Most Britons still want a referendum on Lisbon... but only 40% would definitely vote "no"

ConservativeHome has had an exclusive preview of a ComRes poll for today's Daily Politics programme.  From noon today Andrew Neil & Co will be in Ireland for a special Europe-focused edition of the programme.  Polls show that the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty could go either way.  "No" campaigners believe that the recent stories about MEP sleaze that have played heavily in Ireland's media could  help them win.  They are also using posters of Peter Mandelson to make the case for rejecting Lisbon!

The ComRes survey of 1,010 UK voters finds that 64% of UK voters believe that the UK should hold a referendum and 26% think Parliament should decide.

33% say that they would vote to accept the Treaty if given the opportunity.  40% say that they would reject it.   27% don't know.

Interestingly twice as many women 'don't know' as men; 36% to 18%.

45% of 18 to 24 year olds would vote for Lisbon, compared to just 30% of those 65 years or over.

People in Wales & the South West (50%) are most likely to reject Lisbon.

Related video: Stuart Wheeler explains why he is going to the Courts to force Labour to honour its manifesto promise on a EU referendum

Noon: Stuart Wheeler has written for Coffee House about his campaign.

Comments

[Mark Fulford]

People in Wales & the South West (50%) are most likely to reject Lisbon.

But aren't these two of the regions which have had the biggest EU development grants?

[John Parkes]

The Roman Empire, the USSR, the British Empire are but three examples of over-sized, ungovernable institutions that collapsed under the weight of their own inefficiencies. These in turn led to their constituent parts actively seeking to govern themselves for all the reasons that saw evolving nation states that had formerly been part of these megaliths. I suppose it is true that the only lesson we learn from history is that we never learn from history. Sure there is much to be said for loose associations of states that come together for a variety of reasons; common defence (NATO), internal markets (the Common Market)and other good reasons; but a European Union as now envisaged by those in charge of it? Shome mishtake, shurely?

[batman]

Err, how does that square with this poll which show 67 per cent of people supporting either withdrawal or renegotiation to a looser relationship than the pre-Lisbon one?

http://www.global-vision.net/Global1839.htm#

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

The campaign is Ireland hasn't been a pleasant one. The 'No' campaign has been spreading outrageous lies. No doubt that would happen here, too, if we were daft enough to have a referendum. Let our elected Parliament decide - as was the case with previous treaties.

[Tony Makara]

John Parkes, you are dead right. The EU's insatiable drive to englarge will eventually lead to its downfall. Currently the Dutch are hoping to get Israel admitted as a member of the EU withing five years, and we can be sure that others in the region and north Africa will clamour to join too. This will create serious problems with migrant labour and people's from poorer countries swarm into northern Europe. Such is the breeding ground for racial tension providing a fillip for political extremism. There is the cost of expansion too, the EU is becoming too big to maintain.

A twelve member Europe may have turned into a great success but the moment Europe went from being a economic enterprise and turned into a political plot the European project sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

[Robert McIlveen]

Women quite often have a higher proportion of "don't knows" - I guess because men tend to view things more ideologically than materially and it's pretty hard to assess how the treaty would affect our everyday lives (directly at least).

[RichardJ]

"The campaign is Ireland hasn't been a pleasant one. The 'No' campaign has been spreading outrageous lies. No doubt that would happen here, too, if we were daft enough to have a referendum. Let our elected Parliament decide - as was the case with previous treaties."

So in other words you don't want a referendum because you know you would lose. This is surely a wind-up comment?

[RichardJ]

PS remember 1975? Britain had a decision then. We even voted in favour at the time, you never know, we might again!

[John Broughton]

"The 'No' campaign has been spreading outrageous lies"

Justin. The opposite is the truth; the yes campaign are the one's telling lies. They are joined by all manner of euro elite bullying them.

Only a committed eurofederalist would vote for this traety anybody who believes in self government would reject it.

Try reading this morning's irish independent editorial.

[Serf]

Its difficult to se how a campaign could help the yes side. It would just be more of the same "vote yes or prepare to meet your doom".

The bigest risk for th No side would be that the BBC would choose to display the cranks rather than the more thoughtful opponents

[Denis Cooper]

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1

"French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has warned Ireland about the consequences of voting "No" in Thursday's referendum, saying the Irish would be the "first victim" if they reject the EU treaty. Speaking on France's RTL radio, Mr Kouchner said that a "No" vote would be met by "gigantic incomprehension" in the rest of Europe ... "

"... the Irish would be the "first victim" if they reject the EU treaty". That's nice.

