. It is as though you go
into the cellar one day and find someone you thought was more or less a
friend helping himself to the stored family silver. “Oh,” he explains, “I’ve been stealing it for years and you didn’t notice, so I thought it would be all right
just to pinch the rest.”. Well, it is not all right. What is more, we want all
of it back."

But of course this referendum would only be on the new treaty.

This is the opportunity to restore parliamentary accountability. Why are we accepting unwanted laws and rules when we are paying for the entire project? There is absolutely no logic to a situation of having laws imposed on us by anyone other than our own government. There is a reason why EU membership is supported by the political establishment and not by the public.

TomTom, what you have posted at 14.01 is the text of Commission documents purporting to explain the effect of the 2004 Treaty on national parliaments.

It is clear enough from these that you are referring to the Protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality and the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the EU, so many thanks.

Lord Pearson has put his finger on it. I can see exactly why he lost patience with the party.

Tory T. The terms of Cameron's referendum promise are entirely different to Hague's. If cameron allows Hague to water down resistance to the Constitution as he did with the EPP, it could be terminal for his leadership's credibility.

Cameron cannot afford a second EU fiasco like the EPP. He must move away from hague's influence.

If he is to put up the resistance that will be needed to stop th Constitution he will have to dump hague.

This really is utterly stupid. The basic point is that there is NO EU legal obligations of any kind. What would happen if we left? Would the Greek government sue us for non-payment of their budget deficit! The EU is purely optional and to suggest anything is just fantasy. In case you havent noticed this government has broken just about every international agreement, law, protocol on virtually every subject and guess what, nothing happens because they cant been enforced against a country.

How would we react if Somalia asked us to accept some laws we didnt want?

We have nothing in common with them, dont speak the same language and have no interest in governing their country yet we still give them money because its the right thing to do. If we want a trade deal with them we could agree one

What we would not do is offer them a few seats in parliament for accepting our cash!

The politicians are running out of places to hide; why is it so hard for someone to come clean, admit the deception that has occured and extract ourselves from this awful mess?

We are in very dangerous territory here, if the public are happy for to finance European aid on a massive scale we can do that from outside the EU, by continuing with membership, so obviously unpopular and anti-democratic, we are being dishonest with voters

Just to add to your joy. The EU is to introduce a new EU Organic Product symbol for food to replace the national symbols.....and a certain trace percentages of GM product will now be permitted in Organic Products to cover pollen contamination - which will be certified as 95% organic - but not specify any trace contamination on the label

This is for discussion next week at the Council of Ministers

Die welt

"Wow, David Cameron demanded a referendum! Hey, great work!"(meant sincerely, Tory T)

Can you post a link to that instead please TomTom, I've deleted it for being too long. Thanks

http://tinyurl.com/2d46ur

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8CA9D65Po

This man is not to be trusted, he changes his mind to suit his audience. He will not give us a referendum. He will bow down and accept that Blair had to sign so forget it.

Much as the debate on the contents of the the treaties is very interesting.

I think it does miss the point to some extent. Simply put with each EU treaty that is signed we move one step closer to a Federal Republic of Europe.

Before we get to the point of no return we must be given an opportunity to vote on this.

Furthermore, as one of the 30 million people of voting age under the age of 50(over half the voting population) who has never had the opportunity to vote on this matter, I would like to be asked at least once whether I wish the continue to live in a sovereign constitutional democracy or see it slowly disappear over the rest of my lifetime.

@Tory T
You know what I am not seeing?

A bunch of comments from the more sceptical posters saying "Wow, David Cameron demanded a referendum! Hey, great work!"

Three cheers for Cameron on this.

However, if he goes back on *this* promise then I quit the Party. It is absolutely fundamental.

I have just returned from a trip to the EU parliament where an MEP made it clear to me that there is no chance of us quitting the EPP in 2009. A new group needs to have MEPs of 6 countries or really 7 so that one of the parties cannot hold the group to ransom. There are just not 6 other non-racist, anti-EU groups in the Parliament with which to join. So it is impossible to form another group without getting into bed with some really dodgy foreigners. We could of course leave the EPP without joining another group but our MEPs would lose money and prestige in the Parliament and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Cameron already knows this but is hoping that we will all forget. Just thought you should all know too.

