Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Why Does Ed Not Want The Public To Decide On The Eu?
37 Answers
http://
Apparently he's going to attack Tory EU referendum plans.
Apparently he's going to attack Tory EU referendum plans.
Answers
Because if the public vote to leave the EU there will be no gravy train jobs for as been politicians.
15:56 Tue 07th Apr 2015
he's setting out his stall, secure in the knowledge that you wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances anyway, but that others who agree with his stance will do so. That's democracy for you. Some candidates dare to offer things you disagree with. I have to put up with this too, outrageous as it may seem.
// Because Labour are arrogant and think they always know better. //
Not just Labour...
1973 - Tories frogmarch the UK into the EEC without a referendum.
1975 - Tories campaign to stay in the EEC during a Labour referendum.
1983 - Tories win election, despite Labour's pledge to leave the EEC.
1986 - Tories sign SEA.
1992 - Tories sign Maastricht.
1995 - Tories begin to negotiate Amsterdam.
2007 - Tories give 'cast-iron pledge' to give Britons a referendum on Lisbon.
2010 - Tories break pledge over Lisbon.
Not just Labour...
1973 - Tories frogmarch the UK into the EEC without a referendum.
1975 - Tories campaign to stay in the EEC during a Labour referendum.
1983 - Tories win election, despite Labour's pledge to leave the EEC.
1986 - Tories sign SEA.
1992 - Tories sign Maastricht.
1995 - Tories begin to negotiate Amsterdam.
2007 - Tories give 'cast-iron pledge' to give Britons a referendum on Lisbon.
2010 - Tories break pledge over Lisbon.
Yes Mickey, they are dedicated to leave it, which perhaps is not good either.
For such a serious and long lasting thing the public should be given their say, in or out.
If in then people like me would accept it and the country could get on with it or leave the country if they so felt.
Arrogantly pushing people into such and important decision though will just continue to cause division.
If labour think that truly the country want to be in the EU, why not hold the referendum to prove it?
For such a serious and long lasting thing the public should be given their say, in or out.
If in then people like me would accept it and the country could get on with it or leave the country if they so felt.
Arrogantly pushing people into such and important decision though will just continue to cause division.
If labour think that truly the country want to be in the EU, why not hold the referendum to prove it?
// Britain and the Common Market
Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour's international policy.
The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.
For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain - to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.
We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not 'withdrawing from Europe'. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy - one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments - both in the EEC and outside - on a common strategy for economic expansion.
The process of withdrawal
On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.
Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.
There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members. //
Needless to say, Labour has offered a clear policy for withdrawal, and the voters roundly failed to vote for it.
Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour's international policy.
The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.
For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain - to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.
We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not 'withdrawing from Europe'. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy - one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments - both in the EEC and outside - on a common strategy for economic expansion.
The process of withdrawal
On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.
Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.
There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members. //
Needless to say, Labour has offered a clear policy for withdrawal, and the voters roundly failed to vote for it.
I still think Milibduhnuh has missed a trick by not "promise-matching" on the referendum issue.
We are heading for that USAnian "can't tell 'em apart" style of politics and it *is* all about chasing the floating voters. If they can't make their minds up who to vote for *and* want their go on this referendum thingy then silly-Milli gifted their votes to the Tories just by taking this 'stance'.
Ok, having courage of one's convictions is great; having a party line is fine but democracy means that the people rule: if they say "out" then you must comply.
If it is as stupid a move as they claim it to be then they should just let events play out. Lean back in their chair and wait for the public to crawl back and beg them to get us back in again.
Trouble is, though, if UK goes cap-in-hand to the EU, to rejoin, it will be on *their* terms. If you think they are milking us now...
We are heading for that USAnian "can't tell 'em apart" style of politics and it *is* all about chasing the floating voters. If they can't make their minds up who to vote for *and* want their go on this referendum thingy then silly-Milli gifted their votes to the Tories just by taking this 'stance'.
Ok, having courage of one's convictions is great; having a party line is fine but democracy means that the people rule: if they say "out" then you must comply.
If it is as stupid a move as they claim it to be then they should just let events play out. Lean back in their chair and wait for the public to crawl back and beg them to get us back in again.