I thought the EU believed in "democracy", "free and fair elections", etc.

So what do our main opposition leaders - Cameron, Hague, Francois et al - think about these disgraceful attempts to bully the Irish into voting "Yes"?

Fine by them, because behind their show of fierce resistance they really want the Lisbon Treaty to go through?

When Hague says "We will not let it rest there", does he actually mean "We'll be mightily relieved if the Irish vote "Yes", so that the Treaty can be a fait accompli by the time we get into office"?

Because, as Cameron says, it's "almost impossible" to hold a retrospective referendum on any EU treaty once it has come into force - oh, apart from that one we had in 1975, of course, two and half years after the Treaty of Accession had come into force.

[Graham Checker]

I'd love to know the wording of this Brussels Broadcasting Corporation survey.

Not only does a 64% score on letting the people decide seem very low, but a 33% "yes" vote to Lisbon seems VERY high to me.

Even more incredible is the figure saying nearly half of young people would vote "yes".

Ridiculous.

All previous referenda have shown 85%+ opposition to the treaty on high-turnouts in marginal constituencies of all party colours.

Other opinion polls have also shown figures with far greater opposition to the treaty than this.

Also, I am yet to meet more than ONE person who has said they'll vote yes - and even he is an unreconstructed Europhile.

This poll seems suspect to me.

[Graham Checker]

Justin @ 10:31

"The 'No' campaign has been spreading outrageous lies. No doubt that would happen here, too, if we were daft enough to have a referendum."

The CLASSIC response of an EU-phile when they're losing the argument.

Justin - you almost parody the stereotype. Why do you make yourself look like such a fool?

If the EU was such a wonderful, popular beneficial thing, you wouldn't be afraid of its endorsement in a popular vote. Indeed, you even achieved this in 1975 - when people thought it was just a trading bloc.

The fact that you are afraid of democracy and hold the peoples verdict in contempt, now, is a very telling sign.

And a very worrying one.

[Victor, NW Kent]

Odd headline. It should say that only 33% would vote Yes in such a referendum.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I'd vote Yes, Graham, and I know many Conservatives who would do the same as me.

[John Broughton]

Justin please will explain how handing over this country's governance to to an unelected, undemocratic body in Brussels is something you would vote in favour of?

[Justin Hinchcliffe - Pro-European Conservative]

"Justin - you almost parody the stereotype. Why do you make yourself look like such a fool?" - Graham Checker. And why do you have to resort to personal abuse, Graham?

You obviously have not read previous posts from me, have you? I have consistently argued the case for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU itself. I believe the matter needs to be settled one way or another for, at least, the next 25 years and that we cannot continue to try to pick and chose the rules of the club.

To answer JB, it was the Conservatives who took us into Europe under Ted, Margaret who signed the European Act, John who signed the Maastrict Treaty and Michael who vowed to keep us in the EPP-ED group. We are a pro-European party.

David may be talking tough on the EU but all that will change when he enters government. Mark my word!

[David Parker]

The high percentage of "Don't knows" shows how many people still fail to realise how much the EU already affects their daily lives. The blame for this lies mainly with the main stream media, for whom the whole topic of Europe is less interesting than a good rape story (despite the fact that Britain itself is being raped),whilst the BBC is so biased that upon the few occasions when the EU is mentioned this is almost always in a favourable light.

There is also a tacit conspiracy amongst all but a very few politicians to dumb down the issue of the EU, partly because many of them do not understand it themselves and partly because they certainly do not wish the general public to understand it.

Cameron and the Conservative front bench are no better in this respect. They wrongly believe, from past experience, that the whole EU issue is a potential vote loser. This was only the case previously because the Conservative's EU policies were incredibly badly presented and handled. Nor are they even making a much better job of their present one. Cameron may be right in believing that he can win the next election without the support of the eurosceptics, albeit probably with a smaller majority, but he is playing a dangerous game with the future of Britain.

By adopting a fully fledged eurosceptic campaign Cameron would gain far more support than he would lose. In that event, if elected with a substantial majority he would have a powerful mandate to commence serious negotiations with the EU. Whilst there is no guarantee that these negotiations might not finally result in a withdrawal, leading to a different relationship, this would be upon better terms than might otherwise be the case.

Sadly, none of this is going to happen, for the simple reason that Cameron, like Brown or Clegg, is perfectly happy to see Britain assimilated into an EU single European government.

[Serf]

I believe the matter needs to be settled one way or another for, at least, the next 25 years and that we cannot continue to try to pick and chose the rules of the club.

Illogical argument.

1) It can never be settled, because the rules of the game keep changing. If the EEC had remaned a trading bloc, it would have been settle. Its the federalists that ensure that it never can be.
2) Of course we can pick and choose the rules of the club. It is completely stupid to give in to anything you don't want, unless you get something you want in return.

[Hugh]

This is an interesting link about the man behind the Irish No campaign, I found it through the Google news page.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/declan-ganley-irelands-mysterious-mr-no-843559.html

[Denis Cooper]

Just to refresh memories, under the leadership of the liar and traitor Edward Heath, the Conservative manifesto for the 1970 general election unequivocally stated:

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/con70.htm

"Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country."

Not, we will negotiate, and then we will ram a Bill to ratify an Accession Treaty through Parliament using a majority given to us on the basis that we would only negotiate, "no more, no less".

[barbara pexton]

Do remember that this was a BBC sponsored poll. What do you expect !!

Nobody I know wants anything to do with Europe.

[Justin Hinchcliffe - Pro-European Conservative]

Actually, Serf, the new Lisbon Treaty makes it easier for nation states to leave the EU - something, I would have thought, Euro-sceptics would welcome? It just goes to show how much ignorance there is on the issue. How many Euro-sceptics have actually read what's in the new treaty, let alone understand it? People rely too much on the tabloids for information on Europe - that's why a referendum on such a complex, but good, Treaty would be dangerous.

[Nigel Rathbone]

They wrongly believe, from past experience, that the whole EU issue is a potential vote loser.

Only one major political party in this country has ever gone into an election pledging to withdraw us from the EU - Labour, in 1983. They lost rather heavily, you may remember.

A question for those EU-haters who were around in 1983 - any of you vote Labour in that election? No, I didn't think so. Well, you had your chance and you blew it.

The Conservatives used to be THE party of Europe in the 1970s and 80s. They also used to win elections. As soon as the Septics got control in the 90s the party plunged into the electoral abyss. Co-incidence?

Just to refresh memories, under the leadership of the liar and traitor Edward Heath...

The swivel eyed fanatics are becoming beyond parody - comments like this sound more like the Private Eye Gordon Brown satire, From the Desk of the Supreme Leader.

[Denis Cooper]

"... the new Lisbon Treaty makes it easier for nation states to leave the EU"

Incorrect; it makes withdrawal of a member state a matter not just of its national law, and general international law, but primarily of EU law, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, with no appeal.

[Denis Cooper]

Check the manifesto, Nigel, I've given you the link.

[Sean Fear]

"I thought the EU believed in "democracy", "free and fair elections", etc."

I don't know where you got that idea from.

Justin, you delude yourself if you think your views on the EU are shared by more than a vanishingly small proportion of the Conservative Party.

[H.Hemmelig]

"Justin, you delude yourself if you think your views on the EU are shared by more than a vanishingly small proportion of the Conservative Party."

Probably true, but I doubt that the proportion of Tory voters (as opposed to members) who are moderately pro-European on account of their business background is at all "vanishingly small".

I happen to agree with Justin that David Cameron will find that he has little choice but to continue with a mildly positive approach to EU matters when he wins the election.

[Sean Fear]

If by "pro-European" you mean "in favour of giving greater law-making power to EU institutions", then I would disagree.

[Justin Hinchcliffe - Pro-European Conservative]

Why?

[Sean Fear]

Well, you're in favour of the EU constitution which ,IIRC, three of our MPs voted in favour of, and in favour of joining the Euro (which polls used to show about 5% of Conservative supporters were in favour of).

[RichardJ]

"A question for those EU-haters who were around in 1983 - any of you vote Labour in that election? No, I didn't think so. Well, you had your chance and you blew it."

Probably because a)integration hadn't gone so far then and b)Labour's manifesto was semi-Marxist.

The Europhiles have still failed to explain how we gain from CAP, the CFP, the social chapter, metrification, the common external tariff, numerous other EU regulations etc. If we need these regulations, why can't we introduce them ourselves? What's wrong with just a free trade zone?

[Sean Fear]

"Only one major political party in this country has ever gone into an election pledging to withdraw us from the EU - Labour, in 1983. They lost rather heavily, you may remember. "

I seem to recall that people didn't like their views on unilateral nuclear disarmament, reversing council house sales, and reinstating the closed shop. What do you think?

"A question for those EU-haters who were around in 1983 - any of you vote Labour in that election? No, I didn't think so. Well, you had your chance and you blew it."

I imagine most contributors to this site weren't old enough to vote then. Had they been, I doubt if they'd have wanted to vote for a party that supported the aforementioned policies.

"The Conservatives used to be THE party of Europe in the 1970s and 80s. They also used to win elections. As soon as the Septics got control in the 90s the party plunged into the electoral abyss. Co-incidence?"

So, which party lost both elections in 1974, and which party now enjoys a 20% lead?

Any more straw men you want to put up?

[Dale]

"A question for those EU-haters who were around in 1983 - any of you vote Labour in that election? No, I didn't think so. Well, you had your chance and you blew it."

Seeings as I was only a twinkle in my father's eye in 1983, I couldn't possibly have had an opportunity to 'blow it'.

However, if politics in the 1980s was aythng like it is today then I'm certain people wouldn't have been voting on european policy. I'm sure they would have been voting on capitalism/strong defence vs state socialism and unilateral nucleardisarmament. But even if they were voting on Europe, the eec is still a very different animal to the modern day eu.

"The Conservatives used to be THE party of Europe in the 1970s and 80s. They also used to win elections. As soon as the Septics got control in the 90s the party plunged into the electoral abyss. Co-incidence?"

I don't think Mrs thatcher could be considered a europhile, but when she was replace with major and a cabinet of heseltine, gummer, clarke et al we soon found ourselves on the receivi side of an
electoral drubbing, and th biggest labour victory in history.

"The swivel eyed fanatics are becoming beyond parody"

Hurray!

PEOPLE ARE SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLOURS!

[Denis Cooper]

What exactly is a "Pro-European Conservative"? When a "Pro-European Conservative" wants to get himself elected, does he tell the voters that's he's "Pro-European", rather than "Pro-British"? Or does he wrap himself up in the British flag during the election campaign, only to trash it once he's been elected?

Because there was a "Pro-Euro Conservative Party", which was upfront about its total commitment to the EU, and it didn't get very far.

Whereas the mainstream Conservative Party has been much more successful by pretending to be patriotic, and just waffling about being "part of the European club", "in Europe but not run by Europe", and "at the heart of Europe" (or maybe that last one was Blair).

Without saying openly and honestly "We think it's fine that 80 percent of our new laws are now decided in Brussels, and we'd rather like it to be 100 percent".

Or, indeed, "Stuff Parliament, we believe in the primacy of EU law, not the supremacy of Parliament":

http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/03/cameron-hit-by.html
"UPDATE: A robustly euro-sceptic MP has just shown me the text messages he received from the Chief Whip's office yesterday evening. The first, at 19.17, gave Tory MPs a green-light to go home by telling them there would be "no further official votes". The division on Mr Cash's clause was called seven minutes later, at 19.24."

[Mark Fulford]

Justin, you delude yourself if you think your views on the EU are shared by more than a vanishingly small proportion of the Conservative Party.

Sean, you’re the one who’s deluded.

Polled in October 2007, at the height of the frustration about the Lisbon Treaty referendum, 43% of people who voted Conservative in 2005 said they would vote to stay in the EU. If that’s “vanishingly small” then so is our tax burden.

Also worth bearing in mind that, in 2005, Conservatives were at the bedrock of their support. Since then we’ve been attracting Labour and Liberal voters who are significantly more likely to be pro-EU membership. The 43% will be growing, not diminishing.

[David Lindsay]

You're still at it, then?

This was only ever Cameron's diversion from the fact that (like every Tory Leader since the War) he would have signed this Treaty without protest if he had been in office at the time.

By campaigning for a referendum that he knew was never going to happen, he was able to present himself as somehow a Eurosceptic. But he has never said that he would camapign for a No vote. Nor, as he knows perfectly well, will he ever have to.

[Sean Fear]

Mark, I've never disputed that large numbers of Conservatives wish (with reservations) to stay in the EU.

But I stand by my view that the proportion of Conservatives who share Justin's views on either the Euro or the EU Constitution is tiny.

[Nigel Rathbone]

I stand by my view that the proportion of Conservatives who share Justin's views on either the Euro or the EU Constitution is tiny.

You are all making the mistake of assuming that members of the Conservative party are in any way reflective of those in the wider electorate who are inclined to vote Conservative. They are not. That's why IDS was elected leader instead of Ken Clarke, for example.

David Cameron is making people listen to the Conservatives again by moving the party away from the positions held by the loony obsessive fringe, especially on Europe. The party's poll ratings are up again for the first sustained period in over 15 years. These things are connected.

So please don't try and argue that the electorate has finally seen the light and the Euroseptics were right all along. That is seriously delusional. If Cameron's Conservatives are popular, it's because they have - or are believed to have - changed.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Except of course Nigel you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Euroscepticism is unpopular with the wider electorate, as you can see with the poll above.
You can be as offensive to Eurosceptics as you like, it doesn't change that fact.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Except of course Nigel you have no evidence to suggest that moderate euroscepticism is unpopular with the wider electorate as for example with the poll above.
You can be as offensive as you like to eurosceptics ,it doesn't change that fact.

[Rob B]

"I'd vote Yes, Graham, and I know many Conservatives who would do the same as me."

No you don't.

[Nigel Rathbone]

you have no evidence to suggest that moderate euroscepticism is unpopular with the wider electorate

Well, apart from the results of all the general elections since 1979 where the more pro-European party won in every case.

Of course if you prefer to believe opinion polls which can be rigged by a slanted question, rather than actual election results, fine.

I do wish the Septics would listen sometimes rather than rant and chew the carpet. Several people have made excellent points on this thread - not least that to get back into office the Tories need the votes of people who have previously backed Labour or the Lib Dems - and those people are going to be more enthusiastic about Europe than the bedrock who've voted Tory through the long, lean, EU-obsessed years. So keeping yourselves in this rut is an electoral dead end.

But of course all the sensible points from contributors above, as with all points which doesn't fit in with the septic world vision, have been consistently ignored.

[Rob B]

19:40 - Balderdash.

Why not take General Elections Since 1973 - when we actually entered the European Community?

Here goes..

1974 - twice - Labour WON - more Eurosceptic party
1979,1983 - Conservative WON - more pro-Europe party
1987 - Conservatives WON - Parity on Europe with Labour
1992 - Conservatives WON - more Eurosceptic
1997,2001,2005 - Labour WON - more pro-Europe
2008 - Conservatives 20% ahead in the polls - much more Eurosceptic

And if voters were voting on Europe, the Lib-Dems would be in with a landslide as the most pro-euro party, would they not?

"Of course if you prefer to believe opinion polls which can be rigged by a slanted question, rather than actual election results, fine."

Ah, presumably if you feel opinion polls are incorrect, Nigel, you'd be perfectly happy with a referendum then?

After all, actual election results are different, aren't they?

So come on Nigel - declare your support for a referendum now where the people can express their passionate desire for Europe in an actual election result!

[Nigel Rathbone]

A referendum is NOT something I would support, for the simple reason that it is not either (a) a proper tool to use within our parliamentary system, and (b) impossible to police to ensure an unbiased result.

The people elect MPs to govern us. They are the ones who should vote for or against the Treaty.

Most people do not read the Treaty - worse than that, they read distorted versions of it in the Daily Mail and other obscene publications with their own anti-EU agenda.

The public cannot have an informed vote on Europe while such poison is being drip fed to them on a daily basis.

[John Broughton]

Nigel

The evidence from knocking on doors is that labour hardcore are generally sceptical about europe.

There is quite a strong Libdemented element who are eurorealistic.

The problem is that all parties try to downplay the eu element of legislation and concentrate on schools, hospitals and other touchy feely stuff.

I should also remind you that the commissars in Brussels are keeping a number of policies "under wraps" until the Irish are bullied into yes.

Some of those policies will have dramatic effects on healthcare and taxation to name but two.

Gentle but firm euroscepticism is a vote winner.

[John Broughton]

Nigel

I think the representative democracy model has had its day. The real purpose is to allow MPs to justify what they do.

[Sean Fear]

"The public cannot have an informed vote on Europe while such poison is being drip fed to them on a daily basis."

Of course not Nigel. They need wise enlightened oligarchs like you to tell them what to do. Have you ever thought of applying for a job at the European Commission. You'd find plenty of people who share your contempt for the average voter and your determination to ignore their opinions.

You haven't really addressed the point that a Conservative Party which opposed the Lisbon Treaty and is pulling out of the EPP now enjoys a 20% lead.

[James H]

"The people elect MPs to govern us. They are the ones who should vote for or against the Treaty."

I'm not sure that we elect MPs to give powers away to unelected administrators in Brussels, who are incapable of governing in our national interest. Where would you draw the line in your silly "no referendums ever" view? If the EU decided tomorrow to abolish the right to trial by jury and freedom of the press in all its territories, and our parliament also decided this was a good idea, but 99% of the British people thought it was bad, would you still say MPs enjoyed the exclusive rights of governance? Or would you look to alternate mechanisms like referendums to preserve liberty? Before you accuse me of being a swivel-eyed Eurosceptic loony, this is a purely hypothetical example, but one that illustrates a point: our MPs do not enjoy the right to abridge our freedoms.

[Nigel Rathbone]

You haven't really addressed the point that a Conservative Party which opposed the Lisbon Treaty and is pulling out of the EPP now enjoys a 20% lead

That's because the two things are unconnected. The 20% lead is due to Gordon Brown's domestic misfortunes, nothing to do with the EU.

If the EU decided tomorrow to abolish the right to trial by jury and freedom of the press in all its territories, and our parliament also decided this was a good idea

James H, that really is a ridiculous example. If the EU decided such a thing, which they wouldn't, then no MP in their right mind would vote for it. Because they would fear for their seats. Which would prove our system works.

[James H]

But Nigel, no one has explicitly consented to them giving powers away. And a referendum was promised on the Constitution by Labour at the last election.

[John Broughton]

Nigel

Our "government" keeps on admitting it was unable to stop this that or the other happening because they lost under QMV.

The eu has proved already that they will intrude into every area of your life.

Curvature of bananas may sound silly but they had to set a standard. I have alays thought the British public sufficiently discerning as to only buy fruit they want to eat. QED!

Get real please.

[Rob B]

Nigel - I don't need to say anything in response to your last two posts.

Your own ability to contradict yourself and your blatent hypocrisy is clear for all to see:

"(you have no evidence to suggest that moderate euroscepticism is unpopular with the wider electorate)

Well, apart from the results of all the general elections since 1979 where the more pro-European party won in every case." - Nigel Rathbone 19:40

"(You haven't really addressed the point that a Conservative Party which opposed the Lisbon Treaty and is pulling out of the EPP now enjoys a 20% lead)

That's because the two things are unconnected. The 20% lead is due to Gordon Brown's domestic misfortunes, nothing to do with the EU." - Nigel Rathbone 20:49

LOL!!

Nigel - why don't you go away, have a good think to yourself and come back when you've learned how to not embarass yourself.

[Sean Fear]

Now now, Rob B. When a eurosceptic party *loses* it's because it's eurosceptic. When it has a 20% poll lead, it's down to other causes.

Just remember that.

[Keith]

Nigel Rathbone: You say that the public haven't read the treaty and can't therefore make an informed decision, and we should leave it to the "experts" who we elect to govern this country. This might be a respectable position, if the Lisbon Treaty wasn't pushed through so quickly, written so obscurely that many MPs have no clue what they've signed in our name.

The Irish Yes campaign are telling people not to bother to read the treaty, so plainly if the EU doesn't want people to read or understand it, then there is a reason they don't wish it to be understood.

[Denis Cooper]

Nigel Rathbone seems to have forgotten that in this case, as a specific exception to the general rule, all but a handful of the 646 MPs had explicitly promised their constituents they would NOT take the final decision, but instead they would refer the decision back to the people in a national referendum.

[Mark Fulford]

In the past I took the time to make carefully reasoned pro-EU arguments on this site. I found that nobody here was willing to put the same effort into making coherent counter-arguments. I therefore now go straight to the final facts:

1. Currently only 4% of people think that the EU is a big issue to the UK. Concern has not been consistently this low since 1988. People are happy with the status-quo.

2. Our policies on Europe have twice the support of the other parties' combined. We have the winning policies already.

3. When asked how they’d vote if there were a referendum, by a margin of 50% (56 to 38) people say they want to remain in the EU. Withdrawal is a minority pass time.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to raise the EU as a burning issue with the Conservative Party. It would be a loser.

[Dale]

This really has become pathetic, eurosceptics kep on coming up with new argumens and new polls, and europhiles keep on spewing out the same old bs:

When a euroseptic party loses its because of europe, when a europhile party loses its because of anything other than europe.

Show me an opinion poll that says the british people want the euro, or the constitution,or the lisbon treaty, or political and economic integration, or anything more than free trade.

If you can provide those things I promise you will never hear me comain about the eu again.

[Dale]

complain*

[RichardJ]

Would Mark Fulford, Nigel Rathbone or Justin Hinchcliffe please answer the following because I have yet to have a response to any europhiles on these matters:

1)How do we benefit from
a)the common external tariff
b)the social chapter
c)metrification
d)restrictions on working time (which we can opt out of but which the EU doesn't like us doing)
e)CAP
f)the CFP
g)various other regulations and red tape on business

2)If any of the above are necessary, why don't we just introduce them in the UK Parliament?

3)How do you justify allowing elected or unelected representatives of other countries from making laws for this one?

4)How would the EU becoming a free trade area disadvantage us from our position now?

[Sean Fear]

Well, Mark, why don't you make the case for us signing us for Lisbon? You obviously think the electorate are gagging for it.

[Justin Hinchcliffe - Pro-European Conservative]

What people like Sean don't seem to realise is that the majority of people, including Conservative voters, want to stay in the EU. The EU is good for us, but the tabloids destort the facts. Trust the elected Members in the House of Commons to study and swallow legislation and do the right thing.

[Ken Stevens]

"Trust the elected Members in the House of Commons to study and swallow legislation and do the right thing."

- Or don't bother to study it, just swallow it! That's what Whips are for, to help you do the right thing.

Was it not Ken Clarke who once boasted of not having read a particular treaty?

[RichardJ]

"The EU is good for us, but the tabloids destort the facts."

The free trade we get from the EU is good for us. What else is?

[passing leftie]

There is nothing more pleasing than the sound of Tories talking about Europe. More EU threads, please.

Accept this: there will be no referendum on Lisbon, no referendum on EU membership, and probably no referendum of any kind on Europe in the next twenty years. The EU will have all the powers it needs, including powers to get more powers. There will be no referendum pledge in the Tory manifesto, and the Tories will mouth platitudes about being strong on Europe but do nothing.

Make as much fuss as you want, but if the EU is a big issue for you, join your fellow loons at UKIP.

[Steve Marper]

Why was the Jock Joke Broon and Mclabour so full of themselves today?, have they forgotten they are gonna lose the next general election by landslide?.

[Paul Marks]

Mr Hinchcliffe says we should "let our Parliament decide".

Let the M.P.s be directed to hand over what is left of the powers of Parliament to the E.U., is what he means.

Or is that one of the "lies" he objects to?

In any political campaign the first task is to let the people know how much control over their lives that the E.U. already has - that so many of the things they think "the government" decides are really decided by the E.U.

One must also let people know how much more power the E.U. wants over their lives.

If the majority of people reply "fair enough, we want every aspect of our lives controlled by the E.U." that is one thing.

But presently most people do not know either how much power the E.U. already has or how much more power the E.U. folk want.

[Paul Marks]

Passing leftie: T

There was a time when leftists claimed to be in favour of democracy.

They especially claimed to be against organizations that claimed "powers to get more powers" (i.e. the right to amend basic texts to increase their own power).

It is good to see a leftist being honest about their hatred for democracy and their love of absolute power for an administrative elite.

[Paul Marks]

Steve Marper - sadly we do not get free trade from the E.U. (even within the E.U.).

That was what Mrs Thatcher was promised with the Single European Act of 1986 - but the "Single Market" turned out to be an excuse for a vast wave of regualtions. Regulations that have increased every year since then and seek to control INTERNAl life in the United Kingdom (and trade with people in countries outside the E.U.) - not just trade with people in other E.U. countries.

Almost needless to say, the export of British goods and services to people in other E.U. countries is often not the simple matter that was promised.

[Denis Cooper]

It might be better to see a comment from "passing democrat".