I was not going to post about David Cameron's pledge to hold a referendum but having just watched the YouTube link posted by Torygirl, in which Mr C states quite categorically that he would not hold a referendum on whether we ought to remain a member of the EU (and gives what are actually quite nonsensical, and previously shot-down reasons for staying in) I have to say that any referendum on powers being transferred to Brussels will, almost by default, be or become a referendum on our continued membership of the EU.

As the EU's collapse is more or less inevitable (the only question being how will we cope with the disaster) Mr Cameron, by stalling on dealing with the 'European question', has only been putting off the evil day of his part in its downfall.

The referendum by Great Britain on continued membership, under an apparent pretext of transfer of powers to Brussels, could well be the start of the process. In any case, I am sure that's what he thinks.

He has been hedging round the issue up to now but, sure as eggs is eggs, the day will come when he has to nail his colours to the mast. That day may well be sooner than he thinks.

You know what I am not seeing?

A bunch of comments from the more sceptical posters saying "Wow, David Cameron demanded a referendum! Hey, great work!"

But if he doesn't get it - and he won't - what then? Will he, when in power, hold a referendum then? Suppose such a referendum rejects the treaty, what then? Will he go to Brussels and explain that the UK will not observe it and that everybody else can like it or lump it?

How likely do you think any of this scenario is?

Brown is also worried and has according to The Times set out what he wants to opt-out of. And that will be the end of the story.

Hardly, jorgen. Brown may not get any or all of the opt-outs he wants, and if he does other countries may want opt-outs as well, and it could end up with it being impossible to agree a new treaty. In any case an opt-out is only a derogation: if
a transfer of power is embodied in the treaty, the intention of an opt-out is only
to allow a delay for that country, not to give it a permanent exemption.

Jorgen @ 19:39

Brown is watering down his own opt-out opt-outs, if the article in The Times is to be believed.

One glaring omission from Brownie is that he seems to be OK with a European Foreign Minister, an EU treaty/constitutional requirement.

We already have a Foreign Minister (currently in the person of Madam Becket). A European Minister would automatically, even axiomatically, take some of our authority or powers, which would be the trigger to DC's referendum call, something Brownie is desperate to avoid. Brown can not wriggle out of holding a referendum.

In any case, if you look at Daniel Hannan's blog:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/june07/revivingconstitution.htm

you'll see the extent to which the EU Parliament has been relying on the Constitution, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as a legal basis
for legislation. Which no doubt is why MEPs are now threatening to reject
a treaty which doesn't meet their expectations

http://euobserver.com:80/9/24210

That wouldn't be a legally binding rejection, but it would be a blow.

Johnathan 19.14
London MEP John Bowis said he'd bet the Conservatives would still be in the EPP in 2010.

They are snookered unless they put principle (and promises) before money.

A European Minister would automatically, even axiomatically, take some of our authority or power

Not least of which is a reform of the Security Council replacing Britain with the French Seat being the EU representation

DC and Hague are allowing us to see into their thinking here. On this and ID cards they have shown that they can and will stand up and say "non" if it's the right thing to do.

Three Cheers.

The reassuring thing about this "treaty" is that if Blair signs us up to it there will be an almighty crisis and we might actually get a bit of a debate! Also as parliament may not bind its successors we can get out of any treaty commitment even if it does upset our EU "partners"...

Well I said we should demand a referendum. Good news,

Matt

Parliament being sovereign may be your perception but it simply shows your age. The Single European Act and subsequent Acts of Parliament had the effect of making the national parliaments subordinate - if that was not the case you would not demand a referendum - you turn to pleniscite because you believe the people is sovereign not parliament

Posted by: TomTom | June 10, 2007 at 13:55

Unless you are able to confirm to me that the UK Parliament is no longer able to repeal the European Communities Act and thereby abrogate the Treaties, then - despite your evident fond wishes - Parliament is still sovereign. We are bound by EU law only because Parliament permits it.

We have always been told we can "reform from within" on the EU issue.