Trouble is, though, if UK goes cap-in-hand to the EU, to rejoin, it will be on *their* terms. If you think they are milking us now...
I can see why we should be associated with the EU but not why we should be ruled by the EU. When we first joined what was then called the common market we believed that it was a trading agreement, & then we rapidly started to lose our ability to rule our country from Westminster. I firmly believe we were well & truly shafted & I for one resent everything that has happened since & no one can convince me that what we have now we originally signed up to in the first place so the sooner we right the wrongs of belonging to the EU the better as far as I am concerned.
Gromit
1973 - Tories frogmarch the UK into the EEC without a referendum. ......we joined the Common Market, not a political Union but Trading partnership from which we had been denied membership on by a petulant De Gaul
1975 - Tories campaign to stay in the EEC during a Labour referendum...... Again, as above. I voted yes in this referendum. There was no mention of a Federal Europe as far as I cold see.
//1983 - Tories win election, despite Labour's pledge to leave the EEC...... //I seem to remember Labours pledge to leave the EEC was in Michael Foots 'Suicide note Manifesto. Not surprised Tories were against it!
//1986 - Tories sign SEA. //....... The Single European Act was again about economic union, not political union.
1992 - Tories sign Maastricht. The main discussion here as I remembe was the single currency, which may have worked with the handful of countries in the EEC at the time. Again, I don't think Federal Europe was the aim here.
2007 - Tories give 'cast-iron pledge' to give Britons a referendum on Lisbon..... If I remember the Tories pledged to do this a long as the Lisbon Treaty was not ratified when they took officer. I seem to remember a certain G Brown rushing out to Lisbon and slipping in late by a side door to sign it.
2010 - Tories break pledge over Lisbon..... See above.
I am not an expert in the EU and I would not say I would vote to leave it, providing we get some of our Soverenty back. I firmly believe In self government and resent being dictated to by a load of unelected over paid, corrupt assembly of people who are out for what they can get for themselves and canot even balance their books. I have lived in Europe and see how they flout the rules and laugh at the Brits of following them. We now have an EU President who provided over tax dodging on a grand scale but nobody can removed him.
1973 - Tories frogmarch the UK into the EEC without a referendum. ......we joined the Common Market, not a political Union but Trading partnership from which we had been denied membership on by a petulant De Gaul
1975 - Tories campaign to stay in the EEC during a Labour referendum...... Again, as above. I voted yes in this referendum. There was no mention of a Federal Europe as far as I cold see.
//1983 - Tories win election, despite Labour's pledge to leave the EEC...... //I seem to remember Labours pledge to leave the EEC was in Michael Foots 'Suicide note Manifesto. Not surprised Tories were against it!
//1986 - Tories sign SEA. //....... The Single European Act was again about economic union, not political union.
1992 - Tories sign Maastricht. The main discussion here as I remembe was the single currency, which may have worked with the handful of countries in the EEC at the time. Again, I don't think Federal Europe was the aim here.
2007 - Tories give 'cast-iron pledge' to give Britons a referendum on Lisbon..... If I remember the Tories pledged to do this a long as the Lisbon Treaty was not ratified when they took officer. I seem to remember a certain G Brown rushing out to Lisbon and slipping in late by a side door to sign it.
2010 - Tories break pledge over Lisbon..... See above.
I am not an expert in the EU and I would not say I would vote to leave it, providing we get some of our Soverenty back. I firmly believe In self government and resent being dictated to by a load of unelected over paid, corrupt assembly of people who are out for what they can get for themselves and canot even balance their books. I have lived in Europe and see how they flout the rules and laugh at the Brits of following them. We now have an EU President who provided over tax dodging on a grand scale but nobody can removed him.
I take it what you are referring to is what the Labour Party published forty years ago, Gromit.
Since then, as I'm sure you will agree, the EEC as it then was and the EU as it now is are two completely different animals. Are you seriously suggesting that because the electorate voted for continued membership in 1975 then that decision should last forever, regardless of the significant changes that have occurred since then?
Since then, as I'm sure you will agree, the EEC as it then was and the EU as it now is are two completely different animals. Are you seriously suggesting that because the electorate voted for continued membership in 1975 then that decision should last forever, regardless of the significant changes that have occurred since then?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.