Is everyone hard of thinking in this country? Why are we accepting stuff we dont want? We make our law not Brussels, it can only be done with the agreement of our scumbag government

If its voted down by two core countries and therefore dead, it comes back with a new name. This wont be as radical as the Constitution so we dont need to consult you on this one, but dont worry we are fighting for Britains interest and getting an opt out.

This mythical opt out will involve acceptance of a whole raft of other rubbish and guess what - it rolls on as before.

It is this very debate that is the deception. New treaty causes a flap, bliar sells us down the river, cameron demands a referendum on the treaty (not EU membership), brown wins an opt out. thats alright then, we are all happy. If we had a referendum they would just ignore it!!!

How strange at the same time parliament is going to investigate the effects of leaving the EU. What can that possibly tell us that we dont already know? The effects are either small (we just opt out banana regulations) or huge amounts of money saved and the removal of a hiding place for domestic politicians. But it gives the impression we are looking into it.

Would someone please explain what effective use any of these EU treaties, Agreements are? Who would enforce any sanctions against us? How pathetic an argument is that, did we get Goldsmith's advice on it!!

Ask the Dutch what good their referendum did them?

I wonder what the punishment would be if just ignored the rafts of stupid rules that brussels issue?

Would the punishment be as severe as the one we will get for bribing foreign dictators and covering it up??

Frank Muir

Re above post by don moyle

Can someone confirm that Cameron said he will never have a referendum on EU membership?

despite your evident fond wishes

You are very much mistaken Richard North....you make the basic error of thinking statements of fact reflect the author's preference.

Simply put there will be no vote in the House of Commons because the Government controls the Chamber, and no government has ever rowed back on European integration and I doubt any will.

The Westminster Parliament could do a great many things were it so minded, it seems unable even to hold the Executive to account, nor competent to scrutinise appointments to the MPC of the Bank of England. The House of Commons is nothing more than a Borough Council full of provincial lawyers and councillors.

Your romanticised notions are interesting but politically irrelevant since the rewards of conformity are too great for the mediocrities in the Westminster Parliament to want to do anything dramatic - most see the EU as a form of Socialism for tired old European polities to merge into somnolence

rewards TomTom?
From Bilderberg meeting 1999.
The challenge these politicians face is fairly simple to sum up. In rough terms over the past 30 years, real labour costs have risen by 70% in Europe, and employment has grown by around a tenth. By contrast American wages have risen by a quarter and jobs have grown by 70%. The European Union has followed a specific path. Is it sustainable?

Unfortunately not. Thanks to Europe's labour-market rigidities, there has been a clear trend of rising unemployment in each successive cycle. The pressure of having to raise ever more taxes to support pensions and the unemployed will make Europe still less competitive and entrepreneurial.

Nothing much changed there then.

Westminster had better wake up, and get into action. Cameron might be young enough to see that Europe is unsustainable and needs a new start.

Cameron's Youtube interview uses the same phrase he is using now, that if powers are to be transferred to Brussels, there should be a referendum.

Hague's wording amounts to a signal to Gordon Brown that if he can dress up such transfers of power as not part of the rejected Constitution in some way, a referendum can be avoided, playing the Merkel game.

Brown will use the trick of opt-outs of course, to make it seem like he's avoided the transfer of powers, as did John major at Maastricht.

Brown must know that he has little to fear from Hague on the EU anyway.

Cameron will not be strong enough to overrule Hague - even though we thought he was the Party leader. On Europe, Hague calls all the shots.

rewards TomTom?

Foreign Travel fully expensed

Membership of Select Committees with lobbyist sponsorship

Non-Executive Directorships with or without help of Whips Office

Invitations to lobbyist events

Trips on EU fact-finding tours

Investment advice from City firms and nominee accounts

etc etc

That's it. They get rich. The people get poor. When does the revolution start? Hague and Cameron are not going to stop the destruction of the nation, or reverse Blair's treachery. Will Telegraph readers take to the streets? I hardly think so. Their houses are worth too much.

The Berlin wall came down, but now we're living behind a new wall - a wall of deception and lies. I think I'd prefer a concrete one.

You are very much mistaken Richard North....you make the basic error of thinking statements of fact reflect the author's preference.

Posted by: TomTom | June 11, 2007 at 07:38

As opposed to someone who evidently believes that evading the issue somehow changes the facts. What Parliament may or may not do in practice (over the short term) does not alter a fundamental truth. As long as the power resides in Parliament to repeal the ECA, the Parliament remains sovereign. Fact dear boy, fact.


The last few years have shown that Camerons policy is actually a policy for more powers to the EU.

Every ratifying vote that went wrong has been ignored in the past. ireland voted against enlargement so they just went back and asked a differnt question that included bribes. Holland voted No and its been ignored, so if we voted no on this treaty, it would be ignored. The EU is not going to stop until someone stops it.

If this was to be camerons chance to placate the party he will blow it. The point really is that his stance therefore rules out any control on economic migration, it rules out scrapping ID cards, road pricing and it removes the prospect of parliamentary accountability.

How can anyone expect parliament to be reformed, trust rebuilt etc when it is absolving its responsibility and lying to the people it is supposed to represent. Thats enough for me I think.

All 3 parties support this deception for a reason, we all know that German and UK voters would reject EU in its current form and therefore it proves to me that all 3 parties cannot be trusted.

Brian on June 10th @ 23:38

Torygirl provided a link to YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8CA9D65Po

during which David Cameron answers questions put to him by, presumably, members of the public.

One of the questions is: Can we have a referendum on our membership of the EU? His answer is, "No." He then goes on to say why he thinks we should stay in the EU. One of the 'benefits' of membership revolves around trade according to him, at which point you can stop watching - there are no trade benefits between us and Europe; for one thing we trade at a deficit with our continental 'partners' and for another more jobs depend on us rather than the other way round (we have 3 million jobs dependent on our trade with Europe while over in Europe they have 5 million jobs dependent on their trade with us, or thereabouts).

Steve @ 23:07 - "it can only be done with the agreement of our scumbag government" - correct, but we only have a scumbag government because
those scumbags command the votes of a majority of our scumbag MPs.

He then goes on to say why he thinks we should stay in the EU. One of the 'benefits' of membership revolves around trade

China - with the fourth highest GDP in the world is not a member of the EU - yet its products are available throughout the EU and pay no import duties whatsoever.

China has all the trade benefits of EU membership but none of the costs and has duty-free access to both EU and US markets.

I recently wrote to my MP (Conservative):-

"Lord Pearson of Rannoch is introducing a Private Members Bill, in the House of Lords, on Friday, 8th June,2007:-

To Establish a Committee of Inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union.

I am sure that the majority of your constituents would be very pleased if you could see your way to back this Bill, as it is a subject which is very dear to their hearts".

Answer:-

"Thank you for your e-mail.

I fear that Lord Pearson’s move on behalf of the Independence Party in the House of Lords is not likely to be supported by very many Conservative Peers".

They are all bound and gagged by you know who!!

If it's Brown's dilemma then Blair needs to be taken to task for signing or agreeing to something that is outside of his purview. Blair is a dead man walking, his timetable has finally been established and he should not have been at the EU summit and he most certainly should not have had the power to sign or agree to anything.
In doing so he has cocked a snoot at the entire country and demonstrated his total disregard for the Parliamentary system of this country. If anything demonstrates the Presidential airs that he has taken on-board, it is this particular act.
Browm needs to grant a referendum, if he won't then DC must pressurise every day. This is one subject matter where we can agree with the Fib-Dems and act in concert. The Labour Party itself would look very foolish, if they are seen as, taking away the right to self-determination from the people. DC needs to stoke the fires of rebellion on this matter with the opposition backbenchers.
I would also like to know if Blair can be impeached for his actions, knowingly taking a perverse line and acting against the best interests or wishes of the country.

denis

my point being that all 3 parties support the EU and refuse to debate it when public opinion is firmly against the EU. This suggests that MP's know best and the electorate can be ignored. We signed up to a free trade area because the public were mislead and now 30 years later we face a federal superstate and yet the public are still not consulted.

in the last 30 years we have seen a collapse of public trust in government, huge increase in corruption, illegal wars, collapsing turnouts and blatant criminal acts from our governments as accountability evaporates. i wonder why?

It will only take one honest politician to be elected in Europe to bring this house of cards down, sadly it wont be in the UK.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker